![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From 'Connectedness' to Conflict:
I sent the author this reply:
Yes, the cartoon stuff was persistent, but not on the internet (where the cartoons weren't republished until long after the fracas had begun), plus the cartoons were published by the Danish paper four months before the first significant protests in the Middle East occurred, hardly "instantaneous". The rest of the protests were all fed the old fasioned way: by television.
This is especially those that have taken place this last week in London and DC. In there, the internet became the organizing focus, the means by which the groups who protested planned their protest, but it only enabled it. The interent didn't *fuel* that protest; television did.
I firmly believe the internet had nothing to do with either announcing or propagating and persisting, the protests. That all happened the old fasioned way: word of mouth to get it started, and a television audience to keep it going. And I don't believe the internet was the primary vehicle for that word of mouth communication.
(update)
Even if the interent was used to send some of the information over from Europe to the Middle East, the percentage of those "connected" in the mideast is so low compared to the West that it wouldn't have fueled the incidents directly. The best it could have done was be the means by which a small few found out about it, and from there they passed it on in meetings and other face-to-face communication means.
A second explanation of the connectedness paradox comes from Charles M. McLean, who runs a trend-analysis company called Denver Research Group Inc. (I wrote a 2004 column called "Google With Judgment" that explained how his company samples thousands of online sources to assess where global opinion is heading.) I asked McLean last week if he could explain the latest explosion of rage in our connected world -- namely the violent Islamic reaction to Danish cartoon images of the prophet Muhammad.
McLean argues that the Internet is a "rage enabler." By providing instant, persistent, real-time stimuli, the new technology takes anger to a higher level. "Rage needs to be fed or stimulated continually to build or maintain it," he explains. The Internet provides that instantaneous, persistent poke in the eye.
I sent the author this reply:
Yes, the cartoon stuff was persistent, but not on the internet (where the cartoons weren't republished until long after the fracas had begun), plus the cartoons were published by the Danish paper four months before the first significant protests in the Middle East occurred, hardly "instantaneous". The rest of the protests were all fed the old fasioned way: by television.
This is especially those that have taken place this last week in London and DC. In there, the internet became the organizing focus, the means by which the groups who protested planned their protest, but it only enabled it. The interent didn't *fuel* that protest; television did.
I firmly believe the internet had nothing to do with either announcing or propagating and persisting, the protests. That all happened the old fasioned way: word of mouth to get it started, and a television audience to keep it going. And I don't believe the internet was the primary vehicle for that word of mouth communication.
(update)
Even if the interent was used to send some of the information over from Europe to the Middle East, the percentage of those "connected" in the mideast is so low compared to the West that it wouldn't have fueled the incidents directly. The best it could have done was be the means by which a small few found out about it, and from there they passed it on in meetings and other face-to-face communication means.
