Sometimes I wonder what it’s all about. People nattering about dinner, music, shoes, rooms, celebrities, themselves. I’m happy enough to read and contribute to the noise – it’s like watching my brain provide commentary on its own death.
There are bigger issues. There are always more important things going on than pretty much anything that goes on within the world of Twitter. Yes, it’s a form of social interaction – but, as some might like to believe, it’s got nothing to do with social cohesion.
Recently I’ve been thinking about Pakistan, Chad and Niger all facing humanitarian crises and look at the silence on Twitter.
I look at the noise David Cameron made about Pakistan ‘exporting terror’ and look at the silence on Twitter. You know what gets a response? Something local. For example, @iamjamesward was mugged recently – which is awful – and he (and @themanwhofell) ended up on a radio show to talk about the incident. Not only that, but James ended up with £35 worth of donations towards a new phone (a campaign created by one of his followers) and a free phone from 3. Of course, he returned the donations.
I read The Independent’s article today on why the world is, seemingly, ignoring the increasingly desperate situation in Pakistan. This disaster is one of the worst in recent history.
‘Maurizio Giuliano, a spokesman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said: “This disaster is worse than the tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the Haiti earthquake.”‘ (Source: The Telegraph).
I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan’s associations with the Taliban as expressed within the British media has not played its part. The affected people are not terrorists. They are just people – now, homeless people – at risk of serious disease and death. And still, I look at the silence.
I don’t care to discuss why President Asif Ali Zardari was over in England when he should have been in Pakistan. I don’t care to discuss alleged corruption claims. I care to discuss why people are apparently tired of giving money to countries they simply don’t care about because, really, it’s not a holiday destination and they don’t know anyone there.
This from Oxfam:
‘Within the first 10 days of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, which left some 3.5m people homeless, the international community had committed $247m and pledged $45m. This works out to $70 committed per person, 10 days into the crisis.
In the first 10 days after Cyclone Nargis, which affected 2.4m when it struck off the coast of Myanmar, almost $110m was committed (and $109m pledged) in the first 10 days. This works out at $46 committed per person.
Likewise some $742m was committed to Haiti 10 days after the quake and $920 million pledged. Some 1.5m were directly affected by the quake, which works out at $495 per person, in funds committed, in the first 10 days.’
Here’s a chart to represent how much money has been pledged from the international community so far.
The UK has donated the most.
Almost 14 million people are now affected by the floods in Pakistan. So far, just $55.6m has been donated by the international community. I can barely believe that – much in the same way I can scarcely believe that Bush sold 14 million albums. Still, it happened.
I’ve long given up trying to win any races. You can’t win a losing battle, but you can still contribute to the fight. How many on Twitter fight for anyone but themselves? There aren’t many. And some might argue that those that do are boring; depressing; not worth following because they don’t make brilliant left-wing jokes.
What’s trending now? ‘Scott Pilgrim’.
What’s being retweeted in huge numbers now?
The solipsism has to stop. Surely, Twitter isn’t full of media whores hungry for limelight? We’re not sycophants falling for the thousands of verified accounts - the ones with hundreds of thousands of followers are we?
Maybe we are. Maybe it’s the only way to get anything done.