Comments on: What does the Kyrgyz revolution say about social-media engagement?

By: Role of Twitter in Uprising in Kyrgyzstan (sources) « Communication Desideratum

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:10:04 +0000

[...] Stanchak, J. (2010, April 9). What does the Kyrgyz revolution say about social-media engagement? Message posted to http://smartblogs.com/ [...]

By: jstanchak

jstanchak — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:09:44 +0000

Hey mike — sorry the social media angle troubles you. Morozov has some good points, but I'm Sarah Kendzior on this one. Twitter is important here — it's just important in a very different way than it was in Iran. I think discussions about digital communication (and social media especially) can get caught in an echo chamber, totally divorced from the way those technologies are really used. Looking at these technologies in a real world context isn't meant to be insulting or limiting — just practical.

By: jstanchak

jstanchak — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:04:47 +0000

thanks for commenting. I wasn't arguing that the revolution wasn't important because it wasn't trending — quite the opposite actually. i think twitter focuses too heavily on reaching a mass audience, when it can be just as easily used to deliver important information and development engagement. my point is that you don't need everyone to pay attention, if you can get the right people involved in the discussion.

By: jgraziani

jgraziani — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:31:46 +0000

Thanks, Jesse, for this interesting post. I really don't have any first-hand knowledge of the situation, but from an outsider's point of view, it seems a little elitist to me to say that tweets about Kyrzyg events aren't important because they aren't "trending" on Twitter. What's important is that the people embroiled in the situation think it's important, and they are using Twitter to communicate with one another. I'm not sure how many of my followers are not in the US, but it's OK with me if they don't want to talk about US politics or mine explosions or what's happening in my town. We'll talk about something else. So the answer to your first question is no, it's not less important. But level of importance doesn't always determine placement in western media either. That said though, it's not a level playing field to compare Iran and Kyrgyz either. Iran is more important in the west because of the presence of nuclear weapons, its proximity to two countries currently at war with western nations, and the dread many of us in the west have that Iran could be the site of yet another costly war in the Middle East. All of that makes Iran a headliner for the western media, regardless of what happens on Twitter. My recent post Negative Thinking Creates Negative Talk

By: @mikesgene

@mikesgene — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:28:59 +0000

What a bizarre approach to a major social and political event. Figure out why it didn't trend on Twitter or what was the social media aspect? Talk about wrapped up in a single minded approach to the world. Maybe people were actually out doing something such as watching others being killed, trying to figure out which side to support, or ensuring they had odd things like food or heat.__Twitter simply isn't the be-all and end-all of communication and it simply isn't important to this story. Trying to analyze such an upheaval from a social media aspect verges on insulting to the people living in Kyrgyzstan.__Morozov's final line sums it up "For all the hype about "digital revolutions", "analog revolutions" are still the norm, not the exception." __I might also add , put up your analog hand to be counted and forget a 140 character tweet of support or protest. One means something, the other is well, just Twitter.__