This video was broadcast on France 2 (one of the main French TV channel) and was supposed to present the current situation in Gaza. But after some searches, we’ve learnt that this video was shot in 2005. Big mistake.
Explanations thanks toOlivier B. on LePost.fr : because journalists don’t have access to Gaza strip anymore, they can’t get content themselves, so as they can only use what they find online, thanks to citizens (or because of them in this case).
It’s highly complicated in our liquid modernity to check information (less time to solve a huge amount of problems, so as you need to find shortcuts…) and to know to which story a content belongs.
Because it’s all about opinion as explains Jean-Baptise Gallopin : this operation also aims to prove that Israel is determined to fight against Hamas, just before the elections and the right-wing pressure.
Stakeholders now have to fight for the storyline of a conflict, to control what is broadcast and what the various episodes are. Soubrouillard gives us some elements on Betapolitique about the YouTube channel led by the Israel side : it’s now a kind of guerilla marketing that is happening in social media.
Baudrillard already analyzed this situation in 1981 in Simulacra and Simulation:
“There is no longer a stage, not even the minimal illusion that makes events capable of adopting the force of reality-no more stage either of mental or political solidarity: what do Chile, Biafra, the boat people, Bologna, or Poland matter? All of that comes to be annihilated on the television screen. We are in the era of events without consequences (and of theories without consequences).
There is no more hope for meaning. And without a doubt this is a good thing: meaning is mortal. But that on which it has imposed its ephemeral reign, what it hoped to liquidate in order to impose the reign of the Enlightenment, that is, appearances, they, are immortal, invulnerable to the nihilism of meaning or of non-meaning itself.”
But beyond institutional or military propaganda, some citizens like Hope Man and Peace Man obviously try to own again the stories they experience and try to broadcast another vision of what’s going on there, and therefore try to implement a citizen digital influence strategy :
“The day after the war we want to start finding ways to work together and create a normality. We are only several kilometers apart and that will never change. It is extremely important to widen our dialog and create trust between those that are willing to talk. To share our stories, fears and hopes.”
The (only) good news is that conversations always bypass walls. Problem is that in this case, “the oopinion” is more favorable to war.