A lesbian blogger from Damascus who turned out to be a US citizen in Scotland; officers killed in action who make a live appearance on television; Bahraini activists who themselves blocked access to medical care; and Mohammed Bouazizi, who provided the spark that lit the fire of the Arab Spring, was never abused before his self-immolation. It’s not just regimes; rebels manipulate social media too.

Why are we so easily deceived when it comes to the Arab Spring? The role of social media in popular uprisings has been extensively lauded, but the access to information offered by Facebook and Twitter is mostly an illusion.

It is a well-known fact that Arab dictators use social media to spread their propaganda. They have taken this much farther than simply blocking websites or arresting bloggers. The most gruesome stories are doing the rounds. Gaddafi’s men allegedly stole bodies from hospital morgues to later present them as victims of NATO air strikes.

Propaganda
In his book The Net Delusion, Eevgeny Morozov accuses Western politicians of being naive. The author tells his readers not to be surprised when they receive an appeal for help from ‘an ordinary Syrian’ which is full of propaganda.

"Many regimes are quite sophisticated in their methods. As long as one can receive emails from pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies, one can count on receiving emails from the Iranian or Syrian regime, partly because they all use the same PR company."

However, opponents of dictatorial regimes also tend to twist the true version of events to better suit their needs. According to Arabist Corné Hanssen, “The secretiveness of intelligence services and the machinations of the regimes they serve are of course of a different order – and much more influential compared to the rebels. One has to stay critical.”

Who killed whom?
Both parties do their utmost to prove the other is lying. Pro-Assad groups allege that the same ‘deserted soldier’ made two different confessions on behalf of the Syrian insurgents. Al-Jazeera and a Yemeni site posted a photograph of one and the same body as an illustration for two different stories: one about victims in Syria and one about a dead Yemeni poet. And does anybody know who was killed by whom in Jisr al-Shugur?

How is it that everybody immediately doubts the confession of an alleged terrorist broadcast on state television, but hardly ever questions videos showing deserted soldiers? Niels ten Oever from Free Press Unlimited says people are inclined to accept as the truth whatever bloggers or twitterers write.

Media Professor Geert Lovink agrees:
"Many people believe that social media is a form of journalism. However, a large part, at least 90 percent, cannot be considered journalism."

The good, the bad and the internet
In the recent uprisings in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and Libya, the division of roles looked very straightforward: the rebels are the good guys and the regime the bad guys. But even though the rebels may hold the moral high ground – though even this varies per country, according to Corné Hanssen – that does not make them the voice of the average citizen.

Most people simply do not take the risk of publishing their experiences on the internet, or even simply look for information. And, says Niels ten Oever, even when they can get a connection, people are afraid to talk openly about what is going on.

“Syria allows little or no technical and social freedom on the internet. Records are kept of who you are, what you did on the internet and when.”

The risks are real: after the Bahraini protests were suppressed, active bloggers were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. People who choose to be active on the internet regardless, accept the risks because they have something to say, either in support of the revolution or against it. They are parties to a conflict, usually a bloody one. Independent media have little or no access to the conflict area, so most of the information that does come out is provided either by state propaganda officials or by the rebels.

Kamikaze attack on Tripoli – or was it?
More examples: footage of ‘police officers beating up protesters’ turned out to be old images of Iraqi Republican Guardsmen during the first Gulf War. Radio Netherlands Worldwide investigated persistent rumours in international media about a kamikaze-style attack by a Libyan pilot on Tripoli. It was later discovered that the pilot was still alive. A Tunisian rape victim was never raped.

The appearance of impartiality is all the more dangerous because both public opinion and policy decisions are influenced by it. As Evgeny Morozov says, “Policymakers watch CNN too.”

Niels ten Oever agrees:

“It is dangerous when journalists assume information to be true without checking the facts, as was the case with the ‘lesbian blogger'. By copying their stories, media confer status on bloggers and their reports.”

(gsh/ae/imm)