Facts & News
Overflight on the many controversies that accompanied the publication of the Youtube video "Kony 2012" . I share them, in fact, almost all , and there is no need to return upwards. But I find that it makes sense to wonder about some trends that the success of this viral video highlights - 100 million clicks are a joke! - And that, in my humble opinion, I think are not only unavoidable but forcing journalism today to question on what is today the news, and how should be treated. Let's go point by point:
1) Before the advent of the Net participatory and social networks, to establish the 'agenda of the world were in short: the various institutions - governments et similaria - and the big news agencies based in the dominant countries. With the result that a number of news and events - wars "forget" to child labor through child soldiers, just to mention a few - did not have any access to the mainstream media and warmed up at the heart of the willing, committed in campaigns that, not surprisingly, they were called counter-intelligence. Today, fortunately, it is no longer so. Web 2.0 and social networks in fact act as "accelerators of political and social crises." And 'the case of' Uganda and the Kony 2012 video, posted by a simple NGO (although powerful and well intrallazzata); but the discussion could apply to many, recent media campaigns, which have focused precisely on the I Like and Share, click after click but managed to break through in the public opinion much better than they can do the traditional media; which, indeed, have been forced to take the news . I exaggerate a bit ', perhaps, but I think that the agenda of the world is no longer dictated manner strictly mainstream, and it is made permeable to heterogeneous forces, even from below, that change themes and priorities, ensuring greater pluralism and then a higher rate of participation. That is good. Or am I wrong?
2) As it happens, however, in these cases, not all that glitters is gold. And it is always the example of Kony 2012 to prove it. Established fact that through the Network for Participatory there is any possibility of an impact on the 'agenda setting matters, a whole range of subjects opaque who put home on Web 2.0 - that is, those who are in the pay of an interest or an' ideology - try every day to muddy the waters with photos, video and well-orchestrated campaigns - whose narrative is always attractive - to win support for his cause. It 'a battle without rules, where it is not easy to defend, because very often a web user does not have the tools to decode the messages that are transmitted. It 'been so for the mass graves in Libya, for the story of Amina, the fake Syrian blogger, and many other events, which have populated the web, in recent years, collecting thousands of clicks while being a sham, or more less obvious.
3) It is up to us, professionals, make a difference. Ie filter and separate the true from the false, the real news from propagnada or hustler. To do that, the good will is not enough: it serves an information system that is less subservient to the rules of marketing and more anchored to the rules of good journalism. But time does not seem ripe.