In the midst of the so-called “digital revolution” leading
to revolution by digital technology, there is a growing, but unfortunate view
that political activism can somehow escape the mud and grime of actual
face-to-face politics and the dust and noise and haze of mass mobilisation to
effect change.
There is also a growing body of opinion asserting the
gradual disappearance of journalism in favour of some kind of hybridised system
of free or cheap and ubiquitous methods of acquiring and disseminating news and
information, secure from the rigours of professional newsgathering.
There is little doubt that the impact of new mobile
technologies on mass, social and political mobilisation has been phenomenal.
But there is also no denying the fact that in all the instances currently being
cited as examples, there has been the indispensable impact of courageous men
and women, on the streets and in the newsroom, who have chosen not to remain
nameless and faceless behind a Twitter nomme de plume or fictitious Facebook
profile or constantly changing mobile number.
In all instances in the Middle East and North Africa, the
illusion of “change” has now been met with the reality of pathologically
authoritarian models of governance the new validating elites with all their
technological assets are incapable of adequately addressing.
The impact of social media activism has simply not changed
the world as we have always known it. It has perhaps changed some terms of
engagement. But, for the most part, traditional “mainstream” media have been
brought into sharper functional focus with plain, old-fashioned professional
and operational values.
General adherence to the timeless journalistic principles of
balance, fairness and transparency continues to be the pillar upon which the
credible means of achieving real social and political change reside.
In my view, there is no “war” between the social and
traditional media. They travel along their own orbits, sometimes colliding, but
often criss-crossing each other in same and opposite directions. In the process, the
potential for complementary relations is abundant and strikes at the heart of a
way forward.
The value of “citizen journalism” does not in any way, in
this context, invalidate the contribution of true journalists who continue to
play a decisive, professional role in interpreting our realities wherever we
are. But they are not the same creatures and are not interchangeable features
of the widening mass media landscape.
For sure, the protections accorded journalists extend to
everyone engaged in the process of journalism and they all enjoy the umbrella
of free expression. The suggestion that one is capable of replacing the other
is, however, a fantasy we would do well to dispel and is, quite frankly, a
nonsense led by people who do not know better.
