The generation of content on the internet is one of the few truly democratic spaces in the world. At least in South Africa, you are free to publish and share whatever you like and the popularity of your post is determined by how well you market it and how many people support it.
People vote with their clicks – they choose what should be seen and what should not. One would think then that the summation of individual actions would represent what is most important to the community. Cecil the lion is a clear example that this is not true.
The facts around Cecil’s death are blurry and denial is strong but what we do know is that a US citizen shot and killed Cecil while on a hunting tour in Zimbabwe. Cecil, subject to ongoing research, could not be legally hunted and was apparently lured out of the Hwange National Park.
The internet exploded. Within 24 hours of the news first breaking, there were over 672 000 tweets about Cecil. The hashtag #CecilTheLion generated more than 2 billion impressions and Google recorded over 1 million searches for Cecil in the US alone. Facebook newsfeeds were flooded by this single topic in a furore that few other call-to-action subjects have matched. Cecil became a global phenomenon.
Does that mean that the hunting of Cecil the lion is the most important atrocity to millions of internet users? While I have spoken to a few individuals who claim they value animal life more than human life, this remains a minority view in society.
Most people admit that issues such as the oppression of Zimbabwe’s citizens, the deliberate hunting of homosexuals in Iraq and a child drowning in a pit latrine in a school in Limpopo are more pressing problems.
Action follows attention and the incredible attention that has been brought to game hunting has already shown results. Delta, United and American airlines, for example, have banned the shipment of big-game trophies. US Senator Bob Menendez announced an act to ban the importation of trophies from the hunting of threatened or endangered species.
There is no doubt that this same level of attention, even just within South Africa, could force schools to install toilets safe for five-year-old children.
This is not a criticism of those people who support the cause around Cecil the lion – it is absolutely imperative that every individual retains the freedom to decide what is most important to them.
But the popularity of Cecil has questioned why we share certain news items and not others, especially when we share issues that are not at the top of our priority list and don’t share the ones that are.
Cecil’s case was special. It was easy to summarise; the victim, persecutor, and the greater social issue behind it could all be mentioned in less than 140 characters. It was non-political and non-racial and there was little risk of somebody attacking your credibility due to your personal demographic.
Cecil’s case is about more than just one lion and it does deserve attention. But there is another important lesson that Cecil has taught us – every time we choose to share information we become voters of what becomes a global issue. Perhaps it is time we became more conscious of our voting behaviour and challenged ourselves to really voice what is most important to us, not just what is safest and easiest to talk about.
*
Pierre Heistein is the convener of UCT’s Applied Economics for Smart Decision Making course. Follow him on Twitter @PierreHeistein
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media
BUSINESS REPORT