At least three pieces are out on the blogosphere putting heat on Vogue for its profile of Syrian 1st lady Asma al-Assad: ForeignPolicy.com chimes in, and there's a great take by Rahat Kurd on Wajahat Ali's Goatmilk blog. Over at the Atlantic, Max Fisher does a good de-spinning and tries to hold Vogue senior editor Chris Knutsen's feet to the fire.
As an ex-web journo and editor turned PR person, this raises a number of disturbing questions on the professional front, including the level of journalism in the article itself; the ethical decision to run it; and the PR-client relationship.
It's not clear --- but I'm trying to confirm -- whether the Syrian first family retains an external PR firm or just has an excellent in-house staff. I'd also be curious if Vogue dreamed up this idea on their own or they were pitched. I suspect the latter, considering the other Asma-as-fashionista pieces pointed out in Kurd's piece -- notably the dedicated slideshow on Huffington Post and a little glam poll on inrumor.com.
She was also named by French Fashion magazine Elle in 2008 as the most stylish woman of state ("les femmes d'état"), which in turn spawned a number of press pieces. PR people would have certainly capitalized on the Elle pronouncement(and perhaps pitched their client to Elle to be in the running in the first place). The post-Elle article that ran in the U.K.'s Sunday Times, "The London girl with a plan to save Syria," has a very similar tone and feel to the Vogue piece, right down to the cozy Christmas angle that Fisher brings out in his Vogue breakdown. That similarity in articles two years apart points to a consistent, long-term messaging and talking points strategy.
It all smacks of expert high-end PR prep and handling (and an all-too-compliant level of journalism),leaving PR practitioners in the bifurcated state of admiring the craft of a well-executed strategy and condemning the ethics of taking on families responsible for dictatorial regimes as clients.
When journos or editors migrate to the PR field, the switch is often jokingly referred to by both camps as "going over to the dark side." The Assad study is a good case in point.
Of course, Vogue may have to engage in a little damage control of its own, but I guess the Assads can recommend a good firm.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
On Security And Journalism: An Interview With Robert Young Pelton
Ever since I was triangulated by three assault rifle (Steyr AUG if I recall correctly)-wielding border guards in the middle of the night on the Austro-Hungarian border, I've had an interest around personal security scenarios, so seeing reports of journalists being attacked in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising raised some questions. The incidents concerning CBS reporter Lara Logan and CNN's Anderson Cooper are two of the more visible "star reporter" stories, but remember there are hundreds of other journalists estimated to have been roughed up and/or detained.
To get some perspective on security concerns for journalists, I tracked down Robert Young Pelton, a documentary filmmaker and enterprise journalist who's built a remarkable career almost exclusively on high-risk reportage from dangerous places. Pelton was kind enough to answer some questions and share his take via email. I won't disclose his exact current location, but he did go on record that he is working for a news web site that focuses on Somalia and piracy, http://somaliareport.com/.
Here's our complete Q and A:
MSD: Cooper getting punched in the streets of Cairo didn't seem like a very safe way to do journalism. Do you know what kind of security resources large news organizations such as CNN etc. provide at the ground level for their staff?
RYP: Security starts with how you enter the country, the hotel you stay in and the type of coverage you provide. The bigger profile you create, the more likely you are going to be targeted. The era of special privilege or exceptions for high profile/remote anchor journalism is long over. I don't think the major nets were predicting the direct targeting of their people but took appropriate action.
It was very clear that Mubarak felt that the unrest was due to instigators using the internet, texts and foreign media. The coordinated, government-directed attacks on Western journalists is something we have seem many times before in Latin American, Russia and even America but not on the American "stars." Unfortunately, American news relies on "celebrity" journalism and in order to get ratings feels they must have a very visible person on camera. Therefore they become the targets.
Is that a smart way to report on a story? No, because their very timid security rules result in reduced coverage or more restrictions for other journalists.
Most major news networks have insurance which requires a provider of personal security. British firms run by former SAS (Special Air Service, a special forces regiment of the British Army) are the most popular: Pilgrims Group, AKE and others provide single men who are supposed to balance the demands of security vs aggressive journalism. For example, when I worked for 60 Minutes in Iraq I was assigned Brian Tilley, a former SBS (Special Boat Service) member who I had met in Sierra Leone. His job was to watch my back, maintain situational awareness while I was working and make decisions during violent encounters. Tilley was later killed in Iraq.
Large news organizations also provide drivers, cars (some armored) and communications systems, but only in direct proportion to the salaries and visibility of their contract personnel.
MSD: What kind of services should news organizations deploy, and how would one go about obtaining them?
RYP: Although we see the well known faces on the screen, the best journalism is done using local sources run by local producers who are paid much less, deliver much better information and can be coordinated to check the validity of information. These days, technology allows normal people to become better reporters than many of their better paid anchors.
The recent protest coverage provides visually interesting footage -- the appearance of "bang bang" and human dynamics. The dangers are much different. Some of these sources have some protection, but very rarely. If a stringer produces a piece, he or she must live there and deal with the consequences long after the celebrity crew departs. As companies like CNN brag about their "IReporters," they neglect to provide any protection, security or guarantees and in many cases not even any payment for usage.
Even the people being interviewed on the street as content for the news organizations in the recent protests risk arrest, jail and brutality. With shrinking budgets and reduced international coverage, we are seeing the end of the celebrity journalist as the "news gatherer."
MSD: What would be your ideal security detail for a news street team such as in the Cooper scenario? How many, function of each, tactical suggestions for moving about?
RYP: I wouldn't put a celebrity journo on the streets with a crew. I would have dozens of locals coordinating with me and then when a critical event occurred, I would use a small camera, wireless transmission and generic appearance. Security would be from local security who understand the dynamics and subtlety of the situation.
MSD: For independent local bloggers who are participating in events, what are some tips to protect themselves on the street from getting picked up -- and, if they are detained, what are some safe tactics to engage with your detainors?
RYP: Bloggers need to understand how security forces can track them down via the internet, IPs and monitored communications. Although it's nice to be "known," a few weeks later they usually find themselves the direct target of local security. Skype is the best tool where available and having someone operate the blog in a safe country under an alias is important.
MSD: Getting in and getting there: reports from Bahrain were that journalists were being denied entry when they got to the airport. Any strategies around this?
RYP: Go as a tourist or better yet hire a local. Best advice is to get in BEFORE the event occurs.
MSD: Anything else you want to add? Your take or experiences of similar situations?
RYP: Safety and good enterprise journalism are diametrically opposed. :)
To get some perspective on security concerns for journalists, I tracked down Robert Young Pelton, a documentary filmmaker and enterprise journalist who's built a remarkable career almost exclusively on high-risk reportage from dangerous places. Pelton was kind enough to answer some questions and share his take via email. I won't disclose his exact current location, but he did go on record that he is working for a news web site that focuses on Somalia and piracy, http://somaliareport.com/.
Here's our complete Q and A:
MSD: Cooper getting punched in the streets of Cairo didn't seem like a very safe way to do journalism. Do you know what kind of security resources large news organizations such as CNN etc. provide at the ground level for their staff?
RYP: Security starts with how you enter the country, the hotel you stay in and the type of coverage you provide. The bigger profile you create, the more likely you are going to be targeted. The era of special privilege or exceptions for high profile/remote anchor journalism is long over. I don't think the major nets were predicting the direct targeting of their people but took appropriate action.
It was very clear that Mubarak felt that the unrest was due to instigators using the internet, texts and foreign media. The coordinated, government-directed attacks on Western journalists is something we have seem many times before in Latin American, Russia and even America but not on the American "stars." Unfortunately, American news relies on "celebrity" journalism and in order to get ratings feels they must have a very visible person on camera. Therefore they become the targets.
Is that a smart way to report on a story? No, because their very timid security rules result in reduced coverage or more restrictions for other journalists.
Most major news networks have insurance which requires a provider of personal security. British firms run by former SAS (Special Air Service, a special forces regiment of the British Army) are the most popular: Pilgrims Group, AKE and others provide single men who are supposed to balance the demands of security vs aggressive journalism. For example, when I worked for 60 Minutes in Iraq I was assigned Brian Tilley, a former SBS (Special Boat Service) member who I had met in Sierra Leone. His job was to watch my back, maintain situational awareness while I was working and make decisions during violent encounters. Tilley was later killed in Iraq.
Large news organizations also provide drivers, cars (some armored) and communications systems, but only in direct proportion to the salaries and visibility of their contract personnel.
MSD: What kind of services should news organizations deploy, and how would one go about obtaining them?
RYP: Although we see the well known faces on the screen, the best journalism is done using local sources run by local producers who are paid much less, deliver much better information and can be coordinated to check the validity of information. These days, technology allows normal people to become better reporters than many of their better paid anchors.
The recent protest coverage provides visually interesting footage -- the appearance of "bang bang" and human dynamics. The dangers are much different. Some of these sources have some protection, but very rarely. If a stringer produces a piece, he or she must live there and deal with the consequences long after the celebrity crew departs. As companies like CNN brag about their "IReporters," they neglect to provide any protection, security or guarantees and in many cases not even any payment for usage.
Even the people being interviewed on the street as content for the news organizations in the recent protests risk arrest, jail and brutality. With shrinking budgets and reduced international coverage, we are seeing the end of the celebrity journalist as the "news gatherer."
MSD: What would be your ideal security detail for a news street team such as in the Cooper scenario? How many, function of each, tactical suggestions for moving about?
RYP: I wouldn't put a celebrity journo on the streets with a crew. I would have dozens of locals coordinating with me and then when a critical event occurred, I would use a small camera, wireless transmission and generic appearance. Security would be from local security who understand the dynamics and subtlety of the situation.
MSD: For independent local bloggers who are participating in events, what are some tips to protect themselves on the street from getting picked up -- and, if they are detained, what are some safe tactics to engage with your detainors?
RYP: Bloggers need to understand how security forces can track them down via the internet, IPs and monitored communications. Although it's nice to be "known," a few weeks later they usually find themselves the direct target of local security. Skype is the best tool where available and having someone operate the blog in a safe country under an alias is important.
MSD: Getting in and getting there: reports from Bahrain were that journalists were being denied entry when they got to the airport. Any strategies around this?
RYP: Go as a tourist or better yet hire a local. Best advice is to get in BEFORE the event occurs.
MSD: Anything else you want to add? Your take or experiences of similar situations?
RYP: Safety and good enterprise journalism are diametrically opposed. :)
***
In a follow-up e-mail, Pelton felt that both Logan and Cooper would have had a security person. I have made an inquiry to CNN to confirm, and will be making a similar inquiry to CBS soon.Saturday, February 26, 2011
Social Media, Revolutions, Ties (And Nine Cross-Disciplines To Think About)
Although I'm both a social media geek and a Muslim concerned with developments in the Middle East, I've actively resisted writing about the role of social media in the Arab push for democracy because there's plenty o' punditry on that front to go around.
However, some articles that seek to dismiss social media's role in events -- most notably Malcom Gladwell's two pieces (first in October and then a sniffy defense in early February) and Devin Caldeway's piece on TechCrunch -- display an incredible lack of understanding of the user behavior behind how social media is used.
I am a moderate on this debate. While I agree that social media in and of itself will not automagically win a revolution, it's crucial to understand its real role -- and hence its immense value and importance -- here as well.
MG's arguments are well refuted by many. Among those responses are Jessica Lipnack and her follow-up ; David Weinberger in two detailed deconstructions of MG's flawed argument, here and here; and Matthew Ingram's contextual rejoinder.
Greg Satell provides the best theoretical basis for why the detractors arguments fail, exposing via social network theory the real function of network behavior. Satell's other posts are equally important: he's one of the few social media thinkers out there who understand the crucial difference between social media and social networks. Gladwell and Caldeway could learn a thing or two from Satell's work and stop pretending to know about social media.
I've written before on what journalists need to be doing to prepare for 2.0, but it applies to anyone who wants to wrap their head around social media: to truly understand it, you need to be familiar with 1) sociology, 2) epistemology, 3) diktyology (network theory), and particularly its subset of 4] social network theory) and 5) semiotics. Four years later, I'll add 6) psychology, 7) heuristics, 8) behavioral studies and 9) problem-solving theory to that list.
As Satell correctly points out in his article, Gladwell's thesis -- that "high -risk" social activism requires deep roots and strong ties, and that social media is a "weak-tie" phenomenon -- is based from the outset on an erroneous misunderstanding of the "tie" concept. Further flaws in the thesis are: 1) there's no definition as to what constitutes a deep root or a strong tie (using "family" as an example doesn't tell me what you think the required elements are that make up a strong tie of any type or form); 2) a failure to prove that social media ties inherently can't be strong ones (assuming you accept the premise); and 3) a failure to consider the degree of human motivation to achieve an end.
Each in their own way, detractors and many unabashed worshippers of social media alike tend to conflate content, platform, tool and method. The result is they ascribe functionality to social media that it doesn't actually possess while at the same time not grasping the importance of its real role.
Social media, like other communications structures, is no more (but also no less) than an information distribution method used in the process of meeting needs. Whether its porn or a movie schedule or looking up a recipe or researching new tires, people seek out the information contained in media to solve a problem or meet a need.That in turn means you have to examine the entire arena of user behavior, motivation, problem-solving, etc. (see the cross disciplinary list above). What people do -- and how and with what they'll do it -- to meet a need is important in understanding social media.
But what makes social media -- in conjunction with some of the tools used to disperse it such as smartphones -- so unique and immensely valuable is its ability to be 1) real-time, 2) multi-directional (many-to-many, many-to-one, and one-to-many) and 3) geographically independent and mobile. There has never before been a communicative structure that has all three qualities simultaneously.
Even with its unique and game-changing functionality, at the end of the day, social media remains at its core strictly an information carrier. Social media by itself cannot increase either participation or motivation, a point both Gladwell in his first piece and those he derides seem to miss. It can only -- but it will -- make those actions faster, easier, more efficient. There are also numerous levels of participation and action, depending on any given individual's circumstance and reaction to that content - a subtlety missed in Gladwell's post.
The true driver of motivation, participation or action is the value and importance of the content itself that's being disseminated, the degree to which it solves my need or problem. The content can be anything: an inspirational essay or post; a video that graphically hits home; a time and place for a meetup. If the information embedded in the content resonates enough with me to meet a need, then I'm in.
This is why I don't buy into the "tie" analogy. Unless you assign the degree to which content meets a need as a component of what constitutes a strong tie -- a point I havent seen made -- then it doesn't matter how you classify those ties. "High Risk" activism hinges on content, not ties. Egypt showed that it doesn't matter how distant or diffuse your ties are; high-value content carried across those connections is the real determinant, not its geographic or social proximity. You didn't have to be related or personally know Wael Ghonim to be inspired go to Tahrir Square.
Also often overlooked is the critical link between social media functionality and the content it carries: that content can be easily added to, expanded and improved upon -- increasing its resonant value -- and then reinjected into the social media stream where it can be further amended. That's a valid level of contribution and "participation" and shouldn't be discounted in the overall mix. When you add increasing quality content into a real-time, multi-directional, geo-independent distribution structure, you're on to something very powerful indeed.
In other words, Twitter and Facebook didn't make Egyptians go into the streets; the importance of what they read and learned via those platforms did. But social media allowed them to further disseminate and/or add to that content to many others in real time, no matter the location of recipient or sender, and to act on that information imparted in the exchange.
It does take both, but the combination of content and its modern carrier will continue to impact and change the way history plays out.
However, some articles that seek to dismiss social media's role in events -- most notably Malcom Gladwell's two pieces (first in October and then a sniffy defense in early February) and Devin Caldeway's piece on TechCrunch -- display an incredible lack of understanding of the user behavior behind how social media is used.
I am a moderate on this debate. While I agree that social media in and of itself will not automagically win a revolution, it's crucial to understand its real role -- and hence its immense value and importance -- here as well.
MG's arguments are well refuted by many. Among those responses are Jessica Lipnack and her follow-up ; David Weinberger in two detailed deconstructions of MG's flawed argument, here and here; and Matthew Ingram's contextual rejoinder.
Greg Satell provides the best theoretical basis for why the detractors arguments fail, exposing via social network theory the real function of network behavior. Satell's other posts are equally important: he's one of the few social media thinkers out there who understand the crucial difference between social media and social networks. Gladwell and Caldeway could learn a thing or two from Satell's work and stop pretending to know about social media.
I've written before on what journalists need to be doing to prepare for 2.0, but it applies to anyone who wants to wrap their head around social media: to truly understand it, you need to be familiar with 1) sociology, 2) epistemology, 3) diktyology (network theory), and particularly its subset of 4] social network theory) and 5) semiotics. Four years later, I'll add 6) psychology, 7) heuristics, 8) behavioral studies and 9) problem-solving theory to that list.
As Satell correctly points out in his article, Gladwell's thesis -- that "high -risk" social activism requires deep roots and strong ties, and that social media is a "weak-tie" phenomenon -- is based from the outset on an erroneous misunderstanding of the "tie" concept. Further flaws in the thesis are: 1) there's no definition as to what constitutes a deep root or a strong tie (using "family" as an example doesn't tell me what you think the required elements are that make up a strong tie of any type or form); 2) a failure to prove that social media ties inherently can't be strong ones (assuming you accept the premise); and 3) a failure to consider the degree of human motivation to achieve an end.
Each in their own way, detractors and many unabashed worshippers of social media alike tend to conflate content, platform, tool and method. The result is they ascribe functionality to social media that it doesn't actually possess while at the same time not grasping the importance of its real role.
Social media, like other communications structures, is no more (but also no less) than an information distribution method used in the process of meeting needs. Whether its porn or a movie schedule or looking up a recipe or researching new tires, people seek out the information contained in media to solve a problem or meet a need.That in turn means you have to examine the entire arena of user behavior, motivation, problem-solving, etc. (see the cross disciplinary list above). What people do -- and how and with what they'll do it -- to meet a need is important in understanding social media.
But what makes social media -- in conjunction with some of the tools used to disperse it such as smartphones -- so unique and immensely valuable is its ability to be 1) real-time, 2) multi-directional (many-to-many, many-to-one, and one-to-many) and 3) geographically independent and mobile. There has never before been a communicative structure that has all three qualities simultaneously.
Even with its unique and game-changing functionality, at the end of the day, social media remains at its core strictly an information carrier. Social media by itself cannot increase either participation or motivation, a point both Gladwell in his first piece and those he derides seem to miss. It can only -- but it will -- make those actions faster, easier, more efficient. There are also numerous levels of participation and action, depending on any given individual's circumstance and reaction to that content - a subtlety missed in Gladwell's post.
The true driver of motivation, participation or action is the value and importance of the content itself that's being disseminated, the degree to which it solves my need or problem. The content can be anything: an inspirational essay or post; a video that graphically hits home; a time and place for a meetup. If the information embedded in the content resonates enough with me to meet a need, then I'm in.
This is why I don't buy into the "tie" analogy. Unless you assign the degree to which content meets a need as a component of what constitutes a strong tie -- a point I havent seen made -- then it doesn't matter how you classify those ties. "High Risk" activism hinges on content, not ties. Egypt showed that it doesn't matter how distant or diffuse your ties are; high-value content carried across those connections is the real determinant, not its geographic or social proximity. You didn't have to be related or personally know Wael Ghonim to be inspired go to Tahrir Square.
Also often overlooked is the critical link between social media functionality and the content it carries: that content can be easily added to, expanded and improved upon -- increasing its resonant value -- and then reinjected into the social media stream where it can be further amended. That's a valid level of contribution and "participation" and shouldn't be discounted in the overall mix. When you add increasing quality content into a real-time, multi-directional, geo-independent distribution structure, you're on to something very powerful indeed.
In other words, Twitter and Facebook didn't make Egyptians go into the streets; the importance of what they read and learned via those platforms did. But social media allowed them to further disseminate and/or add to that content to many others in real time, no matter the location of recipient or sender, and to act on that information imparted in the exchange.
It does take both, but the combination of content and its modern carrier will continue to impact and change the way history plays out.
Monday, February 14, 2011
On Egypt, Foreign Policy and Islamophobia
I have been fairly entrenched in the Twittersphere the past two weeks regarding events in Egypt, which culminated Friday with Mubarak's resignation.
Tears of joy didn't stop that day when the news came down.
When one sees so much hatred and self destruction around the world, moments like this restore my faith, love and hope for humanity as a whole - but more than that, God truly loves and supports His creation on that day.
"Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves."(13:11)
And this was done with such grace and restraint on the part of the protestors, without invasions or outside intervention.
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." 5:2.
Three days later, I am still unspeakably humbled to be alive and part of creation. Humanity proved itself worthy of God's gifts, fulfilled the duties of being God's representative.
Of course, this isn't all on Obama: the current White house administration has certainly inherited a long-standing U.S. foreign policy tradition
of selling out its democratic values in exchange for perceived foreign interests. I love America, but this perpetual habit saddens me. It ultimately shows, at least publicly, a lack of integrity, a betrayal of the very ideals that thousands of Egyptians in Tahrir Square fought for. As the U.S. waffled and hedged on propping up Mubarak for its own strategic safeguarding, truer champions of democracy were risking their lives in Cairo. In those moments, they upheld the American ideal for democracy and pluralism far better than the American government did. And that should be OK -- America does not hold a patent or copyright or monopoly on democracy, though it wants to -- but I do find it slightly ironic.
I get that there are numerous factors, interests and players in the region to balance, but a stronger, earlier position in favor of the democracy movement would have a) been the morally correct thing to do and b) would have been a small but significant step in improving how the U.S. is often seen at the grassroots level in the Arab world. I think that's a much better tradeoff.
As ifikra tweeted on Feb 3rd: "Dear US government: We don't hate you because we hate your freedom; we hate you because you hate our freedom." I don't believe that's a singularly held view, so demonstrable actions the U.S. can take to change that perception can only benefit the U.S. vis-a-vis long-term security and the remainder of its international standing.
But whatever side the U.S. chose to take on Egypt, it ultimately didn't matter: The Egyptian uprising took place and had its outcome without large-scale U.S. intervention. That's a good thing, though it may make some State Department staffers scratch their heads and/or wax nostalgic to see that America's days of influence are over. But they are, and that in turn necessitates some fundamental paradigm-shifting in U.S. foreign policy approach.
What should the U.S do now? Support democratic movements from a distance, without intervention. Learn to let go. Retire, at least somewhat, from the world's stage. Allow others their destiny and let nations become allies -- no more or less -- rather than embroiled, co-dependent clients.
Inherent in the idea of democracy is the right to self-determination, something the US doesn't ever grasp. A democratic foreign government doesn't mean it must be pro U.S. or a U.S. puppet, which is a concept rather hard for the U.S. to live with -- but given the emerging force of will for democracy by others around the world, it will have to.
inane, alarmist, and logic/fact-free desperate.
But we'll be watching the chatter, just as the world watched truth and principle win out in Egypt Friday; and I love E.J. Dionne on NPR last Friday citing his colleague Stephen Grand that we view 2/11 as a bookend to 9/11:
Tears of joy didn't stop that day when the news came down.
When one sees so much hatred and self destruction around the world, moments like this restore my faith, love and hope for humanity as a whole - but more than that, God truly loves and supports His creation on that day.
"Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves."(13:11)
And this was done with such grace and restraint on the part of the protestors, without invasions or outside intervention.
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." 5:2.
Three days later, I am still unspeakably humbled to be alive and part of creation. Humanity proved itself worthy of God's gifts, fulfilled the duties of being God's representative.
Lessons Learned For U.S. Foreign Policy
While I have immense respect and admiration for President Obama, one can only describe the U.S. foreign policy steps and the State Department as incoherent at best. From Biden saying Mubarak wasn't a dictator, to secretary of State Clinton claiming Egypt was "stable", to appointing Egypt regime lobbyist Wisner as special envoy, it was a foreign policy amateur hour. Clearly, the U.S. needs to get its in-house communications in order, and some better foreign policy analysis and intelligence wouldn't hurt either: many bipartisan groups and think tanks saw this coming.Of course, this isn't all on Obama: the current White house administration has certainly inherited a long-standing U.S. foreign policy tradition
of selling out its democratic values in exchange for perceived foreign interests. I love America, but this perpetual habit saddens me. It ultimately shows, at least publicly, a lack of integrity, a betrayal of the very ideals that thousands of Egyptians in Tahrir Square fought for. As the U.S. waffled and hedged on propping up Mubarak for its own strategic safeguarding, truer champions of democracy were risking their lives in Cairo. In those moments, they upheld the American ideal for democracy and pluralism far better than the American government did. And that should be OK -- America does not hold a patent or copyright or monopoly on democracy, though it wants to -- but I do find it slightly ironic.
I get that there are numerous factors, interests and players in the region to balance, but a stronger, earlier position in favor of the democracy movement would have a) been the morally correct thing to do and b) would have been a small but significant step in improving how the U.S. is often seen at the grassroots level in the Arab world. I think that's a much better tradeoff.
As ifikra tweeted on Feb 3rd: "Dear US government: We don't hate you because we hate your freedom; we hate you because you hate our freedom." I don't believe that's a singularly held view, so demonstrable actions the U.S. can take to change that perception can only benefit the U.S. vis-a-vis long-term security and the remainder of its international standing.
But whatever side the U.S. chose to take on Egypt, it ultimately didn't matter: The Egyptian uprising took place and had its outcome without large-scale U.S. intervention. That's a good thing, though it may make some State Department staffers scratch their heads and/or wax nostalgic to see that America's days of influence are over. But they are, and that in turn necessitates some fundamental paradigm-shifting in U.S. foreign policy approach.
What should the U.S do now? Support democratic movements from a distance, without intervention. Learn to let go. Retire, at least somewhat, from the world's stage. Allow others their destiny and let nations become allies -- no more or less -- rather than embroiled, co-dependent clients.
Inherent in the idea of democracy is the right to self-determination, something the US doesn't ever grasp. A democratic foreign government doesn't mean it must be pro U.S. or a U.S. puppet, which is a concept rather hard for the U.S. to live with -- but given the emerging force of will for democracy by others around the world, it will have to.
Islamophobes, Take Heed
While the Egypt revolution was never about Islam, Islamophobes were hoping it was, and are still looking for ways to inject an Islamo-terrorist boogeyman scenario into the mix. But events, accounts and images from Egypt should help to dispel the stereotyped image of the violent, intolerant, democracy-hating "Muslim world." That said, some of the extreme Islamophobes who have built a profitable career from fear-mongering (*COUGH* long-term strategy also used by Mubarak) may have too many dollars riding on their Brand O' Fear to be dissuaded by 80 million Egyptians of different faiths working together, so no doubt their arguments will become moreBut we'll be watching the chatter, just as the world watched truth and principle win out in Egypt Friday; and I love E.J. Dionne on NPR last Friday citing his colleague Stephen Grand that we view 2/11 as a bookend to 9/11:
After 9/11, we were so inclined to see the Arab and Muslim world in light of a terrible terrorist event or a set of terrorist events. From now on, we can see the Arab/Muslim world through the eyes of brave democrats who fought for liberty.The wave of democratic impulse seems to be spreading to other countries. May they also emerge peacefully as self-empowered true nations.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Mubarak's Muddled Media Plan
A lot of good analysis on the Egyptian crisis is out. My favorite reads are some great recent articles by Haroon Moghul at Religion Dispatches, and by Shadi Hamid; Brian Katulis also offers up a strong analysis.
Disappointed in U.S. response from the beginning of the crisis. The long-standing U.S. practice of selling out democratic values in exchange for foreign policy (read: economic) interests clearly is now catching up with the US, putting them in an untenable public squeeze. Personally, it's disheartening to witness this country's lack of integrity regarding democratic ideals.
Given the mood and resolve on the street, my fear is the longer Mubarak stays, the longer, the more tense and unstable any transition process will become, as various factions seek to exploit the post-demonstration economic fallout and sociopolitical vacuum on top of the existing conditions that gave rise to the unrest. Mubarak needs to go, and as soon as possible.
Media coverage has generally been good, with CNN ground reporters and (particularly their tweets) providing excellent and compelling street detail. I've been less impressed with CNN anchors, who still raise the "radical Islam" boogieman/ratings driver even after all their guest experts and analysts have continuously and consistently across the board put that scenario in its proper perspective. Al Jazeera English becomes my principal MSM outlet of choice, offering live streaming video, and online stalwarts Enduring America offers their usual excellent live blog and aggregation.
CNN was also quite behind the curve (or else just reluctant) in collating and surfacing the numerous eyewitness accounts and reports of the plainclothes police involvement in the pro-Mubarak "supporters" today.
The sudden appearance of thugs-as-demonstrators after a previous invisibility seemed suspicious at the outset, showing more organization (well supplied and deployed, some groups arriving in buses). I wonder -- not positing, just curious -- if the US had prior wind of such a development, when the US urged all non-essential personnel to leave and Marines moved to secure the U.S. Embassy.
Events unfolding throughout the night and into the day -- police ID cards discovered among those faction members, accounts on Twitter that people were in fact paid and/or "requested" by their employers to join pro-government groups, selective coverage/spin on state TV, the targeting of foreign journalists, and the apparent restoration of Internet service -- all point to a poorly coordinated media attempt by the Mubarak regime.
Its hard to say who the target audience was for this effort. The selective coverage and spin on State TV-- pointing the finger at the Muslim Brotherhood for the Molotov cocktails, the denial of government involvement in the pro-Mubarak groups -- clearly was designed to impart the message to Egyptians that only Mubarak could provide stability. The targeting of foreign journalists could also be viewed as part of that staging and/or an actual attempt to impede world coverage. As incredulous and naive as that may seem, Mubarak's two recent speeches since the crisis reveal a surreal stubborn disconnect from the realities and wishes of the anti-government demonstrators. Regardless of the intent, it's no coincidence that the roughing up of journalists and escalating violence directly coincides with the release of the pro-Mubarak "supporters."
It's also no coincidence (and no less clear) that the internet was restored today as well. If the regime hoped to extend its spin to the outside world, it clearly didn't understand the scope and predominant sentiment of SM activity on the ground (and would be counter to the journalist rough-ups). There is also, to my knowledge and Twitter monitoring, no pro-Mubarak Twitter chats (save for one attempt at organizing a meeting). It appears the regime opened the internet without its own plan to capitalize on it.
As the situation deteriorates at this hour, the military needs to commit to their conscience. Are they with the people, or not?
I continue to pray, watch, and support as best I can.
Disappointed in U.S. response from the beginning of the crisis. The long-standing U.S. practice of selling out democratic values in exchange for foreign policy (read: economic) interests clearly is now catching up with the US, putting them in an untenable public squeeze. Personally, it's disheartening to witness this country's lack of integrity regarding democratic ideals.
Given the mood and resolve on the street, my fear is the longer Mubarak stays, the longer, the more tense and unstable any transition process will become, as various factions seek to exploit the post-demonstration economic fallout and sociopolitical vacuum on top of the existing conditions that gave rise to the unrest. Mubarak needs to go, and as soon as possible.
Media coverage has generally been good, with CNN ground reporters and (particularly their tweets) providing excellent and compelling street detail. I've been less impressed with CNN anchors, who still raise the "radical Islam" boogieman/ratings driver even after all their guest experts and analysts have continuously and consistently across the board put that scenario in its proper perspective. Al Jazeera English becomes my principal MSM outlet of choice, offering live streaming video, and online stalwarts Enduring America offers their usual excellent live blog and aggregation.
CNN was also quite behind the curve (or else just reluctant) in collating and surfacing the numerous eyewitness accounts and reports of the plainclothes police involvement in the pro-Mubarak "supporters" today.
The sudden appearance of thugs-as-demonstrators after a previous invisibility seemed suspicious at the outset, showing more organization (well supplied and deployed, some groups arriving in buses). I wonder -- not positing, just curious -- if the US had prior wind of such a development, when the US urged all non-essential personnel to leave and Marines moved to secure the U.S. Embassy.
Events unfolding throughout the night and into the day -- police ID cards discovered among those faction members, accounts on Twitter that people were in fact paid and/or "requested" by their employers to join pro-government groups, selective coverage/spin on state TV, the targeting of foreign journalists, and the apparent restoration of Internet service -- all point to a poorly coordinated media attempt by the Mubarak regime.
Its hard to say who the target audience was for this effort. The selective coverage and spin on State TV-- pointing the finger at the Muslim Brotherhood for the Molotov cocktails, the denial of government involvement in the pro-Mubarak groups -- clearly was designed to impart the message to Egyptians that only Mubarak could provide stability. The targeting of foreign journalists could also be viewed as part of that staging and/or an actual attempt to impede world coverage. As incredulous and naive as that may seem, Mubarak's two recent speeches since the crisis reveal a surreal stubborn disconnect from the realities and wishes of the anti-government demonstrators. Regardless of the intent, it's no coincidence that the roughing up of journalists and escalating violence directly coincides with the release of the pro-Mubarak "supporters."
It's also no coincidence (and no less clear) that the internet was restored today as well. If the regime hoped to extend its spin to the outside world, it clearly didn't understand the scope and predominant sentiment of SM activity on the ground (and would be counter to the journalist rough-ups). There is also, to my knowledge and Twitter monitoring, no pro-Mubarak Twitter chats (save for one attempt at organizing a meeting). It appears the regime opened the internet without its own plan to capitalize on it.
As the situation deteriorates at this hour, the military needs to commit to their conscience. Are they with the people, or not?
I continue to pray, watch, and support as best I can.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)