Twittering Iran

So, we follow the tweets. We see the pictures and are disturbed, angered, inspired, hopeful, impressed. We make our profile pictures green in "solidarity."

But, what is the real import of all of this? There are some (really, I'm not making a straw man argument) who say that this sort of thing is just done, really, to make us feel good about ourselves, to play pretend protester from behind a computer screen.

Fair enough. And, as Fareed Zakaria argues (h/t Dan) says, twitter won't mean a whole heckuva lot if the Iranian regime decides to go ahead and mow people down.

There is something qualitatively different, however, about oppression and brutality merely performed and oppression and brutality visible to the world. Would Vietnam have ended at the same time without television and photographic images seen by those back home? Maybe. It's hard to say. Some historian or media studies person could make a better argument about that than I. But, is it really so self-serving and naive to believe that social media broadcasts of protests and oppression can help change the course of events? I get the feeling people hate on twitter b/c it's used for such ridiculous personal posts. But, content does not define a medium. A lot of television is crap. A lot of photography is pornography. Images and records of events, on television and in picture, can be powerful catalysts for change.

I know, I know...easy to type. But, tell it to the guy staring down the muzzle of a machine gun.