When I wrote my first blog about the problems with science and the media I put a lot of blame on the people and their lack of desire to actually read about science. I argued that if people really want to read about science that they need to demand that the media cover it because the media will cover whatever sells them newspapers. While I still believe that some fault lies with the people, after looking at it more in depth, I think that the media’s coverage of science is really the original problem that leads to people not wanting to read about it. In a 2005 article for the Guardian, Ben Goldacre argues that “in their choice of stories, and the way they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their own means”. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/badscience.research He goes on to describe how science stories usually fall into three categories, “wacky stories, scare stories, and ‘breakthrough stories’”. Newspapers and other media sources want people to buy their content because they are seeking a profit just like any other company, and they believe that the best way to do this is to sensationalize stories and create headlines. Basically, they believe that people are dumb and will only read something if it scares them or is out of the ordinary. I think that this is wrong.
The media is supposed to educate us and give us well researched information. It seems like in today’s media whirlwind, journalists try to put together the most sensational story as quickly as possible without actually doing the research and legwork necessary for a factual, well written piece. There are so many different media outlets now because of the internet, that each one tries to scoop the other and that leads to cutting corners. For example, Goldacre points to an experiment which showed a possible link between the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism in 12 children. The media jumped on this published experiment and totally blew it out of proportion, which scared people into not getting the MMR vaccine. No other scientific data supported these findings, and today most people agree that there is no link between the two. However, the media reported on it because it created interest with the people and once one outlet started talking about it, the rest felt like they had to follow or get left behind. Because of the new instantaneous culture we live in, the media feels like it doesn’t have time to put in the time and effort necessary for a good piece which leads to many mistakes and sensationalizes of unproven issues.
Another issue with the media’s coverage of science is that they do not use any real science when writing science articles. They eliminate statistics and any discussion of the actual experiment itself. The media does not believe we can handle these things so they just talk about whatever possibilities come out of the experiments. Goldacre talks about the scare that mobile phones could hurt you through radiation. While there were many articles about this scary topic, not one talked the actual data and what the scientists actually were looking at. Journalists tend to extrapolate on little details or small possibilities and turn them into huge deals because that sells papers. Without giving any background on the actual science, people have no choice but to believe them because they can not make any inferences on their own. While people may not understand the nitty gritty science involved, the media should at least give people the option to look at the results for themselves. People may need to improve their knowledge of science to understand certain issues, but the media does not even give them a change. We look to the media for well researched information and facts, and they are failing us, especially in the field of science.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Why Has M-PESA Only Been Truly Successful in Kenya?
Much has been made over the success of the M-PESA mobile banking system in Kenya. Alice Liu and others in her profession have argued that m-banking will be the way of the future in the developing world and that it can be an immediate success. While m-banking may be highly successful in the future, right now the only real success story is M-PESA in Kenya. Phone companies and banks have attempted to implement this system in many other countries in Africa and Asia to limited success and even outright failure. The question then is why does the system work in Kenya but not in other countries? I would argue that companies have attempted to use the same strategy as M-PESA in other countries without taking into account the geographic and cultural differences. In a 2009 article, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, or CGAP, used Tanzania, a country that borders Kenya, as a case study for why M-PESA may not work in other places. http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/template.rc/1.26.10908/ In the article, they discuss the difference in geography and culture as well as agent networks, and marketing. According to CGAP, Tanzania is almost double the size of Kenya but is much less densely populated. Also, its three main urban centers are much smaller than the three main urban centers of Kenya. Since the population is spread much thinner in Tanzania, it is more difficult to find agents who a large network of people will trust with their money. People are inherently less connected with each other and interact less, so agent networks must be smaller and therefore less efficient. When it comes to mobile banking, everything depends on whether or not people can trust the agent they are giving money to. It is up to the agent to make the transfer of money for people and to make sure he has enough money for withdrawals. An untrustworthy agent destroys the process, and in a bigger but less densely populated country like Tanzania, trust may be harder to come by. Furthermore, a similar marketing strategy was used, which may not have been as relatable to Tanzanians as it was to the Kenyans.
The example of M-PESA and its flaws highlight the problems with information technology in the developing world in general. When a program succeeds in one country, people are quick to jump on the bandwagon and try to implement it in other developing countries. However, what they fail to realize is that not all countries in the developing world are in the same, and in fact, most are very different. In the west, we tend to group all developing countries together into one large group and assume that they have the same needs and desires. This ignorant view leads to developed countries forcing programs on developing countries like the One Laptop Per Child or M-PESA system that they may just not be ready for or even find useful. Information technology and its many offshoots can and probably will be extremely important in bringing up developing countries and helping citizens improve their standard of living. However, we can not expect giving a child a laptop or a phone to immediately elevate the economy of these countries or their standard of living. This process will take time and can only work if programs are implemented that fit each country individually. I believe it is imperative that the leaders of these programs actually talk to people from specific countries and learn about their cultures and histories before blindly implementing programs that may have worked elsewhere. By tweaking these promising programs to fit individual countries, we can avoid failures and hopefully provide a boost to these developing countries faster and more efficiently than by just forcing programs down their throat.
The example of M-PESA and its flaws highlight the problems with information technology in the developing world in general. When a program succeeds in one country, people are quick to jump on the bandwagon and try to implement it in other developing countries. However, what they fail to realize is that not all countries in the developing world are in the same, and in fact, most are very different. In the west, we tend to group all developing countries together into one large group and assume that they have the same needs and desires. This ignorant view leads to developed countries forcing programs on developing countries like the One Laptop Per Child or M-PESA system that they may just not be ready for or even find useful. Information technology and its many offshoots can and probably will be extremely important in bringing up developing countries and helping citizens improve their standard of living. However, we can not expect giving a child a laptop or a phone to immediately elevate the economy of these countries or their standard of living. This process will take time and can only work if programs are implemented that fit each country individually. I believe it is imperative that the leaders of these programs actually talk to people from specific countries and learn about their cultures and histories before blindly implementing programs that may have worked elsewhere. By tweaking these promising programs to fit individual countries, we can avoid failures and hopefully provide a boost to these developing countries faster and more efficiently than by just forcing programs down their throat.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Mirage of Social Media Politics
With the explosion of facebook, twitter and other forms of social media over the last five years, a new political market has developed, and naturally, politicians have attempted to tap into it. A major reason for President Obama’s victory in 2008 was his effective use of the internet and social media. His campaign was able to break through to young voters on these social networking sites, giving them a way to connect with each other, and most importantly for the campaign, a way to donate and raise support. Other politicians learned from Obama and have attempted to utilize facebook and twitter in similar ways over the last couple years. However, as Julian Zelizer argues in an article for CNN, relying on social media for campaigning can prove ineffective over the long run. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-05/opinion/zelizer.facebook.politics_1_tea-party-movement-political-parties-facebook/2?_s=PM:OPINION Sites like facebook and twitter lend themselves to short term success because they allow so many people to connect at one time, and when a candidate like Obama is able to generate as much excitement as he did, this excitement can be passed on through social media to people who may not care otherwise. It is very easy to post a status or send a tweet and people quickly jumped on Obama’s bandwagon in 2008 because it took almost no time or effort to get involved or at least offer the appearance of involvement.
While this helped Obama get elected, there is evidence that Obama has lost much of this movement to apathy since the excitement of the election. Zelizer argues that what he calls “facebook politics” can be fragile and ephemeral, and that it lacks the grassroots, local organization that has always been the backbone of of politics. He describes the civil rights movement, and the conservative movement in the 60s and 70s respectively, and how these movements spread through personal ties and face to face interaction. It is really these ties created through shared experience that make people willing to remain loyal to cause and continue to fight for it. People came together through social media in 2008 to support Obama, but where are they now? These individuals did not forge the local, personal ties with each other needed to maintain loyal and strong support for the Democratic and Obama movement. It was cool to support Obama in 2008 because he claimed to be something different and promised change to a country that craved it. However, Obama has had to deal with many political realities and rightly or wrongly has become just another politician in the eyes of the people. While it was easy to support Obama in 2008 through social media, it will be just as easy to not care about the 2012 election. The social media users Obama relied on in 2008 have no real investment in him or others who support him because the cost of their support in 2008 was just a few clicks of the mouse. Without the excitement of 2008, many people will likely return to the apathetic lives they enjoyed before. Obviously this is not to say that Obama did not engage in any local organization and that he has no base anymore, because clearly he did and does. However, I would argue that Obama has lost many people who voted for him in 2008 and that he will not be able to rely on social media in 2012.
The fleeting nature of “facebook politics” and the exaggeration of its powers are most striking in the Egyptian Revolution that occurred earlier this year. Many have argued that social media drove the revolution and was a major factor in its success. However, the true reason for the revolution was the rampant corruption and oppression carried out by the Mubarak regime. People were brought together by high living costs, high unemployment, corruption and police brutality. They were forced into a corner by the government inevitably leading to the creation of ties and bonds surrounding their horrible condition. It was these ties and connections that allowed the Egyptian people to stay loyal to the cause and stand strong in the face of repression and government attacks, not facebook or twitter posts about what was going on. The people believed they had no choice but to revolt or die in poverty.
While social media clearly has allowed people to become more connected and politically active if they desire to, its effects have been grossly exaggerated. Social media can not create the true local connections necessary to stand together and remain loyal to a cause. Facebook and twitter will be extremely valuable to politicians and causes for the foreseeable future, but traditional campaigning and local organizing should and will continue to be the backbone and driving force behind candidates and their campaigns.
While this helped Obama get elected, there is evidence that Obama has lost much of this movement to apathy since the excitement of the election. Zelizer argues that what he calls “facebook politics” can be fragile and ephemeral, and that it lacks the grassroots, local organization that has always been the backbone of of politics. He describes the civil rights movement, and the conservative movement in the 60s and 70s respectively, and how these movements spread through personal ties and face to face interaction. It is really these ties created through shared experience that make people willing to remain loyal to cause and continue to fight for it. People came together through social media in 2008 to support Obama, but where are they now? These individuals did not forge the local, personal ties with each other needed to maintain loyal and strong support for the Democratic and Obama movement. It was cool to support Obama in 2008 because he claimed to be something different and promised change to a country that craved it. However, Obama has had to deal with many political realities and rightly or wrongly has become just another politician in the eyes of the people. While it was easy to support Obama in 2008 through social media, it will be just as easy to not care about the 2012 election. The social media users Obama relied on in 2008 have no real investment in him or others who support him because the cost of their support in 2008 was just a few clicks of the mouse. Without the excitement of 2008, many people will likely return to the apathetic lives they enjoyed before. Obviously this is not to say that Obama did not engage in any local organization and that he has no base anymore, because clearly he did and does. However, I would argue that Obama has lost many people who voted for him in 2008 and that he will not be able to rely on social media in 2012.
The fleeting nature of “facebook politics” and the exaggeration of its powers are most striking in the Egyptian Revolution that occurred earlier this year. Many have argued that social media drove the revolution and was a major factor in its success. However, the true reason for the revolution was the rampant corruption and oppression carried out by the Mubarak regime. People were brought together by high living costs, high unemployment, corruption and police brutality. They were forced into a corner by the government inevitably leading to the creation of ties and bonds surrounding their horrible condition. It was these ties and connections that allowed the Egyptian people to stay loyal to the cause and stand strong in the face of repression and government attacks, not facebook or twitter posts about what was going on. The people believed they had no choice but to revolt or die in poverty.
While social media clearly has allowed people to become more connected and politically active if they desire to, its effects have been grossly exaggerated. Social media can not create the true local connections necessary to stand together and remain loyal to a cause. Facebook and twitter will be extremely valuable to politicians and causes for the foreseeable future, but traditional campaigning and local organizing should and will continue to be the backbone and driving force behind candidates and their campaigns.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
WebMD and the Reliability of Internet Medicine
The internet has transformed the way we do everything and health is no exception. The e-health movement has been a revelation for the way medicine is carried out, especially in developing countries. It has been a huge boon for hospitals and other offices in terms of the increase in electronic health records which allows for a much easier, effective, and cheap way to send patient files to other doctors who need it. Also, e-health has allowed people that are too far away from a doctor and have no means of getting there to do things like take a picture of something on their body and send it to their doctor to be diagnosed. But maybe the most widespread use of e-health has been the proliferation and access to medical information on the web. There are now many websites that people can visit to check out their symptoms and find out what their best course of action is. While this can be extremely helpful, there are many problems that we need to be wary of.
The first issue with sites that provide information on symptoms and self diagnosis is that people can misconstrue the information and make themselves believe they have something they actually do not. Ordinary citizens are not qualified to make diagnoses, and while most of the time people use these sites for small things like colds and headaches, it is easy to see how people could be fooled into thinking they have something bad. However, in this case, I believe that the pros outweigh the cons, and there will always be hypochondriacs, even if there is no access to these websites. I believe that the real problem is when these websites are connected with pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in getting people to buy their drugs. One company with such ties, is WebMD, the leading health portal in the United States.
A New York Times Magazine article earlier this year discussed the possible conflict of interest in WebMD, as it is a for profit organization that is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and relies on ad revenue. Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa launched an investigation into WebMD’s ties to big pharmaceuticals such as drug maker Eli Lilly. While no misconduct was reported, it has been argued that WebMD can be quick to point people to certain drugs when they may not be really necessary. For example, in the magazine piece, author Virginia Heffernan points out that a search on headaches quickly leads to migraines and possible drug treatments for migraines, when in reality a person may just have a normal headache. WebMD wants to make money and the best way for them to do that is to get pharmaceuticals to sponsor them, which is at least in the back of the minds of the site creators, even if they do not explicitly mention the drugs on each page. I believe that it is wrong for a health site to have any ties to pharmaceuticals as it is a conflict of interest, even if not explicitly. When Americans visit WebMD, they expect to get the best possible answer to their questions and symptoms, not what makes WebMD the most money. Most of the time, drugs are unnecessary to treat minor symptoms, but with ties to drug companies, WebMD may direct users to a drug before it is really necessary. Sites like WebMD may be the future of medicine, and can truly be a great resource for people, but if they continue to have ties to drug companies than they will never be the most accurate, respected source they should be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06FOB-Medium-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine
The first issue with sites that provide information on symptoms and self diagnosis is that people can misconstrue the information and make themselves believe they have something they actually do not. Ordinary citizens are not qualified to make diagnoses, and while most of the time people use these sites for small things like colds and headaches, it is easy to see how people could be fooled into thinking they have something bad. However, in this case, I believe that the pros outweigh the cons, and there will always be hypochondriacs, even if there is no access to these websites. I believe that the real problem is when these websites are connected with pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in getting people to buy their drugs. One company with such ties, is WebMD, the leading health portal in the United States.
A New York Times Magazine article earlier this year discussed the possible conflict of interest in WebMD, as it is a for profit organization that is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and relies on ad revenue. Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa launched an investigation into WebMD’s ties to big pharmaceuticals such as drug maker Eli Lilly. While no misconduct was reported, it has been argued that WebMD can be quick to point people to certain drugs when they may not be really necessary. For example, in the magazine piece, author Virginia Heffernan points out that a search on headaches quickly leads to migraines and possible drug treatments for migraines, when in reality a person may just have a normal headache. WebMD wants to make money and the best way for them to do that is to get pharmaceuticals to sponsor them, which is at least in the back of the minds of the site creators, even if they do not explicitly mention the drugs on each page. I believe that it is wrong for a health site to have any ties to pharmaceuticals as it is a conflict of interest, even if not explicitly. When Americans visit WebMD, they expect to get the best possible answer to their questions and symptoms, not what makes WebMD the most money. Most of the time, drugs are unnecessary to treat minor symptoms, but with ties to drug companies, WebMD may direct users to a drug before it is really necessary. Sites like WebMD may be the future of medicine, and can truly be a great resource for people, but if they continue to have ties to drug companies than they will never be the most accurate, respected source they should be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06FOB-Medium-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Education and the OLPC
The One Laptop Per Child, or OLPC program has been one of the most controversial programs put into place in recent years in the developing world. The program entails giving out inexpensive laptops to children in the developing world, giving them access to the internet and allowing them to connect and become more educated. On the surface it seems like this program can only be a good thing as these children are given access to a computer for free. However, there are many flaws in this program, mainly stemming from the fact that the program is top down and does not take into account the necessities of different cultures and nations. It was developed by westerners for the developing world and never really involved any of the countries that would be involved in the development process.
Back in 2008, the Burkina NTIC, which is the national ICT4D knowledge sharing organization in Burkina Faso created a workshop to discuss the OLPC and decide whether the program would work in the educational framework of Burkina Faso. Before this action, the OLPC had been thrust upon countries without any research done on how much of impact it would make and what the best way to implement it would be. The Burkina NTIC concluded that the OLPC was a good idea as it gives people in urban and rural areas equal access to knowledge, and teaches children how to use a computer at a young age. However, many flaws were discussed as well including the fact that the need for school rooms and better teaching conditions were more important, that the OLPC is a battle between private companies to secure the African market, and that a lack of infrastructure and resources for maintenance made implementation extremely difficult.1
For the OLPC to work it is imperative that the organization take into account the specific region and country that it is delivering the laptops too. Some countries in the developing world are more ready for the program than others, and all have different cultures and customs that can affect the success of the OLPC. Before just handing out these laptops OLPC agents should go into the community and learn about it and talk to the people who will be affected, who may have ideas or strategies for better implementation. Actually understanding the problems that may arise will help the OLPC adjust and become more efficient in fixing these problems or preventing them from happening. Furthermore, before the OLPC can really be successful the underlying problems with education in developing world need to be addressed. The money may be better spent at this point in time on building more schools, or better facilities so that students have less crowded, better environments for learning. Also, good teachers must be brought in and taught how to use the technology so that they can help students use it more effectively. Before these problems are fixed the OLPC will help people become more connected, but will not really change the level of education of the students. It is a very good idea and in the future may be very effective, but time and money is better spent now on the underlying problems such as facilities and teachers.
1 "One Laptop Per Child: The Debate Continues." IICD. IICD, 17 Mar 2008. Web. 3 Jul 2011. <http://www.iicd.org/articles/one-laptop-per-child-the-debate-continues/>.
Back in 2008, the Burkina NTIC, which is the national ICT4D knowledge sharing organization in Burkina Faso created a workshop to discuss the OLPC and decide whether the program would work in the educational framework of Burkina Faso. Before this action, the OLPC had been thrust upon countries without any research done on how much of impact it would make and what the best way to implement it would be. The Burkina NTIC concluded that the OLPC was a good idea as it gives people in urban and rural areas equal access to knowledge, and teaches children how to use a computer at a young age. However, many flaws were discussed as well including the fact that the need for school rooms and better teaching conditions were more important, that the OLPC is a battle between private companies to secure the African market, and that a lack of infrastructure and resources for maintenance made implementation extremely difficult.1
For the OLPC to work it is imperative that the organization take into account the specific region and country that it is delivering the laptops too. Some countries in the developing world are more ready for the program than others, and all have different cultures and customs that can affect the success of the OLPC. Before just handing out these laptops OLPC agents should go into the community and learn about it and talk to the people who will be affected, who may have ideas or strategies for better implementation. Actually understanding the problems that may arise will help the OLPC adjust and become more efficient in fixing these problems or preventing them from happening. Furthermore, before the OLPC can really be successful the underlying problems with education in developing world need to be addressed. The money may be better spent at this point in time on building more schools, or better facilities so that students have less crowded, better environments for learning. Also, good teachers must be brought in and taught how to use the technology so that they can help students use it more effectively. Before these problems are fixed the OLPC will help people become more connected, but will not really change the level of education of the students. It is a very good idea and in the future may be very effective, but time and money is better spent now on the underlying problems such as facilities and teachers.
1 "One Laptop Per Child: The Debate Continues." IICD. IICD, 17 Mar 2008. Web. 3 Jul 2011. <http://www.iicd.org/articles/one-laptop-per-child-the-debate-continues/>.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Science and the Media
An interesting statistic that kept being thrown around in class on Tuesday was that something like 70% of Americans want to learn more about science and wish that it was covered more in the media. Taking this statistic at face value, one might argue that the media really does not cover science well, and that the American people are hungry for scientific knowledge. However, while it may be true that the news media does not do the best job covering science, I do not believe you can take this statistic at face value. When asked in a poll if they wanted to know more about science, what American would say no? By saying no, they probably consciously or subconsciously believe that they are admitting that they are stupid and have no desire to know about this great intellectual thing we call science. So then when they are asked if the media does a good job covering science, of course they will say no because they need someone to blame for their lack of science knowledge, and they won’t blame themselves. The media is an easy target because most people are exposed to the media everyday in some shape or form, and therefore it can’t be doing a good job if they see it everyday but still don’t know anything about science. But, really, how many Americans are turning to the science section of the newspaper, or looking up science journals online. Most Americans, myself included, page through the first section and then flip to the sports or the gossip pages. Most people don’t take the time to get to the science section which is usually buried somewhere in the middle of the paper. Therefore, it is no surprise that most Americans have a very limited knowledge of science, which is an extremely important field.
There is no easy solution to this problem. I think that it falls most on the American people to seek out knowledge, but the media can do a better job of making science more accessible to the average Americans. Many newspapers bury the science section in the middle of the paper, or do not even have a science section. Newspapers are businesses that need to sell papers to make money, and especially in this day and age, selling papers is more important than ever to these companies. Therefore, they are focusing on stories that will sell papers, such as the economy, and Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as sports and gossip. The media covers what the people want to see, and the people have clearly not demanded to know about science. It is difficult to change this now, especially as newspapers are clinging to life, but one possible idea is to put one science article on the front page a couple of times a week and see how people react. If Americans truly want to know more about science then they will take advantage of this and continue into the science section. While this would probably not be very effective, it would probably at least pique the interest of some Americans, which would be a step in the right direction. Another problem is that if people go online to seek out science knowledge they are most likely not reading science journals, but rather blogs or other more easily understandable mediums that may not be factually correct. Scientists need to do a better job of communicating with the public and making science more accessible. However, they have to balance making it understandable while not losing the true meaning of the science, which is very difficult. I think that both sides can do more in this effort, with people trying to understand at least parts of real issues in journals, while scientists dumb it down a little more, so that eventually people will understand all of what they are reading.
The issue of American’s lack of knowledge about science is a very difficult one to solve, and to be honest I am not too confident that it will ever be solved. I think the media and scientists can help by devoting more coverage and making it more accessible, but in the end it comes down to the American people. If the people truly want to know more about science, then they need to demand that the media cover it, and educate themselves so that they can understand it. If Americans were to do this, the media would surely do a better job covering it, because they want people to buy newspapers and read their web sites. However, at least at this point in time, Americans are more concerned with the latest sports scores, or celebrity scandals, and therefore the media will continue to cover these things to the detriment of science.
There is no easy solution to this problem. I think that it falls most on the American people to seek out knowledge, but the media can do a better job of making science more accessible to the average Americans. Many newspapers bury the science section in the middle of the paper, or do not even have a science section. Newspapers are businesses that need to sell papers to make money, and especially in this day and age, selling papers is more important than ever to these companies. Therefore, they are focusing on stories that will sell papers, such as the economy, and Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as sports and gossip. The media covers what the people want to see, and the people have clearly not demanded to know about science. It is difficult to change this now, especially as newspapers are clinging to life, but one possible idea is to put one science article on the front page a couple of times a week and see how people react. If Americans truly want to know more about science then they will take advantage of this and continue into the science section. While this would probably not be very effective, it would probably at least pique the interest of some Americans, which would be a step in the right direction. Another problem is that if people go online to seek out science knowledge they are most likely not reading science journals, but rather blogs or other more easily understandable mediums that may not be factually correct. Scientists need to do a better job of communicating with the public and making science more accessible. However, they have to balance making it understandable while not losing the true meaning of the science, which is very difficult. I think that both sides can do more in this effort, with people trying to understand at least parts of real issues in journals, while scientists dumb it down a little more, so that eventually people will understand all of what they are reading.
The issue of American’s lack of knowledge about science is a very difficult one to solve, and to be honest I am not too confident that it will ever be solved. I think the media and scientists can help by devoting more coverage and making it more accessible, but in the end it comes down to the American people. If the people truly want to know more about science, then they need to demand that the media cover it, and educate themselves so that they can understand it. If Americans were to do this, the media would surely do a better job covering it, because they want people to buy newspapers and read their web sites. However, at least at this point in time, Americans are more concerned with the latest sports scores, or celebrity scandals, and therefore the media will continue to cover these things to the detriment of science.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Revolution 2.0
The Arab spring has captured the attention of the world and has probably been the defining story of this year so far. Much has been made about technology and social media and how it has played a big part in these revolutions. This is exemplified by the story of Wael Ghonim, the Google exec who created the facebook page memorializing Khaled Saeed, a young Egyptian man who was beaten to death by Egyptian police. Through this page, Ghonim organized the original Egyptian protest in January, which was the starting point of the revolution. After weeks of protesting and fighting, the Egyptian people were able to throw Mubarak out of power after 30 years of brutal rule. Many have lauded this revolution as an example of what technology can do and even argued that this revolution was driven by technology and social media. While mobile phones, facebook, and twitter were definitely important features of the revolution, it is an overstatement to say that they were the driving forces behind the revolution.
In the years leading up to the revolution, the cost of living in Egypt kept increasing while at the same time unemployment was extremely high. Corruption was rampant in the government, and the people had been subject to violent repression during protests in 2008 and 2009. All of these factors left Egypt at the breaking point of a revolution. The people could not take much more and all of their anger boiled over following the death of Khaled Saeed. Furthermore, the Tunisian people had only weeks before revolted and been successful, which gave people hope that they could do the same. Facebook was used as a conduit for this anger, and helped facilitate the organization of the people, but without all of economic and social woes of the middle class and the many people in poverty, the revolution would never have been on such a large scale or been successful. For example, in 2009 everyone became excited as the Green movement rose up in revolt in Iran and took to Twitter to show the rest of the world. While at first it looked like they may be successful, the government was able to crush the revolt and Iran has been one of the more stable government in the Arab spring this year. Twitter helped spread word, but it was unable to keep people steadfast in the face of repression. The Egyptian people were able to stand up and continue because they felt like they had no other choice. It was either revolt or die in poverty.
To go back to the example of Wael Ghonim, some may argue that he led the revolt through social media like facebook and that this was the driving force behind the revolt. However, the real defining moment of the revolution was when Ghonim went on television after being imprisoned for 11 days and gave a moving interview that was watched by all of Egypt. At this point it looked like the revolt might be waning and that people might not continue to stand up to brutal repression. But, during the interview, Ghonim broke down a number of times and delivered a powerful message to the Egyptian people, which kept people strong in the face of the police. It was Ghonim’s face and words that made him the spiritual leader of the revolt, not facebook or twitter. In the end, the Egyptian people were able to defeat Mubarak because they believed it was the only option. Death was better than continuing to lead the terrible lives they had because of Mubarak’s corrupt regime. While social media and technology made the revolution easier to organize and more accessible to the rest of the world, it was not the driving force in the revolution. The horrendous conditions that people lived in and their connections to each other forced them into action and allowed them to stay strong in the face of brutal repression.
In the years leading up to the revolution, the cost of living in Egypt kept increasing while at the same time unemployment was extremely high. Corruption was rampant in the government, and the people had been subject to violent repression during protests in 2008 and 2009. All of these factors left Egypt at the breaking point of a revolution. The people could not take much more and all of their anger boiled over following the death of Khaled Saeed. Furthermore, the Tunisian people had only weeks before revolted and been successful, which gave people hope that they could do the same. Facebook was used as a conduit for this anger, and helped facilitate the organization of the people, but without all of economic and social woes of the middle class and the many people in poverty, the revolution would never have been on such a large scale or been successful. For example, in 2009 everyone became excited as the Green movement rose up in revolt in Iran and took to Twitter to show the rest of the world. While at first it looked like they may be successful, the government was able to crush the revolt and Iran has been one of the more stable government in the Arab spring this year. Twitter helped spread word, but it was unable to keep people steadfast in the face of repression. The Egyptian people were able to stand up and continue because they felt like they had no other choice. It was either revolt or die in poverty.
To go back to the example of Wael Ghonim, some may argue that he led the revolt through social media like facebook and that this was the driving force behind the revolt. However, the real defining moment of the revolution was when Ghonim went on television after being imprisoned for 11 days and gave a moving interview that was watched by all of Egypt. At this point it looked like the revolt might be waning and that people might not continue to stand up to brutal repression. But, during the interview, Ghonim broke down a number of times and delivered a powerful message to the Egyptian people, which kept people strong in the face of the police. It was Ghonim’s face and words that made him the spiritual leader of the revolt, not facebook or twitter. In the end, the Egyptian people were able to defeat Mubarak because they believed it was the only option. Death was better than continuing to lead the terrible lives they had because of Mubarak’s corrupt regime. While social media and technology made the revolution easier to organize and more accessible to the rest of the world, it was not the driving force in the revolution. The horrendous conditions that people lived in and their connections to each other forced them into action and allowed them to stay strong in the face of brutal repression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)