There’s a very good analysis of Israel’s use of social media in its Gaza media operation here. The main point, that never ceases to be lost in practice, is that if you use a social media platform as a communications tool (or a weapon), it should be appropriate to the task.
Israel’s use of Twitter to hold a press conference is a case in point:
Just because a government has access to the hammer of Twitter and YouTube, doesn’t mean that every situation that arises should be viewed as a nail. If you’re going to tweet, you have to make sure to do it right.
Holding a press conference via Twitter is inappropriate because first, it uses what is normally a highly interactive, conversational, and ethereal medium as a message vehicle within a controlled time frame, and second, it eliminates all possibility of nuance in a highly complex situation. It would have been far more effective to use Twitter for brief updates about the crisis, and responses to short requests for clarifications.
The Israeli Consulate could have then conducted their press conference via YouTube to address the public in a more personal manner, both by making a formal statement and responding to queries submitted via Twitter or YouTube. In this way they could have taken advantages of the strengths of the different platforms, respected the media culture of their intended publics, and also maximize the impact of their message without appearing condescending or out of place.
++FURTHER READING++
War 2.0: The 24/7 English news channel front
War 2.0: ‘Neutral’ observers, Blogs and SMS alerts
War 2.0: Israel’s post-journalism campaign in Gaza
War 2.0: Citizens, Soldiers and Spokesmen
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree that the use of social media on this occasion seemed bizarre as it offered nothing of real value to users of Twitter. In the Guardian Rachel Shabi argued Israel propoganda “tightly coordinated key messages and worked on so many levels – mainstream media as well as diplomatic channels, friendship leagues, YouTube, Twitter and the blogosphere – that the effect was epidemic.” But this to me seems nothing more than the result of journalistic fascination with ‘new media’ being used in unusual ways. I think she underplays the part played by Israel’s banning of foreign journalists, surely that contributed significantly to unbalanced reporting?
And, as you teach us at City, I thought I would add a link to the account itself. You know, those pesky sources!
I agree about Rachel Shabi’s piece, Michael. But your link is dead.