WITNESS and the Constantly Evolving Digital Age

In 1991 a bystander in Los Angeles captured the brutal beating of Rodney King Jr. on video.   The video initiated a global conversation on race relations and police brutality in the United States.   As mainstream media outlets broadcast the shocking images, it became clear that amateur videos could be a key tool in impacting change.

Peter Gabriel created WITNESS, a non-profit organization based in Brooklyn, NY, that uses video and online technologies to broadcast human rights violations across the globe.  Ultimately, WITNESS became an organization that reinforces the notion of turning stories of abuse into tools for justice while promoting public engagement and policy change.

While many NGO’s are  now creating full time media departments, they have only begun to understand and embrace the power of online technology.  On the other hand, WITNESS has relied on video and online technology from the beginning. WITNESS’s mission of using video and online technology to document human rights violations relies heavily on a philosophy of promoting values of partnership, shared learning, and adaptability in the face of change.   This created a foundation from which a belief in participatory media developed and lead to the creation of the WITNESS Hub.

LEARN MORE ABOUT WITNESS – VIDEO

The WITNESS website describes the Hub as “an online destination and a global channel for human rights, where anyone anywhere with access to the internet can upload, view, share, and connect with others around media that can serve as a catalyst for social action.”   The Hub has been an integral and successful component to WITNESS’s profile in the human rights arena, but could that change as we move towards new technological tools and processes?

The rapid rate of technological advancements today poses significant challenges to organizations that utilize technology in promoting their agendas.  As these changes in technology occur, an organization such as WITNESS may ask them self if they were to start all over today, would they use the same technology and platforms?  Additionally, they may want to ask how they will manage future changes in technology.

WITNESS is not a technology company and doesn’t have the expertise or resources to monitor changes that may impact their use of video and online forums.  They might benefit from partnership with a technology organization that can  specializes in new technology and platform building.

The next thing WITNESS might ask themselves is, is there a need for another platform like the Hub? We’re seeing more and more independent video platforms pop up around the world.  Do activists need this?  Does human rights need this?  A source from WITNESS believes that the best way to answer these questions is to conduct a much needed study and survey in order to find out what human rights really needs today.

Another important component to consider is the changing media landscape.  A source from WITNESS explains that the original hope of the hub was to create an outlet for activists without corporate restrictions.  However, tools and technologies have since been outdated by the changing media landscape.  An initial goal of having  a space where groups could create their own pages and have peer exchange as a way share ideas and blog.  There were a lot of big ideas the source explained.  Unfortunately, these big ideas sometimes were slowed down and hindered by technological issues.

This emphasizes the key issue about the importance of accessibility, especially when the intended purpose of the online tools is to create a participatory media environment.

One of the most important issues though revolves around security and ethics.  How do you address the online ethics surrounding human rights?  Were WITNESS decide to move forward in creating a new platform, questions regarding safety and security would be at the core of their decision making.

Just look at Youtube.   A WITNESS source explains how Youtube has many qualities that are concerning to activists.  These include the fact that they own the rights to any media you might post on their site, even you decide to eventually remove the material.  This creates a dilemma surrounding questions of ownership and censorship.  The source continues that “We cannot not use Youtube, but we have to be very conscious about what the limits and rights are and what we can do to think about human rights values.”.   She goes on to say that what they can do is encourage Youtube to embrace adaptive policies to make more activist friendly.

The WITNESS Hub’s initial popularity illustrated that there was indeed a need for a blog designed for advocacy, specifically video for change.  This is where it had proven to be most successful, with people engaging with projects from the WITNESS website.  It’s worth acknowledging that when WITNESS was first conceptualized, Youtube was not what it is today. Since Youtube was first created, there had been a pervasive increase of mobile cameras and consequently the elasticity of Youtube and online and video technology is very different from when the Hub was conceived.

Today there is a shift in rational.  The source concludes by illuminating that  “the important thing to say is that we thought we were going to be at the front end for the human rights video use, we thought people were going to come to us. Now we believe it is better to go to where people are and infiltrate their spaces with our values. Lets go to Youtube and infiltrate their space with human rights values that witness holds.”

No related posts.