Iranian Elections, Information Sharing and Twitter
Written by Kate Brodock on June 19, 2009 – 2:46 pm -Earlier this week, amidst travel and trying really hard to work, I followed the events of what was happening in Iran post-election. I followed it all on Twitter.
There are many comments I could make on the events, but I wanted to highlight something that will be important for how information and participation happens in the months and years to come.
The fact is, we are all becoming a larger part of the information dissemination mechanisms that were once reserved for formal media channels. DigiActive has reported many instances of citizen journalism, on-the-ground reporting and information gathering, but now we’re talking about the addition of a process of broader dissemination.
We’re “regular” people, we have the information coming to us, and it’s our choice to pass it on or not. The reason I read hardly a single newspaper article on the topic all day was because I was getting my information handed to me by people from Boston, Europe, Iran… everywhere. Regular people. I got all the relevant links I needed from those 140-character posts.
The fact is, we are all now part of the information dissemination mechanism now. When I reported on the Moldovan protests in April, I noted that part of the process that we were seeing was not necessarily just that the protesters were using social media tools to get their message out, but that the resulting international furvor that erupted was fueled by other people who were not on the ground. Not even in the country.
This time around, we saw this same process magnified immensely. A message from Mousavi highlights how important this process was not only in what was said – One Person = One Broadcaster – but also in the the resulting relay-like speed that the message reached the world.
Mousavi recognized the the power of this information stream. Clay Shirky alluded to it in his Q&A with TED on the topic, and colleague Gaurav Mishra highlighted it in his analysis of the events as well.
No one was told to do anything with the information coming out of Iran, or had any explicit instructions to do so. The messages could have remained dead in the water. But we were all engaged by what was happening, we were interacting with other people through discussion, and we genuinely wanted to participate by adding to the conversation, spreading the information and learning more about the situation.
The fact that people had real-time, important information in their hands that they could “touch and feel,” and their ability to actively join in the conversation and the spread of vital information made momentary journalists out of us all. And it will continue to do so more and more in the future.
Tags: citizen journalism, digital media, elections, Iran, Moldova, twitter activism
Posted in Events | 3 Comments »



By Mary on Jun 19, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for the great post, Kate. My question is, what does public participation in the information dissemination mechanism mean for digital activism? Does this apparent shift in the balance of power help activists in practical ways or does it just change the “framing” of issues?
By Bill on Jun 19, 2009 | Reply
The events surrounding the Iranian election and the infowar on twitter and other media certainly points out some provocative arena’s for the future development of journalism. We often hear about the limitations of citizen journalism, but the power of the Iranian government to close official journalistic avenues points to a very real limitation for traditional journalism. In this situation citizen journalism becomes a huge asset whether we are talking about normal people “reporting” in Iran or folks elsewhere acting as broadcasters. There are some great interviews with both traditional and citizen journalists at http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid69 about the future of journalism and the challenges that future offers.
By Kate Brodock on Jun 22, 2009 | Reply
Hi Mary –
I think one of things we’ll need to watch is how people are able to leverage this public participation. Again, we saw this in both the Moldovan protests in April and again here. Do we think it can remain as effective as it did in these two cases? Are there chances the effects will get watered-down as Twitter becomes more widely used, and it therefore becomes harder to be heard amongst the increased noise? How will this effect play out on other platforms and can it be as effective?
I’m very interested to see how all of this be shaped (and I’m sure we’ll be covering here on Digiactive).