Shane Wade
Opinion Editor
You’ve probably watched or heard about the “Kony 2012” film that’s been making rounds on the Internet. You’ve also probably heard the criticism that detractors have leveled against Invisible Children and the film’s director Jason Russell.
But after all that, what good has been done? Are you any better informed? Who has benefitted from the Kony 2012 movement?
Not you, not Invisible Children and not the people suffering overseas.
Why? Because in the weeks following the release of “Kony 2012,” detractors and critics have so aggressively fact-checked and worked to discredit Invisible Children that the focus of “Kony 2012” has turned from helping children in Uganda to debating the merits of any and all social movements.
The initial backlash from Invisible Children against Kony has lead to backlash of Invisible Children by critics. Then there was a backlash against those critics by supporters, followed by a backlash against both critics and supporters by those that disapprove of both critics and supports for detracting away from the central issue with their petty snipes.
Invisible Children did their job, and informed otherwise uninformed people about something that matters. But in the course of that duty, they cut ethical corners to make a film so heart-renderingly poignant that they didn’t tell the full, unabridged story.
Three backlashes. That’s all it took to distract us.
The initial fact-checkers did their job, and informed people about the finances and work of Invisible Children. But they also cut corners in the course of that duty and didn’t give the organization its due credit to directly respond to criticisms before the articles were published.
Everyone did their job, but did so insufficiently. By using the power of social media to negate the power of social media, a chain of cynicism has been formed.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. When media outlets began to report and opinion writers began to comment on “Kony 2012,” they did a grave disservice to themselves, social media, and a generation of optimistic youths by not doing their due diligence in accurately reporting.
Here are the facts: Invisible Children’s main function is to inform people about occurrences involving child labor or child slavery. There is no war in Northern Uganda right now. Joseph Kony is on the run. In October 2011, the United States sent 100 military advisors to aid the Uganda government in their effort to capture Kony and defeat his Lord’s Resistance Army. Uganda has a multitude of other problems, including government corruption, disease and poverty. These are the uncolored facts that can lead to you making an informed decision about Kony 2012.”
But we’ve so effectively corralled social media to advocate and dismiss causes that we’re immediately able to both negate any good that’s been done and detract from the heart of the issue.
Today, it appears that the facts don’t matter; only how they are presented. “Kony 2012” represents the inelastic demand that is the future of social media. As situations and events are appropriately reported on, two camps – supporters and detractors – will vehemently engage in a race to outwit, fact-check and discredit the other.
Thus, we are witness to the double-edged sword of living in an age of instant access to information: Anything that can be achieved through quick reblogs, retweets or Facebook shares can also be defeated.
At the end of the day, the original cause is lost and ignored.
The media will instead report on the battle between the two opposing advocacy groups. Citizen observers will groan and tire of the fight. Optimistic youth will turn cynical as once again, the thing they care about is co-opted by the establishment.
At the end of the day, a cause is lost for want of a cause. CT