I thought about posting this in the Iranian elections thread, but I decided to post it here instead. I'm just not in the mood to be ranted on, and I think this might draw rantage:
I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or fascinated by the Neda coverage. I'm fascinated because it's proof positive of one of the main principles of 4th-generation warfare (which both the protesters and the Iranian government are engaged in, in limited capacities): spin = win. Nothing and I mean nothing gets your cause positive press like capturing the death of a photogenic supporter--especially a woman--on camera. Get it on video, and you've got yourself a real coup. Neda's on-camera death has greatly strengthened the protest movement's position on the world stage--they couldn't have asked for better PR. Those Iranian gummint bastards are killing girls, man! This won't stand! Win or lose, the protest movement has severely damaged the existing order's global legitimacy, not through their protests, but through media coverage of their protests. If it weren't on Twitter, nobody would care. (The Twitter thing is another part--the newness of revolution via SMS hasn't worn off yet. I guarantee the next social networking-based protest movement won't garner nearly as much coverage.) This is how fights are won, with great frequency now and with ever-increasing frequency in the future: it's not enough to kill people, you have to control how those deaths are seen on the world stage.
Which leads directly into why media coverage of Neda's death annoys me so very, very much: because in and of itself, it doesn't fucking matter. It's nothing! One chick gets her heart blown out, and all of the sudden everybody cares? That's such bullshit. Lots of people--women, even!--die way worse in way bigger numbers in any number of regions around the world, every day of the week, and don't get a tenth--a hundredth--of the coverage Neda has received. It's cyclical, of course: the more coverage you get, the more people care, the more coverage you get. And it works in reverse the same way: less coverage, less people care, less coverage. I usually hate it when people say this, because inevitably the person saying it is some hippie college (or high school) punk with no clue about how the world works and no intention of actually doing anything to change it, but goddammit it's still true: people are such sheep.
I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or fascinated by the Neda coverage. I'm fascinated because it's proof positive of one of the main principles of 4th-generation warfare (which both the protesters and the Iranian government are engaged in, in limited capacities): spin = win. Nothing and I mean nothing gets your cause positive press like capturing the death of a photogenic supporter--especially a woman--on camera. Get it on video, and you've got yourself a real coup. Neda's on-camera death has greatly strengthened the protest movement's position on the world stage--they couldn't have asked for better PR. Those Iranian gummint bastards are killing girls, man! This won't stand! Win or lose, the protest movement has severely damaged the existing order's global legitimacy, not through their protests, but through media coverage of their protests. If it weren't on Twitter, nobody would care. (The Twitter thing is another part--the newness of revolution via SMS hasn't worn off yet. I guarantee the next social networking-based protest movement won't garner nearly as much coverage.) This is how fights are won, with great frequency now and with ever-increasing frequency in the future: it's not enough to kill people, you have to control how those deaths are seen on the world stage.
Which leads directly into why media coverage of Neda's death annoys me so very, very much: because in and of itself, it doesn't fucking matter. It's nothing! One chick gets her heart blown out, and all of the sudden everybody cares? That's such bullshit. Lots of people--women, even!--die way worse in way bigger numbers in any number of regions around the world, every day of the week, and don't get a tenth--a hundredth--of the coverage Neda has received. It's cyclical, of course: the more coverage you get, the more people care, the more coverage you get. And it works in reverse the same way: less coverage, less people care, less coverage. I usually hate it when people say this, because inevitably the person saying it is some hippie college (or high school) punk with no clue about how the world works and no intention of actually doing anything to change it, but goddammit it's still true: people are such sheep.
But it, along with the entirety of coverage, really showed how effective new media is in shaping global opinion, which influences the actions of nation-state & non-nation actors. 4G warfare, hopefully not coming to a neighborhood near us anytime soon, because it is difficult as fuck as a living, evolving, concept.
About the military analyst on MSNBC: you knock him down, I'll kick him while he's there. Its sort of my M.O.