Participants at this Aspen Seminar for Leaders session were unanimous in their agreement that social networks are neither good nor bad per se, but that what is open for debate is the way in which social media interact with democracy, and the way in which governments are responding to the growing power of new communications tools. While those in attendance were left in no doubt that the popular protests of today – such as those that erupted in North Africa – take off and gain momentum online, the internet does not always suffice to ensure that any resulting change is permanent. Moreover, riots break out for essentially political and economic reasons. Corruption, economic crisis, despair, unemployment and a loss of confidence are the spark that social networks can unquestionably fuel and harness, but definitely do not ignite. Furthermore, it is often military might that wins out in the end, as happened in Egypt.
Another myth the discussants were keen to dispel was that of the anarchic and absolute democratic nature of the internet. It was felt that, in reality, there is no anarchy given that control and censorship are widely exerted, as demonstrated by the cases of China and Iran. Citizens are monitored and subjected to increasing vulnerability. The view was expressed that if there were ever a new Cold War, it would be a fight between a free and heavily-controlled internet, and would involve not only undemocratic countries, but also the West, with the case of Snowden serving as just one example of this.
Indeed, it was stressed that in the West, the relationship between the internet and democracy has had – and continues to have – its ups and downs. There is, at any rate, a gap to be bridged between participation online and in the political arena. The participants highlighted that it is often not the web that shapes political decisions, and that it would be a mistake – or rather an illusion – to believe a single click amounts to having taken part in the making of a decision. The reality is that it does not equate to participation, but rather the expression of a view which may change the next day. Governments are also aware of this now, and are learning to keep this in mind.
Yet governments still have great difficulty dealing with social media. They do not respond quickly on Facebook or Twitter, as the modern-day political system is not designed to provide rapid responses. It was nevertheless felt that this does not mean there is a direct conflict between social networks and democracy. If anything, the opposite is the case. However, it was also conceded that the internet cannot politically resolve problems. An example cited as demonstrating this point was the serious issue of climate change, which undoubtedly had its origins within the scientific community, then spread across the internet, and, hence, swept through social media. The institutional response has, however, been feeble and slow, and has so far not produced any acceptable political solutions.
It was suggested, in this regard, that in order to be effective in one’s endeavors, it is also necessary to understand the language of this brave new world. By way of illustration, the participants pointed to the role being played by the internet and social media in the current EU election campaign, stressing that leaders need to change their take on Europe, otherwise there is a risk that calls for a referendum will be unleashed, including via social media – a risk which today is too great to invite. To avoid this, a shared undertaking between citizens and institutions must be established: a new relationship with Europe at its heart.
A further observation was that following the “big bang” of the internet revolution, the role of professional journalists and communications players has also radically changed. All the old guards of the media have adapted to the new digital ecosystem, and those that have not done so are suffering hefty consequences, such as the illustrious Washington Post, purchased at a favorable price by a private investment company of Amazon’s founder and CEO. Among those that have managed to hold their own – because they have proved capable of understanding the challenge – are the New York Times, which has focused heavily on digital video, and The Guardian, which has transformed itself into a digital company. Even global television networks such as CNN and the BBC have taken on and overcome the digital challenge.
It was emphasized, however, that all of these organizations have focused on providing a high standard of information, on content variety and quality, and on substantiating news items. Accuracy and method are once again the strong suits required of communications professionals in this new world, in an ongoing challenge to bloggers and websites which, though well-established, are not always trusted by the public. By way of a concluding remark, it was underlined that all may not yet be lost for the old guards of the media: those that have been able to reinvent their business model have also succeeded in acquiring new media companies and have effectively ensured their place as players in the market.