On Social Media

Written by Michelle Altenberg

It was Marshall McLuhan who first coined the term “global village” in 1962. He popularized the
idea that technological advances combined with information sharing would undoubtedly lead to a
collective universal society. Unity, he argued, was created through increased dialogue and open
communication.

Nearly a half-century later, I have to wonder whether we as media practitioners have lived up to
McLuhan’s predictions. Have we harnessed the opportunities of the nearly instantaneous
communication capabilities we now possess? Do we now recognize and understand the global
audience to which the media is now broadcasting? Has the “global village” of media contributed
to a rise in Neoliberalism, and is this globalization such a bad thing?

The rise of social media and subsequent growth of the Internet have advanced McLuhan’s
proposed idea of worldwide message transfer.

On June 6, 2011, the United Nations proclaimed access to Internet a basic human right, placing
information sharing alongside the right to education and the right to freedom of expression. No
longer are governments allowed to shutdown a country’s Internet as a means of punishment or in
an act of censorship. The World Wide Web is open for business. The expansion of this great
information-sharing machine has been fueled by the rise of social media and the accompanying
digital revolution. A Nielson Company study found that 22.7 percent of America’s online
activity was spent on social networking sites. This figure continues to rise.

Facebook, Twitter and Myspace dominate the social networking stratosphere and provide a
platform of expression for millions of people across the globe. This rapid means of
communication has transformed personal relationships among individuals and forever altered the
way public relations are conducted among corporations. Media is no longer a one-sided push-
based system of transmitting information, but a two-way flow of communication in which the
public is actively invited to voice their opinion. This virtual world has promoted a sort of citizen
journalism, where every tweet and status update is permanently published for all to see.

A prime example of McLuhan’s “global village” philosophy in action occurred when Sohaib
Athar of Abbottabad, Pakistan, used social media to unknowingly live-tweet the U.S. attack on
Osama bin Laden May 1, 2011.

“A huge window shaking bang here in Abbottabad Cantt. I hope its not the start of something
nasty,” he tweeted.

Hours after writing this blurb to his estimated 750 followers, Athar realized the significance of
what he had heard.

“Uh oh, now I’m the guy who liveblogged the Osama raid without knowing it,” he tweeted.

Athar’s tweets have now been published in articles written by such media outlets as The Wall
Street Journal and TIME.com, and his Twitter following has increased by over 90,000 people
from all across the globe. Social networking allowed the world to share in Athar’s firsthand
account of the military raid.

In his book Understanding Media, McLuhan argues the accessibility of this instantaneous
communication has “heightened human awareness of responsibility to an intense degree.” With
access to international news now literally at our fingertips, we should harness the power of this
information sharing to become globally informed and educated citizens.

The globalization process that accompanies such widespread online chatter should encourage
tolerance and collaboration among cultures, and avoid diluting the customs of a civilization
through cultural imperialism. Media communications and international relations should be void
of any ethnocentric bias and promote unity among unique societies.

No matter geographical location, cultural traditions or religious beliefs, the online community
created by social networks has become common ground for all people. It is imperative that media
professionals take a proactive role in contributing to this global conversation.