Abstract:
The internet is debatably the sole, most significant breakthrough in communication for the latter half of the last era. This is because it has revolutionized the way people communicate with each other, how they access information, and even how people respond to political and social issues that affect them. In this point of view, it has been argued by various scholars (Arterton, 1987)
that the internet has enabled an occurrence philosopher Jurgen Habermas has described as the ‘public sphere’ a forum whereby the shaping of public opinion takes place (Habermas, 1991)
. In the same context, the following paper seeks to define the part that the public sphere plays in this internet age while directing most of its focus on the current web based communication tools which include the video sharing forum known as YouTube by focusing specifically on the removed 2012 anti-Islam film ‘Innocence of Muslims’.
Introduction
The Public Sphere
When the word ‘public’ pops up in anyone’s mind, it is most likely that one envisions open exchanges of thoughts and ideas similar to those that took place in colonial era town halls or the ancient Greek Agoras. The idea of ‘the public’ is associated with democratic ideals and values that call for the participation of all citizens in public matters. Abramson, Arterton and Orren, (1988) argued that the dedication of the American citizens to public matters were at the core of the lively and healthy American democracy. He added that active participation in the affairs that affect the public at large were a great contribution to an individual’s sense of self-respect and even his existence (Barrett, 1996).
In the same context, Dewey (1927) held the strong opinion that communication and inquiry were the basis for a democratic society and highlighted the advantages of group deliberation as compared to that of a single authority. He further insisted that for a communication democracy where citizens assembled to create and preserve a good life they shared in common. This shows that the term ‘public’ signifies ideas of being common, citizenship and things not being private but free for all to access and observe/analyze. In more recent times, Barlow (1995)floated the idea that cyberspace is the new form of public space, created by people, globally, integrating traditional beliefs of progress with strong modern impulses with the aim of achieving self-fulfillment and personal development (1997: 22).
The public sphere is very significant for current societies. It serves as a platform in which collective communication of relevant issues is possible and also allows individuals to inform themselves or be informed about societal progresses and to discern and regulate political, economic and other elites. Because of its significant role, many scholars have come up with normative concepts which define how best to structure the public sphere in order to preferably
fulfill this role (Schudson, 1997).
However, it should be noted that a new public space does not necessarily mean a new public sphere. As a public space, the internet adds yet another platform for ideas and thoughts to be expressed on a much larger level as compared to any other forums. This article therefore examines the effect and contribution of the internet as a medium of communication (Jankowski and van Selm, 2000).
Access to Information
For individuals with access to computers, the internet is truly a valuable resource for expressing ones views and knowing the views of others in a similar matter. At the same instance, internet access does not automatically guarantee increased self-expression or enlightenment due to the exposure to an infinite amount of information. Moving any kinds of discussions, to a virtual space, excludes those without access to this space, the internet (Dreyfus, 2004).
Research Methodology
In order to cover my area of study in the most thorough manner, I propose to conduct my research in levels. The subject under review is a social aspect therefore, highly subjective as its heavily reliant on the general perceptions and opinions of participants therefore I intend to take the descriptive and analytical approach. This will include making of fact finding enquiries of various forms while maintaining an objective opinion on the topic under scrutiny(Kothari, 2004).
First and foremost, I will scrutinize the video hosting website called YouTube. It is a channel whereby internet users can share information using video clips. This website is the most suitable way of sharing information since it conveys both images and video clips and hence more appealing to a wide range of users who may not possess any literacy skills. Additionally, YouTube since it is the only video hosting website whose content is purely user generated and serving more than 100 million users in the United States only per day.
Secondly, I am also interested in Muslims and the Western world, with the Muslims being the victims for negatively broadcasted films. Research by a various academics show that it is virtually impossible for media audiences to hold a unanimous opinion on a broadcasted message, let alone the intended meaning. This means that some people may pick up negative vibe in situations where no offence was meant. Therefore, this makes the analysis and careful understanding of the audience important to this study. This will also help vindicate or disqualify the witnessed violent reactions and protests by the Muslim community and those who hold similar beliefs (New York Times, 2012).
Additionally, the analysis of the film itself and those who made it is very important. This investigation will help unravel whether the actual intention of the film was to cause strife or it was just a friendly mockery which was later blown out of proportion and misinterpreted with disastrous effects.
YouTube
YouTube is an online video hosting service provider that has been involved in popularizing a great number of trends in the modern world. Its users represent a society and it has grown to be a large part of a number of social networking websites that individuals and organizations often maintain a consistent presence on. YouTube has been recognized and respected as a global archive of socially valuable videos and films which hold significant messages. It has grown to become the third most visited site in the whole world (Counterpower, 2007) after Google and Facebook. In its 16th month after its creation in 2005, YouTube had attracted 100 million American viewers per day, this is approximated to be more than two thirds of all internet users in the states (Counterpower, 2007).
In the context of the internet as a public sphere, YouTube provides a forum for self-expression where to some, it is just a website, full of amateurs uploading poorly shot videos while others see it as their opportunity to stardom. To others, it is their teacher or even a meeting place with close friends who may be anywhere in the world. YouTube allows for these entire social phenomenon to take place simultaneously (Counterpower, 2007). It acts as a virtual public arena where people can meet up and share ideas and thoughts, with both like-minded and those of different opinions on issues that affect them in a social, political or economic sense e.t.c.
Therefore, as shown above, YouTube, and other video hosting websites, have enabled anyone with internet access the chance to broadcast themselves or any other kinds of videos onto the internet. Additionally, apart from just being able to post their videos, users can also search for virtually anything from funny videos on how to wear make-up to music videos. With this power to access vast amounts of information just a click away, it can have both positive and negative effects as will be discussed in the analysis of the controversial film ‘Innocence of Muslims’.
Innocence of Muslims is a 13 minute long, low-budget movie that was posted on YouTube with dreadful scripting, acting and directing. It could have passed for ‘funny’ were it not for its horrid Islamophobia which it promoted causing controversy and provocation all around the world (Film Blog, 2012).
The film was reportedly made by an Egyptian-American, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, living in Los Angeles. She is said to be a Coptic Christian who at first claimed to an Israeli property magnate with the name Sam Bacile and being funded by “Jewish donors”. This video has been described widely as ‘a trailer’ yet people throughout the Muslim world believe that there is a full length entertainment film, funded by Jewish donors and being screened in American cinemas in movie theatres.
This YouTube video first appears to show a Muslim mob in Egypt trashing a medical clinic with Christians in it while the Egyptian police are standing idly, watching, this scene is arguably the most expensive in the whole movie (Film Blog, 2012). The film then moves to another scene where the life of Muhammad is being insensitively retold with preposterous acting and crude green-staging. People in robes are shown exchanging dialogue and uttering threats. There is also a lot of suspicious dubbing with vile Islamophobic lines such as “Muhammad is our messenger and the Koran is our constitution!”, which do not lip sync with what the actors are saying, raising the question whether they knew of whatever they were saying(Film Blog, 2012).
However, the most disturbing thing is that all the vulgarity and crudeness was all deliberate, it was made to look as propaganda so as to provoke the Muslim world. The film, in the most nauseating and ironic way, proved that a simple video and expression of ideas can be very powerful and actually make a difference. It proves that the internet has become a powerful public space where explosive material can easily be disseminated. It can be compared with yet another viral video, “Kony2012”, which calls for the arrest of the Ugandan war lord Joseph Kony which also caused a worldwide reaction causing its director to suffer from an emotional breakdown (Film Blog, 2012).
In the west, the discussions sparked by this anti-Islam film were centered on the limits of freedom of speech. On the contrary, in the Islamic world, specifically the Republic of Iran, the response was different (CGCS, 2012). People across the political spectrum, religious figures and even civil society leaders have vehemently spoken against the film. The debate has mainly centered on the responsibility of the Western governments for the video with all parties placing blame of varying degrees on the West. For instance, the Iranian Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted as saying “…behind this evil movement are the hostile policies of Zionism, America, and other leaders of the Global Arrogance.” (CGCS, 2012).
The emergence of the internet bore many expectations concerning a possible reconfiguration of public discussions and, more precisely, for a shift towards the flawless participatory design of the public sphere. Seeing as how the internet is an effortlessly available medium with low or no entry obstacles at all, many observers were of the opinion that internet communication would have participatory effects, for example giving actors with few resources, much more easier access to the public as compared to old media such as magazines and newspapers (Jankowski and van Selm, 2000).
The above video serves as a single example of how the internet is a powerful platform for expressing the ideas, thoughts and feelings and being able to rich millions and even billions of people around the world. With the power of the internet, and more specifically the video hosting websites, countries, organizations and even individuals are empowered to cause either a positive or negative impact on the lives of all those who exist in the virtual internet space; the virtual public sphere (Ettema and Whitney 1994)
.
References
Abramson, J.B., F.C. Arterton and G.R. Orren (1988) The Electronic Commonwealth: The
Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics. New York: Basic Books.
Arterton, F.C. (1987) Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Bagdikian, B. (1983) The Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Barlow, J.P. (1995) ‘A Globe, Clothing Itself with a Brain’, Wired 3(6): 108.
Barrett, J. (1996) ‘Killing Time: The New Frontier of Cyberspace Capitalism’, in L.
Strate, R. Jacobson and S.R. Gibson (eds) Communication and Cyberspace, pp. 155–66.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
CGCS, (2012) Media Analysis: Iran’s Reaction to Innocence of Muslims by IranPolitik. Available:
http://cgcsblog.asc.upenn.edu/2012/09/25/media-analysis-irans-reaction-to-innosence-of-muslims-by-iranpolitik/
Counterpower, (2007) http://counterpower.blogspot.com/2008/04/effects-of-youtube-on-society.html
Dewey, J. (1927) The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota E-democracy. Available at: www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_3/dahlberg/index.html#note2
Dreyfus, L. (2004).Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vrs. Commitment in the Present Age. Berkley: University of California. Available: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_kierkegaard.html
Douglas, S.J. (1987) Reinventing American Broadcasting. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Ettema, J.S. and D.C. Whitney (1994) ‘The Money Arrow: An Introduction to
Audiencemaking’, in J.S. Ettema and D.C. Whitney (eds) Audiencemaking, pp. 1–18.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fallows, J. (1996) ‘Why Americans Hate the Media’, The Atlantic Monthly (February) 277
(2): 45–64. (Fallows, 1996)
Film Blog (2012) Sept 7Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/sep/17/innocence-of-muslims-demonstration-film
Habermas, J. (1962/1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of a Bourgeois Society, trans. T. Burger and F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1991) ‘The Public Sphere’, in C. Mukerji and M. Schudson (eds)
Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, pp. 398–404.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hart, R.P. (1994) ‘Easy Citizenship: Television’s Curious Legacy’, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 546: 109–20.
Hill, K.A. and J.E. Hughes (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jankowski, N.W. and M. van Selm (2000) ‘The Promise and Practice of Public Debate
in Cyberspace’, in K. Hacker and J. Van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory
and Practice, pp. 149–65. London: Sage.
Schudson, M. (1997) ‘Why Conversation is Not
