Cybershortcuts can shortchange learning
Digital information substitutes virtual reality for the real thing
By Suzanne Fields
The Washington Times
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Internet is the latest tool for compassionate activism. When the sight of Angelina Jolie’s legs goes viral, she magnifies her female celebrity by focusing attention on the miseries of Darfur. She teases and titillates in a celebrity culture and uses her fame for a good cause.
But the Internet is not necessarily the best means for educating the public about injustice. It confuses and deceives as well.
When a remarkable documentary video called “Kony 2012” circulated on Facebook and YouTube, promoted on Twitter by Hollywood celebrities, it drew more than 80 million viewers. Jason Russell, the young filmmaker who made the video, became an instant hero for telling the world about Joseph Kony, a brutal Ugandan warlord who kidnapped unsuspecting children and forced them into prostitution and a children’s army to wreak murder and mayhem.
Instant fame is not always benign. It turns out that Mr. Russell, a co-founder of Invisible Children, an organization trying to find Kony and rescue the children, was not careful with the facts. His video contains errors; its history is outdated; and the African conflicts are dangerously simplified. Kony fled Uganda six years ago and hasn’t been seen there since, and the children’s army is diminished and scattered.
The sloppy research seems aimed at a kindergarten mentality, literally, as the filmmaker uses his son, age 5, to act as a “commentator.” Commercial shortcuts peddling feel-good slogans inscribed on bracelets and splashed on posters protesting the warlord’s evil deeds eventually drew questions about the filmmaker’s finances. He collapsed with a mental breakdown. He was videotaped running naked down a street in San Diego. He was diagnosed with a “reactive psychosis” and put in a hospital.
This is a story reflecting unintended consequences of the digital age run amok. It has farcical and pitiful dimensions of an Internet melodrama rising from undisciplined, unedited, uneducated electronic overload, when there are no responsible gatekeepers to make sense of high-speed information moving swiftly like a racing car without brakes on the digital superhighway. When videos go viral, they command a huge audience, generating a digital din more like barroom babble than serious debate.
The “Kony 2012” phenomenon has lessons for how we absorb and apply information transmitted electronically. The medium is not the message, but an untamed process. Thoughtful analytical engagement gets lost in a frenzy of self-indulgence in the self-absorbed social media. The digital revolution has been hyped as ushering in a utopian world of knowledge that would expand minds with facts faster than the speed of sound and light (and far faster than Superman’s speeding bullet). Cyberprophets promised a future world illuminated by wizardry and magical teaching, as if consummate hand-to-eye coordination could turn John Locke’s tabula rasa into a human encyclopedia.
We’re beginning to discover that computers have limitations, and it’s time to compute that, too. In South Korea, which leads the vanguard of digital education, education thinkers are reconsidering their idea to digitize all traditional textbooks.
“The concern about the digital textbook is that young students won’t have as much time to experience real life and real things,” a school administrator of a pilot digital program in elementary schools in Seoul tells The Washington Post. “They’ll just see the whole world through a computer screen.” Koreans, whose children famously achieve high scores in math and science, have found that 1 in 12 students between the ages of 5 and 9 is so addicted to the Internet that the child suffers depression when access to a computer is withdrawn. Similar findings for Internet addiction among schoolchildren have been cited in the United States, too.
We’ve only scratched the surface of the ways the nature of electronic teaching will change not only what children learn, but how they learn and how that will affect focus, concentration, motivation and memory. Another problem is the way the Internet creates opinions and obsessions while at the same time digital words are easily erased from the screen and knowledge is deleted from the mind. Fleeting feelings disconnect from deeper emotions.
“Kony 2012” exposes one way a video gone viral can do harm and cloud critical understanding. We don’t yet know what will follow in its wake, but we should be paying scrupulous attention to what the electronic media is telling us. What we need to see is not necessarily what’s in front of our eyes.
Suzanne Fields is a syndicated columnist.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
George Clooney testifying before the US Senate
earlier this month that the Sudanese government is launching repeated
and unlawful attacks on unarmed civilians (and then getting arrested
outside the Sudanese embassy while protesting in Washington).
By Lauren Comiteau, Hilversum
Angelina Jolie in the public gallery of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as its first ever verdict—against former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga—is being handed down.
And of course, P Diddy, Rihanna and Oprah twittering Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony into the social media stratosphere by re-tweeting the Kony 2012 film.
What is it with superstars and war crimes? Do they deserve all the bad press they get, or do they genuinely help draw attention to under-reported conflicts?
“ Yes, it’s a general rule,” says Charlie Kaye, Executive Producer for Radio with the mainstream American broadcaster CBS. He cites Clooney’s focus on South Sudan as the best recent example of star wattage shining the light on often neglected issues. “It forced news organizations to address issues that wouldn’t normally get time.”
And he means the issues—not just the arm candy du jour. “I don’t know how you can write about what he did without offering the background.”
Like flies to a cowpat
It is exactly the kind of publicity that stars attract that has NGOs vying for their support. “Clooney says when he travels the cameras follow him, that he can’t get away from the cameras. But many of the people who are in most need of attention, no matter what they do, they can’t get the attention of the news,” says Jonathan Hutson, Director of Communications of the Enough Project, which Clooney supports. (The project aims to end genocide and crimes against humanity.)
“So his idea is to simply go where people are facing human rights crimes and drag the cameras and microphones behind him in his wake,” says Hutson.
But critics of the star phenomenon say it’s not only the equipment being dragged through the mud, but the facts. “The problem with Clooney in Sudan is he was [in his Save Darfur campaign] saying everywhere that genocide was being committed, while it’s the ICC prosecutor who has to prove that genocide occurred in Sudan, and it is the role of judges to say that something really happened--not celebrities,” says one graduate student in international humanitarian law who comes from Rwanda and doesn’t want to be named. “Celebrities misrepresent the facts. And they contribute to what we call victor’s justice. That’s a very big problem with these trials—they’re considered victor’s justice back home.”
VIP seats
When Angelina Jolie turned up in the public gallery of the ICC to hear its first-ever verdict against former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, her appearance generated an unusually high volume of traffic on RNW's international justice FB page, Helen Park: “Why would the OTP [Office of the Prosecutor] talk about her before even talking about the case itself?” She was referring to the first press release put out by prosecutors following the verdict—announcing Jolie’s appearance in court.
While the OTP didn’t respond to repeated requests from RNW about why they announced Jolie’s appearance in court before reacting to the verdict itself, it is clear that the court welcomes the attention that follows in the star’s wake.
“If it helps give more attention to the victims and crimes, then there’s no reason to be against it,” says ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah on Jolie’s appearance in the public gallery. Jolie is indeed a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN, and the court neither paid for her appearance nor publicised it beforehand.
“The problem with her presence is that this case is about Lubanga and the Congolese. How many Congolese mothers were in the public gallery?” asks the Rwandan legal student. “She has a right to be there. But Congolese people should have been given the first role, not her.”
Media Justice Complex
But ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is a clear supporter of celebrity endorsements for his court. Besides several public appearances with Jolie, Moreno-Ocampo appears in the Kony 2012 film—an effort he whole-heartedly supports and which he has said “mobilised the world.”
Joseph Kony is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity for using child soldiers in his Ugandan guerrilla group, the Lord’s Resistance Army. To date, the Kony 2012 video made by Invisible Children, whose goal is to get Kony to the ICC to stand trial, has been viewed more than 85,000,000 times on YouTube, despite coming under criticism for both its accuracy and financing.
But many people in Uganda found the film patronizing. “The problem is with the victims,” says the Rwandan student of international humanitarian law. “In the Kony case, the victims in Uganda say everything that Invisible Children did is not representative of their suffering. So why do it, if the people who you say you represent don’t even relate to what you’re doing?”
But accurate or not, the film’s impact — largely started by celebrity re-tweets - is undeniable. After its star turn on YouTube and Twitter, says CBS’ Charlie Kaye, the broadcaster had no choice but to cover it. “Twitter is helping drive the news agenda these days,” says Kaye. “There’s a delicate balance between what people need to know and what they want to know, with celebrities falling in the want to know category.”
Diamonds are for courtrooms
Take the case of supermodel Naomi Campbell. Reluctant to appear in court, she was subpoenaed to testify at the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor for allegedly taking a gift of blood diamonds from him. Although she claimed she didn’t know what the “dirty-looking stones” were, her appearance in court (made to contradict Taylor’s own testimony that he never possessed uncut diamonds except as jewelry) brought with it satellite trucks and hordes of journalists.
It gave the trial unprecedented attention if only for a few days in the summer of 2010. Journalists conveniently hung around for the following witnesses—actress Mia Farrow and Campbell’s former modeling agent Carole White, who both contradicted Campbell’s testimony.
Solomon Moriba, the Press and Outreach Officer for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, says Campbell wasn’t used to give the court celebrity status and her appearance never led to further funding. But, he says, “I can’t dispute the facts, the media attention was there. People who hadn’t been in court before, like celebrity bloggers, came.” Still, he says she was a witness like any other—“the people who lost loved ones and limbs, those who were raped or sexually violated. They all came to explain their ordeals and contribute to the judicial process.”
Rays of light
While Campbell received more coverage than most of those victims Moriba refers to, star wattage is sometimes converted into real action. "It's rare that we have literally millions of Americans calling for more engagement in Africa," said Senator Chris Coons, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on African Affairs, following the Kony 2012 film. Similarly, the African Union pledged 5,000 troops in South Sudan to help track the fugitive Kony down in the wake of the viral video.
Lisa Ann Richey, author of “Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World”, says stars’ involvement in causes or court cases can indeed have a wider impact. “Maybe people who didn’t know anything about Africa or the history of Sudan would then, for whatever reason they were attracted by George Clooney, start to look into more detail and educate themselves on these issues.”
Even if celebrities’ motives are sometimes suspect, in the end, it may not really matter. People do the right things for the wrong reasons all the time. And maybe sometimes, that’s good enough.
Thursday 29 March
RNW - NEWS AND ANALYSIS FROM THE
NETHERLANDS IN 10 LANGUAGES, WORLDWIDE 24/7 ON RADIO, TV AND ONLINE
Stop the genocide, I'm famous
Published on : 28 March 2012 - 3:00pm | By Lauren Comiteau (Photo: ANP)By Lauren Comiteau, Hilversum
Angelina Jolie in the public gallery of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as its first ever verdict—against former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga—is being handed down.
And of course, P Diddy, Rihanna and Oprah twittering Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony into the social media stratosphere by re-tweeting the Kony 2012 film.
What is it with superstars and war crimes? Do they deserve all the bad press they get, or do they genuinely help draw attention to under-reported conflicts?
“ Yes, it’s a general rule,” says Charlie Kaye, Executive Producer for Radio with the mainstream American broadcaster CBS. He cites Clooney’s focus on South Sudan as the best recent example of star wattage shining the light on often neglected issues. “It forced news organizations to address issues that wouldn’t normally get time.”
And he means the issues—not just the arm candy du jour. “I don’t know how you can write about what he did without offering the background.”
Like flies to a cowpat
It is exactly the kind of publicity that stars attract that has NGOs vying for their support. “Clooney says when he travels the cameras follow him, that he can’t get away from the cameras. But many of the people who are in most need of attention, no matter what they do, they can’t get the attention of the news,” says Jonathan Hutson, Director of Communications of the Enough Project, which Clooney supports. (The project aims to end genocide and crimes against humanity.)
“So his idea is to simply go where people are facing human rights crimes and drag the cameras and microphones behind him in his wake,” says Hutson.
But critics of the star phenomenon say it’s not only the equipment being dragged through the mud, but the facts. “The problem with Clooney in Sudan is he was [in his Save Darfur campaign] saying everywhere that genocide was being committed, while it’s the ICC prosecutor who has to prove that genocide occurred in Sudan, and it is the role of judges to say that something really happened--not celebrities,” says one graduate student in international humanitarian law who comes from Rwanda and doesn’t want to be named. “Celebrities misrepresent the facts. And they contribute to what we call victor’s justice. That’s a very big problem with these trials—they’re considered victor’s justice back home.”
VIP seats
When Angelina Jolie turned up in the public gallery of the ICC to hear its first-ever verdict against former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, her appearance generated an unusually high volume of traffic on RNW's international justice FB page, Helen Park: “Why would the OTP [Office of the Prosecutor] talk about her before even talking about the case itself?” She was referring to the first press release put out by prosecutors following the verdict—announcing Jolie’s appearance in court.
While the OTP didn’t respond to repeated requests from RNW about why they announced Jolie’s appearance in court before reacting to the verdict itself, it is clear that the court welcomes the attention that follows in the star’s wake.
“If it helps give more attention to the victims and crimes, then there’s no reason to be against it,” says ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah on Jolie’s appearance in the public gallery. Jolie is indeed a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN, and the court neither paid for her appearance nor publicised it beforehand.
“The problem with her presence is that this case is about Lubanga and the Congolese. How many Congolese mothers were in the public gallery?” asks the Rwandan legal student. “She has a right to be there. But Congolese people should have been given the first role, not her.”
Media Justice Complex
But ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is a clear supporter of celebrity endorsements for his court. Besides several public appearances with Jolie, Moreno-Ocampo appears in the Kony 2012 film—an effort he whole-heartedly supports and which he has said “mobilised the world.”
Joseph Kony is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity for using child soldiers in his Ugandan guerrilla group, the Lord’s Resistance Army. To date, the Kony 2012 video made by Invisible Children, whose goal is to get Kony to the ICC to stand trial, has been viewed more than 85,000,000 times on YouTube, despite coming under criticism for both its accuracy and financing.
But many people in Uganda found the film patronizing. “The problem is with the victims,” says the Rwandan student of international humanitarian law. “In the Kony case, the victims in Uganda say everything that Invisible Children did is not representative of their suffering. So why do it, if the people who you say you represent don’t even relate to what you’re doing?”
But accurate or not, the film’s impact — largely started by celebrity re-tweets - is undeniable. After its star turn on YouTube and Twitter, says CBS’ Charlie Kaye, the broadcaster had no choice but to cover it. “Twitter is helping drive the news agenda these days,” says Kaye. “There’s a delicate balance between what people need to know and what they want to know, with celebrities falling in the want to know category.”
Diamonds are for courtrooms
Take the case of supermodel Naomi Campbell. Reluctant to appear in court, she was subpoenaed to testify at the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor for allegedly taking a gift of blood diamonds from him. Although she claimed she didn’t know what the “dirty-looking stones” were, her appearance in court (made to contradict Taylor’s own testimony that he never possessed uncut diamonds except as jewelry) brought with it satellite trucks and hordes of journalists.
It gave the trial unprecedented attention if only for a few days in the summer of 2010. Journalists conveniently hung around for the following witnesses—actress Mia Farrow and Campbell’s former modeling agent Carole White, who both contradicted Campbell’s testimony.
Solomon Moriba, the Press and Outreach Officer for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, says Campbell wasn’t used to give the court celebrity status and her appearance never led to further funding. But, he says, “I can’t dispute the facts, the media attention was there. People who hadn’t been in court before, like celebrity bloggers, came.” Still, he says she was a witness like any other—“the people who lost loved ones and limbs, those who were raped or sexually violated. They all came to explain their ordeals and contribute to the judicial process.”
Rays of light
While Campbell received more coverage than most of those victims Moriba refers to, star wattage is sometimes converted into real action. "It's rare that we have literally millions of Americans calling for more engagement in Africa," said Senator Chris Coons, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on African Affairs, following the Kony 2012 film. Similarly, the African Union pledged 5,000 troops in South Sudan to help track the fugitive Kony down in the wake of the viral video.
Lisa Ann Richey, author of “Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World”, says stars’ involvement in causes or court cases can indeed have a wider impact. “Maybe people who didn’t know anything about Africa or the history of Sudan would then, for whatever reason they were attracted by George Clooney, start to look into more detail and educate themselves on these issues.”
Even if celebrities’ motives are sometimes suspect, in the end, it may not really matter. People do the right things for the wrong reasons all the time. And maybe sometimes, that’s good enough.
