Can Governments be Activists?

When studied closely, the definition of an activist or activism can be very ambiguous. In the majority of cases, the government is usually the one being opposed against. However, governments can indeed be activists in their own right. Government activism is defined as any action taken by a government, beyond the basic regulation of its economy or society. A government’s activism may be as varied as intervening in an international crisis or promoting equality, but that activism is becoming increasingly reliant on modern technology.

Government activism does not have to be carried out just by passing laws; it can also include the implementation of the common citizens to become activists for their cause. A recent example of this has been the concept of ‘The Big Society’, the brainchild of the Conservative British prime-minister David Cameron.

Due to the widespread availability of modern technology we are experiencing a level interconnection that we have never seen before. Through things such as smart phones, wi-fi and social networking, Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ uses them as tools to bring all communities in the U.K. together and unite them into one (Cabinet Office, 2010). However, critics of government activism argue that the scale of the activism can change how a government perceives the action being taken, and there appears to be a fine-line between desirable and anarchistic. For example, Jason Derounian writes that “citizens getting together to run the library is hardly contentious, but a mass occupation of public spaces, such as Occupy London are less well received by the government.” These are both examples of people power, but the big question is where does community stand in relation to the national government?” In this supposed ‘big society’, community development services act as a means to support local activism, yet that wider community is directly influenced by the government.

Another form of governments using modern technology in their activism is during humanitarian missions. During a crisis or disaster, they raise the awareness of the public through television spots and internet campaigns, and with television air time being so expensive it is out of the reach of the vast majority of people. Plus very large and orchestrated internet campaigns can demand huge resources, and aside from corporate giants and large NGO’s, the governments are the ones who can provide them.  Also, governments are often the only ones able to provide resources such as helicopters and boats, which are not only used to transport vital supplies, but they are used to transport troops and aid workers into an area.

However, there are many who question the credibility of governments being activists, as they may just be using it as a front for personal gain. As a report by the UN shows, only 7% of reconstructive aid pledged by the U.S. to the Haitian government after its earthquake in 2010 has gone through Haitian institutions, the rest has gone to American institutions and companies (Provost, 2012). Therefore the U.S. is being criticised as using Haiti as a clever excuse to feather its own nest, rather than providing the aid for the Haitians to use as they see fit. This is just one example how people can come to distrust government activism, and the honesty and integrity of that activism is clearly questionable.

References:

Cabinet Office. (2010). Government launches Big Society programme. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-big-society-programme–2. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Derounian, J. (2013). The real big society: why we need activism and open dissent. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2013/mar/25/real-big-society-local-activism-open-dissent. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Provost, C. (2012). Haiti earthquake: Where has the aid money gone?. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/datablog/2012/jan/12/haiti-earthquake-aid-money-data. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Who Are Anonymous?

“First, who is this group called Anonymous? Put simply, it is an international cabal of criminal hackers dating back to 2003, who have shut down the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice and the F.B.I. They have hacked into the phone lines of Scotland Yard. They are responsible for attacks against MasterCard, Visa, Sony and the Governments of the U.S., U.K., Turkey, Australia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Chile, Colombia and New Zealand”  – Canadian MP Marc Garneau, 2012

Anonymous are an organization that have been at the centre of much controversy in recent years, and are being portrayed by those in opposition to be everything that is wrong with online activism. First of all, there is the argument that as the members of the organisation are ‘anonymous’, they lack true accountability for their actions unlike more transparent groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Their targets are almost exclusively government organisations and large corporations, such as the FBI and PayPal. This is a contrast to the SOPA case, where the activism was to peacefully stop the government from “attacking” the freedom of the internet, whereas Anonymous are using the internet to attack them instead.

For example, on January 19, 2012, Megaupload, a file-sharing website, was shut down by the Department of Justice and FBI.A few hours later, Anonymous hackers attacked the sites of the two agencies involved in the shutdown, whilst simultaneously crashing the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and Broadcast Music Incorporated websites by causing denial of service (Sissario, 2012) According to Barrett Brown, the event was “the single largest Internet attack in Anonymous’ history.” With the protests against SOPA only a day old, he stated that internet users were “by-and-far ready to defend an open Internet.”

Even though Anonymous’ deeds received some support,there were many who believed that the attacks only strengthened the argument for the SOPA. In an article for CNET, Molly Wood wrote “if the SOPA protests were the web’s moment of inspiring, non-violent, hand-holding civil disobedience, Megaupload feels like the unsettling wave of car-burning hooligans that sweep in and incite the riot portion of the play.” Dwight Silverman, a journalist for the Houston Chronicle agreed; “Anonymous’ actions hurt the movement to kill SOPA/PIPA by highlighting online lawlessness” (Jonnson, 2012)The Oxford Internet Institute’s Joss Wright claimed that “In one sense the actions of Anonymous are themselves, anonymously and unaccountably, censoring websites in response to positions with which they disagree” (Kelion, 2012).

Essentially, Anonymous represents the other side to the activist coin. Whereas peaceful, communal protests are widely accepted by the public and allowed by governments, the so called ‘hactivists’ of Anonymous are regarded as radicals and seen by many as criminals. Interestingly, hacking has become such an issue for western governments and is so effective that it has led to the rise of the so called “cyber-war”. This again links to the aggressive connotations associated with hacking, therefore activists must think carefully about using it, however admirable their goals may be.

References:

Garneau, M (2012). Alleged Interference of Minister’s Ability to Discharge Responsibilities. Ottowa: The Canadian Parliament.

Sisario, B. (2012). 7 Charged as F.B.I. Closes a Top File-Sharing Site. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/megaupload-indictment-internet-piracy.html?_r=0. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Wood, M. (2012). Anonymous goes nuclear; everybody loses? Available: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-57362437-256/anonymous-goes-nuclear-everybody-loses/. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Kelion, L. (2012). Hackers retaliate over Megaupload website shutdown. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16646023. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

“The Great Firewall of America”

When the passing of the SOPA bill began to become a real possibility, the public response was overwhelming. Activism took numerous forms both online and interestingly, in the streets. This is quite ironic as vast amounts of activism takes place online over issues in the real world, yet when the internet was threatened by SOPA there was an organised march in New York.  This highlights the conflicting debate over the effectiveness of “slactivism”, because although online activism is easy for everyone to access and take part in, more “serious” activists believe that taking to the street is the most effective option.

A group of 9 largest and most powerful companies including Google, Facebook and Twitter wrote a letter to the U.S. government. It stated that although they unanimously supported SOPA and PIPA’s goals, they believed that “unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites” (Richardson, 2011) The letter was posted on the Protect Innovation organisation’s website, which was created solely to stop the SOPA and PIPA bills. This was an interesting turn of events as instead of the companies voicing their opposition in individual official statements, they chose to stand together and use an activist organisation website that anybody can access. It effectively portrayed them to be on the same ‘level’ as the rest of the public, rather than the internet behemoths that they really are. 

On a more grassroots level, organisations such as Fight for the Future and The Internet Defence League are much smaller organisations that consist of a much smaller group of dedicated people who are fuelled only by ideals, rather than threat to profits. Interestingly, their tactics include the use of historic government defiance by publically broadcasting and sharing the copyrighted Martin Luther King speech, “I Have a Dream”. To celebrate the anniversary of the internet blackout against SOPA, the organisations used the speech as they believe that activism against racism is still needed, yet it cannot be publically shared due to its EMI ownership. In an interview by CBS, the co-director of Fight for the Future, Holmes Wilson, said that the reason King’s speech had been used was due to his role as an activist against U.S. government control, whilst using it to emphasise the complexity of copyright law (Ngak, 2013). Wilson stated “The interesting thing is that we’re celebrating Internet freedom today, but because of the copyright on MLK’s speech, if SOPA had passed you could’ve gone to jail for posting this video”.

An interesting effect of such huge public opposition was where the U.S. government began to split over the bills. This was effectively the final nail in the coffin for SOPA and PIPA, beginning when the U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden spoke out against SOPA and PIPA. This shows the apparent contradiction of the government in wanting to pass the bills, yet the main politicians and parties are rode the growing wave of opposition to secure supporters and maintain power. An event further emphasizing this phenomenon took place on the 14^th January 2012, when the Obama administration stated that the White House that it “will not support any bill that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet” (Phillips, 2012). On 20^th January, this government split culminated in the U.S. Congress shelving the bills indefinitely, giving Anti-SOPA activists a strong victory.

References:

Richardson, C. (2011). SOPA Meets Massive Resistance. Available: http://www.webpronews.com/sopa-meets-massive-resistance-2011-11. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Ngak, N. (2013). One year later, SOPA activists reignite copyright conversation. Available: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57564766/one-year-later-sopa-activists-reignite-copyright-conversation/. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Phillips, M. (2012). Obama Administration Responds to We the People Petitions on SOPA and Online Piracy. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

SOPA: Modern Day Censorship?

As the amount of people using the internet grows, online activism has become an increasingly prominent activity. Particularly in recent years, there have been a growth in government interest in this phenomenon and there have been numerous cases where governments have become directly involved within it, both in positive and oppositional positions. Arguably the most recent well-known case is the attempt of the U.S. government to introduce the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). This is an interesting case as the government attempted to intervene against online activism, whereas the opposition utilised online activism to resist that intervention.

Firstly, SOPA was a U.S. government bill created to combat copyright infringement, essentially creating a system to enable the government to close down foreign websites. The Department of Justice would investigate file-sharing websites such as The Pirate Bay, and any which it concluded to be involved in online piracy would receive a lawsuit. Both the Department of Justice and the copyrighted property owner would be able to write a letter to the judicial court stating they believe a website to have “only limited purpose or use other than infringement” (House of Representatives, 2011). In addition to this, intellectual property owners would have been able to block access to the site in question by dictating to sites such as Google, Facebook and PayPal that they can no longer be affiliated with or provide links to it. (Barrett, 2012) It would have also made the streaming of unlicensed copyrighted material a criminal act, with a resulting maximum sentence of five years in prison. Most seriously, the website’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) would block access to it, effectively “shutting out” any potential clients (Fight for the Future, 2012).

 There was much opposition to the bill as it was believed by many to be a vast enabler of government censorship. This was because of the nature in which companies which would use SOPA to stop websites distributing copyrighted material. Instead of having to appear in court and win a case against the website in question, the property owner simply had to write letters stating they were of the belief that they were infringing, leading many to believe it to be unjust. In addition to this, there was much concern over the fact that companies that were asked to block access to a website were being forced to do so. For example, if Google received a letter regarding links to an infringing website they had only 5 days to comply; otherwise they would risk being shut down themselves (Barrett, 2012). A large company could choose to challenge the quarantine, but this would be incredibly expensive in legal fees and costly in resources, leaving smaller companies with no choice.

However, arguably the most serious aspect of SOPA is the effective blocking of the site by the ISP. This enables both the American government to shut down a foreign site even though it is outside its jurisdiction, something only possible because of the huge number of ISPs based in the U.S. It is this lack of a “choice” which caused so much opposition to SOPA, basically paving the way to an unchecked torrent of government and corporate censorship.

References:

Smith, L (2011). Stop Online Piracy Act. Washinton, DC: House of Representatives.

Barrett, B. (2012). What is SOPA?. Available: http://gizmodo.com/5877000/what-is-sopa. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Fight for the Future. (2011). PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks the Internet. Available: http://www.fightforthefuture.org/pipa. Last accessed 06/05/2013.

Web Activist or Terrorist, the war online

To a certain degree it can be seen that we live in an anarchic society. The lack of a world government coupled with state sovereignty rules can and often has led to serious security issues. In unison with this is the increased globalisation the world is currently experiencing, which whilst there are undoubted benefits, the risk it poses to international peace is often compromised. The internet as a modern media paradigm can be seen to be an implicit contributor to global security issues currently being faced. Unlike television, radio and newspapers etc. which in the majority of cases are censored for what is deemed to be appropriate viewing, for its potential audience the internet provides a multi-faceted and far less regulated forum. As a forum that crosses international borders the internet is not constrained by distance and Geography (Denning, 2001), it thus complies with the nature of our increasingly globalised economies and in many cases, political and social systems. In providing such a space for communication the internet has opened up communication for non-state actors as well as the traditional national and international actors who would utilise pre-existing media as aforementioned.
So intertwined are daily on-goings and their relation to the worldwide web ‘It seems likely that every major conflict in the physical world will have a parallel operation in cyberspace’ (Denning, 2001). In considering the Arab-Israeli conflict, the well-documented rocket attacks, car bombings and suicide bombings are now only one side to the conflict as Israeli and Arab hackers attack national websites across the Middle East and release thousands of items of personal data. What is interesting to note is the hacking appears to be the work of civilians rather than governments (Marquadt, 2012), it is this fact that can beg the question as to whether web activists by partaking in hacktivism (which by definition is a means of protest, often to a political end through use of computers and computer networks) are considered web activists or cyber terrorists. Only 3 months ago in February 2013 the Israeli Computer Services Directorate, surprised security circles by declaring that Israel is preparing for information warfare with Palestinians and Arabs (Amer, 2013). This latest announcement has highlighted a necessity for innovation from weaponry attack; the movement of the conflict to the web ushers in a new era of tactics in a conflict spanning almost a century of the modern era.
In targeting these ‘web activists’ governments often label those inflicting damage as terrorists, it is clear to see why, as attacks such as these are often targeting cyber-space which is vital for infrastructure, such as defence records and national databases. However it is vital to take an impartial approach to such issues and consider the issue of perspective whereby to one party hacktivism is terrorism whereas to another it is simply activism. In a climate where ‘terrorism’ is a buzz word and the hot topic of Western agenda it is often rash to consider web activism acts of terrorism. The issue is very much a factor of western cyber-space also, the US Department of Justice has been under scrutiny after a leaked terror training presentation aimed at state and local law enforcement revealed that police were being trained to be suspicious of popular bumper stickers including some opposing U.S. government (Newman, 2012). Surely to view someone who as an opposing view to governmental policy as a terrorist is a suppression of free-speech and thus a violation of our basic human rights. Those who hold political views which seem to be adverse from the ‘norm’ may well be inappropriately labelled.
The internet as a medium for expressing political views then becomes both effective in allowing one to express views in a manner which allows mass participation, but through scrutiny from both state and non-state actors can become an area where ones views are held to ransom and can be misconstrued as ‘terrorism’. The differentiation often lies in the perspective of those involved, however what is clear is that the web will undoubtedly shape future conflict and be implicit to those governments, international bodies as well as non-state actors whether that be the individual or rogue collective actors.
Bibliography
Amer, A. A., 2013. Israel braces for cyberwarfare with Palestinians. [Online]
Available at: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/israel-palestine-cyber-war.html
[Accessed 2nd May 2013].
Denning, D., 2001. Cyber Warriors-Activists and Terrorists turn to cyberspace. Harvard International review, Summer, pp. 70-75.
Marquadt, A., 2012. Latest Arab-Israeli Conflict Is Growing Cyberwar. [Online]
Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/latest-arab-israeli-conflict-is-growing-cyberwar/
[Accessed 2nd May 2013].
Newman, A., 2012. The New American. [Online]
Available at: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13021-justice-department-trained-police-to-link-political-activism-with-terror
[Accessed 3rd May 2013].

The effect of camera phones on activism

Alan Reiter (2008) president of Wireless Internet and Mobile Computing states that ‘camera phones are one of the most revolutionary wireless applications I’ve seen in my 29 years of analysing mobile communications.’ The camera phone has had a profound effect on how we document day to day life. It has also had a significant impact in the world of activism as people have become ‘citizen journalists’.

‘The ubiquity of the cell phone camera means that every moment in our lives is photographable’ (Agger, 2007). When Philippe Khan in 1997 combined the digital camera and the mobile phone, he could not have envisioned the impact that his invention would have had. When questioned by Wired Magazine in 2000 about the impact of his device he said ‘with this kind of device, you’re going to see the best and the worst of things’.

The device has turned people into ‘citizen journalists’. Most mobile phones nowadays have a camera or video functions and are mass produced. Therefore a large amount of people have an affordable, easy to use device to document events. This form of technology has been heavily used by protestors.

Neda Agha-Soltan was on her way to an anti-government rally in Iran in 2009. When exiting her car after being stuck in traffic she was shot dead by authorities. Without the camera phone this tragic event could have been swept under the carpet but on hand to witness this act were dozens of people with their camera phones. In a heavily censored country such as Iran the media would not have been able to document such an event but multiple grainy, low resolution videos were instantaneously uploaded and spread across the globe on YouTube etc. Dan Gillmor, director of the Centre for Citizen Media, “we’re seeing the power of the citizen journalist to force things into the open that institutions don’t want the rest of us to know about.” As internet on phones has also improved over the last few years the ease with which activists can expose such travesties is increasing. Quicker internet means faster uploads of better quality video. In addition the improvement of the camera itself aids protestors. Higher resolutions means that more detail can be exposed and evidence is not missed. In addition the zoom function that many phones have means that the risk that these citizen journalists put themselves in is reduced as they can document the events from further away.

Also there is something about the phone-camera videos in general that aids activism. For example the thousands of videos that were shot during the university fees protests in England during 2010. The grainy, low resolution footage invokes a grassroots feeling. One of the main stereotypes of activism, especially when related to universities, is that it is elitist. The footage taken was not using a high quality camera, but on one that anyone could afford. This introduces an element of relatability; anyone could have taken this video not just an uber-intelligent opinionated person with the means to make a difference.

The camera phone has given power back to the general public. The ease with which you can upload videos and the availability of the devices has introduced many people to activism whether it’s taking the video yourself or viewing one of the millions of videos online.

Agger, M (2007) The Camera Phone, Slate

Parks, B (2000) The Big Picture, Wired Magazine

Reiter, A (2008) Reiter’s camera phone report 

The Impact of Blogging on Activism

The internet has revolutionised how humans interact to such an extent that people do not even have to be face to face to converse. This de-centralised interaction enabled discourses from people around the globe from Britain to Brazil. This widespread interaction has led to the global distribution of ideas, causes and knowledge. The blog is an important part of this spread of knowledge. By extension blogs have been an intrinsic part of activism as a whole by introducing people to causes they may not otherwise have been aware of.

‘Blogs are partly successful because they are relatively easy to create and maintain – even for non-technical web users.’ (Kahn 2004) The ease of starting a blog has allowed all kinds of people to have a voice. As the internet has advanced technological barriers have been reduced. Today you can set up a blog even if you are not 100% comfortable using the internet. As anyone can start one, anyone can publish their personal opinions on a topic. As more and more blogs are being produced different angles and standpoints are included, ‘Over the last year, a plethora of Left-oriented blogs were created and organized themselves in networks of interlinking solidarity, so as to contest what was perceived to be a politically-domesticated forum of conservative opinion across the blogosphere’ (Kahn 2004).  For the reader it is important to have a range of viewpoints available so as to make informed and educated judgements on events. If I type in ‘blogs on environmentalism’ into Google, within 0.2 seconds I have 1,630,000 results, this is a simple example of the sheer wealth of information and blogs available to the general public.

 

Although it is an advantage that everyone has a voice in the ‘blogosphere’ there are some negatives. Mostly blogs are uncensored or peer reviewed and the information gained from an array of blogs can be unreliable. Facts may be untrustworthy and the views put forward by some bloggers may not be as reliable or academic as others. To combat this many blogs have a comments section where a conversation between author and reader can arise educating both parties. Also the idea of group blogs has arisen whereby a group of bloggers pool their knowledge and experiences into a single blog. A good example of this is Indymedia, ‘erected by activists for the public domain to inform one another both locally and globally’.

 

Blogs can also be the catalyst for social awareness and change. The ‘Native Appropriations’ blog written by Adrienne Keene (2012) is a good example of this. In reaction to Paul Frank’s ‘Dream Catchin’ Pow Wow’, an article about how this event derided Native Americans’ rich history and culture gained widespread notoriety. Due to public pressure Elie Dekel president of Paul Frank wrote to the author to help the Company’s social awareness and ensure such a mistake did happen again.

 

The introduction of blogs has had an impact on activism. They are in essence an educational tool. A way for bloggers to inform the wider population about important matters that they may be interested in. Information from a variety of sources and standpoints is now available to inform a new generation of possible activists.

 

Kahn, R, Kellner, D (2004) New media and internet activism: from the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to blogging

Keene, A (2012) Paul Frank offends every Native person on the planet with Fashion Night Out “Dream Catchin’ Pow wow”, Native Appropriations

How have mobile phones changed activism?

There are almost as many mobile phone subscriptions in the world as people according to UN telecom agency. By the end of 2011 there were an estimated six billion mobile phone subscriptions according to the International Telecommunication Union. This was only one billion less than the total world population, although the report counts sim cards not people. It is apparent that the mobile phone has become a global commodity with forms of mobile technologies readily available and accessible in most nations and communities. The development of mobile phone technology makes it a cheap, transportable and difficult to track. This makes the mobile phone an ideal form of technology for protest action.

One of the main advantages of mobile technology is its anonymity. This is especially apparent in the developing world as most mobile phones are sold on a pay as you go scheme. In the DR Congo the Interactive Radio for Justice radio show invites listeners and activists to text in questions to a panel of Congolese and UN officials. The producers of this show highlight the importance of anonymity asking callers to not reveal their identities. Also the use of SMS text messaging allows listeners to conceal their voice or any background noises that could reveal their whereabouts. In the developing world many countries do not require an ID check to buy a sim card which allows the activist to have many sim cards to one particular phone. Therefore on one sim card the activist can conduct personal business but on the other he or she can carry out activist work.

Mobile phones also provide instant communication within protest groups quickly organising demonstrations without government detection. In China, April 2005, the government attempted to quash the growing anti-Japanese protests by banning almost all coverage of the event in the state media. However an ‘underground conversation was raging via e-mail, text message and instant online messaging that inflamed public opinion and served as an organizing tool for protesters.’ (Yardley 2005) The Chinese protesters were able to spread information with ease. As mobile phones are common place in today’s society it makes the mobile network extremely difficult to police. Therefore protestors can use this device to provide important up-to-date information about demonstrations either before or during the protests. For instance if there is a large amount of policing in one area using SMS or online social media this vital information can be spread around the demonstrating group. Smart mob activists in the Philippines, brought together by using text messaging, brought about the eventual removal of Josef Estrada from power. These smart mobs were quickly and covertly organised bringing to light the corruption within Estrada’s regime.

Mobile phones have proven to be an intrinsic part of activism. The mobile phone has enabled activists to spread information and organise demonstrations whilst also being able to remain anonymous. Due to the disposability of the mobile phone, activists, especially in the developing world, are able to conceal their identities in a heavily censored environment through the use of multiple sim cards. In addition as this technology is mobile during demonstrations activists can provide instant information about policing and protest routes to ensure to success of the protest.

Yardley, J (2005) ‘A hundred cell phones blood and the Chinese take to the streets’: New York Times

Zuckerman, E (2007) Draft Paper on Mobile Phones and Activism

Is the media exploiting the idea of local and organic foods?

The idea of sustainability in relation to your food habits has gained notable popularity in the last few years. In December 2010 the National Restaurant Association (NRA) released its What’s Hot in 2010 survey and named locally grown produce, locally sourced meats and seafood, and sustainability as its top trend to watch for that year. In addition in 2007 the New Oxford American Dictionary made ‘locavore’, which is a person who only eats food that is grown or produced within a 100-mile radius, its word of the year. This global movement to become more environmentally friendly has become prominent in today’s media as the general notion of sustainability has grown. In addition the idea of organically grown foods has been popular for a number of years as animal rights and environmentalists fight for more humane conditions for animals grown for consumption.

The manufacture, processing, distribution and selling of food is a global, multi-billion dollar industry and it spends millions of dollars each day playing on the popularity of sustainability to sell more produce. The main way that food organisations promote local and organically grown foodstuffs is through advertising.

In promoting this multi-billion dollar industry the idea of organic and local foods is being falsely advertised. An advert called ‘Ja Natürlich’ (translated: Yes Naturally), the organic brand of the German Rewe Group, is a good example of how organic and locally sourced food is advertised. The idea of organic food is romanticised to a great extent depicting an idyllic farming scene. It promotes the idea that Ja Natürlich eggs are good for our health, sourced by local small time farmers using traditional hand tools. By tracing the origin of this particular of brand of eggs we can see that this idyll is far from the truth. .

In a magazine article written about the farm where Ja Natürlich sources its eggs in 2009 it stated that although the chickens are free to roam outside they stay in the cramped enclosure that they are fed in.

It can be argued that organic and locally sourced foods are for our benefit rather than the animals or the environment. As we consume organic food we believe we are aiding the environment as the adverts depict more traditional, even romanticised views of food production. Also we believe we are being more conscious of what we eat, as the conditions are less cramped and the animals are farmed in a more sustainable and humane way. Yet as shown in this example these beliefs can sometimes be far from the truth.

This case study concerns a worrying trend about activism, the idea that some people indulge in activist behaviour for personal reasons rather than to save the environment for instance. For some people the idea of being an activist benefits their own identity, it is a social symbol, a label. It is a way of distancing themselves from the crowd rather than being a genuine advocate for change. Rather than being a serious social movement to change food production and distribution techniques it has be turned into a fad.

Bliss, F (2013) ‘Is supermarket organic food a lie?’ bliss permaculture

Martinez, S et al (2010) Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

 

Oches, S (2010) Local vs Organic, QSR Magazine

Thilmany, D (2008) Going Local: Exploring Consumer Behaviour and Motivations for Direct Food Purchases

 

 

Campaigning on Camera: The use of film technology in activism

Part Two

In part two of this blog I will critically examine young activist’s involvement with video blogging in the age of accessibility.

‘’There’s no looking back … even if I stop doing actual political work, the films I make will still be meaningful … films that will challenge the audience to think more critically about life … be it about gender or media’’. M.L(Lim 2013)

Video blogging, once considered radical activism is fast becoming the new mainstream media for young Malaysian activists enabling them to reach out to wide audiences, gaining support for their debates on institutions of power (Lim 3013). Video blogging, made easy through non-profit media organisations like EngageMedia.com has redefined how we engage culturally, socially and politically through the publication of independent videos which focus on social and environmental justice issues (Lim 2013)

Described as a ‘civic responsibility’ (Lim 2013) young activists are finding their voices and speaking out against and exposing injustices in a way that appeals to and describes their generation, through social media technology sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The identity of young activists is forged through ‘creative’ videos expressing ideas and needs, populizing the activism. Touraine (1971) argues this activism is coming from an elite and educated group of youths who have access to the technology and knowledge and instead of commenting on the struggle between classes or over material goods they focus on their search for identity and concerns of their experiences. (Lievrouw, 2011).

A critique of video blogging as a form of activism is one that considers the reason behind political engagement. Do young people join in to be part of the political debate and solution, or a part of the cultural trend? It’s very easy to ‘like’ something on ‘Facebook’ because you agree with the message but does your participation extend beyond clicking a button? Do they actively pursue further information and ways to get involved or is it just about awareness and joining the conversation? Questionably young adults are led to videos that are shared by their peers instead of actively pursuing information. However the act of sharing is undoubtedly one of the fastest ways of spreading messages online (Wallsten, 2010).

Activists seek to provoke social and political change (Lim 2013) by opposing the control of the government and expose injustices, engage with their communities and discuss broad topics such as Hiv/AIDS and poverty with the wider world thus gaining support which strengthens their cause. Raising awareness is achieved on video-blogging sites such as Pusat KOMAS (Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat) which is a human rights group that uses narrative documentation as a form of resistance and empowerment.

The ability to attract a high number of followers has led to a rich diversity of various rights issues being discussed on the internet through various forms. The collective identity of these users who use this form of activism is strong on what can be described as a safe space for communication, despite their being fear of ‘big brother watching you’ they stand up to this by stressing the importance of being critical. This is essential for activism to stay up to date, new and full of energy – something young activist possess a lot of. This energy is utilised in creative ways to make informed and powerful videos which stay immortalised on the web and in the minds of their followers.

In conclusion, visual technologies including film, documentary and video-blogs are useful tools in activism. They have the power to, raise awareness on a wide scale, keep the issues current and allow participation of the masses in issues that directly or indirectly affect them. With the internet and television channels dedicated to sharing such information, the words of activists have never been more available and their persuasive reach never further.

References:

Lievrouw LA (2011) Alternative and Activist New Media. Cambridge: Polity.

Lim, J. B. Y (2013) Video blogging and youth activism in Malaysia. International Communication Gazette 2013 [online] http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/75/3/300 (accessed 01/05/2013)

Touraine A (1971)The Post-industrial Society: Tomorrow’s Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society. New York: Random House.

Wallsten K (2010) ‘Yes we can’: How online viewership, blog discussion, campaign statements, and mainstream media coverage produced a viral video phenomenon. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 7(2): 163–181.

Haynes, John (2007) Documentary as Political Activism: An Interview with Robert Greenwald. Cinéaste (New York, N.Y.) [available online] http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/ehost/detail?sid=173f0170-e93d-4eb4-94b2e9e2b7d9346f%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=123&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aft&AN=505242266