The Ministry of Truth?

Time was that countries at war could use the idea of national security as a justification for media censorship: ‘careless talk costs lives’ they would claim, suggesting that decisions about how to impart information should be left to the professionals.

Until the advent of 24-hour rolling news coverage, this status was more-or-less preserved: Al Jazeera amongst other networks have challenged this orthodoxy during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, enabling viewers to submit video and commentary from behind armistice lines while more traditional journalists are embedded in army units, or required to submit their stories to military scrutiny before broadcast.

Because of it, the nature of public diplomacy is changing – the suite of blogs produced in association with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office bares testament to the role of the Internet in this context. Until recently, the US seemed unlikely to follow suit: instead, its consideration of the role of new technology in conflict situations was often limited to an exploration of its use by insurgents.

Initiatives from within the military to use social software were often closed down. Recently, however, things have begun to change. An American General is now regularly blogging and holding webchats with his troops.

In the recent conflict in Gaza, both sides have taken to the internet to provide accounts and justifications of their actions. See a database here. And from the grassroots, there are two examples of citizen led initiatives to promote peace and mutual understanding.

The Internet is providing new channels of communication – perhaps changing the face of conflict, as it is transforming democratic engagement, permanently. My hope is that as more information becomes publicly available, they will lead to better understandings between peoples and less tolerance for undemocratic practices. But will it bring peace?