Jay Rosen, Professor für Journalismus an der New Yorker Universität, hat das Genre der neuen auch in deutschen Medien weitverbreiteten „Twitter kann keine Diktatoren stürzen“-Artikel, die Facebook, Twitter und dem Internet allgemein jegliche Rolle bei den Umstürzen in Tunesien, Ägypten etc. absprechen, einmal dankenswerterweise definiert:
So these are the six signs that identify the genre, Twitter Can’t Topple Dictators. 1.) Nameless fools are staking maximalist claims. 2.) No links we can use to check the context of those claims. 3.) The masses of deluded people make an appearance so they can be ridiculed. 4.) Bizarre ideas get refuted with a straight face. 5.) Spurious historicity. 6.) The really hard questions are skirted.
Die entscheidende Frage ist aber, wie Tools wie Facebook tatsächlich das Verhältnis zwischen Menschen und Obrigkeit verändern:
By ranting about the absuridty of maximalist claims, the author takes a pass on the really hard and really interesting question: how does the Internet affect the balance of forces in a contest between the state and people fed up with the state?
Der Internet-spielt-keine-Rolle-Autor beantwortet diese wichtige Frage aber eben nicht, oder wie Jay Rosen es zusammenfasst:
In other words, tools are tools, Internet schminternet. Revolutions happen when they happen. Whatever means are lying around will get used. Next question!
Today, it occurs to me that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube may be the Gutenberg press of the Middle East, tools like his that enable people to speak, share, and gather. Without those tools, could revolutions occur? Of course, curmudgeons, they could. Without people and their passion, could revolutions occur? Of course not, curmudgeons. But why are these revolutions occurring now? No, curmudgeons, we’ll never be able to answer that question.
Siehe auch:
hätte es wohl eine Reformation ohne Druckerpresse gegeben?
vorbildlich zitiert #p1 ;)
:)