On the effects of state-led media in the UAE

Just stumbled across this interview with Dr. Sulaiman Al Hattlan, an academic and journalist, with astute observations about the media in the United Arab Emirates. Read this part of the interview:

In the Arab world, however, journalism started as a party voice or as an official voice to governments. Hence we have various issues. First, we can’t differentiate properly between media and advertising, between propaganda and reporting, between public relations and journalism, between opinion and news, or between news and analysis.

Second, there is a lack of independence in many Arabic media corporations, which were originally attached to governments or influential personalities in their societies, and that continue to serve political or commercial interests. Moreover, there is an important cultural matter, namely the absence of critical spirit and self- criticism in our culture.

Finally, with the arrival of New Media and citizen journalism, that allows for all to express and to have their input in building the general public opinion, we are witnessing such a mixture of criticism and blunt accusations, that the reader has difficulty in discerning between the actual responsible and constructive criticism and the one based on rumours and lies. So, in a climate like this, the challenges within the media sector are increasing. It is my sincere wish that we should somehow try to accelerate our steps towards building a civil society based on the concepts of polite conversation, the respect of others’ opinions and the importance of accurate information.

Yes. What an eloquent summation of the problems with the media system in this region.

On the Arab Spring, the Ukrainian Revolution and the optimism of Marshall McLuhan’s ‘Global Village’

Protesters in Ukraine during the 2004 revolution. (Source: Abi's UKR Blog)

A paper I wrote about the Ukrainian revolution a couple of years back has just been published in The Atlanta Review of Journalism History. Re-reading it in the post-Arab Spring shows some interesting parallels between the communication environment in the Ukraine (pre-Twitter and Facebook, but post-Internet and cell phone text messaging.) I noted that Ukrainian protesters used technology to their advantage — involving a global audience in the protests and even soliciting donations:

This type of global feedback was unprecedented. Supportive people from all over the world offered words of encouragement to protesters in the middle of an ongoing political revolution. The audience could also offer money – through the (protester’s) website – to help fund the protesters living in the tent city and other efforts. In global struggles of the past, viewers at home could only watch as oppressed citizens fought for freedom. But, audiences could actively communicate and support the protesters of the Orange Revolution.

Hmm. Sounds familiar. Unfortunately, the revolution there didn’t stick. The current president of Ukraine was part of the old government kicked out in 2004. In this sense, the Arab Spring has already outpaced the Orange Revolution. Not much chance of some of the Arab leaders returning to power.

I also like this bit at the end:

The global participation in Ukraine’s internal politics appears to be further evidence supporting Marshall McLuhan’s theoretical construct of the “global village.” In 1962, McLuhan already saw technology making the world a smaller place. “The new electronic interdependence,” he wrote, “recreates the world in the image of a global village”61 He noted that the electronic age had sealed the “entire human family into a single global tribe.”62 Although scholars differ over how optimistic McLuhan saw this electronic world, words such as “tribe” and “village” imply a communal existence in which participants care about each other. Long before the advent of the Internet, McLuhan seemed to argue that electronic advancements could potentially lead to a problem-solving global forum creating a new sense of world community.

More recently however, theorist Arjun Appadurai dismissed McLuhan saying that he “overestimated the communitarian implications of the new media order.” Appadurai argued that media create communities without any sense of place. Observing both “fantasies” and “nightmares” predicting electronic equality, Appaduria sees the new media order “requiring theories of rootlessness, alienation, and psychological distance between individuals and groups.” Appadurai and McLuhan offer competing views on how to embrace technological advances. McLuhan sees a “global village” whereas Appadurai sees participants separated by psychological distance.

The followers of the Orange Revolution appear to exist in the more optimistic “global village” camp. The audience indeed created a “sense of place” and cared about the outcome of events, actively supporting the participants. The Internet’s ability to communicate over vast distances and across cultural barriers actually did some good in the case of Ukraine. Perhaps the Internet is making people in some parts of the world rootless and alienated, but not in the case of the Orange Revolution. In this case, the “global village” lived up to McLuhan’s prediction.

Academics can occasionally be quite pessimistic. Sometimes, it just depends upon which facts you focus.

Finally, please consider listening to “Razom Nas Bahato,” the Ukrainian freedom anthem. More details here. Is there an anthem for the Arab Spring yet?

CNN asks UAE leader about freedom of speech, press

Here’s a video of CNN correspondent Erin Burnett’s recent interview with HH Sheikh Mohommed bin Rashid, the ruler of the emirate of Dubai and the vice president of the United Arab Emirates. She asked him specifically about freedom of speech and the press in the UAE. Here’s an excerpt:

Burnett asked about the case of the “UAE5,” in which five Emirati activists were arrested after one of them said the government “was buying off the people so that they don’t demand change like in Egypt, like in Egypt. So, what’s your view of what happened and whether it’s OK to say something like that here.”

HH Bin Rashid: If you are a criminal then you go to court. You know, not everybody is perfect. And we are not perfect. We’re doing a lot for our people. There’s still more to do. So, we hope these five will become better citizens for their own good and their people.

Burnett: It just leads to the question of one thing over the years covering the UAE. People will say the press isn’t totally free. People can’t really say everything that they really think. Do you think that’s part of how, in this society, you need to govern.

HH Bin Rashid: As long as they don’t say something wrong about a person or whatever it is, they can say whatever they want. As I told you, we are not perfect. We are still learning. We are trying to do our job right and we’re trying to help our own people… We have our own democracy. You cannot transport your democracy to us — we are different. For example, our democracy comes from the Koran. As long as journalists don’t step on somebody else, then you are free do what you like.

Interesting insight.

Of course, some of the questions asked by an internationally based CNN correspondent would never be broached by a local journalist — a sign of the self-censorship prevalent in the UAE. And don’t expect any of the sheikh’s candid comments about the governing of the UAE to appear in the local press either.

UPDATE: The local press surprisingly covered the CNN interview with great attention. Abu Dhabi’s The National newspaper provided the most robust coverage, even quoting the sheikh’s comments about press freedom. Gulf News also covered the interview and noted the press freedom issues — but they failed to mention that his comments referred to journalists specifically. Both articles appeared on the front page. Most of the Arabic language papers covered the interview as well–some more than others.

UPDATE II: I used the sheik’s comments to launch an editorial in Gulf News about the lack of legal protections for journalists in the UAE.

Amartya Sen on value of a free press

Just started reading Nobel Prize-winning author Amartya Sen’s “The Idea of Justice.” What an incredible thinker.

In a chapter entitled “Democracy as Public Opinion,” he outlines four reasons to embrace a free press in any society.

To paraphrase:

1) “The first — and perhaps the most elementary — connection concerns the direct contribution of free speech in general and press freedom in particular to the quality of our lives.” Media freedom allows us to satisfy the innate desire to communicate with each other and receive information.

2) “The press has a major informational role in disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny.” The informational function of the press leads to scientific advancements and cultural innovations.

3) “Media freedom has an important protective function in giving voice to the neglected and the disadvantaged, which can greatly contribute to human security.” Since leaders can be insulated from realities of day-to-day living, a free press sheds light on issues that otherwise could go unnoticed.

4) “Informed and unregimented formulation of values requires openness of communication and argument.” The media can elevate issues up to the sphere of public discussion and help with the identification and resolution of issues.

Good stuff. You can read a eight-page excerpt of his book here.

Bribing journalists in the UAE

Emirati ex-journalist Taryam Al Subaihi wrote an editorial in Sunday’s The National newspaper on the common practice of bribing journalists in the UAE to receive favorable coverage:

Even though these practices may only apply to a minority of journalists, they still threaten to compromise the entire media sector. Action should be taken to educate not only journalists, but also PR agencies, other companies and public sector organisations about the dangers of seemingly innocuous gifts. Not only does the practice compromise an individual journalist’s integrity, but it does a disservice to everyone because of the biased coverage that people will recognise as propaganda.

Good stuff. I’ve been hearing for a long time that this practice was a problem here — good for Taryam to point it out. (He’s a student in my graduate class at Zayed University, where we’ve discussed the UAE’s need for stronger ethics in journalism.)

The reaction of the Twitter community was quite positive. Here’s a storify I compiled of reactions from the local Twitterati, including UAE stalwart Sultan Al Qassemi.

The Society of Professional Journalists is quite clear on this issue. Their Code of Ethics states that journalists should “refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment…” Hopefully, Taryam’s column and this discussion will be a step in the right direction for UAE journalists.

UAE press ignores coalition statement on activists’ trial

The Washington Post and other international news outlets just published this Associated Press article detailing the condemnation of the UAE’s trial against five activists here:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — A coalition of international human rights organizations on Thursday accused the United Arab Emirates of violating international legal standards by prosecuting five jailed campaigners for political reforms in the oil-rich Gulf country.

The statement by the 7-member alliance marks the highest level international pressure over the trial. The charges could carry long prison terms.

The activists, including a prominent blogger and an economics professor who has lectured at the Abu Dhabi branch of Paris’ Sorbonne university, were charged with anti-state crimes after signing an Internet petition calling for constitutional changes and free elections.Political activity is severely restricted in the UAE, an alliance of seven semiautonomous states, each ruled by a sheik who inherits the post. There are no official opposition groups in the country, and political parties are banned.

The UAE has not had street protests like those that erupted this year across the Middle East, including in neighboring Bahrain. Authorities moved aggressively to keep demands for political change, inspired by the Arab Spring revolts, out of the Gulf federation that includes the glitzy city-state Dubai.

The five activists were arrested in April and charged with insulting the UAE’s rulers and endangering the country’s security. If convicted on all charges, they could face decades in prison.

A verdict is expected Nov. 27. The defendants have no right to appeal.

The decision of the English-language press to ignore this story shows the type of self-censorship prevalent in this country. While journalism in the UAE has certainly improved in the last few years, it still suffers from huge ethical lapses such as the avoidance of contextual reporting on this trial. The main newspapers have run articles after each court appearance, but they have devoted no space at all to the controversy surrounding the arrests. The press has ignored important aspects of the case such as this denouncement from human rights groups and a statement from one of the activists detailing alleged abuses in jail while awaiting the trial.

This abdication of journalistic duty is important to note. As I detailed in my recent research on media literacy in the UAE, what a press outlet chooses to cover has profound impact on the knowledge of media consumers. The people of the UAE deserve to know about the context surrounding this trial, and the press does them a terrible disservice by ignoring crucial elements of the story.

Of course, everyone in the United Arab Emirates expects no less. The rules about “red lines” coverage are well documented in the UAE and throughout the Arab world. Still, journalists in the UAE should limit their self-congratulations for progress in the country, while collectively agreeing to ignore such an important topic.

Research compares English and Arabic press in Abu Dhabi

Here are my slides from my presentation in Beirut today at the Arab-U.S. Association of Communication Educators. My co-author, Saba ElGhul-Bebawi, and I examined a month’s coverage from Al Ittihad and The National in Abu Dhabi. Here’s the abstract:

This study explores differences in journalistic practice between two newspapers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The authors compare one month of coverage of The National, an English-language newspaper, and Al Ittihad, an Arabic-language newspaper, to examine how each critically reports the news. This research aims to understand how both newspapers construct news for the audiences they serve and, in turn, understand the extent to which each newspaper affects the formation of media literacy within the United Arab Emirates. Using Kovach and Rosenthiel’s Principles of Journalism as a theoretical foundation, this study uses textual analysis to examine the presentation of photos, placement of articles, and the construction and omission of news. The conclusions provide insight into the differences in journalism practices between the two newspapers.

Several members of the audience, including NPR’s Andy Carvin, live-tweeted the presentation. See a storify version of their comments here.

You can download the presentation here.

Our FNC forum allows for public discussion of recent elections

About 200 people attended our recent Federal National Council election symposium organized by my College of Communications and Media Sciences and the Konrad Adenhauer Stiftung, a German foundation. Above is a picture of coverage from the local Arabic newspaper, Al Ittihad. The English-language newspaper, The National, also covered the event.

We discussed the role the media played in the elections as well as ways to increase awareness of the Federal National Council, the deliberative body for which elections were held. Two newly elected members of the Federal National Council, Sheikha Eisa Ghanem Al Ari or Umm al Quainn and Salem Mohammed Al-Ameri of Abu Dhabi, joined several other Emirati observers for a discussion of the Sept. 24 elections which was marked by low voter turnout.

Some main points:

1) Many observers called for the FNC to have greater powers — and the leadership of the country has indicated that plan is in the works. Dr Ebtisam Al Kitbi, of UAE University, said that the FNC should be able to hold government ministers accountable.

2) Nasser Al Skaikh, a businessman and FNC candidate, hammered home the point that the news media needed to cover the FNC sessions, not just the elections. Many Emiratis still have no idea what the FNC is or what it does. He stressed that if the media did a better job covering the current FNC session, then the next elections in 2016 would feature better voter turnout.

3) Diana Hamade, a lawyer and legal rights activist, pointed out that the television coverage of the elections was virtually non-existent. Some warned that television news shows may have avoided covering any candidates, for fear of running afoul with National Election Committee campaign speech rules. She and other members also stressed that schools and universities needed to help educate citizens about the FNC. Public affairs commentator Mishaal al Gergawi stressed that Emiratis are largely politically unaware.

4) FNC member Salem Al Ameri denied that tribalism played a role in his elections, despite the fact that three of the four candidates elected from Abu Dhabi were members of the Al Ameri tribe. He said that he used advertising and social media to reach his audience.

5) We discussed the urgent need for more Emiratis to take journalism positions in the UAE. Although no firm numbers are available, the vast majority of UAE journalists are ex-pats. I spoke after the forum with three Emirati journalists from Al Bayan who told me only 5 percent of their staff were Emiratis.

The best part of the conference for me was the ability for my Emirati students to see a group of UAE nationals discuss important issues in a public forum. For most if not all of them, this was the first time they’d been exposed to this sort of event. Many of them told me they were thrilled to take part and looked forward to future forums. (And surely some of them attended only because I offered extra credit.)

I will post some videos of the event at some point in the future — may take a while to edit them. Later this week, I plan on working with my students to create a Storify document that highlights the best Twitter posts from the forum hashtag, #CPA11.

Thanks to the fine folks at Konrad Adenhauer Stiftung, the German foundation that helped us organize the event.

Regarding freedom of expression

From “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Virtue and capitalism

Published this two years ago, but it seems appropriate to revisit.

In an interview with the Times of London, the Archbishop of Westminster makes some interesting observations about our particular brand of capitalism:

… the economic downturn could be the very thing that brings us to our senses. “It’s the end of a certain kind of selfish capitalism,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said. “This particular recession is a moment – a kairos – when we have to reflect as a country on what are the things that nourish the values, the virtues, we want to have … Capitalism needs to be underpinned with regulation and a moral purpose.”

He will stand down soon as the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, which he has been for nine years, but before he goes he wants to make one final plea to Britons to change their ways. He told The Times that he had advised Gordon Brown to complement his National Economic Council with a moral one, to “rediscover the things that make for a healthy society”.

He said: “One feels very sorry for those losing their jobs but in times of recession people have to rely on friends and neighbours and families and things that really matter to them. That may be a good thing. I think people did lose their way a bit. It has been difficult to bring up children with the kind of values we want. Let’s face it, we now have a ‘me, me’ society, a more consumerist society, a utilitarian society, and our values and virtues have become diminished.

Great points. I don’t support regulating capitalism via laws, though. You can’t legislate virtue — it’s got to come from within.