Beyond the "rainbow coalition"

One of the most interesting points of the essay Postcolonial Approaches to Communication (Shome and Hedge) was the criticism of “the packaging of otherness”. Postcolonialist scholars reject the rhetoric of multiculturalism that sees cultures as retaining their “pristine flavors” and being “separate in their authenticity”. This rhetoric takes away the underlying power structures and colonial histories that ethnic cultures have been subject to. That way, multiculturalism can be used to further perpetuate “the normativity of whiteness”.

The scary thing about this is how people and media products can use “the cosmetic approach to multiculturalism” (inadvertently) to perpetuate current power structures, even if they're seemingly challenging them. As the professor says, it's not a group of conspirators sitting on a table and stroking their beards. It's something that happens without them even noticing it most of the time. That makes it more difficult to challenge.

I like that the postcolonial scholars are trying to bring the past into the present in their studies. It really cannot be erased, and it challenges the idea of a pristine culture. If you go back far enough, our histories are very interconnected and, as they say, constitutive of each other. I don't think this erases difference, but it does give it another meaning and has made me rethink the concept of multiculturalism.

Freedom of Speech on the Internet

One of the major emerging themes in my international communication classes this fall is the question of Internet ownership. We’ve seen this developing battleground through the Arab Spring where the power of social media as a tool for organization was recognized by the Egyptian government through its closure of the Internet and other telecommunication networks. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110453371369740.html

This has led to a larger discussion of Internet ownership at international communication conferences, including at the ICT for Development Conference this fall in Kenya.  Till recently, I believed that the battle for freedom on the Internet lay outside of the United States, particularly in countries where freedom of speech was not guaranteed by law.  However, this latest incident in Kansas shocked me: http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/24/2114760/disparaging-tweet-about-gov-sam.html#ixzz1evGE412F

A Kansas teen, Emma Sullivan, tweeted that Governor Brownback “sucked” at a school event, and was subsequently reprimanded by her principal told to write an apology letter to Brownback as part of the damage control.  This tweet was reported to the Sullivan’s principal by Brownback’s social media team.   An integral part of the United States constitution is freedom of speech, and not only did Brownbeck’s team and the school principal attempt to violate the constitution, they also sought to exert control over Sullivan’s personal twitter page.  Thankfully, this did not escape US citizen or media attention and Brownbeck has since made an apology to the Sullivan and the school has followed up saying that an apology letter from Sullivan to Brownbeck is not required.  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/tweeting-kansas-teen-wont-apologize-to-gov-her-following-soars/

I’d like to end this post with a highlight from the above article:

“Speaking as a taxpayer in Kansas, I’m more than a little annoyed that my government has cut funding for the arts and other programs, but apparently thinks it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars to have the governor’s office troll the Twitter feeds of high school kids to make sure they’re not saying anything mean about him,” wrote Alex Knapp, social media editor at Forbes. “I’m also annoyed that the schools think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars to punish students for what they say on their private Twitter feeds. The whole exercise is absurd.”

- Claire

Hindering Diplomacy

Why does the US, land of free speech and freedom of the press, have such a hard time with public diplomacy? We spend millions of dollars on advertising products and services, and politics, but we can't engage with foreign publics through discussion and communication. Even now, with negative attitudes about the US rampant, and the US Military waging a war to win the "hearts and minds" of people,  there is still widespread doubt surrounding the use of Public Diplomacy.

The United Nations is the most important forum for public diplomacy where the US can exercise it's soft power. However, there is such vehement rhetoric around leaving the United Nations and not paying our dues, including recently withdrawing funds from UNESCO, that we are ruining our chances at using public diplomacy successfully. These actions pose great challenges to US diplomats and often have a negative effect on foreign publics who see the US as belligerent rather than diplomatic.  My main question for those who advocate leaving the UN is how on earth is one expected to be a part of, or lead, the conversation when you aren't even in the room?

The US cannot "go it alone" and needs to spend more time cultivating understanding of US foreign policy in foreign nations. Public Diplomacy should not be painted as a weak act to engage in, or an ineffective tool, it is extremely important in today's world of instant communication and access to information. If the US is not involved in the dialogue, someone else will control it and we will have no chance to counter or control what is said about the US. If anti-UN activists get their way, we will end up wasting our power behind a closed door talking to ourselves and wondering why no one is listening to us.

Has Al-Jazeera become the "loyal opposition?"

I used to be Al-Jazeera's number one fan.  I felt like it stood for the colonized instead of the colonizers, that it was representing the majority of the people in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and especially the Middle East that were staring down the barrel of Western imperialism.  There were times when I was glued to it during Israel's raids on Gaza, when it showed footage you would never see on any of the other corporate networks, shots of Palestinian flesh being melted to bone from the white phosphorus dropped by the Israeli military. 

In Powers and El-Nawawy's article "Al-Jazeera English and Global News Networks: Clash of Civilizations or Cross-Cultural dialogue?' the authors show the results of a study in which many of the viewers polled also felt the same way about the network.  Had I read this in 2009 when the study was released I would have probably shared their same sentiments. 

But, over the last year I've noticed a shift in Al-Jazeera's coverage that has left a bad taste in my mouth, to the point where I've pretty much stopped viewing it all together.

The network has thrown any kind of objectivity it once had out the window when it comes to the so-called "Arab Spring."  It has become a cheerleader for the so-called "revolutionaries" in Egypt, Libya, and Syria  when the goals of these protesters happen to dovetail nicely with American plans for regime change in the region.  But when movements begin to threaten friends of Qatar-such as we've seen in Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia-the network coughs, shuffles its feet, and mumbles a few words. 

The "Arab Spring" is not a spontaneous, grassroots uprising of frustrated youth looking for greater freedom and democracy.  It's the continuation of the neo-liberal agenda to reshape the Middle East that was laid out years ahead of time.  It's the use of Facebook warriors to implement regime change.  And when that doesn't work, as in the case of Libya, it's a good excuse to sell weapons and military contracts in the name of "protecting civilians," even while NATO is slaughtering them at the same time.

Al-Jazeera has gone completely over to the dark side.  As soon as Hilary Clinton declared it to be "real news" back in March I knew they had made some kind of deal that compromised their former integrity.  The goal of journalism should be to hold people in power, and any news organization that is getting praise heaped on it by the State Department, which formerly regarded Al-Jazeera as an enemy, should be suspect. 

Al-Jazeera has become the "loyal opposition."  These days, while pretending to represent a challenge to imperialism, it ends up supporting it.  This became even more clear to me last summer when it created a Wikileaks-style whisteblower site.  
(http://news.softpedia.com/news/WSJ-and-Al-Jazeera-Reserve-the-Right-to-Sell-Out-Whistleblowers-204935.shtml) Only, on their version you aren't allowed to leak material unless you've obtained it legally, and they don't guarantee the whistleblower the right to confidentiality and anonymity.  This is exactly the kind of thing the loyal opposition would do-pretending to reach out to those wanting to expose corruption while, at the same time, reserving the right to hand them over to the authorities like Bradly Manning.  You can't have it both ways, Al-Jazeera.

Nowhere, however, has their reporting fallen more flat than when it comes to the U.S. orchestrated invasion of Libya and the overthrow of the Gadhafi government.  Since Al-Jazeera is owned by the Emir of Qatar, and Qatar has provided troops for the Libyan invasion (as well as funding for anti-Gadhafi media) it is impossible to take their claim of unbiased coverage seriously.  They have cheered on the CIA-backed rebels from the very start.  Any rumor that the insurgents wanted to spread, whether it was Gadhafi's Viagra-fueled troops, his planned masscres of civilians, or his use of African mercenaries, was quickly picked up and spread by Al-Jazeera, even though there is no evidence to back any of these rumors.  News anchors would take cell phone calls from anonymous "protesters" and play their unverified claims live over the air.

At the same time, it showed a complete lack of interest in covering any of the many civilian casualties caused by NATO.  NATO bombed many civilian targets, such as the Al-Fatah University, and the Great Man-Made river irrigation project.  There have been many reports that coalition forces are using depleted uranium munitions which will leave radiation in the soil for thousands of years. 

At least one former Al-Jazeera journalist, Ghassan bin Jeddo, agrees with me.  He resigned from the network last summer, saying publicly that "Al-Jazeera has abandoned professionalism and objectivity, turning from a media source into an operation room that incites and mobilizes."  Now that we have the head of Al-Jazeera, Wadah Khanfa, resigning in September and being replaced by a member of the Qatari royal family, we can only expect their future coverage to fit even more smoothly into the plans laid out by the U.S., Qatar, and it's gang of dictator friends in the gulf.    

The US' Internet Regulations may soon seem A LOT like China's

Much of our class has touched upon communication ownership.  From the telegraph to the radiowave we have read and discussed government and private sector control over these society-changing technologies.  We have also frequently compared China’s authoritarian regulation over the Internet against the US’ liberal Internet policies.  However, as noted in this NY Times Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html?_r=2&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-SGF-111611-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click, the Protect IP Act has been introduced in the Senate and a similar bill known as, Stop Online Piracy Act, in the House both of which propose regulations that would have effects on Internet users similar to those experienced by Chinese citizens. 

As noted in the Mattelart reading, “’The mysterious magic of being able, with a simple click of a mouse, to send a full length movie hurtling with the speed of light to any part of the planet, is a marketing dream and an anti-piracy nightmare.”  These two bills seek to contain intellectual property, which is reasonable, yet at the expense of  “democratic discourse” at home and abroad. 

However, it is this writer’s opinion that the government should concentrate efforts on further strengthening its bill on patents which would support those producers of “intellectual property” to create.  Why don’t we concentrate on displacing “patent trolls” which would encourage innovation rather than infringing the communication of its citizens which could also stifle these same producers access to creative, knowledge, information flows?

http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf

- Claire

The Power of The Daily Show

Bingchun Meng's article about the power of E Gao in China reminded me of a story with John Stewart and the Daily Show. Because of the high censorship of the internet and media in China, Chinese citizens use E Gao, or satire and puns, in order to convey meanings and share their own political communication within China. But how does this concept work within the US, especially with a "free press" and Internet Freedom?

The Daily Show is not anything new, and in fact Bingchun Meng mentions the show in his article. The popularity of John Stewarts satire about US Politics has caused high ratings and a legitimization of his show. Many friends and colleagues of mine watch the Daily Show not for mere entertainment, but because they view it as a legitimate news source. We even see politicians and other newscasters going on the Daily Show to debate John Stewart and to reach his audience.

What I am interested in, is not the merging of entertainment and news into 'infotainment' but the legitimate power that these types of organizations can exercise. For example, the Daily Show's ability to get public opinion in support of the 9/11 Responders Bill. Being from New York, I am  biased in my support for this Bill, but what was surprising was the lack of coverage this Bill was receiving from all main news outlets. When the measure first came up to Congress for voting in 2010, the Bill was defeated by Republican filibustering. Politics and grandstanding came in the way of support for the firefighters, EMT's, and police officers who were once praised as hero's and patriots.

At this point in time, the Daily Show went from being an entertainment show, to instrumental in the fight for the passage of this Bill. John Stewart called out main news organizations for barely covering what most of the nation saw as a huge letdown of the political system for people that needed it most. From August of 2010 until December of 2010 the Daily Show did more segments on the First Responders Bill than any other main news organization, including interviewing First Responders on his show. (Stewart: First Responders) The Daily Show's interest in the First Responder's Bill even became a news item, when news organizations weren't reporting on the Bill itself! (Eventually, in December, Congress passed the Bill)

Now this can all be chalked up to one person's interest and the power that John Stewart holds over his own show, but the fact that an entertainment show was able to frame the dialogue and shape public opinion about a Bill in the United States, does give credence to the theory that E Gao and other forms of media entertainment are powerful and persuasive.

A bit of hope in TANs

In Taking the state out of state-media relations theory: how transnational advocacy networks are changing the press-state dynamic, Sean Aday and Steven Livington describe how non-state actors are exercising a certain level of influence in media. According to them, media are now less dependent on the state's news agenda to cover issues, thanks to transnational advocacy networks (TANs) and epistemic communities (groups that have expertise in specific subjects).

I was glad to read about this shift. When I was working as a journalist back home, I began to notice how sometimes we didn't even pay attention to official communications. It WAS the non-governmental organizations that set the news agenda on controversial issues. Ours was a smaller, non mainstream newspaper, but even the mainstream media followed along sometimes. If Sierra Club's Puerto Rican chapter called for a news conference you would see some of the most important journalists covering the event. SCPR and Casa Pueblo, a grassroots environmental organization, have set the pace for news coverage of a very controversial gas pipeline project.

I think this is good news. Getting out the government's framing of issues (whether they show all their sides or not) is a great development for the general public. More points of view, and from knowledgeable experts instead of politicians, can only be beneficial. However, for journalists, there's a concern that might arise. They should not rely on just reporting what the government says versus what TANs say, but there's a risk that they might become dependent on whatever information those actors give them. It's better than just being dependent on the state, but it's not good journalism.