This essay was written for an elective subject within a Bachelor of Communication at RMIT University: Popular Culture Now. The assignment brief was as follows:

Using a topic of your own choice, you are going to pick a specific issue in popular culture to examine. You should include an introduction, an analysis of an example of popular culture related to our area of study, an examination of a concept explored in the course, a critique of your example and a conclusion. You should also include a reference list that uses at least one course reading and four peer-reviewed articles that were not required readings in the course. Additionally, you must include a statement about how this can be applied to your area of study. Examples of concepts and areas of study are provided below in the requirements section.

---

Young people’s ever-increasing reliance on social media (Andı 2021) for news and guidance on their views has led to not only a more divided society but also a generation of confidently misinformed digital activists. These activists and their followers, whilst harbouring the best of intentions, can often misrepresent the issues most worth focusing on. Exacerbating this, platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have created a perfect storm with their inclinations to unverified virality (Tandoc et al. 2018) and snappy, attention-grabbing – though not necessarily factually backed-up – buzzwords and hashtags. Given that addiction-inducing algorithms typically reward engagement (Andı 2021) over the journalistic cornerstones of truth and reason, both deliberately and inadvertently, the spread of misinformation is rife on the pages of social media influencers. Journalism is already experiencing existential shifts due to this rise in digital activism and radical news dissemination and, as of May 2024, the phenomenon is microcosmically exemplified in the current trend of anti-Israel digital activism.

The basic intent of most digital activists, specifically here Western anti-Israel posters, is a virtuous one. To alleviate suffering is, with all else equal, an obviously noble ambition, and those who share activistic Instagram infographics typically do so with the fundamental goal of making the world a better place. When faced with a thread in isolation saying tens of thousands of innocent Gazans have died and a million more are starving, it seems monstrous to not want to at least retweet it, if not sign petitions and attend rallies. However, if it is indeed a moral obligation to fight against the world’s worst injustices, the profiles of digital activists do not reflect this. Young people’s feeds are dominated by so-called pro-Palestinian activism at present, yet few would be aware of atrocities that, when compared to the scale of suffering in Gaza, make one question if the spotlight is being shone wisely. 18 million people in war-torn Sudan face acute food insecurity (UNOCHA 2024a), 14 million from Syria are currently displaced and 21 million Yemenis are in “dire need of humanitarian assistance” (USA for UNHCR 2024). Annually, furthermore, malaria infects hundreds of millions and kills more than 600,000 people, most of whom are young children (WHO 2023). The modern-day digital activism trend can be harnessed for ground-shaking good but, if pulling people out of suffering is the aim, some causes help more than others. In 2023, US$1.5 billion was donated to the UN’s specific charity (UNRWA 2023) aiding fewer than 6 million Palestinians – approximately US$250 per person. In contrast, at a high estimate for 2024¹, the famished Sudanese are set to receive US$46 per person from UN aid funding (UNOCHA 2024b), while Yemenis in 2023 received US$4 per person in need (YHF 2023), and, regarding malaria, US$1.5 billion would protect more than 200 million sub-Saharan African children from infection (GiveWell 2024). Versus that in Gaza, the dichotomy between these crises’ scale and attention received is stark. The skewed representation from digital activists means they are either insincere in the goal they purport to pursue or, more likely, they are misinformed about how best to pursue it. The effect of virality is clear and, when thrust into the magnetic field of digital activists, social media users’ emotions are all too easily manipulated.

Relying so heavily on – and benefitting so greatly from – highly charged emotions and expression, the virtual platforms currently awash with anti-Israel activism are “ripe for the flow of political misinformation” (Weeks and Kelly Garrett, 2019). Genocide, for example, is seen near-universally as close to the most immoral act humankind can commit. Thus claiming it, truthfully or not, can be weaponised as a dialogic trump, seemingly able to cancel out all arguments to its contrary. With this, genocide is of course a term that carries immense emotional weight, meaning increased motivation for digital activists to share content featuring the label, regardless of potential inaccuracies (Weeks and Kelly Garrett, 2019). By those who believe Israel is committing genocide against Gazans, nothing Palestinians do to Israelis could possibly tip the scales of morality in this conflict. In this case and all others, therefore, especially when bandying claims like “genocide”, it is of critical importance to acknowledge more than just the “what” layer in reporting.

Without widespread understanding of the “why”, social media will continue to needlessly intensify negative emotions, fuel political division, and propagate misguided opinions. According to Weeks and Kelly Garrett (2019), “emotionally evocative misinformation thrives in part because emotions create a need for understanding and a desire to manage threat. This desire can promote acceptance of plausible, though inaccurate explanations, [and] makes sharing such information with others more likely”. Educated on the history of brutal Western imperialists steamrolling all cultures before them, it is understandable that many young people transpose this narrative onto the conflict in Gaza, regardless of its distinct differences. As of April 2024, 18-to-29-year-olds are the Americans who most say Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas are “not valid” (Pew Research Center 2024) – in many cases, these opinions would have roots in digital activists’ snapshot summaries of the conflict and the power of emotive tags like “genocide”, both of which have links to oversimplification.

Resulting from much of the digital activism sweeping through social media feeds, many users – particularly those who are young and impressionable – have been found to experience a “perceived simplification of politics” (Schmuck et al. 2022) and a consequential cynical mindset. Especially when an issue arouses feelings of anger, as claims of “genocide” are particularly prone to doing, people tend to habitually revert to familiarity and comfort (Weeks and Kelly Garrett 2019) and, according to Schmuck et al. (2022), become increasingly politically cynical. In the case, then, of Gaza war coverage where the villain is shown as Israel – the Middle East’s Western outpost and nation most closely resembling a liberal democracy (V-Dem Institute 2024) – the trust of Westerners in their own liberal democracies understandably erodes. With communism and fascism having been mostly toppled in the 20th century, the bastion of liberal democracy is the final system standing with widespread trust; the dissolution of this trust will leave people with nowhere to plant their flag of faith (Harari 2018). Under-researched digital activism consequently widens the political chasm, entrenches people in their echo chambers, and erroneously fuels fires of anger, both towards opposing viewpoints and the world and its systems more broadly.

Jonathan Dean (2023) opines that “influencer culture is a symptom rather than a cause of the various social ills that are attributed to it”. While influencers are often grouped together as the quintessential amalgamation of society’s worst ills, I partially concur with Dean: much anti-influencer sentiment is misdirected and, on top of that, pointless. However, to say they do not at all condition their followers to be “vain, indulgent, narcissistic, superficial and frivolous” (Dean 2023) is also incorrect. Yes, the liquid digital activist will regularly shapeshift to fit the preferential mould of their followers, but they are after all an influencer. For better and for worse, the role is to influence; they are therefore partly blameworthy for bad values, and also a cause of some of our improving morals. Hailed as the relatable disseminators of news the youth have been crying out for, digital activists would be immoral not to carry some burden of responsibility. Yelling loudly, if only into the walls of an echo chamber, serves, at best, no outward purpose. At worst, as in the case of much online Gaza discourse, it sends audiences down a slippery slope of misinformation and misguided anger.

The rising attention given to misinformed digital activists is rewiring the code within my studied field of journalism. While it is far easier said than done, perhaps the most fundamental value of the practice is to eliminate as many potential biases as possible. This endeavour, though, is greatly undermined by social media’s “emotional nature…mak[ing] it harder for people to accept facts and arrive at the truth” (Weeks and Kelly Garrett 2019). This is not to say that no traditional journalist comes to their conclusions without first thinking about how they will engage the audience, but influencer activists tend to be more concerned about “establishing a distinctive personal brand” (Dean 2023), further perpetuating echo chambers and strict adherence to a very specific set of ideological values. Naturally, weakened trust and societal division ensues. However, if future news presenters – whether they ply their trade with ink or two thumbs – take the initiative to sincerely build brands of research and reason, rather than working for engagement or to affirm already-held opinions, social media has the potential to be at least less bad for news consumers compared to its current worth.

Misinformation is never healthy, but it avalanches in impact when it is circulated via an ultra-engaging, emotion-provoking five-second TikTok clip or 10-word Twitter post. Among young social media users, the conflict in Gaza has been misinterpreted and overrepresented, with misleading emotive tags often applied without sufficient background knowledge. Once an echo chamber narrative begins to veer from truth though, it is a near-impossible task to pull it back to the path of understanding and reason. This trend is a sign of the threat to our society’s hard-earned trust and comparatively smooth functioning; a monumental shift in mindset is required to stabilise. Change will not come easily, but social media news posters and consumers alike still have the opportunity to fulfill the democratic, morality-boosting potential of these uber-powerful platforms.

Footnote

1.  Data from 1 January to 16 May 2024, with average funding extrapolated over a year. However, if funding is only distributed on a once-a-year basis, Sudanese in need of assistance will receive US$17 per person for 2024 (UNOCHA 2024b).
   ↩︎

References

Andı, S (2021) How and why do consumers access news on social media?, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism website, accessed 13 May 2024. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/how-and-why-do-consumers-access-news-social-media 

Dean, J (2023) ‘From solidarity to self-promotion? Neoliberalism and left politics in the age of the social media influencer’, Capital & Class, 23(1), Sage Journals website, accessed 14 May 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03098168231199907 

GiveWell (2024) Our Top Charities, GiveWell website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities 

Harari, YN (2018) 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Vintage, London, United Kingdom.

Schmuck, D, Hirsch, M, Stevic, A and Matthes, J (2022) ‘Politics – Simply Explained? How Influencers Affect Youth’s Perceived Simplification of Politics, Political Cynicism, and Political Interest’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3):738-762, Sage Journals website, accessed 13 May 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19401612221088987 

Silver, L (2024) Younger Americans stand out in their views of the Israel-Hamas war, Pew Research Center website, accessed 14 May 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/ 

Tandoc, EC, Lim, ZW and Ling, R (2018) ‘Defining “Fake News”: A typology of scholarly definitions’, Digital Journalism, 6(2):137–153, Taylor and Francis Online website, accessed 13 May 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 

UNOCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2024a) Sudan: One Year of Conflict – Key Facts and Figures (15 April 2024), UNOCHA website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/sudan/sudan-one-year-conflict-key-facts-and-figures-15-april-2024

UNOCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2024b) Sudan Situation Report, UNOCHA Reports website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://reports.unocha.org/en/country/sudan/

UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (2023) 2023 Confirmed Pledges towards UNRWA’s Programmes [data set], UNRWA website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/list_of_2023_confirmed_pledges_by_all_donors.pdf

USA for UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) (2024) Emergencies, USA for UNHCR website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/

V-Dem Institute (2024) Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot, Varieties of Democracy website, accessed 13 May 2024. https://v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf 

Weeks, BE and Kelly Garrett, R (2019) ‘Emotional Characteristics of Social Media and Political Misperceptions’, in Katz, JE and Mays, KK (eds) Journalism and Truth in an Age of Social Media, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

WHO (World Health Organization) (2023) Malaria, WHO website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria 

YHF (Yemen Humanitarian Fund) (2023) Yemen Humanitarian Fund 2023 Annual Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs website, accessed 31 May 2024. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/yemen/yemen-humanitarian-fund-yhf-2023-annual-report