And, like any other wildly popular video, it has also generated a good deal of opposition from those who fear its wildfire tendencies, who are cynical as to its ability to create change, and who envy and/or leech off its hugeness. This tumblrite, in particular, has been getting attention for its blatant opposition to the Kony 2012 movement: http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/
Here is my response to both of these.
First off, movements like Kony 2012 are nothing new. As the video mentions from the very beginning, internet is changing the way the world works; more and more people are recognizing the power of the internet in creating massive grassroots movements. For evidence, look to the anti-SOPA and anti-Protect-IP movements - although there really can be no evidence as to whether or not the actions of Wikipedia and Google created a big enough effect to reverse the legislation, there can be no doubt that Congress was inundated with emails from angry citizens. Obama's 2008 internet campaign smacks of JFK in more ways than one; he, like Kennedy, took advantage of a new medium, to great effect - the highest voter turnout since 1960. And from the more frivolous side of things, we have Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, Hank and John Green, and Ryan Higa, all of whom "made it big" through youtube videos.
I personally found it refreshing to see the internet being used as a medium for good - to see people recognize the power of the web and use it to promote humanitarian causes. The voice of child soldiers in Africa has long been muffled by news of economic recession, rising gas prices, and the latest celebrities. The video itself was well-made, tugging at the heartstrings somewhat blatantly, but effective in getting its message across. It appeals not only to pity, but also to the teenage desire to make one's mark on the world, so that by the end, the watcher feels like jumping out of his or her seat and go change the world. Again, this is nothing new, but the cause that it supports is sincere, and it is executed effectively. It is an image of young, determined, and naive Americans, seeking to help their neighbors, stop injustice, and just "do something" about the world they live in.
I would exercise caution, however, before "doing something." Many advertising campaigns, including this one, rely heavily on immediacy - "call within the next five minutes, and we'll throw in a free set of steak knives!" Kony 2012 is not simply setting deadlines - it is relying on an age-old psychology tactic in which the need for speed reduces the ability to think things through. I am not saying that they intentionally do this in an attempt to brainwash America - their call for action is legitimate; the longer we delay, the more atrocities are committed. But speed can cloud one's thinking.
Thankfully. some have thought it through...and openly dislike it. http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/ published a blog post today against supporting Kony 2012. In a nutshell, Mr. Oyston's arguments are these: 1) the organization is inefficient and puts too much of its funding into creating more films, 2) it supports the Ugandan Army and the Sudan's People's Liberation Army, both of which are "riddled with accusations of rape and looting," 3) the organization over-simplifies the issues at stake, and "exaggerat[ates] the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasiz[es] the LRA's use of innocent children as soldiers," 4) it supports a "White Man's Burden" mentality, 5) various other arguments that can be summarized into the first four.
1) I agree that Kony 2012 has put much more emphasis and funding into its filming efforts than most other organization. However, as we can all see, that has paid off - their latest video has received over four million hits on youtube alone within the past two days. In a world where over a day's worth of videos are uploaded onto the web every minute, getting one's message heard requires much more than clicking "upload." In a sense, there is a trade-off between donating more of the funds to the cause, and getting more people to support the cause. Spending funds on publicity and filmmaking, while seemingly selfish and counterproductive, can pay off in more people watching the videos and donating. And in this mission, where the goal itself is to raise awareness and alert our government, money spent on publicity will be money well-spent. The argument that not enough money is going into "direct services" does not apply, simply because the primary goal of the organization is not to raise whatever funds it itself can collect, but to move the big names of the world to raise both funds and legislation on a scale that no not-for-profit organization could ever match.
2) The ethos of Kony 2012's argument has been massively damaged by the fact that the armies that they are supporting - the Ugandan army and the Sudan People's Liberation Army - are ripe with corruption, abuse, rape, and murder. Certainly, the situation is deplorable. The instruments they seek to use aren't the cleanest. But practically speaking, can we do any better? As the video mentioned, the U.S. is loath to involve itself in anything that isn't its own affairs, so any commitment of U.S. troops will be small and short-term - you can repeat this for most other affluent nations with better-disciplined armies. This leaves only the armies of Africa, most of whom also fall under accusations of rape and unnecessary violence. But of these, Uganda and Sudan are the best-equipped, and have the best motivation, since both their countries suffered at the LRA's hands. It is true that the LRA has since then moved out of those countries, but this has nothing to do with the army's ability to fight, as Mr. Oyston seems to think.
3) Exaggeration and over-simplification accusations can be thrown at almost every advertising campaign. I would like Mr. Oyston to point me to one recent, successful media campaign that did NOT oversimplify issues. This is not to say that such things are correct or moral, but the truth is that any advertisement that admitted to all of its problems and explained all of its complications in full would never succeed.
"Foreign Affairs has claimed that Invisible Children (among others) “manipulates facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.” " Yes, distortion of the facts is regrettable and unprofessional, but it is hardly new. And the fact that there are abductions and murders and child soldiers, never mind how many, should be cause enough for action. I find particular fault in the phrase "emphasizing the LRA's use of innocent children as soldiers..." Should we not emphasize this fact? Is it somehow "unprofessional" or "unfair" to emphasize the fact that children are being forced to kill or be killed themselves? 4) Another quote with which I have a bone to pick is this: "As Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Yale, writes on the topic of IC’s programming, “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden." " So there is something inherently misleading, naive, and dangerous about the idea of rescuing children. Is that a reason for not doing so? I don't understand why, when a white person seeks to help a disadvantaged black person, it is seen as condescending. Are we still so steeped in the racism of our past that we cannot help but see racism in every act between races, innocent or not? Should only black people help black people? I personally did not pick up on any racism in Kony 2012's mission, website, or videos, and I question the mentality of someone who does see it.
I understand that the issues are more complicated than can be fit into a half-hour video. But as responsible citizens, our job is to, after watching the video, take some time to do the research before we decide to support or oppose something. And it is not Kony 2012's fault that we have not.
Granted, I find that the organization has some issues - its "action packs" are corny, it is overly sentimental at times, and I simply don't like the voice of the narrator. The big difference between this effort and the stop-SOPA movement is that this one advocates us buying something, which is immediately cause for suspicion. But it has made a difference - there is now an early warning radio network to give villages time to evacuate and/or prepare for attacks, legislation has been passed to provide advice and assistance to nations fighting the LRA, and, most important of all, people now know who Kony is, and can email, protest, and generally make their voices known to their government and to the world. Yes, the means is iffy, but the way in which we attack the means can destroy the end.
"Something isn't better than nothing. Sometimes it's worse." I'd like to ask if this something really is worse than nothing, and, if not, what are you contributing to? Because to do nothing, and then to openly condemn those who try to do something, is what really is worse.