Could someone please explain to me what it matters if I change my twitter avatar to a shade of green? Apparently this is going to make a difference to someone in Iran, but I have my doubts. I have seen a few people I follow on twitter doing it and noticed a few tweets about it.
I just can’t understand the damn relevance. The people of Iran don’t care, they aren’t looking or watching and the green avatar you are now sporting is not going to change the world, in fact I think that these green avatars are way to appear cool. And it bugs me.
It might just be my opinion but that’s OK with me. It just gets under my skin when I begin to feel guilted in to doing something as meaningless as changing the colour of my picture on twitter to a shade of green.
I need to say this out loud and as bluntly as I can. It’s cool that the DA are trying to get social with social media and a newly launched website but are we “social media experts” all so far up our own arses that we can’t see that in the big picture of the 2009 elections the DA’s social media campaign is relatively insignificant.
What the DA is trying to do is actually COMPETE IN THE 2009 ELECTIONS. I am extremely curious to figure out how the DA’s social media campaign fits in to the bigger picture of their general election campaign.
I’m not convinced that social media is going to make much of a difference in the numbers that the DA is looking for as the official opposition for the 2009 elections. I think that it’s essential that they are in the space of social networks, mobile activity and engaging with an online community. But let us get real here for a second, when we say “engaging with an online community”, who do you think we are talking about? Is it 500 000 South Africans with broadband access? I don’t think so. My 20 or so friends who aren’t particularly active online have never seen or engaged with DA online. So what’s the point? When we talk about engaging with social media we are probably, effectively talking about 20 000 or so people at an absolute push. I stand to be corrected here, these numbers are thumbsucked so please correct me if you know the figures.
Why should we be criticising the DA, analysing their every move and be excruciatingly anal about the things they do and the way they do it online? It’s actually ridiculous.
I asked Helen Zille a question online a few days back on twitter. I was wondering what her stance is on Cope integrating politics and religion. I didn’t receive a reply. But let’s be honest Helen Zille is competing in one of the most important elections since our democracy came in to existence, what the hell difference does it make if she answers my question? I want her to do the best job she can do in POLITICS not in social media to be perfectly frank.
And don’t try and pull the Obama card here. We are not the USA, we cannot claim to be and we should try to be. This would lead us in to all sorts of confusion and trouble. We are, majority of the SA population, without Internet and in need of some very distinct things, one of which is not social media let me tell you. The important things right now, in the build-up to election day 2009 (22 April) is to keep the focus of this election on the people, the rights, the voting, elections, masses and not on social media unfortunately.
Manypeople have covered, blogged and written about the DA and what they are doing online. It’s quite interesting to me that there isn’t much hype, noise or talk around the other political parties. Yet the DA is getting it in the neck. It’s like we, the online community, are berating one of the few political parties who bothered to actually make an effort. Why are we not giving the other parties hell as openly as the DA? Why does it matter? Surely our countries democracy is more important than proper use of Facebook, social tools and multimedia?
I am interested to know how much money has been put in to the DA’s social media campaign and what sort of return of investment they have and will receive? I wonder if in our country that money could not be better used somewhere else? Marketing the DA differently to a wider audience? Because let me tell you, if we all praise and hail the DA as the online guru’s in politics but they get trumped in the election then I will feel betrayed by social media and so will they.
Walter wrote that the DA’s response has him puzzled well my response is simple, in South African politics I would be more concerned if the DA was spending more time answering the social media folk than concentrating on their political campaign. We, as social media people, need to get over ourselves and look at all of this in context.
I want democracy, I want a viable opposition and I want leaders who can engage without being sidetracked from what is important. I also want politics and religion to be separate but that’s another story that shall be told at another time.
Today I went to my nearest IEC registration station and changed my registration details from Grahamstown to Johannesburg.
The process was simple, the queues were managed well, the forms were readily available, everything worked perfectly.
I was chatting to someone yesterday who made a really valid point, this is the first time (out of the three) that I have gone to register and have had people actually talking about politics, registration and voting, alot. It’s great to hear, great to see and fantastic to know that politics is no longer one of the things you never bring up at a dinner party.
Satan has been in the news a fair amount over the past few days.
Krugersdorp – A schoolboy who stabbed a fellow pupil to death with a sword in Krugersdorp on Monday morning was apparently high on drugs, saying Satan had told him to kill the children…
Krugersdorp councillor Alex Raubenheimer said school children on the scene told him the boy was high on drugs and was dressed like Joey Jordison, a drummer of the band Slipknot.
I’m not sure if you’ve seen the movie “Primal Fear“? If you haven’t, you should. Ed Norton and Richard Gere are fantastic.
The basic premise of the movie is that an alter boy kills some people and uses his innocent, god-fearing “nature” to defend himself. This coupled with his apparent schizophrenia gets him off. He walks free.
This isn’t the same thing as stating that “the devil made me do it” ofcourse, but the premise is the same. It’s the same as saying I am incapable of making decisions on my own so I blame the devil. The devil is intangible and doesn’t exist therefore I need to make the concept real so I tell you that heavy metal is the devil’s music. I can therefore blame the heavy metal for my actions and by association, blame the devil.
{The way I see it (and I think this might ruffle some feathers) is that the devil does not exist. So in theory this is where my article should end, but for the sake of debate, let me continue.}
Is this some sort of twisted philosophical logic that I just don’t grasp? Why don’t we blame the parents, the school system, the child, the child’s friends and their influence on the child’s life and actions? Why do we have to make it about themusic and single the music out as violent, aggressive and possible of warping a perception so much so that the child becomes warped in action?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that an under-age child should be listening to music or watching films that promote violence, sexual promiscuity or any other illegal or dangerous action. But that is for the parents to regulate, you can’t tell the music to stop playing itself if it thinks the child is under-age. That’s just ridiculous.
Furthermore, music can be intense, aggressive, cutting edge, loud, banging and harsh but that doesn’t mean the lyrical content reflects that. I am deep in to rock music, old, new, heavy, soft, refined and raw. I love it all. But it doesn’t all dramatically influence my action, choices, decisions and life. It provides me with insight in to what other people perceive the world to be.
Let’s step back 50 years or 40 years or 30, 20, 10 years in our history. Think back to The Beatles, The Stones, Queen (is the name a reference to homosexuality possibly?) and heaven forbid Elvis the once banned rocker and now the king of rock ‘n roll forever. These bands all faced adversity in their time. Why? Because parents, teachers, headmasters, religious pundits and many other groups couldn’t take responsibility for their actions, their children or their children’s actions. Basically, blame the music for the uncontrollable and rebellious nature of our children.
I thought we were meant to learn from the mistakes of our past? Are we not just repeating the actions of the ignorant and blind from the past by condemning the music and inadvertently pushing our children towards the messages that we are trying to protect them from?
When I was about 11 I got in to Skunk Anansie heavily. I loved them. The lead singer was a bald black woman by the name of Skin. Skin. Do you honestly think that my Greek Orthodox (then) father was going to tolerate it? Not a chance. The first song on the album featured the lyric “Yes it’s fucking political”. Ha! I didn’t stand a chance. Or did I? I made sure that the first thing I did when my father stepped out of the house was play that song. I credit that song alone for my political interest and for my degree in politics from Rhodes University. That Damned music, it ruined my life.
Here’s a Skunk Anansie cutaway:
No wonder I’m so messed up. This is what I was listening to at 11/12 years old and I haven’t killed, maimed, harmed anyone….yet…dum dum dum dum
All that my father’s harsh actions, forced law and pushy intention did was make me crave the message, the content and the music more. Get real, kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Nothing you do is going to make them stop listening to that music.
I’m not sure if you’ve looked around lately, picked your head up out of your bible, book, “reality” or life and noticed how liberal the world has become. Take your blinkers off. They are playing “the devil’s music” in clubs nowadays, they are playing that rock-metal-death-rap-craziness on the radio. The world has moved on. So why don’t you?
One murder happens involving teenagers and it immediately becomes anti-religious (as if the only thing that can save our children is god/religion) and name and blame towards the musicians. I listen to Slipknot, I have 16 year old female cousins who listen to them too, they aren’t suicidal, on a murderous rampage or intent on harming others. In spite of their personal lives they are actually very well balanced cousins who make me proud. The music they listen to gives them perspective on the world not insight in to the devil’s mind. This was one incident that occurred amongst a sea of socially uncomfortable youths who do not choose to murder. Let’s look at the one case, not clump the entire youth of SA and their music habits as satanistic.
I am not saying the research doesn’t oppose my argument, it might, I don’t know. But to be honest I am more than satisfied with blaming myself for my actions, my societal influences, my friends, parents or experiences but not the devil and his (her) music.
Last point, if you want violence, turn on Carte Blanche on a Sunday at 7pm, turn on SABC 1, 2, 3 and e-tv news at 7am or 7pm every day, listen to the radio broadcasts about war, dishonesty, crime, violence at home and abroad, cheating politicians world wide and more. Music, let me tell you, is a fraction of our problem today.
I have quite enjoyed watching Zoopy’s extensive coverage of Helen Zille over the past few months. But today for the first time I found myself questioning their coverage.
Why is it that Zoopy covers Zille so extensively? Why is the coverage not more representative. I am sure that Jason is going to come on here and tell me that they have covered Patricia de Lille too, but that really doesn’t count as extensive.
Just as the SABC is pressed for equal representation I think that an organisation such as Zoopy should be too. If nothing else, they need to be weary of aligning themselves subconciously with a party. It appears to me that this might already have happened…
This comes directly from the Zoopy “about us” section:
Who’s behind it all?
At Zoopy HQ it’s just the three of us, for now: Jason, Gerry and Pat. And a few carefully selected contributors.
Hmmm… carefully selected, sounds intersting, lets find out more.
I emailed Jason from Zoopy to get some comment on the issue and see if this is a definite trend that is to continue or an incidental happening. This is what he had to say:
Thanks for giving Zoopy some blog space – and on such a relevant topic too. It needs to be said that we’ve personally spoken with Ebrahim Rasool, Jacob Zuma, Trevor Manuel and indirectly with Patricia de Lille. None of them have responded in any way. Helen grasped the technology available from the first meeting we had with her and her team. They have a handheld video camera with them and have chosen to upload a range of political and non-political issues, ranging from aerial shots of a dam through to her new electric car and more. She responds in person to users who send mail via Zoopy and those who leave comments on her Zoopy profile.
There are also occasions when we’re out at events that she happens to be shaking hands at, or attending, and in those cases we upload any relevant footage ourselves. So really this is not a case of us showing favouritism toward any party or individual. It’s a case of the individual getting involved themselves, and us facilitating it as much as possible. We’d love to host social media relating to every South African on Zoopy (politicians, lawyers and bloggers included! hehe) and always promote the possibilities when meeting with interesting people.
That said, there are more high profile people going Zoopy very soon. Because of the technology, functionality and community available to them. Not because of who they are or whether or not we believe in their cause.
I think that is fair and valid justification of their stance. I wait with anticipation for the “high profile” people to get involved with Zoopy. Let’s see if this becomes a case of YouTube and CNN joining forces for the next American election.
