One of my students put together an incredible Storify that summarized the whole day. Take a look:

Prett cool, eh? Everyone’s already excited about next year’s event.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. World Press Freedom Day May 3 is World Press Freedom Day, marked by the...
2. CNN asks UAE leader about freedom of speech, press Here’s a video of CNN correspondent Erin Burnett’s recent interview...
3. Press freedom rankings decline in UAE The United Arab Emirates saw its rankings in the Reporters...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

May 3 is World Press Freedom Day, marked by the United Nations to “celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom.” The UN will be hosting a conference in Tunisia and students at my university have organized their own celebration. They’re pretty excited about it — evidenced by the size of the banner above.

Our student chapter of the UAE Society of Professional Journalists organized the event under the tutelage of my fantastic colleague Dr. David Bulla. We’ll have three Emirati speakers on campus who will speak about issues surrounding press freedom: Mishaal al Gergawi, a public affairs commentator; Noura al Kaabi, a member of the Federal National Council and CEO of TwoFour54, an Arab media incubator; and Mohammad al Hammadi, the editor-in-chief of National Geographic Arabia. Activities include a Debate Club debate, poetry readings, soapbox speeches and T-shirt and food giveaways. It’s shaped up to be a pretty great event, and I’m quite proud of the students who have made it happen.

To follow along with the activities, check out the Twitter hashtag #ZU_WPFD.

While I’m discussing press freedom, allow me to reference my last column in Gulf News. I suggested that the Abu Dhabi Media Authority’s content guidelines would make an excellent foundation for a new press law in the United Arab Emirates. These guidelines, while making sure to respect local culture and sensibilities, provide plenty of space to practice good journalism. My conclusion:

In this respect, one part of the media zone’s guidelines is stunning and notably absent in the UAE’s current and draft media laws. The guidelines make clear the editorial justification that allows the media to disseminate the news even if it “has the potential to cause harm.”

Editorial justifications, according to the MZA code, include “the exposure of crime, corruption, antisocial behaviour, injustice or serious impropriety, protecting public health or safety, exposing lies, hypocrisy or materially misleading claims made by individuals or organisations, disclosing incompetence, and negligence or dereliction of duty that affects the public.”

The guidelines essentially authorise news outlets to practice the type of healthy watchdog journalism commonplace in many nations. A UAE news organisation operating under a media law based on this code would feel empowered to investigate wrongdoing and public malfeasance without worry of any retribution. Even if the police, prosecutors or an offended party took issue with a report and took the journalist to court, a judge would have to weigh the reporting against the stated legal protections regarding the exposure of wrongdoing. Such a law would drastically improve the ability of journalists to practise good journalism in the UAE.

As Arab countries struggle with the new realities of a post-Arab Spring world, many will be taking a look at their media laws — all of which reflect an outdated mass media era. Indeed, Qatar recently announced that their government would soon issue a revision of its media law. The UAE should lead the way in this effort. In a country that excels at firsts, a revised media law based on these culturally sensitive content guidelines would provide an excellent example for the Arab world to follow.

Will be interesting to see if we see any movement on this issue — from the UAE, Qatar or any other countries in the Middle East.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Press freedom rankings decline in UAE The United Arab Emirates saw its rankings in the Reporters...
2. Journalism, media laws and press freedom in the UAE The following links and explanations should help provide an understanding...
3. CNN asks UAE leader about freedom of speech, press Here’s a video of CNN correspondent Erin Burnett’s recent interview...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Her quote occurs to me whenever I read or see anything that people respond to with shock and disbelief. She told an interviewer once:

When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal ways of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock — to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost blind you draw large and startling figures.

I thought of her words again today when I read Mona Eltahawy’s article “Why do they hate us?” which details her perception of the mass mistreatment of Arab women.

Share/Bookmark

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

He sums up eloquently a point that I’ve made before about the general tendency to formulate beliefs and then assume that everyone who doesn’t share them must just be sadly misinformed. Atheists tend to do this with believers. Democrats with Republicans. Christians with Muslims. And vice-versa, of course.

Here are some good bits in which he discusses the opinions of two famous atheists:

The question is, what makes one chapter and verse more authoritative for citing than the other? The question did not arise in the discussion, but had it arisen, Dawkins and Pinker would no doubt have responded by extending the point they had already made: The chapter and verse of scriptural citation is based on nothing but subjective faith; the chapter and verse of scientific citation is based on facts and evidence.

The argument is circular and amounts to saying that the chapter and verse we find authoritative is the chapter and verse of the scripture we believe in because we believe in its first principle, in this case the adequacy and superiority of a materialist inquiry into questions religion answers by mere dogma. To be sure, those who stand with Dawkins and Pinker could also add that they believe in the chapter and verse of scientific inquiry for good reasons, and that would be true. But the reasons undergirding that belief are not independent of it.

People like Dawkins and Pinker do not survey the world in a manner free of assumptions about what it is like and then, from that (impossible) disinterested position, pick out the set of reasons that will be adequate to its description. They begin with the assumption (an act of faith) that the world is an object capable of being described by methods unattached to any imputation of deity, and they then develop procedures (tests, experiments, the compilation of databases, etc.) that yield results, and they call those results reasons for concluding this or that. And they are reasons, but only within the assumptions that both generate them and give them point…

And then end he takes aim at liberals:

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not criticizing Dawkins, but thanking him for affirming the argument I made last week in Campaign Stops, the argument that despite invocations of fairness and equality and giving every voice a chance, classical liberals, like any other ideologues (and ideologues we all are), divide the world into “us” and “them.” It’s just that rather than “us” being Christians and “them” Jews or vice-versa, “us” are those who subscribe to the tenets of materialist scientific inquiry and “them” are those who don’t, those who, in the entirely parochial judgment of liberal rationalists, subscribe to nonsense and superstition.

Again, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not criticizing liberals for standing up for, and with, their own, only for pretending that they are, or could be, doing something else. Liberals know, without having to think further about it, that those who oppose global warming on religious grounds are just ignorant nuts; and they know that those who deny the Holocaust, no matter what so-called facts and statistics they marshal, are just bad people; and they know that those who want creationism taught in the schools are just using the vocabulary of open inquiry as a Trojan horse. (Incidentally, I agree with all three of these liberal positions.)

But the desire of classical liberals to think of themselves as above the fray, as facilitating inquiry rather than steering it in a favored direction, makes them unable to be content with just saying, You guys are wrong, we’re right, and we’re not going to listen to you or give you an even break. Instead they labor mightily to ground their judgments in impersonal standards and impartial procedures (there are none) so that they can pronounce their excommunications with clean hands and pure — non-partisan, and non-tribal — hearts. It’s quite a performance and it is on display every day in our most enlightened newspapers and on our most progressive political talk shows, including the ones I’m addicted to.

Good stuff — and the same message applies to whatever tent where you’ve planted a stake.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Amartya Sen on value of a free press Just started reading Nobel Prize-winning author Amartya Sen’s “The Idea...
2. Eric Hoffer on proselytizing Eric Hoffer’s an interesting figure. Many observers consider the U.S....
3. How to write well In the middle of this excellent New Yorker article debating...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

PR professionals will offer cash or gifts in exchange for favorable articles or broadcast reports. I’ve also heard that advertising salespeople will sell editorial coverage as part of a package to clients — a clear violation of independence for newsrooms. Most observers say these practices are rampant in the region.

Here’s the last bit of my column:

In order for codes of ethics to work, organisations need to enforce them. Last month, a US newspaper fired its photographer because he electronically altered a picture to make it look better. His actions violated the US journalistic code of ethics that states clearly that journalists should “never distort the content of news photos”.

By punishing those violating rules of ethics, organisations help create a culture that respects high standards of behaviour.

I’ve never seen a report of a journalist in the UAE being fired for an ethical violation. (A representative from a local daily at the event said that the newspaper had indeed quietly fired two business reporters for ethical violations. I remarked that such actions should probably be more public).

MEPRA has publicly reprimanded one of its members for an ethics lapse — an important step towards helping to create a culture that respects proper professional standards.

The second solution is to promote personal integrity. The concept of integrity is universal — my Emirati ethics students tell me the Arabic word is nazahah. In any culture, the word means doing the right thing regardless of others or even if acting in such a manner carries a personal cost.

Personal integrity is important because research shows that group norms can be a powerful influencer of behaviour. Often-times, people ‘go along’ with unethical behaviour because they see others doing the same. But if one person stands up and objects, then others may find the courage to voice their own concerns.

Perhaps the culture would change if more practitioners — both in public relations and journalism — would simply voice their uneasiness with the status quo.

Attempting to change an ingrained culture may appear to be too daunting a task to tackle.

However, with enforcement of ethics codes and a commitment to personal integrity, the journalism and public relations professions in the UAE can work together to raise their level of professional standards.

Every solution starts with an admission that there’s a problem.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. If “Hangover 3″ were filmed in the Middle East Rumors that the next “Hangover” movie would be filmed in...
2. Bribing journalists in the UAE Emirati ex-journalist Taryam Al Subaihi wrote an editorial in Sunday’s...
3. On the effects of state-led media in the UAE Just stumbled across this interview with Dr. Sulaiman Al Hattlan,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Public dialogues in the Arab world are vital during this time of change. Many important issues require discussion.

The upheaval seen in many Middle East countries can be linked to the feeling from some citizens that they couldn’t speak freely about important topics such as the relationship of the government to the governed, the role of women in society, or the deteriorating economy and crippling lack of jobs.

In order for societies to thrive, we must work to cherish public dialogue and help to encourage ideal speech conditions.

Governments should not take actions that could cause speakers to avoid engaging in public dialogue. Arresting people for the things they’ve said or written invariably has a dampening effect on public speech. Yes, some limits are required. But, restrictions should focus on speech that calls for violence — which, of course, has nothing to do with healthy dialogue.

Discussions must also remain civil. Many animated discussions are taking place on Twitter, an environment that appears to meet many of Habermas’ requirements for ideal speech. However, one complaint among the local Twitter community is that people who disagree with other viewpoints often accuse them of being “traitors.” Death threats have also been lobbed. These types of responses create an ‘external coercion’ that impedes healthy public dialogue.

Blasphemy laws also have an unintended effect of stifling public discussion. Take, for instance, the recent case of Hamza Kashgari, the Saudi journalist (currently under arrest and facing the death penalty) who tweeted words offensive to many Muslims. The Grand Mufti of Egypt recently commented on the case by saying: “We don’t kill our sons, we talk to them.” His words offer powerful support for the benefit of public dialogue — even in matters concerning religion.

Despite these impediments, technological advances appear to be helping create more healthy public dialogues. Vibrant discussions on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are raising issues in the public sphere that once would have gone unspoken beyond private settings. Engaging in dialogue can be a learning process and social media is providing a good platform for this education.

Hopefully, the Middle East will continue to move toward more acceptance of public dialogue. After all, today’s public discussion could alleviate tomorrow’s public unrest.

I delivered this column as part of a talk at last week’s BOLDtalks event in Dubai. Will post the video later.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Our FNC forum allows for public discussion of recent elections About 200 people attended our recent Federal National Council election...
2. Oblique reporting on public decency laws in the UAE This article from The National highlights a problem that needs...
3. How far can Arab news channels report the news? Interesting coverage from Magda Abu-Fadil on the Arab Media Forum,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One overriding message from the Arab Spring is that technology has provided a powerful tool for the free flow of information. Old approaches towards regulation and control are still effective, but Facebook, Twitter and YouTube increasingly allow for messages to circumvent restrictions.

Indeed, some of the conversations once reserved for the blocked Al Hewar website are now taking place in plain view amid the UAE’s vibrant Twitter community.

Aided by new technology, the trend towards more communication and less ability to control appears to be inevitable. But, how governments choose to respond to this new reality is still up for debate.

Perhaps next year’s press freedom rankings will help us answer the question.

This column meshes nicely with my other published pieces on press freedom and freedom of expression in the UAE. Click on the links to read “Civl courts should handle defamation” and “UAE journalists need more legal protections.”

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Press freedom rankings decline in UAE The United Arab Emirates saw its rankings in the Reporters...
2. Journalism, media laws and press freedom in the UAE The following links and explanations should help provide an understanding...
3. Twitter feeds for UAE candidates Here are twitter feeds for candidates in some of the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

… [A]bove all because of its Internet filtering policy and the imprisonment of Ahmed Mansoor, a blogger who administers the
online pro-democracy forum Al-Hewar (“The Dialogue”), from 8 April to 28 November along with four other activists, known collectively as “The UAE 5.” He was reportedly mistreated while detained and his family was repeatedly threatened.

At the end of the day, these types of “watchdog” reports can be quite arbitrary. One could argue, for instance, that the local press’ sparse coverage of the arrest and trial of Mansoor actually represents an improvement in critical reporting here. Still, the drop in rankings does reflect the reality of the situation — the arrests definitely led to a decline in free expression in the United Arab Emirates. But, the pardon of the UAE5 (unmentioned in the report) certainly helped people here breathe a little easier.

As I recently wrote in Dubai’s Gulf News, a solution to improving the press rankings in the UAE would be for the government to overhaul its media law. The 1980 Press and Publication Act provides little protection for working journalists. That my editorial appeared in a Dubai newspaper shows that there’s probably more press freedom here than many might suspect.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. CNN asks UAE leader about freedom of speech, press Here’s a video of CNN correspondent Erin Burnett’s recent interview...
2. Journalism, media laws and press freedom in the UAE The following links and explanations should help provide an understanding...
3. UAE press ignores coalition statement on activists’ trial The Washington Post and other international news outlets just published...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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.

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Role of Media in Arab Societies On June 14, my university’s college of communication will be...
2. News media, credibility and verification This report from Al Jazeera’s media criticism show “The Listening...
3. Reflections on our RMAS conference Our Role of the Media in Arab Societies at Zayed...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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?

Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

1. Role of Media in Arab Societies On June 14, my university’s college of communication will be...
2. How far can Arab news channels report the news? Interesting coverage from Magda Abu-Fadil on the Arab Media Forum,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.