In the readings this week, social media are highlighted as being crucial in the revolution in the Middle-East especially when conventional media sources, largely abroad, have amplified information that is circulating through Tweets. That the world was watching is also a possible reason why repression was not as intense as could have been, particularly in Egypt. It seems, therefore, that social media’s role was crucial not merely in the coordination of locals protests, but also in helping local revolutionaries draw international support to put pressure on the domestic regime. My question is, are international attention and political pressure crucial to the success of a revolution (and hence, social media’s role is underscored)? Would the revolution have started, and will it end up in political change without protestors being able to count on getting the international community’s support, and if social media can merely be used locally? I’m interested in understanding what is the crucial variable that determines revolutionary success — Is it mass power, or is it political pressure from the international community backing the protest, or is really, both?
Question 2 is: Did Hoke’s brilliant training strategy lead Michigan to victory or is the outcome merely psychological with the benefit of a change in the Coach?