Saudi women wearing the Abaya

This will be my last post on The Global Agenda. The point of this blog has been to look at issues around the world and their importance in the news agenda. It’s been enlightening to look at how one subject can raise such huge awareness in the media of one country, but barely create a headline in another. Or, at the other end of the scale, to approach issues which are so often in the news all over the world that we are no longer clear on the real issue.

This morning I woke to a news bulletin announcing that a 13-year-old girl in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 90 lashes and 2 months in prison for taking her mobile phone to school.

I first heard this news about a week ago via Twitter. The Australian ‘Herald Sun’ wrote about it on January 20th. But only today do we report it in the UK.

This girl is not a hardened criminal, nor by our legal standards is she even old enough to face criminal punishment. In the UK just two days ago, two young boys were sentenced to a custodial sentence, their anonymity in tact, for the sadistic torture of children even younger than themselves. And here is this small Saudi girl, facing the cruellest punishment for something so comparatively insignificant.

The issue of human rights has already been addressed in previous posts, and Saudi Arabia is one of the worst abusers of human rights. Women in Saudi Arabia entirely subject to men. Those who are found in the company of any man who is not their close relative can be stoned to death. They are punished for not covering themselves, lest they should so excite a man that he is moved to assault her.

Am I outraged that this story didn’t make headlines sooner? I’m barely surprised.

This is not a new story. And Saudi Arabia is certainly not the only country in which this kind of repression occurs. But Saudi Arabia is a US ally. That the leader of the free world has this kind of relationship with a such an oppressive saddens me. Cynical though I may be, the flickering thought that this story did not make headlines earlier for any political reason is deflating.

An audio tape allegedly of Osama bin Laden praising the attempt to bomb Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit was broadcast on the Arabic television station Al-Jazeerah this morning. A quick search on Google News tells me that this has made headlines in every continent, in every language. China’s Xinhua News Agency, France24, Israel’s Ynetnews, The Times of India, Brazil’s Diário Catarinense newspaper, and Lebanon’s Daily Star are just a few of the news outlets that appear in the first few pages.

Chris Dickey spoke of terrorism as an ‘isolated phenomenon’, and for the media to imply that fundamentalism is a widespread, uniquely Arabic problem is irresponsible. But it’s equally irresponsible to ignore the global reach of terrorism. It is not isolated in its effect on the global agenda – the trepidation provoked by the very idea that bin Laden is alive and active reverberates across the oceans.

But what is certainly true is the reliance of terrorists on the media. Bin Laden continues to mock the world by circulating footage of him at large while a bounty hangs on his head. His elusiveness makes this footage enormous news, but by showing it on national and international media the world gives him credibility. John O’Sullivan (‘Media Publicity Causes Terrorism’, 2000) suggests that broadcasting Bin Laden’s messages simply treats him “as someone whose contribution to public debate is worthy of attention.” (2000: 73)

This reliance on advanced nations is paradoxical. Islamic fundamentalists reject and deride global Westernisation. They look at access to global entertainment and media as “decadent Western imperialism or at least as ‘cultural and technological imperialism’” (Pelton, 2004: 28) Such ‘decadence’ worries fundamentalists, who fear that their traditions and values will be stained by the spread of Western technology – a ‘dark’ technology.

And yet, Pelton suggests, “they embrace the same technology to fight those who violate their belief systems.”

This paradox makes the threat a difficult one to face. We know that while we are scaling “new heights of intellectual and scientific understanding” with access to technology, and the breakdown of hierarchies with online public debate, we are only intensifying the global divides between West and East.

“The rifts that separate our world,” Pelton writes, “are no longer just economic, but also cultural, religious, educational, and even scientific and technological.”

As a direct result terrorism dominates the media. It’s only natural – the idea of terrorism has acquired such a mythical element of fear that of course it makes headlines.

But the emotions stirred by the perceived threat can be dangerous. We are not suffering under a daily risk of attacks. The Western media’s constant reference to terrorism trivialises the risk which people in bombing hotspots overseas face.

In November 2009 the journalist and author Christopher Dickey gave a series of lectures on terrorism at the University of Sheffield.

Throughout his career, Dickey has covered combat and terrorism across the world. He began reporting the Central American wars in the early 1980s, travelling across Nicaragua with the Contra rebels, and since then his work has taken him to Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Kosovo during the height of political turbulence, reporting, as he says, “one terror incident after another.”

But Dickey is not what you would expect from someone with thirty years of experience of terrorism. You’d be forgiven for assuming he would be the first to warn of the dangers of the current global threat.

He is not. “The threat of Al-Qaeda is vastly overblown,” he says, paradoxically.

“It is a small, isolated phenomenon which is wildly inflated by the government. The Bush government wanted a confrontation with extremists like that of Communism. They addressed it as if it was an apocalyptic, globe-shaping issue.”

It’s an entirely different premise. With the exposure terrorism gets in the media, it’s difficult to disprove the theory that terrorism is exactly what he says it’s not – critical and determinative.

Speaking in early 2009 on the Paula Gordon Show, Dickey said the average terrorists are not the criminal masterminds we believe them to be, but just “a few testosterone driven malcontents.”

If this were true, it would be difficult to justify the weight given to terrorism in the media. It is true that journalism has a tradition of framing stories with a theme of conflict. Joseph S. Truman (“Communicating Terror”, 2003) suggests that stories compete for airtime or newspaper inches by “generating conflict in order to make the story more compelling.”

He compares this competition to that of entertainment media, saying: “Conflict draws readers and viewers into a story and sustains their interest. And as it is for entertainment, so it becomes for news media.” (2003: 119)

So are the media responsible for fuelling the fire? Chris Dickey disagrees. “The media has a responsibility to the public,” he says. “If we don’t report to the people we play to the terrorists.”

Dickey believes that the problem is not the volume of coverage, but its content. Diplomacy, he says, and actually talking to terrorists, is the only way to turn the tide.

“Once you begin talking to terrorists,” he says, “suddenly they aren’t terrorists anymore. Yasser Arafat was once ‘a terrorist’ – and then he was given a Nobel Peace Prize.”

Channel 4′s timing for their Indian special is unfortunate, given the circumstances in Haiti and the dominance it has on the news agenda at the moment. No doubt this will change as soon as the rescue mission ends.

I wanted to share one of Krishnan’s tweets from his current location, Mumbai, as it puts the coverage of the Haitian crisis in perspective. This morning he wrote: “Interesting how perspectives are different here. Haiti makes a side-bar one inch story on front page of Hindustan Times today.”

A one inch side-bar? Meanwhile, we have 24-hour coverage on the BBC News channel, front pages dominated by images of desperate Haitians, and special feature programmes appealing for donations.

India is a country for whom poverty and tragedy is commonplace. Natural disasters occur on a yearly basis, disease is often rife amongst slum communities, and the chasm between the rich and poor is vast. So perhaps it shouldn’t be that surprising that the Indian media can’t afford as much airtime or column inches to the suffering in Haiti – it isn’t vastly different to their own.

It’s no coincidence that nations which exist in extreme climates or in disaster hotspots find life tougher than those in moderate, stable countries.

The first snippets of information from the scene did not come from news crews or radio broadcasters. Instead what happened was that new media – blogs, social networking sites, and email – became the central hub for sharing news.

The terrible situation in Haiti is a crucial example of how social media functions in a way traditional forms of communication can’t. It can dictate what the world talks about.

Within minutes of the first reports coming in. bloggers and Twitterers in Haiti became journalists, providing first-hand accounts of the tragedy while the rest of the world’s reporters were still looking for their passports. Meanwhile, thousands of people all over the world were tweeting and re-tweeting news, advice and expressions of sympathy. Haitians posted directions to the worst hit areas. Warnings of aftershocks, and donation hotline numbers were sent to everyone following the topic. The earthquake became one of the most talked about subjects on Twitter, moving it to the top of the ‘Trending Topics’ list.

The phenomenal impact on journalism is not a story that begins in Haiti. From immediate local accounts of terrorist attacks to online public outcry successfully championing a cause, powerful social networks have started to control the news agenda.

Before the advent of social media, the news agenda dictated what people discussed. Today it works both ways. Quite often, Trending Topics make the headlines. We saw how the power of Twitter overturned Carter Ruck’s injunction against the Guardian, and convinced advertisers to pull adverts from the Daily Mail after Jan Moir’s article about the death of Stephen Gately shocked the nation.

Then there was the abuse of a passenger by London tube staff which made local news in the capital after a blogger posted his secretly filmed footage on Twitter and Youtube.

But while this information is a gift for those of us who crave to be in the know, we are left with serious questions of credibility. Where did they get this information? What is their motive in spreading it? We are acquainted with these online personalities only through a stream of 140 character messages – they could be anyone at all.

They are what John Downing refers to as “ragtag and bob-tail media”. He says many people doubt the authenticity of their information. But equally, he suggests that for others “there is a rigid rejection of all mainstream media as polluted sources.” (2003: 304) In other words, the hegemony is the mainstream media – newspapers, television and radio – is no longer a given, but the alternative may be too difficult to control.

Information may have been regulated in the pre-internet age, but in 2010 blogging and social networking transcend these restrictions. Social media brings people together – the know-it-alls, and the pretenders – in ways the traditional media never could.

The Google offices in Beijing this week

There are a number of international students from China in our global journalism class. They often spend quite some class time defending their country as they face a barrage of questions from inquisitive journalistic minds about the situation in their home country.

Do they feel hampered by what they can and can’t discuss in the media? As women, do they feel at a disadvantage? What kind of freedom could you possibly find in a country we all know is restrictive and values censorship?

Our views of China come from the Western media, unless we have had the chance to spend time there ourselves. China wants to be accepted as a global leader, and news from the last 12 months certainly suggests that its stars are rising. Its economy, which grew 10.7% in the last quarter of 2009, is on track to to become the second largest global economy, according to India’s Economic Times.

But the news from China this week is less favourable. Google is threatening to put a stop to its operations in China after the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists were hijacked in what the company called a “sophisticated and targeted” cyber attack.

While Google were very careful not to accuse anyone specifically of the attack, it said that it was no longer willing to censor its Chinese search engine, which they agreed to in 2006 when Google.cn was launched.

It’s difficult to accept that a country which requires its search engine to be censored is not the repressive society we believe it to be. And yet in economic terms, it’s on its way to becoming a superpower. Freedom of speech and of expression is what sets supremely powerful countries apart. Those which have the most severe problems are those which also have a history of tyranny and subjugation.

Simon Long of The Economist notes that China is held back by its desire to have it both ways. “It needs to accept that the tolerance it demands for different political and cultural standards should be reciprocal,” he said. “To complain, as it does, to Western governments that they allow their newspapers to print terrible things about China, and their protesters to wave the flag of an independent Tibet, is to display wilful ignorance about Western political systems.”

For Google, whose motto is ‘don’t be evil’ and who claims to be an advocate of human rights in China, the country represents a crucial fast-growing market. Nearly 340 million Chinese are online today, compared to just 10 million in 2000.

But unlike most global internet markets, Google trails a distant second place to China’s leading search engine, Baidu – a company with close government ties.

The People’s Republic of China celebrated its 60th anniversary in October 2009, an anniversary which holds a great deal of significance in Chinese culture, marking as it does the culmination of a complete astrological cycle.

New cycles, new beginnings. If China wants to be accepted as a global leader, Simon Long points out, it cannot be “spared the costs that such a role entails.”

An Islam4UK rally

Several weeks ago I wrote about a democracy’s committment to freedom of speech. The BNP had been allowed on Question Time, and I questioned whether it was responsible to allow such an extreme party such publicity.

The verdict was that for a democratic society to be truly free, even extreme voices had to be tolerated. Banning groups or individuals whose views don’t match our own is not democratic.

There is speculation today whether the radical group Islam4UK, an offshoot of the Islamic organisation al-Muhajiroun, will be banned under a new terrorism law. Islamic extremism is a touchy subject, and conjures up more fearful images than the extremism of organisations like the BNP.

But, touchy subject or not, Britain has a long history of democracy. It is a multi-racial society, whose citizens practice many different values and religions. It allows us to recognise tyranny and injustice where it occurs elsewhere in the world, and we report on it in the knowledge that life here is different.

As hateful and outrageous as Islam4UK is, by banning them we lose that moral highground. How can we discuss autocracy in other societies if we ourselves make a decision like this?

His cartoons have been the subject of much discussion in our Global Journalism class. Should small, localised pulications be held to the same standards of taste and accountability as those with huge circulations? Was Westergaard naive to think that his cartoons would not be seen by a wider audience?

I wanted to draw your attention to this article in the Guardian about Westergaard’s life. He has gone from being a relatively unknown cartoonist for a regional Danish newspaper – a newspaper unlikely to have a large international readership, given the low numbers of Danish speakers outside of Denmark – to living a life on the run, fearing for the safety of his family. 

It highlights an interesting concept – that the fury of Islamic fundamentalists is not uniquely directed at Western superpowers. Images of insurgents burning American flags, or denouncing the ‘loose morals’ of free societies, don’t work in this situation. This man was not involved in the ‘clash of civilisations’ rhetoric so often employed when discussing religious extremism.

Many ethical issues are raised by this story. Are journalists accountable for the unforeseen reaction of an unintentional readership? Moreover, should cartoonists have to conform to the same standards of accountability. Cartoons are by nature not factual, but a creative outlet for opinion.

Surely, as Westergaard himself says, it is not right that you are threatened in your own country just for doing your job?

While bloggers are calling it ‘inappropriate’ and ‘brainless’, Dr. Anthony Samad, a professor of African American studies in California warns that it’s not an isolated incident.

“There’s this notion that we’re in a post-racial period in America because of the election of the first African American president,” he said in Canada’s National Post. “However, this president has received more death threats than any other president in the history of America.” 

Racism is a dark force, and is still virulently alive in the United States, particularly in the Deep South. Even American patriotism is no match for it.

I have my fears for Obama – he is such a change from the typical American leadership we have become used to that his race may just be a trigger for unbalaned people out there to take matters into their own hands. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, American president to face threats like these, but he is the first for whom the issue of race rears its ugly head.

Stories like this remind us that even the world’s biggest democracy, the paradigm free society, cannot rid itself of its prejudices. It’s worth remembering when we look at flag burning in Iraq, or racial discrimination in South Africa. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to offer up the US as the ultimate global aspiration.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742182

Having written a slightly pessimistic last post about the years 2000-2009, I felt like I should counter it with something more positive. It’s hard to imagine that much will change any time soon, so deep are we in war, recession and political turmoil. And with the next decade being those ‘awkward teen years’, optimism is running low.

But there is a brighter side. The last decade, for all its flaw, was also the decade that brought us the first African American POTUS. It saw gay marriage legalised in several countries, with Argentina and Portugal set to follow. We completed the Human Genome Project and developed a vaccine for cervical cancer, and found water on Mars. Saddam Hussein was captured, ‘Google’ became a verb, and the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by 187 states. And social networking provoked a technological revolution that transcended war, poverty and tyranny.

Despite the darkness of the last ten years, the world has survived. A little worse for wear perhaps, and certainly apprehensive about what lies ahead, but survival has been an overriding theme.

New Yorkers survived September 11th with patriotic grit. Indonesians and Sri Lankans determinedly struggled through the effects of the tsunami. Israelis and Palestinians fight on, living through insurgencies and warfare on their doorstep, as do families in Afghanistan and civilians in Iraq. And Iranians risk their lives daily by continuing to challenge a repressive government even in the face of heavy censorship.

The instinct to survive is never stronger than during times of trouble. In the face of uncertainly, fortitude often flourishes. And sooner or later, says Adam Roberts of the Economist, the current angst will surely lift, giving way to a gritty optimism.