Posts by JillianYork:
Shame on the American Media
May 30th, 2013
Jillian C. York.
And just like that, with one brief tweet, @OctaviaNasrCNN is no longer…That is, because of her tweet mourning the death of Lebanese religious leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Nasr has now been pushed out (fired? It’s not yet clear) from CNN. The tweet?
Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot #Lebanon
This is all too reminiscent of what happened to Helen Thomas in June. A journalist expresses an unpopular opinion–albeit with poor wording–and is pushed out of their job, with help from the Twittersphere.
What exactly is it about the opinion Nasr expressed that makes it worth firing her over? Well, Fadlallah was a “mentor to” Hezbollah, an organization that the United States considers a terrorist group. Mind you, halfway around the world, that’s not remotely how Hezbollah is viewed; like it or not, in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a legitimate political party and organization. And Fadlallah a respected figure, honored even in Western (and Israeli!) media.
Now, I get why Fadlallah’s views don’t sit well with Americans. I’m not remotely a fan myself. Nasrexplained why she made the comment she did, stating that Fadlallah’s views on women, within the Shi’a context, were rather liberal and within that context, impactful. But in the end, none of that mattered, and another good journalist with a long career was sacked for expressing an opinion.
Here’s what I don’t get: How come Mike Huckabee is allowed to state that Palestinians don’t exist? Why are conservatives allowed to draw imaginary lines between Miss USA and Hezbollah with no reprisal? Why aren’t journalists able to freely cover the BP oil spill? And why oh why can Martin Kramer call for genocide and garner support from free speech advocates?
I get that this is not strictly a First Amendment issue…journalists working under contract for big media companies are paid to toe the company line (unfortunately) and while Nasr can say whatever she wants, she can’t do it while earning a CNN paycheck. What frustrates me to no end, however, is how skewed such companies’ perspectives are on these issues.
The New York Times is an excellent example of what I mean: Their Middle East bureau is run by Ethan Bronner, an American Jew whose son is currently serving voluntarily in the Israeli military, a sure conflict of interest. And yet, despite the Times ombudsman and the Columbia Journalism Review tackling the issue, nothing came of it; Bronner is still in his position, his son is still serving with the IDF,and still doesn’t really hire Arab journalists. No, I don’t believe that a Middle East team without Arabs is fair and balanced. And no, I don’t think the Times would treat the issue of a Palestinian journalist with a son involved with Hamas in the same manner whatsoever. And that’s the Times. If we can’t expect them to be fair, then there’s absolutely no hope for CNN.
Mere Slacktivism
February 14th, 2013By Jillian C. York.
Be it online or offline, successful citizen movements are approached through careful planning and foresight, and not merely by paying lip service to popular imaginings of protest campaigns, says Jillian C York.
Digital activism—that is, collective action tactics conducted online—has often been derided as “slacktivism.” The premise is simple: “Armchair activists,” those too lazy to take to the streets to protest, click the Facebook “like” button or re-tweet something, assuming their mere approval, or sharing of content, will have a real impact. The slacktivist is assumed to contribute minimal effort to a cause, to take undeserved pride in his minimal accomplishment.
It’s certainly true that some online actions, when unaccompanied by strategic vision, are the very definition of slacktivism. But the term has become overused, thrown at anyone who raises a voice instead of a picket sign. We discard online action as useless while simultaneously feeling nostalgia for the tools of our predecessors: the leaflet, the cassette tape, the samizdat.
Last year in Egypt the world watched, stunned, as a city, then a country rose up against the twenty-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, what the world saw was a mass of humans converging upon a city square in protest. But what they missed was everything else: Offline actions—such as labor strikes—and online ones, such as the years of collective blogging about police brutality, torture, and other human rights violations. The online actions in particular served a dual purpose: They raised awareness amongst a certain subset of the population, certainly, but perhaps more importantly, they confirmed for many what they always knew but couldn’t talk about.
When expression is stifled, either by government censorship or self-censorship, what often occurs is a phenomena known as “pluralistic ignorance,” a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but assume that others accept it. The lack of public opposition to Mubarak may have left many activists feeling as though ousting him was impossible; it was only when they were able to come together—both through online communities and offline ones—that they were able to see how widespread their beliefs were.
On the blog of Egyptian activist Hossam Hamalawy, there reads a quote: “In a dictatorship, independent journalism by default becomes a form of activism, and the spread of information is essentially an act of agitation.” In Egypt, this was certainly true. It took years of writing, organizing, and yes, activities deemed by many to be “slacktivism” to reach the beginnings of revolution.
It has also proven to be true elsewhere: In Tunisia, where in the mainstream media’s absence, the mere act of blogging enabled activists to gain global support for their cause, perhaps even sparking a domino effect throughout the region. In Sudan, where weeks of offline protest would have gone ignored had it not been for the Twitterati of Khartoum, who ensured with their tweets that their government’s crackdown didn’t go unnoticed. In Pakistan, where global organizing—most of which took place through online channels—defeated government plans to install a large-scale online censorship system. Similarly, in the United States, the “blackout” of dozens of websites to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) got enough attention—and enough people to pick up the phone and call their elected officials—that the bill was ultimately quashed.
But these examples all have something in common: They were all pushed ahead by dedicated groups and individuals who knew how to rally support for their causes. Indeed, aGeorgetown University study published in 2011 looked at American interactions with online activism and found that those who engage in social issues online are twice as likely as their “offline” counterparts to volunteer and participate in events.
There are, of course, plenty of counter examples as well. One prominent one is the early 2012 release of the STOP KONY 2012 campaign, in which a group of naive young Americans promised that watching and sharing their video would somehow enable them to capture Joseph Kony—a worthy target for sure—by the end of the year. Similarly, the “Save Darfur” campaign—whichspent millions of dollars on PR alone and has been criticized for having minimal impact on the ground—relied upon selling ubiquitous green bracelets in the hopes that “raising awareness” would be enough to solve a problem.
The right conclusion, then, is not that online activism is inherently “slacktivism” (nor is offline action inherently effective). Rather, it is that a mere click of a mouse here or there, without any focus to a particular cause, is the online equivalent of throwing a few quarters in a donation jar, wearing a bracelet, or marching once in a rally and calling yourself an “activist.” The problem is not, however, the medium; as it has been demonstrated time and time again, online action coupled with strategic vision works.
http://jilliancyork.com/2012/12/06/mere-slacktivism/
Multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance
February 8th, 2013
By Jillian C. York. |
||
|
Civil society groups and web companies have joined together in opposing “takeover of internet governance” by the ITU.
|
||
|
More than 40 countries around the world restrict what internet users can access online [AFP]
|
||
| The World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, a convening of mostly government officials from member countries of the ITU – the Internet Telecommunications Union, a UN body – that will determine how the global internet is governed in the future, started in Dubai on December 3 and will continue till December 14, 2012.The meeting has been the subject of controversy since as early as May, when leaked documents pertaining to WCIT were posted on WCITleaks, prompting fury from digital rights advocates.
The documents, proposals for how the internet ought to be governed, show the extent to which certain countries are seeking more power over the internet. One proposal shows how a group of Arab countries is advocating strict identification of all internet users, while the Africa regional group is pushing for “harmonisation” amongst member states when it comes to the retention of data. And leaked Russian proposals suggest countries should have the right “to regulate the national internet segment”. Civil society groups and web companies have joined together in opposing what many perceive to be a takeover of internet governance by the ITU. If the UN body were to gain more control, those parties would be the biggest losers: the current governance structure is made up of a mix of organisations and companies which convene each year at the Internet Governance Forum, recently held in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Web giant Google has run what is perhaps the most prominent campaign against the proposals, recently launching a website encouraging internet users to pledge their belief in a “free and open web”:
The US government backs Google’s position that the current multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance should remain in place. In addition to objections to specific proposals, civil society groups object to the lack of transparency surrounding WCIT and the end of multi-stakeholderism that would occur if certain governments get their way. A campaign calling on transparency from the ITU and the inclusion of non-governmental groups in decision-making processes boasts support from hundreds of civil society groups from all over the world. While the outrage from such groups is palpable, there are others who see the issue as overblown. In a recent piece for Slate, Ryan Gallagher writes:
A review of global media appears to support Gallagher’s thesis. Even Russia’s Moscow Times seems doubtful that any significant changes will emerge from the WCIT, suggesting that the US opposition to proposals will stifle opposition. Gallagher goes on to point out that the bigger threat comes from national laws. Indeed, recent developments in Jordan, the Philippines, Russia, Iran, China and elsewhere demonstrate that central governance is not a prerequisite for governments to crack down on internet use. More than 40 countries around the world restrict what internet users can access online. But give those same governments control at the ITU, and they may end up influencing policies that affect users outside their national borders as well. Jillian York is director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Follow her on Twitter: @jilliancyork |
The New Vanguard of Journalism and Transparency
January 28th, 2013
By Jillian C. York. |
||
|
The recently established Freedom of the Press Foundation seeks to promote independent, ethical journalism.
|
||
|
After the massive release of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks in late 2010, the government was quick to demonise the organisation and apply pressure on corporations forcing them to embargo it [AFP]
|
||
| When, in late 2010, Wikileaks started releasing a trove of US diplomatic cables, lawmakers were dumbfounded. The whistleblowing organisation had previously raised ire within the US government for its release of its “Collateral Murder” video, but until the leak of the classified cables, requital seemed uncertain. Then, unable to take legal action against the site because of First Amendment protections, panicky legislators did the one thing they could: Pressure intermediaries to deny service to Wikileaks.
The strategy was immediately effective. After public calls from Senator Joseph Lieberman, web giant Amazon.com was first to follow, dropping Wikileaks from its servers and creating a domino effect. Recently released evidence shows that both Lieberman and House Representative Peter King privately called Mastercard to demand the same thing. Within a day, more than five companies – including PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard – had all denied service to Wikileaks. Within weeks, that list included several more, including Bank of America and Swiss postal bank. “Despite committing no crime, and publishing the same information the New York Times and other newspapers were publishing,” says Trevor Timm, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and executive director of the newFreedom of the Press Foundation, “WikiLeaks was strangled by financial censorship.” In nearly every case, the company publicly claimed that providing services to Wikileaks was against policy. Bank of America, for example, issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming that Wikileaks was “engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments”. But as journalist James Ball has pointed out, few payment processing companies are particularly strict when it comes to who they will process transactions for: A quick review of sites belonging to extremist groups – including the Ku Klux Klan, the English Defence League, and Stormfront – shows that none face the type of financial blockade imposed on Wikileaks. Strangled by politics So far, efforts to circumvent the blockade have faced challenges. The Wau Holland Foundation, a German organisation established in 2003, found itself cut off from PayPal and its charitable status revoked after raising more than a million dollars for the whistleblower site. Though Wikileaks’ website offers a few methods of sending donations, none are as accessible as the online payment systems to which most people have become accustomed. As such, and coupled with fears from potential donors that a donation to Wikileaks will put them at risk, the site has suffered financially.
Enter the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Headed by a combination of independent media enthusiasts, journalists, and free speech activists (and in most cases, probably all of the above), the new organisation launched this past week, taking in over $100,000 before the end of its first week. While the financial blockade placed on Wikileaks initially inspired the organisation, its goals are much broader: The Foundation plans to leverage crowd power to fund a variety of journalism organisations focused on transparency. Selection will focus on organisations that do innovative work but may not receive enough public attention. Visitors to the site choose the amount they wish to donate, and are presented with sliding bars that can be toggled to decide how much money goes to each of four organisations. In addition to Wikileaks, donors can give to MuckRock News, an organisation that helps citizens easily file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in the United States; The Uptake, a local journalism site focused on government transparency looking to go national; and The National Security Archive, an organisation with the lofty goal of expanding citizen access to government information. Timm says that they plan to expand to include “a variety of innovative transparency and journalism organisations that tackle the problem of secrecy from different angles”, both in the United States and internationally. “Because we’re going to be switching out the groups we support every two months, we want to have ‘bundles’ with different themes, showing the diversity and many aspects of journalism. We’re planning on doing an international bundle in the near future that will highlight the work of the many deserving organisations trying to bring transparency to governments around the world, often in the face of extreme adversity.” Journalism under duress Timm is right to point out the extreme conditions faced by journalists around the world. A recent report from theCommittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) shows that the number of journalists killed in the line of duty “rose sharply” in 2012, with “internet journalists [hit] harder than ever.” A staggering 67 journalists have been killed in action so far in 2012, the highest number since CPJ began tracking deaths in 1992. While a large number of those deaths occurred in conflict in Syria, many of those that occurred elsewhere were retaliatory acts. The murder of Brazilian journalist Décio Sá serves as a chilling reminder of the risks journalists face even in democratic countries. Sá, who covered stories of political corruption for O Estado do Maranhão and on his personal blog, was shot six times in a bar after months of receiving threats. Josh Stearns, a staffer at Free Press who also serves on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, points out that the rates of murder and imprisonment of journalists are “rising faster than any other sector around the world”. Stearns believes that the Foundation will be vital in helping to “fund and support those uncompromising voices who are putting themselves in harms way to shine a light on government abuse and wrongdoing everywhere”. The potential impact is huge: Not only do journalists the world over face threats to their safety; many face significant financial challenges as well. In countries where “journalist” is defined by who can acquire a state-issued license, those dedicated to unearthing and publishing the truth are often left to do so on their own time, and on blogs and websites that are subject to censorship and cyberattacks. While a crop of “crowdfunding” sites have certainly helped such journalists support their livelihood, even those can be restrictive. The most popular of those sites, Kickstarter, is limited to individuals in the US and the UK, for example. Indiegogo, another popular site, is global and has far fewer restrictions on the types of projects that it will host. Cairo-based independent media collective Mosireen recently had success raising funds on the site, reaching their goal of $40,000 within about a month thanks to an accompanying social media campaign. The group, which doesn’t accept foundation or government funding, also capped donations at $1,000 as part of their effort to remain independent. Timm recognises these fundraising challenges: “There are a lot of organisations out there – both in the US and international – doing great work, and they just need to some exposure to survive. We want to be the tide that rises all boats.” Jillian York is director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Follow her on Twitter: @jilliancyork The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy. |
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121222155259710309.html