1-O: Smart phones vs state media

October 1st 2017: Catalan Referendum on independence. And the day when ICT challenged the establishment.

 

 

Sunday October the 1st marked a day of change in Spanish and European history. The referendum in Catalonia was held, and Spanish police forces pulled in to avoid it from taking place. A remarkable day, as it was the first time in many years an autonomous region tries to claim its independence without any consent from the central state. It was also the first time in many years that a state used this amount of violence against its own people.

 

It was also a day where the New Media really got to play an important role in international politics.

 

Manufacturing consent?

People from all over the region went to the streets to show their support for the referendum – and Spanish police did what they could to beat down the demonstrations.

 

The tense situation had developed over weeks with Spanish interventions, and many Catalans were provoked to participate in the voting and the peaceful demonstrations. Special police forces were seen using pepperspray, rubber bullets and beating demonstrators, with a total of 893 wounded civilians.

 

Following the development of October 1 on different media, established and social, was an interesting affair.

 

Each of the big national media channels showed their version of the violence, according to their own political position and interests.

Spanish TV and newspapers echoed the position of the ruling party Partido Popular, sticking to the framing of Catalan independentists as “making a coup”, and the regional police committing “state treason” for choosing a passive position in the clashes.

 

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.

– Herman & Chomsky (1988/1994, p. 1)

 

After the first live recordings of the police violence and Catalans casting their votes were broadcasted on international (and independentist) channels, the Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría transmitted an official speech from the government. Her main message was: A referendum is not taking place. The actions of the police are proportional. It is necessary to protect the law and the Spanish democracy against this unconstitutional referendum and extremists.

 

This image from Publico.es sums up the front page how big Spanish newspapers framed the day versus how many international newspapers chose to tell the story:

On the Spanish side (left), the headlines defend the police violence as a justified way to prevent the illegal referendum – often reporting false numbers of injuries.  The other – in many cases more left-wing – newspapers condemn the use of state violence Against the peaceful demonstrations.

 

As a friend of mine said: “Do these people forget about the internet and smartphones?”

 

So it could seem. The politicians and state media appeared to be in denial about what was really happening in the streets (at least for the day). At the same time, the social media was buzzing, wanting to document the happenings:

 

 

…or directly calling out for international support…

 

 

 

…or trying to show that the people were stronger than the state…

 

 

In a situation like this, where political interests found it best not to show the backside of an extensive decision, citizen documentation and journalism came to its right.

 

An attempt to prove the government’s wrongdoing. Deputy Prime Minister’s justifying speech with footage of the consequences embedded after each justification of the actions:

 

Hear nothing, see nothing

Ending up a turbulent week, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont spoke in the Generalitat on Tuesday October 10. Politicians across Europe were holding their breath: Would he finally declare independence and break the structures of the international society as we now it today?

 

The speech was aired directly to a vast number of international stations, as well as on Facebook.

In the meantime, national public service-broadcaster TVE (Televisión Española) decided to “stop sending their special informative programme about Catalonia when it was announced that the Parlament session was one hour delayed. Instead of continuing with direct sending, TVE continued with the final of the telenovela Acacias 38, and after that they sent two episodes of Centro Médico [staged documentary sharing “strange” medical stories]”.

 

The same all over again?

In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite

– Herman & Chomsky (1988/1994, p. 1)

 

…and the dominant elite might as well be defined by political power, as by Herman & Chomsky’s economic classes.

 

The conflict in Spain is a peculiar case of state media trying to manufacture consent in Chomsky’s most direct meaning of the concept – and silence a problem to death. But does it work?

 

And does the mass media really do anything different than what happened on social media – representations which also had political incentives?

 

There have also been claims about fake images and independentist propaganda – and Russian and Israeli contributions in the conflict. This mistrust in social media also weakens the credibility of online information.

 

Can citizen journalism and documentation on social media challenge the establishment? Or will the online bubbles do the same for the consumer as those who watch the same tv-channel every day – just feed those already convinced?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference list

Herman, S. & Chomsky, N. (1988/1994). Manufacturing Consent – the Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage Books