The Role of Mass Media in the Ongoing Anglophone Conflict: Case Study of CRTV

ABSTRACT

Social networking sites increasingly plays a role in conflict and contentious politics. Politicians, leaders, insurgents, and protestors all have used it as a tool for communication. At the same time, scholars have turned to social media as a source of new data on conflict. Social networking sites  influence  conflict through four interrelated points: (1) Social networking sites  reduces the costs of communication, (2) it increases the speed and dissemination of information, (3) scholars should focus on the strategic interaction and competitive adaption of actors in response to communication technology changes, and (4) the new data that Social networking sites  provides are not only an important resource, but also fundamentally change the information available to conflict actors, thereby shaping the conflict itself. In sum, social media’s influence on conflict defies simplistic explanations that argue that it privileges incumbents or challengers.

The main objective of this study was to investigate the role of mass media in the ongoing Anglophone conflict.

This study made use of the theory of cooperation and the human needs theory.

The survey research decision was use and the sample sizes vary. Respondents’ questionnaire was also used to collect data from respondents.

The following recommendations were reached:

• The govern should address the root causes of the Anglophone war of independence
• The government should call for a cease fire as the war is bringing untold suffering to women and children
• The Cameroon government should go for a sincere dialogue and negotiation

Laws should be enacted to protect women and children.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to study

Social networking sites increasingly plays a role in conflict and contentious politics. Politicians, leaders, insurgents, and protestors all have used it as a tool for communication. At the same time, scholars have turned to social media as a source of new data on conflict. Social networking sites  influence  conflict through four interrelated points: (1) Social networking sites  reduces the costs of communication, (2) it increases the speed and dissemination of information, (3) scholars should focus on the strategic interaction and competitive adaption of actors in response to communication technology changes, and (4) the new data that Social networking sites  provides are not only an important resource, but also fundamentally change the information available to conflict actors, thereby shaping the conflict itself. In sum, social media’s influence on conflict defies simplistic explanations that argue that it privileges incumbents or challengers. (Aday ,2012:1)

Social networking sites have emerged as a powerful tool for communication, connection, community and, unfortunately, conflict. It’s created new, highly accessible channels for spreading disinformation, sowing divisiveness and contributing to real-world harm in the form of violence, persecution and exploitation. The impact social media has on real-world communities is complex and rapidly evolving. It stretches across international borders and challenges traditional humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding models. (Aday ,2012:1)

Social media has emerged as a powerful tool for communication, connection, community and, unfortunately, conflict. It’s created new, highly accessible channels for spreading disinformation, sowing divisiveness and contributing to real-world harm in the form of violence, persecution and exploitation. The impact social media has on real-world communities is complex and rapidly evolving. It stretches across international borders and challenges traditional humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding models.(Aday ,2012:1)

Disinformation campaigns can also be used to systematically manipulate political discourse within a state, influencing news reporting, silencing dissent, undermining the integrity of democratic governance and electoral systems, and strengthening the hand of authoritarian regimes. These campaigns play out in three phases: 1) the development of core narratives, 2) onboarding of influencers and fake account operators, and 3) dissemination and amplification on social media. As an example, the president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, used Facebook to reinforce positive narratives about his campaign, defame opponents and silence critics.

Social media platforms amplify and disseminate hate speech in fragile contexts, creating opportunities for individuals and organized groups to prey on existing fears and grievances. They can embolden violent actors and spark violence — intentionally or sometimes unwittingly. The rapid proliferation of mobile phones and Internet connectivity magnifies the risks of hate speech and accelerates its impacts. Myanmar serves as a tragic example, where incendiary digital hate speech targeting the majority Muslim Rohingya people has been linked to riots and communal violence.(Aday ,2012:1)

The ability to communicate across distances and share user-generated, multimedia content inexpensively and in real time have made social media a channel of choice for some violent extremists and militant organizations, as a means of recruitment, manipulation. The Weaponization of social media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 3 coordination. The Islamic State (ISIS) has been particularly successful in capitalizing on the reach and power of digital communication technologies

Repressive authorities, armed groups and violent extremists are making innovative use of digitally enabled tools and methods to distort facts on the ground and spread incendiary rhetoric. Their goals: to obfuscate accountability, undermine community acceptance, erode social cohesion or incite panic and/or violence. Ordinary citizens become embroiled in these processes, whether intentionally or unconsciously, and contribute to networks of online and offline actions that undermine healthy societies or foment violence.

1.2 Statement of Problem

The weaponization of social media drives conflict in powerful ways that intersect with and exacerbate existing issues in specific contexts. For individuals, social media’s amplification power and highly targeted, personalized nature can exploit fundamental cognitive processes to implant dangerous information and influence susceptible people with greater efficiency than other means of communication. On a broader scale, these same qualities can polarize groups of people and lend credibility to rumors, further dividing and inciting violence between groups at risk of conflict. These drivers are evolving quickly — faster than traditional approaches to addressing information-borne threats.

From the foregoing, the following research questions were raised:

• What is the role of social media in the Anglophone conflict?
• What has been the response by international community on the Anglophone conflict?
• What are the measures put in place to reduce social networking sites influence during conflict situation?