Is Al Jazeera Real News?

Al Jazeera English viewership has increased 2500% in the past few weeks

“Their news is so much better,” she said, looking up from her iPad screen.
“Why?” I asked.
“Because ours is such crap.”
Case closed.

My media critic-spouse was watching Al Jazeera English and comparing its Middle East coverage to that of the mainstream U.S. media. She unknowingly echoed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Al Jazeera was providing better coverage than U.S. mainstream media.

It’s a question getting serious attention today: Is Al Jazeera a serious news provider in which we can place trust?

The root of the question goes to the image of Al Jazeera as the medium through which Osama bin Laden chose to make his public condemnations of the United States after 9/11. With virtually no access to the network, U.S. audiences were left to conclude it was at least a tool of radical Islamists, if not a voice.

That perception is now being challenged by the network’s in-depth coverage of the uprisings occurring in its own backyard, Doha, Qatar. The coverage is straightforward, in-depth and comprehensive. It is giving exposure to human rights activists, people in the street and, when possible, to those leaders defending the status quo. But it’s clear that Al Jazeera’s English network coverage leans toward giving voice to those advocating for democracy, and this puts it at odds with governments bent on silencing dissent and experienced at using oppressive tactics to hold on to power. And it’s in sharp contrast to state-controlled media.

Al Jazeera English staff were beaten along with other journalists in Egypt, and its Cairo bureau was ransacked and closed. Reporters continued to phone in reports from the street level until they could restore live feeds.

I’ve been viewing Al Jazeera’s English-language coverage online since the start of the Egyptian uprising, and it’s been immensely more informative than any other source.

Its reporters have access to a wide variety of knowledgeable people who provide insight into the region and to country-specific circumstances. This coverage is deeper and offers more context than we see in U.S. electronic media.

Al Jazeera seems to believe our attention spans can hold on through a five- or 10-minute interview or a 30-minute panel discussion. And the truth is, when the information is compelling, informed and fresh, we can.

The network offers global news that rivals other providers and exceeds anything I’ve seen in U.S. electronic media. I’ve watched its documentaries and discussion programs and found the information reliable and relevant on a wide range of subjects.

This discussion at Columbia University of new media is but one example.

In a recent interview with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator’s son and heir-apparent,  correspondent Anita McNaught pushed and probed with hard questions, at one point telling him as he interrupted to let her finish her question. It was an intriguing insight into his current rationalization of the violence in Libya, in contrast to his past statements about human rights and the need for democracy throughout the region.

So, do I trust Al Jazeera English as a news source? Yes, until I have reason not to. And that’s the stance I believe we must take today toward all news providers. Dan Gillmor writes that we must move from passive-consumption to become hands-on users of news and information.

We must have a healthly skepticism coupled with critical thinking in which we compare the information we hear from multiple sources and apply our own knowledge and experience against standards of fairness, accuracy and completeness.

Gillmor offers five principles: be skeptical, exercise judgment, open your mind, keep asking questions, and learn media techniques.

Using these principles as a guide, plus my own experience traveling the globe and my near-pervasive skepticism of all media, I am becoming a viewer who thinks Al Jazeera is a trustworthy provider until proven otherwise.

Citizen Journalists: Why An Open Internet Matters


When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Al Jazeera provides real news and U.S. media are providing uninformative commentary between commercial breaks, she put in sharp relief the current state of the U.S. media.
It’s a complex, interrelated web of issues, and in this post I’ll limit myself to the Internet and access to news and information.

To do that, however, we have to accede to Secretary Clinton’s critique of U.S. journalism and its sorry state of global coverage.
If you want global news, or information that’s truly important, you have to hunt for it on U.S. cable or broadcast media. You’re more likely to find it in print or online, and frequently from a non-U.S. source.

Even as Clinton decried the lack of competent coverage of Middle East news, U.S. cable channels were telling us of Justin Beiber’s hair clippings being auctioned off on eBay, Charlie Sheen’s tragic meltdown, and the NFL owners’ lockout threat against the players. The latter was even raised at a White House press conference held by President Obama and Mexican President Calderone about border security.

U.S. electronic journalism reflects the corporatization of the electronic media, and we have no reason to expect that these media will ever be guided by anything but profit-making and entertainment.

Years ago, the FCC abdicated its responsibility for holding broadcast licensees responsible for serving the community, and in the recent Comcast/NBC decision, some media activists say it began the same giveaway of the Internet in the U.S.  The Internet is our tool for access to the public sphere today. The legacy media are on the wane, captured by corporate business models that provide us the fare Secretary Clinton decries.

An open Internet is an alternative to the old line media, and that’s why we must defend it against totalitarian governments on one hand and corporate capture on the other.

If the open Internet is not defended, we can expect to see online media become less participatory, less interactive and less accessible to those with limited ability to pay for premium service.  Clay Shirky offers insight on the dangers to the Internet from corporate control.

This defense of an open Internet requires us to learn the skills of citizen reporting, become conversant in social policy about net neutrality and an open Internet, become advocates for open access, and become participants in various online conversations with direct action in our communities.

My starting place for equipping people to engage this issue is Mediactive by Dan Gillmor. I also encourage people to become familiar with Seth Godin’s writings on leadership in the digital world. Clay Shirky is a thought leader in how we use the Internet and its effects on the social fabric.

The challenge to the open Internet is unfolding before our eyes in the uprisings in the Middle East. The Internet doesn’t make for revolution, but it enables people to organize and mobilize for change. The Internet is more than the wires, cables and servers that make up the technology. It’s also the means for communities to have a conversation with themselves, and for people around the globe to learn from, share with and support each other. It’s the way we participate in local and global conversations.

This makes it more like a public utility than a profit-making venture for private investors. This is why preserving an open Internet is important — because our ability to shape the world we live in and to have a voice is intimately connected to the World Wide Web.

The Most Typical Face on the Planet? Nat Geo Knows.

The Most Typical Face on the Planet

If I were to ask you to imagine the most typical face on the planet, would you imagine a blonde, Caucasian, female, or maybe a Beach Boy surfer dude? Perhaps a Hispanic, African or Indian?

According to National Geographic it’s none of these. It’s a 28-year-old Han Chinese male. National Geographic says this demographic makes up 9 million of earth’s soon-to-be 7 billion people.

In its year-long series, The Face of Seven Billion, the magazine says Chinese make up 19% of the global population, Indians 17% and Americans 4%. (I can’t find a definition of “American” in the online content. It could mean North American, Central American and South American, or some combination of the three. The term is too ambiguous for a study such as this.)

That complaint aside, this series is quite remarkable. Check out the online videos. They offer provocative information in concise packages and raise lifestyle questions that all of us should be thinking about.

Most importantly, the series leads us to not only consider the present, but to imagine the future. And the young Han Chinese male should enjoy his time in the spotlight. National Geographic says by 2030 he will be replaced by an Indian.

 

 

Budget Cuts and Dying Children

Yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the impact of H.R. 1 on U.S. global health programs before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  In her remarks, Secretary Clinton stated that H.R. 1 would result in:

  • $1 billion in cuts to global health
  • 5 million children and family members denied treatment and preventive intervention on malaria
  • 3,500 mothers and more than 40,000 children under 5 (of which 16,000 are newborns) denied access to child survival interventions
  • PEPFAR turning away 400,000 people who require treatment for HIV/AIDS
  • More than 16 million people denied treatment for tropical diseases
  • More than 40,000 children and family members denied TB treatment
  • 18.8 million fewer polio vaccinations
  • 26.3 million fewer measles vaccinations.

 

I ask, are we OK with this? Bank bailouts, Wall Street bonuses, corporate tax breaks, dying children, fewer medicines, increasing sickness. For ideas about making your voice heard go to Bread for the World.

“I was hungry and you fed me,

I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,

I was homeless and you gave me a room,

I was shivering and you gave me clothes,

I was sick and you stopped to visit,

I was in prison and you came to me…

Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me–you did it to me.”

Matthew 25:34-35, 40.

The Message

(Thanks to Mark Harrison of The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society for the information about HR 1 compiled above.)

(After posting, I added a link to Bread for the World at 5:23 pm, March 3, 2011.)

Four Tools for Writing on the Go

Sometimes I’ve got a great idea for a blog post and need to jot it down because I can’t develop it fully at that moment. Sometimes I’d like to photograph something for later use. And sometimes a thought occurs that I can’t write down but I can record on an iPad or cellphone.

These are pretty common needs for a writer and I’ve found a variety of apps to help preserve these gems before I forget them.

Evernote is an all-around cloud app that I use for making notes, clipping links to articles, recording audio notes or capturing images. Evernote provides you with a personal email address that makes it easy to send yourself a link which lands directly in your Evernote notebook.

It’s available on several platforms and syncs your notes so that you can retrieve them from a tablet, cellphone, laptop or desktop.

I’ve created several notebooks to hold different types of content. One notebook holds brainstorms for the blog while another contains links to new media articles, for example.

As a result, I’ve dispensed with notes on napkins, slips of paper and the back of airline tickets, which was my former archiving system. Evernote is free.

Dropbox is similar to Evernote, but I think it’s easier for file sharing. It’s also a cloud-based app. I often put documents I want to share into a public folder in Dropbox and use the file sharing function to invite others to read them. They receive an email with login instructions.

Dropbox is especially useful for files like photos which are too large to send via email. I’ve sent collections of photos to colleagues with ease in Dropbox. Dropbox is also free and works across platforms. As with Evernote, in Dropbox you can work on a document offline, save it and sync to the cloud later.

Docs To Go. Sometimes I travel without a laptop and need to read a Word, rtf or pdf document on my iPad. Docs To Go opens these documents along with Excel and several photo formats. You can also edit documents and email or file them. The app also makes it possible to sync with desktop documents through Bluetooth if you have that on your laptop or desktop.

This versatility makes it a go to app. It’s also available for the iPhone. Docs To Go is a paid app.

iA Writer. Tablets weren’t made for heavy duty word processing but I want more than the elemental notes function that comes with the iPad.
For basic writing without the hassle of formatting, I use iA Writer. It’s designed to be a straightforward writing tool without bells and whistles. This means I can concentrate on the text and not fiddle with formatting distractions.

iA Writer has no preferences to change margins, fonts or font size. In an age of bloated software with functions too numerous to use and a learning curve too steep to bother with, this plain approach to getting ideas into the machine seems like a brilliant idea.

The on-screen keyboard of iA Writer adds functions that upgrade the standard keyboard on the iPad. These functions simplify cursor movement and punctuation. They make the onscreen keyboard much easier to use.

iA Writer has an email function and a setting to automatically sync your saved documents to an iA Writer file on Dropbox. This means it’s possible to send your document to Evernote, sync it to Dropbox, or send it as an email attachment. iA Writer is a paid app.

Taking the Pulse of News Today

Whoever said “the best things in life are free” probably never heard about Pulse. But the sentiment is correct for one of the best real-time iPad news reader apps around.

Pulse is an RSS feed on steroids.  It allows you to arrange your feed content into easy–to-browse, scrolling headlines.  Its slick magazine quality graphics feel like your own personal stack of magazines and websites. You can also personalize content by categories such as News, Business, Sports, Design, Food, and Tech.

Browsing through the app, I’ve discovered new sites and reintroduced myself to favorites like The Atlantic, BBC and Fast Company.  Plus, you can add any RSS feed to Pulse.

I also like that Pulse prominently displays the image associated with each story (as opposed to an abstract).  Its very pleasing visually. Viewing a variety of stories from all your favorite publications at one time is a real time-saver and engagement winner.

The way we use our iPads has contributed to the popularity of Pulse.  I turn to Pulse first thing in the morning, much as I used to do with a newspaper. For others, the iPad is the go-to leisure time reader.  It is the mobile device that we favor for couch surfing and bedtime reading.  Research has shown that consumption of articles in an iPad raises dramatically in the evening hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.  Pulse fits perfectly into our evenings and weekends.

Users can add Facebook and Twitter accounts as content sources, connect their Google Reader accounts or add individual RSS feeds or websites. The application supports up to 25 different news sources.

In November, Pulse added three different Facebook streams – news links, status updates and my wall –  so you can incorporate your own Facebook content in a unique fashion.

And this month, Pulse added six popular social media sites as sources: Reddit, Digg, Vimeo, YouTube, Picplz and Flickr.

Pulse is less than a year old but it’s growing by leaps and bounds.  An infusion of capital allowed parent company Alphonso Labs to move from a paid to a free site. The Pulse reader was developed by two talented young men, Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta, who created the app in ten weeks for a course at Stanford University.  After launch, it became a best-selling application in the iTunes App store.

The way we read is changing and while Pulse is the leader now, it will be interesting to see what tools will be our go-to in the next year.

What is the New Media Literacy?

Al Jazeera Home PageAfter I wrote a Twitter recommendation for the “Empire” program on Al Jazeera, a friend wrote to ask my perspective about being interviewed on Al Jazeera.

An organization she works for has turned down interview requests out of concern for the cable news provider’s reputation in the U.S.

In the new media ecosystem, how do we determine whom we trust? How do we confirm the reliability of the information we’re seeing and hearing?

Dan Gillmor addresses this concisely and well in Mediactive.

We need to be media literate, he says. We develop literacy by participating in the conversation, learning how media content is created and creating content ourselves.

Lest that sounds complicated, it’s not. It’s as easy as using Twitter, replying to blog posts, commenting on news stories. It’s posting your own content; a photo of a community event or a story about a local activity, for example.

When we do this, we learn the constraints and strengths of the medium. We learn to sort through the information and put it into a narrative. We learn what interests people, all of which informs our literacy. It’s relatively painless and cost-free.

It’s about participating and sharing in the new media ecosystem. That will be a measure of responsible citizenship, I think.

My suggestion to my friend was to encourage her colleagues to watch Al Jazeera, compare its coverage to other information sources (some U.S. cable news networks carried the Al Jazeera live feed from Egypt, which is a strong endorsement), and decide for themselves. The old way is to passively receive information from others. The new way is to participate, develop skills, think critically and judge for ourselves.

What counsel would you offer?

Asymmetrical Networking and Human Dignity

Protesters held banners saying that the Bahraini government treats its own people terribly. Photo: Al Jazeera English

Neither Twitter nor Facebook caused the uprisings that are now spreading across the Middle East, but much of the conversation about their role misses the point, as Mathew Ingram writes. It focuses on the technical and tactical, yet important as these are, they’re not the whole picture.

The ability to tell your own story is empowering, even more so if you’ve never had access to the means to tell it, or if you’ve been silenced by repression.

Among the many indignities of people who live in poverty is powerlessness. Their voices are scarcely, if ever, heard by those in power. Marginalization isn’t only economic, it’s also the diminishment of the human spirit. It’s the sense that if you’re poor, you don’t matter. When people who’ve been treated like this find their voice, they find a means to experience affirmation and liberation. It’s a chance to discover dignity and self-worth.

In many places, legacy media are in state control or subject to manipulation by the state. Under these conditions, it’s possible to stifle alternative voices and frame the social narrative to the state’s own ends. This repressive use of media has gone hand in hand with physical repression of dissent, often through the use of intimidation, violence, imprisonment and state-sanctioned killing.

With cellphones and smartphones, text messaging, still and video photography, emboldened people, tired of neglect and repression, are finding their voices and telling their stories. And they’re finding a global audience anxious to know more.

They’re documenting events firsthand and providing images directly from the scene in contrast to the manufactured plotlines of state media. They’re experiencing strength in numbers through the free flow of information made possible by this new asymmetrical network.

While revolutions have occurred throughout history without social media, these are the first revolutions that have occurred with the tools of internet-based digital media and they shift the power balance and turn the people into producers. A new media ecosystem is being born.

We can celebrate this new age, but we must also learn from it because repressive rulers and fearful states are studying how to shut down, restrict or control these media as quickly as they can. Corporations are seeking to capture control of the systems for profit, turning them toward the economic models of the past that have shut out divergent voices, limited competiton and concentrated control in their hands.

In this interconnected world, the rights of people in the Middle East are as close as the cellphone in your pocket, or your contract with your internet provider or cell carrier. We share this need for open access and free flow of information in common with them.

In the new global media ecosystem, the health and freedom of each part of the system is directly related to every other part. This is more clear in these 21st century revolutions than ever before.

These revolutions also reveal what’s at stake in the net neutrality debate. The desire for control isn’t limited to totalitarian states. Dan Gillmor in Mediactive writes of the threat of “broadband oligopoly” that would make the internet into the financial model of cable television, limiting the flow of information in ways that will restrict timely, universal access. Corporate oligopoly puts at risk the participatory free flow of information upon which these people’s revolutions rely.

The Knight Commission on The Information Needs of Communities offers a wealth of resources for getting a handle on this challenge. The Open Society Justice Initiative offers an archive on global freedom of information resources.

Hillary Clinton’s support of an open internet is encouraging, but meeting the threat will take more than speeches, and the recent FCC ruling didn’t demonstrate unequivocal support for an open internet in the United States free from corporate manipulation, and even that is under fire.

It will require advocates who stand as firm as the people of the Middle East are standing at risk of their lives for more freedom, the right to assemble, the right to speak, the free flow of information and to be free from repression.

Those of us who don’t face the extreme conditions they are fighting against need to pay attention anyway. We don’t know where these various uprisings will end, nor if they will result in the kind of democratic states we hope for.

But they challange us to protect the media ecosystem that is being born, and if we do, we will go a long way toward creating a more open world in which human dignity and freedom have an opportunity to flourish.

(I think “asymmetrical” is a more apt description of the networks assembling today online. I don’t know why I didn’t use this descriptor earlier. But I changed the title and copy to incorporate it in this revision.)

Networked Revolutions: The New Form of Social Change

Is the Egyptian uprising a leaderless revolution? No opposition party controlled the call to action. No charismatic leader led the charge. No group stepped up to negotiate on behalf of the people.

In the most cogent analysis I’ve read, Charlie Beckett writes that in both Tunisia and Egypt the popular movements accelerated incrementally and “symbolic individual acts combined into collective movements.”

They are networked revolutions, a whole new form of social change building on the past but using new media to mobilize, expand and sustain change.

The case for citizen participation in media is strong in these movements.

Beckett says multiple tensions for social change were present including poverty, corruption, an educated, unemployed or underemployed young adult population, and growing economic uncertainty in the business community, among others. These daily indignities fed the movement and allowed it to catch fire.

Social media became a critical set of tools, complemented by live television and other media, including word of mouth, to voice this frustration. On Twitter, I followed shrewd, street savvy, brash organizers distributed across the city and nation who used social media to mobilize, provoke, and sustain pressure.

They also used these media to encourage perseverance and hold it together. They gave it new momentum and strength. Given this distributed leadership, Bennett says Tahrir Square gave the global audience a necessary focal point. Nadia El-Awady, a science journalist turned revolutionary, posted a moving first-person report from Tahrir Square after Mubarak vacated the Presidency.

This remarkable confluence of human aspirations and technology in Tunisia and Egypt have created new  paradigms for social change but there’s much more to learn.

Social media empower people. However, we can’t take this for granted. These media are held by corporations licensed by governments, and they control our access to information. We can be sure that those who control these levers are considering these issues today, particularly after Egyptian authorities attempted unsuccessfully to shut down the internet and social media.

Because of this, as fundamentally important as these two revolutions are to the Tunisian and Egyptian people, they are also important beyond the borders of the two nations. We’ve entered a new global media ecosystem in which the aspirations of people and their desire for a better life are intimately intertwined with the new media that give them voice and mobilize them to action. This ecosystem connects us beyond borders and through shared aspirations and universal rights.

Protecting citizen access and use of these media have never been more important. Mediactive by Dan Gillmor offers a solid case for both consumers of journalism and citizen creators of journalism.

Grassroots advocacy for net neutrality is curated at the activist site Free Press. Another section provides perspectives on a range of open internet issues.

(Note: I revised this post by adding the photo upper left, the Twitter screen grab and a sentence with a link to Nadia El-Awady’s Yahoo Story.)

Social Media Giving A Voice To The Invisible

The legions of active mobile phones worldwide is 5 billion strong.  Think of it – the world is now linked by telecommunications and social media access giving a new voice to  people who were previously mute, providing a medium for social change.

What is currently happening in Egypt is certainly the most recent example.  Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said this week that Twitter “gives folks who might not otherwise have a voice a voice.”  That’s true.  Through Twitter, we can communicate, experience and empathize with those we will never meet.  Those who feel disenfranchised have a way to reach out to those who empathize with them.

In fact, social media has given a voice to a new group of dissidents in Egypt that have not been part of the conversation.  That group are the women who have experienced the poverty and hardship of men, but also have dealt with sexual harassment and discrimination.

The Egyptian Chronicles, one of Egypt’s most popular blogs, is run by Zeinobia, an anonymous female blogger. “I am just [an] Egyptian girl who lives in the present with the glories of the past and hopes in a better future for herself and for her country,” says her About Me on the blog.

Her sentiments are shared by other Egyptian women who are part of the newfound voice of the people, and their protests have flooded Facebook, Twitter and blogs.  “Women’s participation here is unprecedented. I can safely say that the crowd is divided into half female, half male,” said Ms. Nehad Abul Komsan, head of the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights (ECWR).

This new voice has sprung up with blogs, online writers, Twitter and Facebook contributors. The women have shown a willingness to be heard.  And their new empowerment cannot be ignored.

Page 10 of 109« First...«89101112»203040...Last »