Essay: New media

“Once the Xerox Copier was invented, diplomacy died”. (Young 1970). “New Media” defined as “A catch-all term used for various kinds of electronic communications that are conceivable due to innovation in computer technology” (Technopedia.com n.d.) In modern terms, it is characterised by social media platforms ubiquitous in everyday life such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The origins of diplomacy are much older, and has evolved alongside New Media to be defined as “established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence.” (Marks and Freeman 2019) Although this definition is true in many ways, the combination of New Media and Diplomacy has made it even more important for modern-day nation-states to engage in not only foreign diplomacy amongst elites and governments but public diplomacy both domestically and internationally. In essence, the Xerox copier didn’t spell death for Diplomacy, it entailed a new era where a wealth of information is constantly changing the dynamic of how Diplomacy is conducted.
The key areas in which New Media has helped a state’s diplomacy are: facilitating the improvement of traditional diplomacy between State Diplomats and Governments, creating a new domain of Public Diplomacy with a wealth of information. Furthermore, the impact of New Media on the prevailing models of Media influence on Diplomacy; namely the Elitist and Pluralist Models will be evaluated.
The impact of New Media on traditional diplomacy is largely focused on the change from a “one to one approach”, to a “one to many approach”. Traditional Diplomacy relied on communication between Diplomats and Heads of State, with much of the negotiation obscured from public view. (Stasavage 2004) Before the advent of the internet and social media platforms; Radio, Newspapers were the main forms of distributive media available to the general public. As such, Diplomacy was very much a one-way street between the State and the Public. (Chomsky and Herman 1994) New Media outlets, such as Twitter, have changed the way in which Diplomats correspond with one another.
The case of an incident involving a US patrol vessel wandering into Iranian waters subsequently leading to the arrest of the US crew; is an example of how Traditional Diplomacy combined with Twitter, facilitated efficient conflict resolution and the rapid release of the US seamen. (Duncombe 2017) The incident saw exchanges between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, over Twitter. Firstly, the use of Twitter meant that the exchange took place with a public audience. Furthermore, the instantaneous nature of New Media meant that the time lag between exchanges was significantly reduced. (Duncombe 2017) These 2 factors significantly changed the way in which Diplomats had to carry themselves while communicating with one another, while simultaneously speeding up the process of negotiation. The public audience aspect of this example highlights the importance of image. (Duncombe 2017) Both Iranian and US Diplomats wanted to present themselves as reasonable and independent to the public audience. This combined with the demands for a shorter response time online, meant that respective sides had less time to digest information and thus had to respond in an almost reflexive and organic manner. Therefore, the positive impact of New Media on traditional diplomacy primarily rests on 2 things. Firstly, the transformation of a bilateral communications channel to a multi-lateral one, opening up negotiations previously closed off to the Public Sphere to a wider audience. Secondly, the shorter time frame in which negotiations occur where in this day and age instant communication is ubiquitous and often expected.
Following the impact of New Media on traditional Diplomacy. New Media has brought Public Diplomacy to the forefront of States’ priorities. Public Diplomacy is any kind of state-sponsored effort aimed at communicating directly with the public domain. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2017) Conventional definitions point only to “foreign publics” but the interaction between domestic publics and the State have become increasingly important as well. Although the Realist perspective adopts an Elitist model of foreign relations, where a State’s Foreign Policy shouldn’t be influenced by public and media influence, the reality is that often public influence does have an impact of Foreign Policy. (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne 2008) A good example of this would be mass protests in the US towards the waging of the Vietnam War. Where mounting public pressure was cited as part of the reason the US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne 2008) This leads us to the discussion of the alternative perspective on public pressure shaping Foreign Policy; Pluralism.
The Pluralist perspective on media and Foreign Policy postulates that public opinion and pressure has an influence on Foreign Policy and Diplomatic decisions. (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne 2008) Conventional Pluralist perspectives see media as a “checking balance” to the desires and decisions of “the elites” and power holders in State Governments. It seems that the advent of New Social Media platforms has only served to strengthen the Pluralist perspective on Public Diplomacy. Since Social Media Platforms often operate on an aggregate individual basis, it is difficult for States and corporations to regulate and control. (Dale 2009) Furthermore, it was found that Social Media users are more likely to ignore information that was perceived as propaganda. (Dale 2009) This sensitivity to information that appears to be obtusely biased, combined with the grassroots and individualistic way in which New Social Media networks operate, makes it more difficult for State Governments to carry out Public Diplomacy.
The Elitist perspective on media and Foreign Policy postulates that since media sources largely controlled by large corporations closely linked to the State, information and the way it is framed in the public eye are state-controlled. (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne 2008) In the age of New Media, the vast majority of Social Media outlets are controlled by US-based companies, but often these companies are reluctant to regulate or control content. This is not to say that the US Government doesn’t have access to information on companies such as Facebook. From January to June 2018 there were 42,466 instances of the US Government requesting various forms of data from Facebook. While the vast majority were labelled as “Legal Process”, approximately 3,000 of the requests were labelled “Emergency Requests”. (Facebook.com 2018) About half of the requested content was released under a non-disclosure agreement with the US Government blocking Facebook from notifying the users the data was taken from. (Russell 2018) If governments are able to control New Media sources in a similar way that traditional print and radio media was controlled in the past, it is likely that it will significantly aid State’s and enhance their ability to conduct Public diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy, both domestic and foreign, has been greatly enhanced by the advent of New Media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. States can use these platforms to disseminate a myriad of audio-visual as well as textual information in large quantities and over very short spans of time. The speed aspect is especially important due to the raised expectations of the public for State governments and diplomats to provide information on political events. (Dale 2009) Alternatively, due to the large quantities of information provided, the importance of each piece of information may be diminished. The main appeal of social media lies mostly in its unregulated and individualised nature. (Dale 2009) Namely, New Media interactions are not just about disseminating formal information, rather it is about creating information relevant to the individual. (Dale 2009) Therefore, government bodies that publish critical information via New Media platforms must often carefully consider the quantity and quality of what they are posting.
The untapped potential of New Media utilisation by governments was highlighted by a paper published in the US Heritage Foundation’s journal “Backgrounder”. They asserted that the Obama administration was the first to truly push forward with Public Diplomacy using New Media. The use of Facebook, to publish President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009 was considered an outstanding use of New Media to reach out to the 20,000 or so Arabic speaking audience using the platform. (Dale 2009) The White House also encouraged discussion on Facebook, prompting users to respond to the speech and collecting some responses to be published on the US Government’s main New Media site, America.gov (now renamed shareamerica.gov). (Dale 2009) Thus, Domestic Public Diplomacy is a prime example of how “New Media” operates within the framework of Diplomacy and how states can use these platforms to disseminate diplomatic aims and the information exchange at individual, community and state level.
The US Government and Obama Administration’s use of New Media to reach out to public audiences is a good example of how modern-day states can effectively utilise it to their own ends. Furthermore, it also highlights the impact that New Media has had on the domain of public diplomacy and its impact on the requirements and pressures put-on modern-day states to influence, inform and interpret information. Countries such as China have chosen to take a different approach when conducting Public Diplomacy, by means of restricting the use of US-based Social Media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and replacing it with their own version called 人人网 (Renren-wang, literally “people net”) and Sina Weibo. (Fuchs 2015) The question of whether China has actually been successful in regulating its domestic New Media Platforms have been one of debate, but the one thing that is certain is that Chinese New Media Platforms are not required to submit information to any other government. Furthermore, the Chinese Government can and does actively shut down Weibo posts that criticize the State Government. (Fu, Chan and Chua 2013) The Chinese New Social Media Scenario is one where advantages in the Pluralist and Elite perspectives on public diplomacy are very well illustrated.
The Chinese equivalent of Twitter, Sina and Tencent Weibo, has often been hailed by Western media sources as a “Free Speech Platform”. (Fu, Chan and Chua 2013) Although Chinese citizens often take to these sites to voice political opinions, the sophisticated and evolving censorship mechanism that the Chinese Government employs often deletes posts and suspends user accounts. (Fu, Chan and Chua 2013) From the Pluralist perspective, these sources of information and debate would influence the Chinese public domain and ultimately State Foreign Policy, but with the prolific censorship of politically sensitive posts, the Elitist perspective is better supported. Nonetheless, users on these platforms have evolved to keep up with government censors. Certain words that are less likely to be censored are used as replacements for politically sensitive terms; such as “crown prince” (储君), used in reference to Xi Jinping. (Fu, Chan and Chua 2013) The Chinese New Social Media Scenario is an excellent example where there is a veritable push and pull between the Pluralist and Elitist Perspectives on Public Diplomacy. In this particular scenario, New Media neither helps nor hinders a State’s Diplomacy, rather it exists in a state of flux. Where the State attempts to assert control of New Media outlets as a tool, and the user base resisting it.
In conclusion, New Media has helped States conduct both traditional and Public Diplomacy by transforming the nature of both. New Media has changed the nature of traditional diplomacy by allowing Diplomats and State representatives to turn bilateral communications channels into multi-lateral ones. Moreover, New Media has transformed the way States conduct Public Diplomacy by creating platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, where vast quantities of information can be disseminated to a multitude of individuals near instantaneously. New Media has the ability to both help and hinder a State’s Diplomatic intentions and aims. The deciding factor is how effectively a State utilises New Media platforms in furthering their Diplomatic and Foreign Policy objectives.