Printer-friendly version

Egypt: Facebook, Twitter, and Old-fashioned Organizing

Egyptian protestors at Tahrir Square

Suzi McClear serves as the IREX Chief of Party for the Egypt Media Development Program. Below she offers her thoughts on the early days of the protests in Egypt, written prior to Mubarak’s resignation.

At church on the morning of January 28, 2011 the pastor joked that “Thanks to the Egyptian government we will not be interrupted by cell phones.” But on that Friday despite the cutoff of Internet, cell phones and SMS messages feeding into Twitter, the largest demonstrations blocked downtown Cairo causing the police to close the square. While phones came back on Saturday (after the demonstrations) Internet and SMS were down for a week. Still, the demonstrations continued to grow daily. Social media may have been the trigger that initially got things going, but the gun was already loaded with social and economic discontent, and once the initial shot was fired, the demonstrations took a life of their own.

A group of demonstrators marched by my flat that Friday and, seeing me on the balcony, invited me down to join them. Word spread in the traditional way -- friends calling on friends, neighbor to neighbor. The faces of the demonstrators in the square also changed since the first days, with a broader spectrum of people, well beyond the Facebook generation. What brought them out?

Social Media – blogs, Facebook and Twitter, initially made the call, but could they have worked without the underlying discontent, and would they have been able to sustain the pressure without more traditional means of, person to person communications? Facebook is credited with igniting the demonstrations, but once started, its presence or absence seemed almost immaterial. The fact that communications could be cut off, adding as much fuel to the fire as their absence, might have impacted things by limiting organization. Whatever their role is, they have been critical in understanding what has been happening since then as they are the principle manner of disseminating information in view of a highly biased, very political “traditional” press.

I went through the demonstrations in Serbia that helped bring down Milosevic ten years ago. There, some independent media were able to get the word out, but an early new media technique called “swarming” worked well, where one person sent an SMS message to five others and asked them to send that message on to five more; the traditional chain letter, before twitter, but aided by mobile phones. Clearly social media had an impact on setting the ball in motion, but so did satellite TV coverage of Tunisia, as well as the traditional social networks that long predate new media.

New media had an impact, but is that impact overstated? Since the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, that is a question being asked by traditional media professionals, sociologists, and politicians.

The Media Development Program is implemented by MSI, Inc. under a contract with the US Agency for International Development. IREX as a subcontractor provides management and media training expertise in new media, journalism skills, and media management.

Photo Source

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Many angles

I look at this revolution through three angles: The first angle is before revolution. The president, his sons, wife, party, interior ministry and media left their tasks aside and began to collect as much money as they can. The Egyptians couldn't bear that corruption and neglicance, so mouths began to open with bitter opinions. The president gave his ear only to his party and his media. The Suez Canal, tourism and oil get Egypt lots of hard currency though the president couldn't provide his peoples with bread. The second angle is while people were protesting. This angle showed how stupid and unwise is the president when he is in critical situation. He made three mistakes: he tried to supress and shut mouths with his teasing short speeches. His party tried to help him with camels, horses and donkies. His security left the square to do damage and unrest to the people's homes. All these made fire get higher. He should have sacked Ahmed Ezz, and many people from his corrupt party. People could have tolerated with him. The third angle is after the resignation. There were some people whose loyalty was to the president not to the people. The minister of defence, the prime minister and some other ministers. They hired bullies to give a message to the people that Mubarak is better. No one in the president's party, his family, his ministers, his media chairmen and editors; none was honest. All has lots of money. They stole milliares of dollars and thousands of lands, tourist villages.....Egypt was under the effect of anaesthetic. Damn you Mubarak. You got us back thirty years. Thanks to the USA and The internet!.

Was it a "Facebook Revolution"?

An interesting analysis by Jeffrey Ghannam of what did (or didn't) cause the upheaval in the Middle East. To move the conversation forward we need to re-consider Marshall McLuhan when he asked if "The Medium is the Message" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR201102...