Category Archives: Media and Politics

To freedom distortion with love

Generally, I don’t find news trustworthy. As a matter of fact, reading newspapers has become an entertaining rather than an informative act I perform every morning, let alone watching TV news.Yes, I know my job, which involves media monitoring and analysis, is partly what causes this infinite criticism of mine and yes, I know I’ve blogged about media distortion before but yesterday I came across this webpage and I just couldn’t help it. Click on the link. That’s supposed to be live broadcasting from Syria. Amazing, isn’t it? Government attempts to impose censorship on media have backfired exactly because of such webpages, microblogs and blogs set up by fed up citizens who want to fight authoritarian regimes, protest or simply want to be heard. Remember the Iranian protesters who took to the streets in 2009 because of the apparent rigging of the elections. Then remember why Egypt shut down its internet and the following Middle-East awakening. Western media focused solely on their use of Twitter and social media in general as a main tool for organising the resistance. At first glance, these examples seem to prove the widely held belief that communication technology is a pro-democratic weapon to help dissidents to “leap the wall” of censorship and promote democracy and human rights (free speech in particular). However, the closer you look at it, the more it appears to be a double-edged sword. By believing that the internet-freedom utopia (or media in general) is an absolute, people actually make it easier for any politician to control them.

So, if you think authoritative regimes are clueless about the internet, think again. Governments have always used all sort of propaganda to justify their actions – going into war, fighting terrorism, destroying woodland, even concealing nuclear disasters (remember Chernobyl). However, before it used to be TV, radio or newspaper propaganda; now political bodies are using easier ways of sustaining their regimes: promoting internet/ media freedom and using it to their advantage. Youtube used to be banned in Turkey to prevent “the nation’s moral degradation”; now it is accessible, i.e. entertain yourself with free movies and music but do not mess with politics! China’s censorship went beyond surveillance cameras, dissident arrests and media control since the government has cracked down on social networks, using an army of spy bloggers and an internet police that has recently found a smarter way of blocking the VPNs and Gmail – it makes their use inconvenient. Israel’s media censorship is also notorious – remember why journalists were banned from Gaza in 2006? What about the hypocritical fight for democracy in Egypt: get rid of the government but do not blog about women/free speech/religious rights.

As Baudrillard would say, we live in a “simulated version of reality” indeed where the boundaries between real and unreal have blurred so much thanks to media distortion that they are hardly even spotted. Now back to the live broadcasting from Syria: do you now realise why I’m questioning its “reality”? How do we know whether it is or not? What should we do about it? I don’t really have great suggestions and I don’t argue that all media is distorted and untrustworthy. However, I do believe that we should keep in mind the political context in which technology communications could be used and simply follow Morozov’s call for “cyber-realism” rather than “cyber-utopianism” to draw the line between the right and wrong ways of promoting democracy.

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 16, 2012 in Media and Politics


Eyeless in Gaza: the misuse of language in war reporting

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for about  century over land. The battles  – involving many other issues than just land, have been fought with tanks, rockets, aircraft, fists, stones, sticks, you name it. However, nowadays battles do not happen only on clearly delineated fronts. The battles of the 21st century are fought on editorial pages, TV screens and especially on the Internet. Satellites and cameras made transmission of text and visual context almost instantaneous so wherever we live in the world we stay “informed”. But is everything as “real” as it seems?This globalization and unification of communication have had a big impact on war turning it into a global spectacle, especially for those not directly involved in it.  Basically, if you can dominate world media and influence people’s opinions, you can defeat your enemy on this second “virtual” front by letting global levers like trade sanctions, decreased tourism etc. constrain him.

That is a good reason why media often reduce highly complex conflicts such as the Israeli/ Gaza one. Sweeping instances of media distortion – when big media report important war conflicts wrong – fascinate me. That’s why I decided to write my dissertation on this particular topic, using the Israeli/Gaza conflict as a case study.

Having witnessed the 2008/09 Israeli/Hamas war I had the chance to see how international, Arab and Israeli media reported the conflict. Being 20 km from Gaza I got pretty much real experience that I could compare with what was reported. You can imagine how shocked I was while reading and hearing different stories on the conflict from a variety of newspapers and TV channels. They were reporting the same subject but why did it sound so differently?

Words, words, words – “power of media is all about words and the use of words. It is bout semantics” Robert Fisk.

At the Independent Literary Festival in Woodstock 2010 I had the pleasure to hear Robert Fisk, the best journalist reporting on the Middle – East, speaking about the misuse of words by journalists.

It is about the employment of phrases and clauses and their origins. And it is about the misuse of history; and about our ignorance of history. More and more today, we journalists have become prisoners of the language of power’.
It made me think why is it so? Is it because journalists don’t pay enough attention to the words they use? Or is it on purpose? Sitting in the old Woodstock Church in Oxfordshire and listening to the discussion I was wondering why and I couldn’t give myself a good answer. I’m still looking for the answer but after hearing Robert Fisk’s lecture it became a bit clearer to me: power of media is nowadays all about words…
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 30, 2012 in Media and Politics, Middle East, Politics, PR


If your government shuts down your internet, it’s time to shut down your government

Some governments are willing to commit to open web access for all, no matter what. In 2002 Estonia made internet access a human right. Finland introduced a law last year that guarantees every sitizen broadband internet. .
However, some countries have recently tried to suspend the national internet. We all wintnessed the internet blackout in Egypt and the censored news and social media in Tunisia. The notorious news coverage blackout posed by Israel made us “eyeless in Gaza” but was it actually a winning strategy? Did such radical measures stop the protests?

Certainly not. If anything, one lesson seems to be that enforced closure of internet and media access can only do harm: if your government shuts down your internet, it’s time to shut down your government. Especially on the Second Front – media!


Leave a comment

Posted by on January 30, 2012 in Media and Politics, Middle East, Politics, PR


Eyeless in Nigeria: reading upside down and inside out or how the lack of communication becomes an instrument for creating perceptions

No, this time nobody has banned the journalist access to the country and yet we are still eyeless: this time not in Gaza but in Nigeria. Why? Because of words, because of semantics! It’s amazing how a single word can turn the whole story upside down! I have been following hot topics like the Arab spring and the current unrest in Nigeria for quite some time trying to see things from all possible angles and what I found out didn’t surprise me at all: misuse of language and lack of communication resulting in rather controversial media coverage of the issue.

It wasn’t something unexpected because sadly enough nowadays such poor journalistic attempts have become a matter of course. The saddest part is the fact that most of the time it wasn’t done purposely…The result? Outrageous comments, misunderstandings and more tensions making everything worse that it was. For example, last night I read an article in the Economist about the oil subsidy removal. To be honest, I paid more attention to the comments following it because in the end of the day what your audience gets after reading it is what matters.  I’m not going to do a content analysis of the article but if you just pay attention to certain words, especially to the headline, you would probably get the impression that the whole nation is simply dumb and doesn’t understand the benefits that the subsidy removal would bring and everybody is protesting only because they want cheap oil. That’s what many people who are not familiar with the history behind would understand by only reading this article, right? The truth is there is more to this than meets the eye and I myself would have got confused if I hadn’t spoken to people, followed facebook activities or read more about the whole thing. However, not everyone has the time or would bother to research which is totally fine. On the other hand, news are supposed to be straight to the point and not too long (depending on the audience and the free space available in the newspaper/journal). Have you ever thought why most newspapers lack ads and long articles in August? Well, think about it and you would figure out that’s the holiday month and there is almost nobody to read or to write stuff. So what’s a newspaper? That’s big business, it’s just a money machine. Anyway, that’s another topic I’m planning to blog about later. So, in the end of the day Nigerians actually protest against the organised crime and corruption in the country and that’s why they feel the oil subsidy removal would just create more opportunities for the ruling elite to steal. In other words, everything has its context. The government decided to remove the oil subsidy because they want to create long-term opportunities. People started protesting because of the impact that the removal will have and is having on the costs of living of millions of Nigerians that live below the poverty level. And it is because the government fails to stick to its promises and improve the quality of life. Which is  because….The problem is the context of the story can go on and on forever dating back decades ago. The history of the problem repeats itself, only the frequency is increasing and this all reminds me on a conversation I had with  Robert Fisk regarding media reporting – the media coverage of the Israeli/Gaza conflict in particular. I clearly recall something he said that still sticks in my mind:

“I believe a journalist’s job is to be neutral and non – biased. When one goes to a journalistic school one is told to equal space to both sides. This is how you report a football match. But the Middle East is a tragedy and it should be reported as it is”

Substitute the Middle East with Nigeria and you get the same story…Why should a story be reported equally? As Fisk said – that’s not a football game! Things should be reported as they are! And to do that journalists should maybe look at the context a bit more and be careful what kind of words they use because the whole story gets minimized.  Here I’m also not tolerating how the government communicated its decision to remove the oil subsidy. As a matter of fact I see no attempts for communication. I remember an Ethics lecture where my tutor asked us to give an example of bad crisis management. Well, I said BP (they have been doing the same mistakes for 20 years, poor things) but now I would give the Nigerian government as an example. You cannot introduce such a change out of a sudden without even informing and educating the citizens about the reforms! First of all, people are generally resistant to change – it scares them even if they know the change would bring them benefits. That’s how it is – you are used to certain things and the unknown scares you. Second of all, that’s a goal you should achieve gradually! It is called a strategy, e.g. your overall idea of what you want to do. Then you have your objectives, tactics, timeline etc. So, if you simply communicate this to people they would certainly support it! I don’t think the nation is dumb – it’s all about the way you present things and communicate them.

See some comments after that article:

“…we all know the benefit of removing the subsidy, but the government have never been accountable, transparent, effective.”, dele adedapo January 21st, 01:00

“In conclusion, if the government is certain and convinced about its intentions, let explain its position to the people in a coherent manner. It should be democratic in the commencement of the removal policy. “, Greattomorrow January 25th, 11:10

If you continue reading the comments you will see that there are so many points of view and that actually everybody is right to a certain point. Obviously, it means to me that the solution is not and cannot be simple. It reminds me on the “democracy” on the Balkans – it’s just the same story. The government is corrupted, people are poor and unhappy and at the same time they think of their pockets first and are not resistant to all those things.

“… it hardly helps anyone that everyday Nigerians think first of their pockets and respond with vituperative invective against the FG when called to assist. They should save their venom, instead, for their party leadership and ensure that they press them to clean up the legislative, executive and judicial branches, on pain of losing their jobs and being committed to prison, where these “leaders” are found to have been corrupt. Too many Nigerians have proven willing to accept a lack of prosecutions or insignificant fines/sentences for those who were otherwise deemed “strong men” of use to the country in exchange for some temporary advantage to themselves, to their villages or to party cadres. When everyday Nigerians stop allowing themselves to be bought off and insist, instead, on real reform, real prosecutions, and real consequences for corrupt acts, that’s when things will really begin to change for the better.”, NdiliMfumu in reply to bmakanju January 26th, 21:12

Well, this is because Nigerians (or any other nation in the same situation like Bulgaria or other Balkan countries) have to provide their basic services by themselves. Which is because…So there we go again – the context and the way it was reported and communicated.Even the facebook pages that are supposed to create awareness and educate people about the benefits of the oil subsidy removal seem to me unsuccessful because they actually do not communicate much and it seems to me there isn’t much buzz created around them which subsequently cannot lead to knowledge or any action taken by the stakeholders…It is a change of behaviour that is supposed to be aimed after all – not simply awareness, right?

“Words, it is true, do not kill; but words can ease the work of killing”, Gideon Levy “The Punishment of Gaza”

This journalist referred to the Israeli/ Palestinian virtual war of words on editorial pages, facebook, TV and radio where the only language newspapers invoke to describe the Israeli/Gaza issue is the language of violence – the only language that is articulated as if there were no other. These same concept and patterns could be applied here, just the frames of the story are different, aren’t they? As somebody suggested, it is time for the government and I would say media to be transparent and maybe things would look a bit different if communicated properly. Because as Augustine of Hippo once said (in a different context of course, related to faith), “crede, ut intelligas” – believe so that you may understand. Unlike Augustine of Hippo, I’m not suggesting believing and following blindly: for people to believe the government it has to be transparent and honest.


Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2012 in Africa, Media and Politics, Politics