Napoleon once observed, "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." I find that very interesting coming from a guy who witnessed firsthand the amount of hostility and consequent destruction that can be caused by things like bayonets. But nevertheless, he said that newspapers were more dangerous, which means he must've seen the damage done by a few well written articles.
What I take away from this idea is a challenge to those who are regular producers and sharers of content of any kind: do we think about the influence and the outcomes of our work? Are we using whatever platforms we have in ways that are proactively shaping people and culture, as compared to, shedding light on the wrongs happenings and topics and calling people to actions that are either unimportant or destructive?
Western media tends to operate with a machine gun media mentality; one that works doggedly to produce the highest volume of content and get it out in the world in the shortest span of time. Yet, how much thought is given to the actual influence and affect this content content is having on people and cultures? Really, this quote and the questions it urges us to ask are a Napoleonic call to media responsibility; content ethics; shedding the right light on the right things so that people are moved and activated towards the important and needed information and art, as compared to, the inconsequential and possibly even destructive stuff bouncing around the web and social media these days.
So... what are you drawing peoples' attention towards? It's likely that you're influencing people more than you think.