Event Recap: New Media in Iran's Elections

One of the perks of being a DC intern is sitting in on events. Last week I went to the Center for International Media Assistance, at the National Endowment for Democracy, to hear a panel called "The Role of New Media in the Iranian Elections." I wasn't quite sure what the panel would say.

While Twitter and YouTube are great for publicity, they didn't do much for Iranian protest organization nor give the protestors more power.  #iranelection on Twitter was 99% in English, and Michael Jackson and the Revolutionary Guard cut the protests off. Twitter is a cool technology, but I wasn't sure there was much else that could actually be said about it.

This panel proved me wrong. The internet did change the Iranian clashes, but the change was in global perceptions more than Iranian action. The panelists explored the implications of the "new media," or citizen reporting, the advantages and disadvantages for protestors and the government, and the potential future of the media. It was a much more informative panel than I expected and I got a lot out of it, even though I didn't need the considerately-provided Web 2.0 Cheat Sheet (pdf). I definitely recommend watching the event video. It includes Google Maps of Iranian cell phone blocking towers and a suggestion that the US spend more aid money on iPhones for Iranians instead of AlHurra. The one thing I thought they missed was cute cats.

Highlights:

Robert Farris from the Berkman Center of Internet and Society gave a nod to my skepticism about the internet’s actual impact right off the bat. He pointed out that the internet is great for getting individual pieces of information out, but that regimes easily shut down networking and organization by blocking entire sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Andrew Lewman of the very cool but confusing online anonymity Tor Project explained what his software does and how that is useful for people trying to get information out but protect their identities, or get around website blocks. Tor's traffic spiked right after elections as Iranians used their software. Andrew showed us a map someone sent him of actual protest incidents, something that Iranians used on the ground. I was glad to see an example of Iranians using the internet that was more about practical protesting tools rather than publicity.

Sam Sedai, a blogger for the Huffington Post, pointed out a headline from that day's state-run Iranian newspaper that said the CIA had been found responsible for inciting the protests. He discussed the huge volume of emails he got from Iranians themselves, rather than the diaspora. His blog has a good summary of the emails he was receiving. The impression I got was that most of them just wanted to make sure the West was witnessing what was happening in Iran.

Sam pointed out something smart: "new media," or blogs, Twitter, YouTube, and other types of “crowdsourced” news reporting, is more about PR than about organizing political change. In Iran, protestors beat the Iranian government in the international PR war. He also noted that when regimes expel journalists, citizen reporting becomes the only source into what's happening. It is more difficult to verify than traditional reporting, but it is also deeply democratic.

Setareh Derakhshesh from Voice of America's Persian Network (site in Persian) discussed the challenges that messy new media poses for classic media in terms of fact-checking and reporting speed. Twitter, several people noted, lacks journalistic integrity. She also talked about contacts with Iranians themselves, who were asking her who the leader of the protests was, and how they should decide where to protest next. Despite better connections from cell phones and Facebook, the protestors still didn't know where to turn when their momentum ran out.

All in all, Twitter isn't revolutionary, but it is a step towards democratizing media. It didn't help the Iranian protestors overthrow their regime. It did, however, give them incredible publicity, and help the world understand their cause. It gave the protestors international support and motivation to continue protesting. We’ll have to wait and see how new media impacts the protests as they unfold.

The strongest repercussions I see in Twittering in Iran are on diplomacy. Communication with actual populations, rather than their outspoken leaders, makes it difficult to caricature a country and then snub it. In Iran's case, it will be a lot harder now for the American administration to garner support for negotiations with Iran leadership.

My rosy view of the future is that crowdsourcing could force leaders to think very differently about how they treat their own people as they are held more accountable in the world. That may be overexaggerating the role of international pressure, or countries' interest in human rights, or cell phone use. I'd be glad to see world leaders responding more to people in other countries rather than their leaders, though, and this is perhaps the only way it would be possible.

We have to keep this in perspective, however. Iran was the subject of 10% of Tweet volume during its heyday. Michael Jackson instantly got 30% of all Tweets. The Internet hasn't convinced the average Cute Cat user to try her hand in politics, yet.

Photo  from .faramaraz' Flickrstream used under a Creative Commons license.