Facebook Revolution. Twitter Revolution. Neither of the latest social media monikers given to the Arab Spring fit, writes the Ottawa Citizen’s Declan Hill. Or at least, not in the way many think.

“Part of the problem,” he writes, “is that the events of the last year were a social media revolution, but the revolution was more important for us — the North American consumer – than it was on the streets of Cairo or Tripoli.”

Facebook Revolution. Twitter Revolution. Neither of the latest social media monikers given to the Arab Spring fit, writes the Ottawa Citizen’s Declan Hill. Or at least, not in the way many think.

“Part of the problem,” he writes, “is that the events of the last year were a social media revolution, but the revolution was more important for us — the North American consumer – than it was on the streets of Cairo or Tripoli.”

Here, we were told that social media was a major part of instigating change in the Arab world. That, says Hill, is simply not true.  Then why does it get so much credit for doing so?

Well, partly because social media companies want us to think they’re that important. But mostly – at least according to Hill – because foreign journalism is in big, big trouble.

He writes:

The very practice of journalism has changed. Budgets have been cut. Foreign bureaus closed. Reporters find it difficult to even leave the newsroom because that would cost their employers too much money. So what do they rely on? Social media. It provides them with great images and good quotes of the "We-all-hate-Gadhafi!" kind without them ever having to leave their desks.

You’ll want to check out his full column here.