"Putin used cyberwarfare to poison American politics, to spread fake news, to help elect a chaos candidate, all in order to weaken our democracy"

Friedman further states,

"We should be using our cyber-capabilities to spread the truth about Putin —just how much money he has stolen, just how many lies he has spread, just how many rivals he has jailed or made disappear — all to weaken his autocracy"

The truth is, IT'S NOT THAT EASY!




In the blog post, Web 2.0 in Public Diplomacy - a strategic mismatch, in The Public Diplomacy Blog in 2009, it was argued that,

"...if we look at developed economies like US or Europe, internet penetration and usage are high. So, for lesser countries with the capability and knowhow ... it will be a lot easier to influence Europeans or Americans in a focused way with mass out reach. 

In a way, the strategic advantage actually lie with these countries rather than the developed West when it come to Web 2.0 Public Diplomacy.

Being on the wrong side of the digital divide may be beneficial for these states.

To illustrate further, we all know about Iran "twittering away" few months ago... but these twitterers are very minuscule and do not form the huge popular support base for conservative Ahmedinejad. (Read my blog post "Public Diplomacy & Social Media" in June, 2009.)

For Iran, it is easier to reach and attempt to influence an American audience rather than for US to reach Iranians via Web 2.0. Naturally, the tactics have to be different and a realistic assessment of Web 2.0 potential has to be made for each country."

... and we all know by now that this is exactly what Russians did to the Americans isn't it?  So, it may not be as easy for Americans to undermine Putin's autocracy simply because of the nature of media consumption in Russia. But the Americans did well with their ant-Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, so we would have to wait and see!

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Newsweek reported that protesters are demanding Twitter's CEO to step down if he is unable to remove US President Donald Trump from Twitter. The protesters have launched a campaign "@Jack is complicit" to highlight the role Twitter has played in promoting Donald Trump.

(See the @realDonaldTrump tweet that sparked off the recent outrage)



All the hype about Twitter doesn't seem to be relevant at all. Twitter has been around for almost 10 years now and is one of the oldest social networking sites. In the last decade the site has been able to add and maintain only 330 million monthly active users when reported last and the company has never revealed the number of daily active users worldwide but is believed to be less than half of it's monthly active users. Compare this to the number of internet users worldwide, which is 3.8 billion, nearly half of the world's population! If we look at the top 3 countries of internet users - China has 750 million, India has 460 million and United States has nearly 300 million connected to the internet. 

What is apparent is that the number of Twitter users among internet users worldwide are minuscule. More than 100 million internet users in India are not on Twitter at all.

If we take a moment to stop and distance ourselves from the social media frenzy, we may notice that Twitter may not be relevant to a vast number of audiences, simply because they are not there (and are not following tweets from Donald Trump).

But Twitter is a big deal! Twitter's merit as a platform for breaking news is well established. It is also the broadcast tool of choice for the high and the mighty. It is also great to establish direct contact with influential people. And, the media loves it. It gives journalists  direct access to sources and their commentaries. Twitter derives its influence precisely from this, the fact that it manages to get media amplification for activities on the platform. The current trend of news media reporting on Twitter reactions, Twitter feeds, is what keeps the platform going. It's unfortunate that precious media space gets used up in such a manner, pushing issues of the day out of the public discourse.


It would be interesting to see if media decides to ignore Twitter updates of important people and what that would do to Twitter's business. The media should also stop obsessing about Donald Trump's tweets as he operates within a highly evolved democratic framework of institutions with robust checks and balances. It should recognize when it gets played.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The following is the text of a post I contributed to the CPD Blog. It was published on June, 26, 2017 :

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The world indeed looks very different as we start into the New Year. The rise of the conservative narrative across the world culminating in the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of United States ushers in very interesting times. 2017 might also be seen as the 'Big Crunch' of globalization. For PD enthusiasts, I have identified the following trends to watch out for:

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”

                The above was quoted in a report published in August, 2014, by the Pew Research Center and Rutgers University. The report was a the result of a survey of conducted by these institutions that "sought people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts." (as quoted in the report).

            According to the authors of the report, the key takeaway from the survey, and as cited by the New York Times later, was the finding that social media seems to have "diminished rather than enhanced political participation." Social media seems to be silencing debates by encouraging a "group think mentality" where people restrain from expressing opinions within their social networks, for fear of social exclusion, if they perceive that their network may not share their opinion. As per the theory of "Spiral of Silence" it reflects a dominance of the majority point of view over a minority's.

(Source: communicationtheory.org)

               This survey can potentially burst the social media bubble among Public Diplomacy fraternity. For PD practitioners who are in countries or focusing on countries with restrictions on media, the dominant view of looking at social media as the alternate platform for a more broad based engagement the finding hopefully would encourage a "re look" into their strategy.

              I look at this as primarily an opportunity to introspect and assess the real impact of social media in the process of political mobilization and dissent.

1. Is there self censorship and group think in social media debates?
2. Will a minority group be vocal against a majority group on social media platforms?

                The second question is more interesting I guess, as internet is known for it's unshackling tendency and its ability to disrupt. When we apply it in the context of the Arab Spring, as most experts rush to establish the correlation, what we may be overlooking is the fact that the Arab Spring was the rage of a powerless majority against a an elite minority that controlled all power. Maybe that's the reason why the spiral of silence did not occur in Egypt and social media was highly effective in mobilizing dissent.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

So much has been written about Gaza. So much about the Israel-Palestine conflict. We grew up watching it on TV, reading it in news magazines and it doesn't catch our attention anymore - nothing has changed.

Its tiring to keep yourself updated about the conflict like its tiring to keep yourself updated about Kashmir. From books, news stories, academic papers, discussion groups, information flow is relentless and overwhelming - but nothing has changed.

We are reading about it again. Any news report I pick up on  Gaza crisis today might read the same as it read in 2008-09. We continue to read the same stories.

A very engaging post by Dr Rhonda Zaharan in the CPD Blog - 'Gaza in the First Person'  - looks into this problem of narrative very well. The whole context of the conflict, its perception and communication by parties involved - Hamas & the Israeli state - and the framing of it by international media.

Dr Zaharna states,

"Israel now vows to stop the rockets “once and for all.” I shudder at the political and moral implications of what this means, even if it were militarily possible to silence 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza. For me, this is about more than whose story wins."

She calls Gaza "a piece of of the world densely populated with human misery" and talks about how the siege of Gaza has become a prison for the 1.8 million people of Gaza. The "one-point-eight" whose stories we never hear. What is it like to dream, hope and imagine under a lifelong siege?

Gaza crisis is always framed in the context of Hamas, Israel and legacy of colonialism - while the world has changed tremendously.

Pic from: Roomee Times

There's a ban on storytelling about Gaza with numerous media restrictions, the latest being a ban by Israel on radio adverts listing names of children killed in Gaza. No wonder the stories are always the same.

One wonders how is it possible in a modern society to accept such regulations, how does an ally of the "greatest democracy on earth" deny freedom of expression to some. Especially when the Israeli state itself doesn't deny itself the right to an international public relations campaign to shape public opinion in its favor.

This isn't about the story of Hamas. This isn't about the story of Israel. 

This is about the story of one-point-eight, the conflict is about their future, their destinies. This is also about the the story of the people of Israel -"what do they want". I wonder if we hear their stories at all, if we ever will. I doubt if institutional media will ever be able to tell these stories given the context in which they operate.

I hope communication scholars like Dr Zaharna find ways of empowering the people of Gaza and also (why not?) the people of Israel to communicate their stories.

I am sure the world will listen as the narrative takes a new turn.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

“Facebook is by far the largest social networking site among U.S. adults, and with half of its users getting news there, is also the largest among U.S. adults when it comes to getting news. As discussed in an earlier report, roughly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults use the site, and half of those users get news there—amounting to 30% of the general population. YouTube has the next greatest reach in terms of general usage, at 51% of U.S. adults. Thus, even though only a fifth of its users get news there, that amounts to 10% of the adult population, which puts it on par with Twitter.”

“YouTube, LinkedIn and Google Plus news consumers are more likely than Facebook and Twitter news consumers to watch cable news. Twitter news consumers are among the least likely to turn to local and cable TV.”

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

I. AUDIENCE: Youth will be the primary drivers of your message. Find ways to engage with them on almost everything. According to the ‘State of the Urban Youth, India 2012: Employment, Livelihoods, Skills,’ a report published by IRIS Knowledge Foundation in collaboration with UN-HABITAT, every third person in an India city is a youth and by 2020 the median age of the country will be 29 years. See INDIAN YOUTH PORTAL of the Government of India : http://www.youthportal.gov.in/

II. MESSAGE: Localize your message and content for India; for each of its regions. India has a long tradition of assimilation and a composite culture. We like to give our own shape to stuff. Remember to package it audio visually, sometimes it helps to overcome barriers presented by linguistic diversity or illiteracy.

III. TONALITY: Aspiration is what it should represent. Irrespective of geography or socio economic standing. Here I would like to draw the approach of Harvard Professor Dominique Moisi’s much criticized work - “The Geopolitics of Emotion” - where he maps the world according to three primary emotions – hope, fear and humiliation.

 IV. MEDIUM: Do not forget alternative media, the ubiquitous mobile phone and social co-creation. The mainstream press and journalists remain important but the monopoly over production of viewpoints is  broken and so is the monopoly over the medium. Also remember access to technology and media in India is often ‘informal’ – people without the means or know-how still manage to access through friends, family, community groups etc. See this excellent slideshare presentation below by Mohit Chhabra: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Much has been written about the US State Department spending USD 630,000 to "buy millions of Facebook 'likes' on it's Facebook page. A story by AFP in the Indian newspaper Mint reported the following,

"A scathing report by the department’s independent watchdog took the coordinators of its social media outreach policy to task saying it needed to “direct its digital advertising to specific public diplomacy goals ...

The report by the Office of the inspector general found that two advertising campaigns launched in 2011 and 2012 cost some $630,000 with the “goal of building global outreach platforms for engagement with foreign audiences by increasing the number of fans... on four thematic Facebook properties.”

Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as ‘buying fans’ who may have once clicked on a post or ‘liked’ a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further.."

While the idea of directing tax dollars to buy Facebook 'likes' may seem atrocious to many but the criticism is not fair. While the amount spent may be debated, but the buying of 'likes' reflects the State Department's astute marketing sense and aggressive style - which is good. It also shows an understanding of the concept of 'social proofing' that matters in digital marketing,

"an attempt to guide user behavior by showcasing social influence. Facebook ‘Like’ is the most common example"

A higher ratio of Facebook Likes implies higher influence, popularity and more often than not influences others to explore. People are more likely to engage with a page that has already received large perceptible acceptance. 

While some may feel that the ideal scenario is to build the fan page organically; it is time, effort and resource intensive and promoting the page can take much longer. Also, keep in mind that it is dependent on posting meaningful content ... and achieving the level of streamlined collaboration that is required to source content within a bureaucracy, and the vastness of the State Department, would have made organic growth difficult.  Nonetheless, by making its page dynamic and reaching out to a larger group, specific public diplomacy goals would have been realized by more engagement. 

Similar to 'Likes' on Facebook,  Twitter following is another example of social proofing. See the following infographic from social selling university on the practice of buying Twitter followers. Do I see Obama?




Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Palestinians burn the US flag during a demonstration against an anti-Islam on September 12, 2012 in front of the UN headquarters in Gaza City. Source: www.presstv.com

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Some useful resources:

• How to Write a Great Twitter Post

• How To Write The Perfect Tweet

• Tweets that click

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Wall of Fame at Statesman House, New Delhi

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Egyptian protesters on the street. Source: The Huffington Post

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest