get up, stand up: how social media is changing the way we campaign

What with the access to audiences of thousands, even millions, of users, social media is in theory the perfect tool for social activists. Anyone can get involved in a campaign with the touch of a button, the only prerequisite being the possession of a smartphone. Where once protest movements were, to a degree, limited in their outreach by distance and means, protest movements can now reach almost anyone, anywhere and at any time. In the past, campaigners relied on public pickets, posting flyers, radio or television interviews – anything that would get them noticed – though they can now take to platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, where a revolution is born in the palm of a hand.

Information can be passed extremely quickly, not only making it much easier to get a movement off the ground but also to then organize and manage it. Sociologists have identified the 4 stages in the life cycle of a protest movement, those being emergence, coalescence, bureaucratization and decline. It is not difficult to make the connection between social media and the first two; thanks to the diversity and scope of such platforms, it is easier than ever to find people with similar views and political motivations with whom one can show solidarity on the streets or online.

A crucial advantage of social media platforms over more traditional campaigning methods is the wide range of different medias they carry. One of the reasons for the success of the American civil rights movement in the 1950s is the rise in popularity of television, allowing many in the North to see footage of the violence of the white authorities as they tried to quell demonstrations in Selma, Alabama and elsewhere. The ability to utilize film or audio carries huge advantages in that it makes a movement more personal and emotionally engaging on a deeper level than mere hearsay. Video or audio recordings act as a kind or proof, much like the civil rights footage; it becomes impossible to dismiss news stories as overblown sensationalism when there was concrete evidence that the police were using water cannons and beating peaceful protesters to the ground. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in a speech, “We will no longer let them use their clubs on us in the dark corners. We’re going to make them do it in the glaring light of television.”

selma
Spider Martin’s Two Minute Warning

If this was the case in the 50s with television, then, it isn’t difficult to imagine the scope we have now in an age where almost everyone carries a smartphone with them and can capture and upload to social media any footage that might aid a protest movement. The video of a Black Lives Matter campaigner who was arrested seemingly without cause while talking police went viral across the Internet. In recent weeks, the debate about gun control laws in the US has been ongoing, the principal young campaigners using their social media accounts as ways to mobilize and engage their support network as well as counter the opposition.

It is worth taking these successes with a pinch of salt, however, as while social media can be an excellent tool, it also has the potential to be a movement’s downfall. Though a cause might initially gain a lot of support, it is so easily lost, many fading into obscurity after a movement has had its ‘moment’. The #Kony2012 campaign that took social media by storm – while in some ways greatly successful – was heavily criticized on a number of counts but notably for fueling, as Kate Dailey for the BBC puts it, “the idea, however misguided, that the social media generation has the opportunity to change the world with the click of a mouse”. It becomes very easy to sink into complacency as the abundance of hashtags and online pledges of support may make it seem like more is being done then it actually is. With social media being such a free, open space, it carries the potential to also hurt a campaign; followers can post whatever they want, potentially to the detriment of the campaign’s reputation. Online bullying and mindless Twitter rants, for example, can hardly be said to cast a movement in a favorable light. As we saw earlier with the 4 stages of a protest movement, poor use of social media could contribute to a decline, social media movements particularly prone to factionalism and internal conflict.

When a movement relies solely on likes, shares, or hashtags it is ultimately at the mercy of social media users and however long their attention span is, making it essential that it goes hand-in-hand with additional action. Matt Collins puts it well in an article for The Guardian, asserting that:

“Selfies and hashtags are unlikely to lead to social change on their own – only real governmental pressure and action can do that. But world governments listen, and act, when enough people speak. Social media is the most shareable, durable and global collection of voices the world has ever seen, one which is increasingly difficult to ignore.”

Social media being a phenomenon that is constantly evolving, it is almost impossible to make predictions with any degree of certainty as to their impact on current events, however they appear to have profoundly affected the stage on which world events play out. Social media can be an incredible tool with the power to make or break the success of any social movement with the caveat, though, that they are used intelligently.

Advertisements

International Women’s Day

The end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018 have undeniably heralded a pivotal moment for the international women’s movement. What with the recent sexual harassment scandals involving key figures such as the American film producer Harvey Weinstein and sports coach to the stars Larry Nassar, the world is gradually waking up to the everyday injustices faced by women. What these high-profile cases demonstrate is that even women in positions where we might consider them to be, to a certain degree, untouchable are affected by the suffocating embrace of a society based on patriarchal values.

In recent months, the world has borne witness to the emergence of popular social media hashtags such as #TimesUp and #MeToo that aim to promote female solidarity in the face of aggressive misogyny, particularly in the workplace where men in positions of power are able to take advantage of their more vulnerable female colleagues. In 2017, hundreds of accusations of sexual harassment and assault were leveled against the film production giant Harvey Weinstein, sending shock waves throughout the Hollywood industry. In sport, Larry Nassar has been accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of female athletes, many of them underage, with more than 265 women testifying to that effect. Even the U.S. president Donald Trump has been branded a misogynist due to his consistently offensive and inflammatory comments about women dating back to the 1980s. Some have compiled them to exhibit them in a way that demonstrates just how alarming his attitude towards the Second Sex actually is and how his hostility towards women goes far beyond his “grab ’em by the pussy” interview, most commonly undermining a woman’s political or professional capability and giving his unsolicited opinions on her appearance.

weinstein.jpg
The alleged victims of film producer Harvey Weinstein

Despite these scandals, however, the women’s movement has undeniably made significant progress, noticeably in the UK and the US among other countries that should not be overlooked. We have reached a key turning point where women’s voices are increasingly being made to matter as the Weinstein case only serves to demonstrate. Where these same victimized women would previously advised to remain silent, they are encouraged to speak up, slowly challenging and dismantling the crippling attitude of the past. Nowadays, there is more of a zero-tolerance policy to unacceptable behavior, crucially manifesting itself in the way that women are able to identify and challenge discriminatory behavior. What once might have been dismissed as par for the course, in line with the philosophy of ‘boys will be boys’, is being treated with the urgency and severity it truly merits, which indicates a profound cultural shift in our perception of what is means to be female. We, as women, have intrinsic value and agency which should be reflected in all areas of our personal and professional lives, many now prepared to publicly name and shame those who seem not to have got the memo. Since then, we have seen what has been termed the ‘Weinstein Effect’, with many more cases of similar misconduct coming to light after the landmark case opened the jar to a giant can of worms.

While this loosening of tongues is clearly a step in the right direction, it has some unpleasant side-effects, the principal one being that it shatters the comfortable illusion that feminism is becoming unnecessary, even obsolete in a society that pays lip-service to equality. All of these horrific and disturbing cases shine the spotlight on what we’d rather not see or acknowledge, that being the unsolved problem of gender inequality. In January, it emerged that a men-only event took place in London hosted at the President’s Club, dubbed “the most un-PC night of the year”. Hostesses were required to wear tight-fitting black dresses and heels to cater to powerful male businessmen, many of whom were accused of inappropriate behavior towards the women present. The flurry of news stories that came afterwards were shocking, many incredulous that this type of behavior and culture are still around in 2018, though should we really be so surprised? To look on the bright side, however, while the event itself shows how long the journey ahead still is, the public outcry that succeeded it shows just how far we have come.

Now, the conversation needs to translate into the lives of everyday women. So far, the debate has arguably been dominated by a select group, namely wealthy white Western women who, while they may be doing great work, are not representative in any way of all women and the huge variety of difficulties that they face. It will take much more than a privileged few who have little to lose donning expensive and glamorous black gowns and tweeting a few hashtags to really change things. We need to recognize the vital importance of intersectional feminism as it is the only way to truly support and further the interests of all women, particularly across racial and gender divides. The actress Rose McGowan, for example, has recently been criticized for failing to acknowledge this diversity of experience, a classic case of denying the problem exists if it doesn’t exist for her, though it most certainly does. White women, for instance, have benefited most from affirmative action, the playing field far from level for women of color. Liv Little, the founder and editor in chief of gal-dem magazine puts it well in a Guardian article, asserting that:

“We need to start by trying to empower the women with the biggest number of intersections, rather than white, middle-class women, who probably have the fewest gaps when it comes to their opportunities versus those of white men. We need to do better when it comes to the inclusion of trans women’s experiences and those of women who are not cis and able-bodied.”

 So far, the spotlight has been on a select number taking to social media and other campaigning platforms, though this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Guardian shines light on standout cases around the world, with Spanish women going on strike for the day to mark International Women’s Day. Hundreds of South Korean women are taking to the streets wearing black to support the #MeToo movement in Seoul. Thousands of female aid workers across the world have composed an open letter to push for reform in the sector.

So, this International Women’s day, while we should recognize and be proud of the progress that has and is being made, we must also acknowledge that there is still a long way to go. It would be utterly premature to pat ourselves on the back as there are still still formidable obstacles for ordinary women to overcome across intersections such as race, class, sexual orientation and gender identity. While things might have improved for a portion of the population, there are still many for whom this apparent progress is still not being felt. Today should be a celebration of all women and of how far we’ve come, but also a reminder that there is still a hell of a lot to push on with.

charities: a time to rethink?

It’s no secret that charities have gained a bad reputation in the wake of the countless scandals that fill newspapers and dominate radio headlines; household names have been dragged through the mud and doubt sewn into the minds of donors. Despite these instances of appalling behavior, though, we should treat this as an opportunity to reconsider our attitude towards charity in order to make our ongoing support as meaningful and worthwhile as it can possibly be. In 2016, The Guardian published an article on how trust in charities has been declining slowly but surely, with 33% of people blaming media coverage of recent scandals as the reason for this apparent trend. Figures like these are likely to be even more stark a year on will all of the recent, high-profile scandals that have been rigorously covered by news outlets, Alice Ross of the Financial Times warning that donors, particularly big ones, will be much more wary of donating in future.

Over time, there have been countless examples of misconduct in the charity sector, though these last few years seem to be the worst yet. Oxfam, for example, has been embroiled in a sex scandal that emerged from 2011 which took place in Haiti, where aid workers allegedly used sex workers (some potentially underage) while working on the ground. Save The Children, the international NGO promoting children’s rights, has also been in the media firing line after it was revealed that its chief executive – as well as the husband of the murdered MP Joe Cox – harassed his female employees whose concerns were not addressed with the appropriate scrutiny and respect. In 2016, The Wounded Warrior Project, a foundation that aims to help ex-combatants recover after service was accused of “spending lavishly on itself”, directing funds towards luxuries like expensive hotel rooms and business class flights rather than its service users.

charity1

Scandals such as these happen everywhere and in almost any organization, though while there may be a measure of outrage following exposed tax evasion or fraud, such as that of Starbucks for instance, it is not nearly as long-lasting or damaging as the fallout from a charity scandal. In these cases, we are far less forgiving, which may say something about how we imagine a charity to be. In the minds of many, charities are purely do-gooding institutions that not only make the world a better place but also make us feel better about ourselves. When charities we support are involved in questionable or downright immoral behavior, we feel betrayed and experience a loss of the trust we put in them when we decided to hand over our credit cards details. To add insult to injury, many find it embarrassing when they have publicly donated to a ‘good’ cause only to be told that their contribution went to nothing or, worse still, that it funded bad behavior at the expense of people in need.

Perhaps, then, the reason why charity scandals are so abhorrent in particular is because of the way in which we think about these organizations and about ourselves when we give. Giving to charity is an easy way of assuaging a guilty conscience, an example being the thousands of people who donate to homelessness charities after passing a rough sleeper. The psychology of charity is extremely complex, research featured in the New York Times indicating that there is not one motivating factor but many when we donate, ranging from pure altruism (if that exists) to self-interest. If there’s one thing we might salvage from these charity scandals it is that they have forced us to consider why and how we give as well as who to and how our money is being used. writes for the Guardian on how giving to charity has a similar effect in the brain to taking addictive drugs such as cocaine, neatly putting it “Charity can get you high”. If anything, it is charity scandals that threaten to kill our buzz.

One way of thinking about positive charitable giving might be to think if it as a relationship between two people. If one was experiencing difficult times, the other – if they are a true friend – should try to support them and to enable them to overcome or adequately cope with the hardship while allowing them to retain a degree of independence and dignity. Clearly, this is preferable to a relationship of unequals where one party is dependent on the other, who is only committed to giving just enough, the bare minimum. In Mighty Be Our Powers, the autobiography of the leader of the Liberian women’s movement for peace, Leymah Gbowee has some interesting things to say about giving aid, arguing that organizations must work with the people affected or the service users as, quite obviously, they know that will work or what won’t and where funds really need to be channeled. In her words:

“Most of the institutions that come in to offer help after disaster don’t have the resources to provide concrete help like that. Donor communities invest billions funding peace talks and disarmament. Then they stop. The most important postwar help is missing…You’d think the international community would be sensible enough to know they should work to change this. But they aren’t.”

As we see so often, charitable causes are reduced to hashtags and one-off donations during its five minutes of fame. In 2012, for example, my Facebook feed was full of support for victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army and cries for Joseph Kony to be brought to justice for his atrocious crimes. Tellingly, the hunt only ended last year, 5 years after the media storm took off, though you’d hardly know as the cause had long ceased to be ‘fashionable’, a scandal in itself.

Charity scandals, while not all alike, shatter the illusion that these organizations can do no wrong and provide opportunities to reconsider what they need to be about. What is becoming increasingly clear is that these organizations must work with the affected people to be as meaningful as possible and fully realize their potential for doing good. Service users must be able to make informed choices about the help or support they receive and be able to meaningfully contribute to the decision-making process. It is these people who best know the scale of the issue, how outside help fits in and how they might best be supported . Now, in many organization mission statements is a declaration of the intention to work alongside those affected, such as that of the Refugee Council, for example, who claim that “We[they] work with refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK…We offer a helping hand to support and empower them to rebuild their lives”, the key words being “support” and “empower”.

Giving to charity can be a wonderfully positive and fulfilling enterprise though, like everything else, should be undergone with serious thought and reflection. There are many organizations doing excellent work which we should be funding to further empower their continuation. Really, then, we should do proper research and take time to reflect before we thoughtlessly donate and ask ourselves the difficult questions before we hit the ‘pay’ button and then share our ‘generosity’ on our social media feeds.

 

 

 

a culture of oversharing

What with the internet and social media, the society we are currently living in nurses a culture of oversharing. We now share everything, including our bodies, tastes, habits and histories; nothing really is taboo. Without a second thought, we let those we know, our ‘friends’ or followers, what we’re reading, eating, where we’re going and what we’re buying. At face value, this may seem harmless though there is plainly a sinister undercurrent to this seemingly innocuous habit.

More and more, we offer up our personal information to be consumed by others, the essence of the issue lying in the fact that all of our actions have become performative and about marketing, be it a service, product or most often ourselves. Though this fascination with the intimate details of people’s lives is nothing new, this “narcissism epidemic”, as The Guardian refers to it, can be traced to the rise in popularity of reality TV, from shows like The Real World to Big Brother to Keeping Up With The Kardashians which glamorized the minutae of the everyday and gave audiences a taste for ever more in-depth access to peoples’ lives.

oversharing1
Source

Effectively, sharing everything about ourselves on social media creates a ‘cult of the self’ where the ordinary and banal is made exciting with the automatic assumption that others are interested to hear about it. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, I see incredibly personal posts about chronic illnesses, people opening up about their sexuality and generally filling us in on almost everything, even what they had for lunch. Though there are undeniably positive aspects to this honest direct approach to sharing, my first impression is that it indicates a fundamental insecurity, a fragility where we look outwards for affirmation and approval rather than inwards.

This apparent self-confidence actually masquerades as insecurity as we are totally dependent on others in how we see ourselves. Though we might share some good news that we are excited about, such as a pregnancy or a promotion at work, by putting it on social media we are also seeking approval from our audiences. So often is it the case that someone will share a photo of themselves that they feel confident about, only to remove it days later because it hasn’t accumulated the right amount of likes to justify its being on their profile. The phenomenon is entirely different to self-love as rather than looking inwards and being content with oneself one must look outwards to achieve a similar degree of satisfaction.

Earlier this month, Anna Freedman wrote an interesting piece for Dazed and Confused magazine about the Kylie Jenner’s decision to delay releasing news of her pregnancy until after the birth of her daughter Stormi. Freedman writes of how the young woman’s decision was “a masterclass in how to publicly strategise the private and intimate phenomenon of motherhood”. Much like the oversharing that has proved so profitable for her family, Kylie Jenner has now shown how “privacy and intimacy can be employed as skillful marketing tactics”. Even privacy is now a marketing tool, though it is important to remember that this ‘privacy’ swiftly came to an end after the birth when an 11 minute video was shared chronicling her journey through pregnancy to mollify fans who felt they had been kept in the dark. Kylie Jenner is only one of many who have shown that online performance now knows no bounds, promoting the idea that the key to success lies in the ‘share’ button.

Like all things, though, it’s not all bad; undeniably, there are some positives to this direct approach to social media. Things that were once taboo, such as medical or mental health conditions, for example, are more widely discussed. Similarly, sharing platforms can be used to find like-minded people or those that you identify with, the internet often acting as a space for marginalized groups, such as the LGBT community, to come together. We are becoming more and more confident with expressing ourselves and, in this way, wearing our hearts on our sleeve, though while this approach may be direct it is not necessarily honest. Though we might share a lot about ourselves, we share carefully and choose exactly what we want people to know or to see to align with how we want to be perceived.

In sharing intimate details of our everyday lives, it is no surprise that studies show that narcissistic traits are becoming more common and more pronounced, particularly among young people who are the principal users of these sharing platforms.

Source

The graph shows the Narcissistic Personality Inventory score set against the year, gleaned from an online self-test, it being clear that there has been a definite rise in narcissistic traits in recent years. This trend is clearly only likely to continue in a society that tells us that everything we do is fascinating and that everyone would like to hear about it. Zoe Williams again puts it well writing for The Guardian as she sums up the belief as “once you are important enough, nothing is mundane”. In sharing everything about our lives, we are hoping – consciously or not – to obtain some kind of approval or reassurance about ourselves that is undoubtedly a hugely unhealthy habit. TIME magazine recently ran an article that links poor mental health to social media usage, particularly of Instagram, accounting for higher levels of depression and anxiety based on poor self-esteem. When we log in to our social media accounts, we are bombarded with stories of our friends going out or on holiday, news of their successes and photos showing just how attractive they are, inevitably leading to negative comparison making about ourselves.

So much of this oversharing is borne out of the need to market oneself – so telling about the society that we live in. Nowadays, the individual is king, a philosophy that breeds the need to market oneself to succeed. According to Jean Twenge, joint author of The Narcissism Epidemic, “Economic prosperity does seem to be linked to individualism” partly explaining the boom in sales of products marketed and advertised over social media and sharing platforms, particularly Facebook, Instagram and Youtube. On sites such as these, people become a highly lucrative brand, the Kardashian sisters evidently a case in point. On Friday, he BBC reported that Kylie Jenner’s decision to tweet that she no longer uses Snapchat regularly “wiped $1.3bn (£1bn) off Snap’s stock market value”, an indication of how interlinked the personal and financial are in our heavily digitized modern society. Zoe Williams writes insightfully of how the careful curation of our social media accounts creates “a competitive culture in which asserting one’s difference, one’s specialness, is the bare minimum for being market-ready.”

Oversharing and self-branding is now an ingrained a part of our everyday, bleeding into our all aspects of our lives including our personal relationships and work life; suffice it to say, it is difficult to know how to adopt healthy digital habits that preserve and promote mental well-being for the future. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, recently announced that the site would be working to prioritize “more meaningful social interactions” over paid-content like media articles or advertising as “We[they] feel a responsibility to make sure our services aren’t just fun to use, but also good for people’s well-being”. TIME mentions a report on social media usage conducted by the UK’s Royal Society for Public Health which “recommends the introduction of a pop-up “heavy usage” warning within these apps or website” which seems to have considerable popular support.

Regrettably, neither of these proposed solutions adequately seem to tackle the multifaceted and vastly complex underlying issue, though this is hardly surprising. Perhaps, along with policy changes and the actions of major corporations and civic bodies, it will really take the will of the people who use these platforms for any meaningful change to take place. Maybe rather than living our lives as open books, privacy might replace oversharing as the new social media trend, as unlikely as the prospect may seem. With all this uncertainty, it seems that all we can really do is think before we share and wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

the filth of ‘clean’ eating

The other day, I was stacking shelves where I work and was shocked at the conversation I overheard between two young girls popping in for a post-workout snack which went something like this: “I want to buy something healthy – what about these gluten-free dairy-free brownies? Or the vegan wheat-free flapjacks?” “Oh but look at the price” “Oh yeah *groan* it’s so hard to eat healthy – it’s all so expensive”. The girls left the shop with only a small pot of melon slices each – apparently it was the only ‘healthy’ food on offer that they could afford. I was left rather confused and disgusted, having been confronted with the inescapable force of the food trend that everyday shows itself to be more and more problematic, that being the ‘clean’ eating phenomenon that seems to have stealthily taken over attitudes towards food in recent years.

The link between poor mental health and ‘clean’ eating is undeniable, particularly when in is exacerbated by the pressure and strains of social media. The subject has been well documented by health organizations, the eating disorder charity Beat recording a rise in the number of calls to its hotline over the past few years linked to anxiety overly restrictive food rules.bloog1 Documentaries such as the BBC’S Clean Eating’s Dirty Secrets and Clean Eating – The Dirty Truth have exposed the fragility of many of the claims being made and the impact they have on those exposed to them. Eating disorders are serious mental conditions that can have devastating consequences – anorexia having the highest mortality rate of any mental illness – and affect all age groups, ethnicities and genders. Recently, the phenomena of orthorexia, defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “an obsession with eating foods that one considers healthy”, has come to popular attention, though it cannot currently be clinically diagnosed. Social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook alongside other sharing platforms like Youtube act like a petri dish, facilitating the growth of myriad restrictive and absolutist diet trends that often overlap and contradict one another, flying in the face of well-researched evidence on what a truly healthy diet for body and mind might actually look like.

To make matters worse, food becomes a moral issue with a hugely negative impact on the mental health of vulnerable young people. What one eats comes to be placed in to two categories, namely foods that are ‘good’ and those that are ‘bad’. This black and white thinking generates a lot of anxiety for people who feel that they are failing if they do not meet these exacting standards. As mentioned earlier, the emergence of orthorexia nervosa points to a serious problem with our attitude towards food, orthorexia also translated as a “fixation on riteous eating”. This could not be more telling, food not only being a way to fuel our bodies on a daily basis but a means to improve our moral character, to become a “righteous” individual by proxy. Eating the ‘wrong’ food triggers self-loathing and acute anxiety, the message behind the moralism being that we are intrinsically unworthy and it is only through eating the ‘right’ way that we can somehow vindicate ourselves.

It is ironic, then, this obsession with restrictive diets often proves to be unhealthy, not only mentally but physically. Much of the ‘clean’ eating movement is based on pseudoscience concocted by individuals financially invested in this lucrative lie. Restrictive food rules are dressed up as science and packaged seductively, be it in a beautiful and slim food vlogger, an expensive new cookbook or a new range of pricey products in the supermarket. Often, these companies make dubious claims about what their products can do, some saying that they reverse disease, aid weight loss or garuntee an overall ‘healthy glow’. Many, if not most, of these corporations rely on a kernel of truth which they exaggerate and capitalize upon. A significant number of these ‘clean’ celebrities do not have the appropriate medical qualifications to be touting such advice, taking advantage on the vulnerability and ignorance of their customers to turn a profit. In a piece featured in The Guardian, Bee Wilson insightfully points out how

clean eating confirms how vulnerable and lost millions of us feel about diet – which really means how lost we feel about our own bodies. We are so unmoored that we will put our faith in any master who promises us that we, too, can become pure and good.

The promise of wellness is, however, a mirage.

Crucially, this trend is also having a sinister effect on society as a whole, particularly in regards to class and elitism, food offering yet another way to divide and segregate.bloog2 These so-called ‘health’ foods are marketed at inordinately high prices in full awareness that their affluent target market are willing to pay extra to opt into the ‘clean’ eating club. Food is an accessory, a statement of class, completely inaccessible to those who cannot afford to participate. Only the wealthy can afford to pay £3.99 for Deliciously Ella’s Original Granola when Tesco’s own is under half the price, or £2 for Rude Health’s organic oat milk when cows milk costs just £1.50 for more than triple the amount.

The clean, healthy eating movement is essentially a vanity project for the middle class, food being just one more way to distinguish the haves from the have-nots.

This movement is the perfect money-spinner, as where diets or eating trends used to be temporary, this trend is permanent and necessitates a complete and sustained lifestyle overhaul. Despite what the advertising industry would like you to believe, it is entirely possible to lead a healthy lifestyle without emptying your savings account. 

Similarly, this same movement is contributing to the divorce of food from its social and historical context; once deeply embedded in a collective culture, certain foods turn into trivialized fads in the western world. Matcha green tea -an integral part of the ancient Japanese tea ceremony  – has been adopted and can now be consumed as a latte, ice-cream or even a ‘chocolate matcha butter cup’. Quinoa, once an obscure crop from South America to many in the west has become as basic a grain as pasta. Foods that are integral to a culture heritage are taken and commercialized as the next ‘it’ food, only to be dropped and forgotten to make way for the next trend. Food is often imbued with cultural significance so the idea that a middle-class young food vlogger in Shoreditch has just ‘discovered’ the versatility and health benefits of sorghum when it has been growing in Africa for centuries and is the fifth most popular crop in the world is not only arrogant but demeaning too.

The myths of the ‘clean’ eating movement – essentially ‘fake news’ – could be debunked with proper education about the reality of what constitutes a healthy diet. No, eating only alkaline foods will not reverse cancer. No, you do not need to blow your next paycheck on the most expensive products in the supermarket to be well. No, cutting out gluten when you are not coeliac or even intolerant will not necessarily make you feel ‘energised’, neither will it make you a better person. With proper education, many of the ‘truths’ of the industry would be exposed as lies. Yet this would not solve the other equally if not more important issue of the sense of moral superiority associated with ‘clean’ eating.

Until we stop feeling the need to make ourselves feel better at the expense of others and by appealing to the standards set by the advertising industry, this distinctly unhealthy trend and accompanying mindset is here to stay.

 

 

 

 

 

the Finsbury Park attack was a wake-up call

Around six months ago, on the 19th June 2017, the 48 year old Darren Osborne is accused of having driven a van into a crowd of Muslim worshipers outside a mosque, injuring nine people and killing one 58 year old man. Though the suspect has not yet been convicted, the tragedy has opened the eyes of the public to the urgency of the problem of combating Islamophobic propaganda and of rethinking the way in which a narrative can be created about a community that is not only divisive, but potentially deadly. 

Though it might have been Osborne who is responsible for the tragedy, this should in no way detract from the bravery of the victims, in particular that of the imam Mohammed Mahmoud who prevented any retaliation by shielding him from a crowd beginning to show signs of shock-induced aggression. Despite being lauded as a perfect example of someone loving their enemies and even being labelled as the ‘hero imam’, though, Mahmoud rejects this characterization on the basis that it implies that he is the exception to the rule. In an interview for The Guardian, he eloquently explains:

“We can’t escape the fact that Muslims are portrayed in an unfavourable light in the media…to conclude or theorise that [Osborne] would have been killed if [I wasn’t] there, that’s based on a narrative that’s put forward that Muslims are savage and don’t respect the law”.

Instead, he calls attention to the fact that he was helped by many others, that aggression is the natural response to such a barbaric act of cruelty. The London mayor Sadiq Khan similarly spoke out about the horrific events, asserting:

“This is a good community. They pull together, they work closely with each other and the actions of Imam Mohammed are what I would expect from a good faith leader and a good Muslim leader.”

Why, then, must it take a disaster such as this for people to recognize the power of common moral principles, of shared dignity and humanity? Why must it be necessary for a tragedy such as this for a Muslim man to be called a ‘hero’ for the work he does and for the outpouring of support that came in the wake of the attack even though Islamophobia is increasingly being felt by British Muslims on a daily basis? The Independent has published figures that show that instances of anti-Muslim hate crime targeting mosques have more than doubled between 2016 and 2017, Sadiq Khan also pointing out that Islamophobic attacks have increased fivefold since the London brige attack.

statistics
Source: YouGov

Undeniably, the media has a huge role to play in the unfair demonization of Islam, the press being responsible to much of the kind of hateful, extremist content that motivated this act of terror. Osborne’s partner, Sarah Andrews, described to the BBC in an interview how “He seemed brainwashed and totally obsessed with the subject [of Muslims]” prior to the attack. She cites programmes such as the BBC’s Three Girls and the social media accounts of nationalist parties such as Britain First and the English Defence League as contributing to his paranoia, it being fair to say that a clear line can be drawn between hate crime and the way that Islam is presented in the media. An article in the Guardian draws attention to graffiti on the Sutton Islamic Centre which reads “Terrorise your own country”, ironic when the terror suspect in this instance is British and attacking fellow Brits.

islamophobia
Source: NewStatesman

This kind of bad press disproportionally targets and affects those most vulnerable, it being convenient to create a scapegoat for society’s ills that can shoulder the blame for everyday hardships. It dehumanizes entire communities and encourages a tribal way of thinking where those who may be of an unfamiliar race or religion do not ‘belong’, or even pose a threat to the existence of one’s own tribe, even though this is an entirely ludicrous and unhealthy way to look at the world.

All of this only highlights the growing need for the government and the police to combat Islamophobia and to put the same kind of efforts into eliminating the issue as they do towards extremist Islamic propaganda. Both of these are terror-related, and must be treated with the same degree of urgency and dedication for they both pose a threat to what we might like to imagine a peaceful Britain to be . It seems completely absurd that schools might summon a boy who simply converted to Islam into a meeting to check if he was being targeted by Islamic State (as they did at mine) but authorities wouldn’t investigate a man (Osborne) who had made inflammatory and threatening statements at a pub – “I’m going to kill all the Muslims, Muslims are all terrorists. Your families are all going to be Muslim. I’m going to take it into my own hands” – and publicly announcing his intentions to kill members of the Labour party such as Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn.

Fundamentally, the debate comes down to issues of identity and belonging, Osborne harboring the ideology like many others that those of other ethnicities, cultures and religious faiths don’t ‘belong’ in Britain. At the heart of this is a certain dangerous conception of what Britain was and should be i.e. a predominantly white and Christian country. Though this Britain may never truly have existed, as this country has for thousands of years been composed of countless different cultures and ethnicities, the dream persists, more accurately described as a nightmare for the potential hatred and division it feeds and facilitates. I for one would rather belong to a community made up of members who honour justice and mercy, such as Mohammed Mahmoud, than those who take the law into their own hands and fail to recognize the humanity of others as Osborne has demonstrated. Now, rather than divide us, this tragedy should teach us that we must actively nurture compassion and understanding rather than hatred and division, or the society that we would like to live in might never come to fruition.

when the news got social

You would have to have been living under a rock to have missed the way that news coverage has moved to feature in social media feeds, so ubiquitous now that it barely merits a second thought. This union has proved to be both beneficial and problematic, though the advantages, efficiency but one, are difficult to overlook. Rather than having to visit a separate website, tune in to the radio, switch on the TV or pay for a newspaper, all one has to do is log in to their social media account to access the same content, often in real-time. Leaving this to one side, this marriage can have important consequences when it is one’s only way of accessing the latest news, particularly in a society that is becoming increasingly dependent on technology. In a report published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism it was revealed that 1 in 10 people favour their social media in briefing them on the latest news, a figure likely to be higher almost two years on from the study.

The media industry is under a lot of pressure to adapt to the rapid change that society is currently undergoing, some even referring to this transitional period as a ‘technological revolution’. Over the last decade, there has been a massive decline in the number of people consuming printed news, preferring other sources such as television and radio and, increasingly, online coverage. It is fairly recent, however, that the news has bled into social media platforms and on such a scale, this phenomenon corresponding to the rising popularity of companies such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. It seems only natural that in such a climate news organisations would be willing to adapt in order to reach the largest audience, only made possible by embracing these new networking tools. According to the Pew Research Centre, 67% of Americans admit to accessing some of their news coverage on social media, says a report published in 2017. Now, Facebook has a built in feature that mimics a news bulletin. Snapchat hosts the stories of many of the major players in media, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, along with others such as The Sun and The Daily Mail. Much of today’s political debate takes place within what has become known as the ‘Twittersphere’. Social media has become impossible to ignore, it being entirely logical to see why many well-known news organizations have jumped on the social media bandwagon, it being too important a ride to miss.

Today’s problem, though, is that of the spread of ‘fake news’, to use the famous term coined by Donald Trump. When social media becomes one’s main or only source of accessing news, they make themselves more vulnerable to be exposed to sensationalist or misleading information which feeds off the freedom and scope of these platforms. At its heart, social media is intended to be a personal, social space hence when one introduces news coverage, it too must become social and personal for its target audience, there then being a fine line between what is real ‘news’ and what is actually an ideology dressed as ‘fact’. In this sense, it’s no surprise that social media platforms are the seed-bed of extremist content or birthplace of ‘fake news’.  In 2017, a rumour that the devastating hurricane Irma would be a category 6 storm – a level that does not exist – was doing the rounds on social media after it was broadcast by the website InfoWars and shared on Facebook. The President of the United States Donald Trump even retweeted one of the right-wing Britain First’s campaign videos about Islamic terrorism, both deemed Islamophobic and later discredited. When news becomes ideological, which it inevitably does when it leaks into social media, “fake news”, misinformation and the distortion of fact becomes unavoidable, even inevitable. The presence of reputable news organizations on social media legitimizes the less trustworthy ones that whose sole aim is to reach as many people as possible, making it even more difficult to distinguish between ‘real’and ‘fake’ news. Though this task was far from easy even before this shift, all these developments can do is further muddy the waters of fact and fiction.

Crucially, this phenomenon has made it necessary to have some way of filtering the ‘real’ news from the ‘fake’ news. In The Guardian’s James Ball’s piece on the decline of public trust in social media makes it clear just how prescient this issue really is:

Trust in social media platforms fell just four points year-on-year in the UK, and even after the relentless coverage of social media being exploited for propaganda, and the big tech backlash in the US, fell just 11 points there. Globally, media was trusted less than business and NGOs, and is equal to government – and this trust level isn’t increasing.

Many government leaders and CEOs have pledged to tackle the spread of fake news, attesting that it is one of their main priorities. This can be problematic in itself though, people voicing their concerns that freedom of the press must be protected, that a state where fake news is rife is preferable to a state policed and censored by governing bodies. In spite of this, some of these strategies are compelling and might well positively contribute to the fight against misinformation and sensationalism. During the run-up to the Italian election, the government is assigning a task force to combat fake news in the wake of the suspected Russian meddling in the 2016 US election. Following much public uproar, Mark Zuckerberg has committed to suppressing the spread of fake news on Facebook by encouraging its users to take a survey on which sources of information they perceive to be most “trustworthy” so as to give priority to “high quality news”.

Social media platforms are a great way to respond to news stories and are often used as vehicles for social or political movements, undeniably a good thing in that they are a sign of a healthy democratic society. The #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements would not have taken off in the same way if social media platforms had not been their to give them access to millions of people. Complications arise when social media is a source of news rather than a space to react to news, though this recognition may have come too late. As James Ball points out,

they [social media and news coverage] are now wedded to one another, and will sink or swim together. News won’t be saved by the public falling out of love with Facebook. It will take much more than that.

Regrettably, it seems to be too late to curb these developments, it being instead more important to get with the programme and experiment with methods of damage-control and of improving the quality of journalism today. Though the future is far from certain, there remains huge potential for the media industry, avenues that are only available thanks to these very social platforms. It seems that all we can do at present is keep scrolling.

 

View story at Medium.com