Category Archives: Media and politics
Photographers Creating Drama
Click here on the word Photographers and watch the video (wait a moment for it to begin). You can see how photographers can become part of the story and help construct images. The media manipulation is part of ethnopolitical conflicts and the extent to which they are intensified by improper coverage of the story. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intense and complex and deserving of proper treatment.
I’ve seen this myself in Israel on more than one occasion where photographer’s, reporters, and medical personnel show up before the protesters to get “ready” for the event. What gets reported in the news or on television, if it makes it that far, is more dramatic than what actually occurred.
Manipulated photographs gain their credibility by being attached to real photographs or real events. Adages about how a picture is worth 1000 words or how photographs never lie resonate with the public’s belief that pictures are real and tell the truth. The pressure for the public to believe the photograph is powerful so people view images and work hard to find them truthful.
It’s also the case that manipulated photographs make for a gray area of reality. The photograph is of course “of” something and this contributes increasingly to the sense of reality a photograph carries with it. Technology and computerized images are now so sophisticated that the fake picture can be better than a real one. It is so easy to simply “improve” the photograph by sharpening the colors, increasing the contrast, or cropping without encountering any moral questions about the new reality the photographer is creating.
Compare it to writing. If you observe an event or listen to an interaction and then go write a story using those instances, it is not much different than what a photographer does when he or she approaches a subject and constructs a photographic image. Maybe we should begin to think about photography as fictional and begin the process of teaching people to treat it as a story or narrative that has been constructed. Writers exceed the boundaries of truth and are called creative and interesting, why not the same for news photographs. The photographs from the news perspective are supposed to be reporting some semblance of the truth. If the photograph is manipulated or staged in any way it violates the truth to some degree.
I think the manipulation in this video is some of the worst kind because the photographers are going out of their way to replicate a dramatic and violent reality in order to increase the sense of excitement around the photograph. No one is benefiting from this.
Shahira Amin responds to Herb Simons
{Below is Shahira Amin’s e-mail response to Herb Simons. He and I have been in contact with her about the interview with Gilad Shalit. I reprint it here with Shahira’s permission. The post following this one establishes some context.} Don Ellis
Shahira
Gilad Shalit Interview and Journalistic Standards
Gilad Shalit was abducted on June 25, 2006 by militants near the Gaza border who had ambushed an Israeli army post. Hamas and an umbrella group called the Popular Resistance Committees took credit for the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit was held for five years and only once in 2009 did Hamas release a video of the pale and gaunt looking soldier holding a newspaper as proof that he was alive.
Initially, Israel refused to negotiate but then used Egypt to broker talks with the involvement of a mediator. Israel and Hamas reached an agreement on October 11, 2011. Israel agreed to release over 1000 prisoners in exchange for Shalit. The ratio of 1000 Palestinian prisoners to 1 Israeli soldier seems high, but Israel sees itself as surrounded by enemies and as a militarized society who sends all of their sons and daughters to the military to protect the state. All Israelis can identify with the plight of Shalit, as can the Palestinians identify with their imprisoned family members. Consequently, Israel has a policy of leaving no soldier behind.
On the day of the exchange, Shalit was transferred to Egyptian mediators with Israeli representatives present. The Egyptians then transferred Shalit to Israel. But before Sgt. Shalit was fully returned to Israel and transferred to airbase Tel Nof he was subjected to a television interview by the Egyptian journalist Shahira Amin. There was an outcry about this interview and some called it “abuse” and “continued torture.”
The appropriateness of this interview raises an interesting journalistic question. The Israelis have agreed to handle the story with sensitivity by keeping their distance from Shalit and avoiding photography and invasive questions in an effort to ease his transition. The Israelis have objected to the image of the bewildered and emaciated soldier in front of the camera. Did the interview meet any accepted journalistic criteria – newsworthiness, need to know, human interest, timeliness? Clearly, it did. No journalist would pass up the opportunity to interview Gilad. The story was newsworthy, timely, and met about every criteria of interest you could apply.
Then again, there is simply the issue of sensitivity and the circumstances surrounding the interview. The Israeli claim that the circumstances were ethically questionable and generally unfair to Shalit is certainly a defensible argument. A matter of moments before the interview he was in the hands of Hamas and under complete consertive control and there would be no reason to believe at the moment of the interview Gilad was suddenly liberated and free to speak his mind. We would not expect more from Shalit then we would expect from any captive prisoner saying what is necessary to stay alive.
Shahira Amin’s interview with Shalit is available at: Shalit interview with Shahira Amin. Shalit spoke in Hebrew in response to questions posed in English which created some confusion. Amin has been roundly criticized for conducting the interview but claims that she received Gilad’s permission (as if it could be freely offered under such circumstances).
It is important to note that Shahira Amin is in Egyptian peace advocate and resigned her position as a broadcaster in protest of the coverage of Tarir Square. And even though the Egyptian press can be very hard on Israel, even at times blatantly unfair, there is nothing particularly unfair about the questions she asked Shalit.
Terror in Norway: What to Remember about the Relationship between Terror and the Media
Anders Breivik
gunned down dozens of young people and blew up a building all in the name of
“Norwegian ethnicity,” “Christianity,” and “Muslim fear.”
It is important to remember that these are group categories and capable of
producing the greatest violence. We sometimes think of modern terrorists as
outlaws perpetrating violence for their own ends, but these terrorists usually
have larger political goals, and are more strategic than we think. They
consciously manipulate the media, and violence is the mechanism they used to do
so. As terrorists specialists have pointed out for some time now (e.g. McCauley),
terrorism is not best understood as an individual pathology. In fact, terrorism
would be easier to handle and understand if it were an individual pathology. It
would be easier to identify the individuals and prevent their terrorism. Their
behavior would be more predictable and they would be easier to catch.
No, terrorism
is a strategy. It is instrumental violence. It is violence in the service of a
goal and in some way the violence has been legitimated. It is not a pathological
behavior carried out for the pure pleasure of the perpetrator. Anders Breivik had
broader political objectives. His first request in court was to represent
himself and have the opportunity to speak. He is trying to manipulate the media
in the service of his political manifesto. Studies have reported the
correlation between the rise in terrorism and the availability of media. More
broadcast outlets are associated with more terrorism, especially dramatic and
high concept terrorism that attracts attention.
Terrorism has
two primary strategies: the first is a psychological impact on the enemy. Breivik
wanted the Norwegian people to “wake up.” He was trying to
“warn” the world about an impending danger. Blowing up buildings and
killing innocent citizens has very little material effect, but its psychological
impact is enormous. Terrorists need the media for these psychological effects.
The second strategy is to mobilize the terrorists’ own supporters. Even if
other supportive individuals do not engage in terrorist acts, they will
sympathize. This sympathy is also a goal. Breivik wanted to arouse the
Norwegian people from their slumber and expand the level of sympathy for his
cause.
Terrorists
such as Breivik use violence as a “communication strategy.” They have
an important relationship with the media, and are reliant on them for exposure;
they want others to ultimately embrace their cause. Modern terrorists are
sophisticated in that they want more than buildings simply blown up. Terrorists
need the media to damage their enemy, both psychologically and materially. But
governments also use the media to communicate to terrorist organizations. They
want to present themselves as in control and use the media to present favorable
images of strength and determination.
When
terrorists want to take credit for violence the media are in the untenable
position of assisting them. They can be easily used as dupes. The media need to
protect the public’s information rights, but not at the expense of assisting
terrorism. Moreover, when the public knows little about a particular terrorist
group they turn their attention to the media who report on the terrorist group
and increase the public’s understanding. Consequently, it is not uncommon for
the public to express a certain amount of sympathy for the terrorist group
agenda, even though the public condemns violence.
And, as much
as terrorists depend on media attention, they can also be exposed by the media.
Investigative journalists can get close to discovering and exposing terrorists
and thus put themselves in danger. The Committee to Protect Journalists (www.cpj.org)
reports a steady upward trend in the murder of journalists in the last two
decades.
Terrorism has a close relationship with modern
media. Over the years terrorists have refine their communication skills. Weimann
probably best captures the essence of terrorism by equating it with a
theatrical performance, complete with scripts, actors, and stage management.
The young people murdered by Breivik were actors in his script. He put on his
police uniform costume and played the role of avenger warning the townspeople
of the coming storm of Muslim immigrants. Breivik played his role successfully because
he is now reaching larger audiences.
Manage Your Algorithm
You
don’t believe you have to manage your algorithm? Click on the link and watch
the video.
http://idorosen.com/mirrors/robinsloan.com/epic/
A
few weeks ago in the New York Times
Evgeny Morozov wrote about the perils of personalization. He meant that
increasingly Internet sites are keeping records of your personal click
preferences and then finding web addresses that match those preferences. In
other words Google’s algorithm is such that if you click on something the
algorithm searches your previous clicks in order to find links consistent with
those. For example, what if you click on this blog (http://www.middleeastmirror.com/peace_and_conflict/) and then later searched the Huffington post blogs for information on the Middle East, links to my blog and subject related to it (Israel-Palestine, media, and democracy) will be statistically favored in the
algorithm. Google keeps track of your click history and then tries to tailor
results to that history.
Now,
at first blush this might seem pretty cool, and it is. And it is certainly
sensible to assume that your click history is a good indication of your
interests and preferences. Amazon has recorded my interest in clicking books
that are categorized as “spy novels.” So when I open up Amazon’s
webpage the algorithm still assumes that I’m interested in spy novels and lists
some new ones. This can certainly be convenient.
But
what Morozov points out is that this can result in an “information
cocoon.” I will keep receiving information consistent with my click subjects
and I will be locked into a pattern of regularized information. I will exist in
a sort of information enclave that will over time make me even more remote from
my friends and other information enclaves. We are not managing the algorithm
the algorithm is managing us.
This
is not a cute oddity associated with modern technology. The threat of over
customizing our information world is real enough. If you are a political
liberal and you have an aggregator on your computer that delivers each morning
a series of websites and blogs, and Google delivers you information after you
initiate a search based on your past history of site choices, then you are
slowly evolving into a more narrow information world. Over time you could
classify the information you received as propaganda. Is, after all, information
delivered to you by an authoritative source (the algorithm) designed to manage
and control knowledge and availability of information for desired (corporate)
reasons.
Cass
Sunstein has written persuasively about this phenomenon and argues that it ends
up in “enclave polarization.” Enclave polarization is the tendency to
talk mostly to people who already agree with you and therefore have your positions
reinforced resulting in an even stronger and more intense sense of being “correct.”
In a word, liberals tend to read liberal information and matters consistent
with a liberal ideology; conservatives read conservative information and
matters consistent with the conservative ideology. People increasingly receive
personalized information consistent with beliefs they already hold, and they
never engage in heterogeneous deliberation. Sunstein cites our uncivil and
contentious political culture, exemplified by raucous talk shows and polarizing
talk radio, as evidence of enclave polarization.
Enclaves
and the tendency to selectively expose oneself to information are well enough
understood and a natural human tendency. But living in an information cocoon
and joining enclaves of like-minded people means the loss of exposure to
oppositional information. This is difficult for many people but the advantages
are important. Exposing oneself to non-like-minded political points of view
creates greater awareness of what other people are thinking, greater awareness
of their rationales and perspectives and increased tolerance. Diana Mutz in her
book, Hearing the Other Side, reports data and explains the value of
exposure to non-like-minded political views.
But
back to the problem of algorithms and big-brother-like infrastructures for the
Internet, there are other issues of concern unrelated to the disadvantages of
information cocoons and polarized enclaves of talk show hosts and political
pundits screaming at each other about nothing. One, there is the matter of
privacy. We don’t have access to the algorithm and we cannot shut it off. We
cannot tell Google to change its algorithm or at least be more open about how
it works. This issue will probably be taken up in future cyber law. Maybe
algorithms will contribute to creativity and new insights when they are
programmed to maximize differences forcing the user to make new connections
between information. And finally, we might ask how the algorithm can encourage
education. Why can’t we program the algorithm to bring us high-quality sources
of information? New sources with ideas we would have never thought of!
When media become dominant – whether it be oral, written, print, or
electronic – they always assume new responsibilities along with certain moral
and political obligations. With the advent of print the “book” became
an object of adoration, the subject of study and analysis, a repository of
ideology and political implications, as well as a new site of legal implications.
Google’s algorithm will be no different.
The Education of the Tweet and Blog Classes
I was struck by the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt by the juxtaposition of explanations for these revolutions. We heard of one set of very modern explanations that included Facebook, tweets, cell phones, and the Internet. This also included the more traditional reporting of CNN and the yet unexplored influences of new news outlets such as Al Jazeera. Even if we do not get all excited about how new media are bringing about a utopian consciousness it is surely the case that social media played an important role. It was the tweet and blog class then, young educated hipsters, which brought about revolution. This is the modern communication technology explanation. Facebook facilitates new public spheres and the resultant communication constructs new revolutionary realities.
But it’s also possible to point to Mohammed Bouazizi’s self immolation as a protest over the seizing of his produce and his disrespectful treatment as the action that provoked the opening moments of the demonstrations in Tunisia. Self immolation is so horrifying to the West, and so removed from our consciousness, that it provokes deep identification with the conditions that produce it. The depth and intensity of the protest must be so great that it has prompted this horrific act. This is the primal explanation; this is the explanation that blames the depths of human depravity for revolutionary conditions, not modern technology.
The tweet and Facebook classes are steeped in more abstract principles of democracy and human rights, the sort of thinking that comes from formal learning and classroom experiences. These are the ideas handed down from the intellects of previous generation. The primal explanation bubbles up from our reptilian brain and expresses itself in the raw violence of something like immolation.
Most of us are influenced by the Tweet and Facebook class because that is how we live today. We feel as though the tweeters and Facebookers are on the right side of history, that they are the future. So in believing that tweets and Facebook are responsible for noble revolutions, we are believing in our own world. We are attracted to, and likely to overestimate, the power of social media because it confirms our own consciousness.
It is the primal explanation that fits the rape of the CBS correspondent Lara Logan. This is a part of protest and revolution that we do not want to think about. But when we do think about it we feel as though the veil of democratic civility has been lifted and feel once again the hate and violence that is part of such revolutions. The tweet and blog class is cultivated and articulate but behind them is a mob with distorted beliefs and an inability to make distinctions that would separate an earnest journalist from hated political figures.
And Al Jazeera is finally having the revolutionary effects we all thought possible. Al Jazeera has been broadcasting for 15 years and its images are having powerful effects. Al Jazeera certainly has a perspective but it is not propaganda. They showed images of angry people and bloodied bodies and these were in sharp contrast to the spurious statements of regime leaders. While Egypt’s controlled media showed pleasant images of traffic going by Al Jazeera was showing protests and calls for freedom. It was a classic example of the power of the press to bring information and perspective to citizens.
As reported by Al Jazeera, Egypt broke its contract and cut Al Jazeera’s access to the satellite thus denying the Al Jazeera audience access to what was going on in Egypt. But fortunately, other Arabic language TV stations picked up the Al Jazeera signal and the images continued to be available. The genie of free press and information rights has fled the bottle of Arab dictatorships. It is simply impossible now, or at least much more difficult, to control the images and information that the public deserves to see. The tweet Facebook class is gaining the upper hand.
What Was Hiding in the Subterranean Electronic Politics of Egypt?
Speculating about the role of new social media and political activity or revolution has become a popular pastime. Twitter and Facebook in some circles are getting credit for changing the world. Others consider them minor technological toys that do little more than assist with organizing. There is a debate about whether social media can stimulate democracy or end up as a tool of authoritarian regimes. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
In the cheering section is Clay Shirky, writing in Foreign Affairs, arguing that social media are a new form of power and involved in influencing political movements all over the world. It is simply impossible to talk about social upheaval in Tehran, Tunisia, Egypt, China, Moldova, or organized protests against the G8 without talking about user-generated content on cell phones, Twitter, Facebook, text messaging, email, or photo sharing. Shirkey makes the important and defensible point that new media make new public spheres possible. That is, the opportunity for discussion and politically engaged activity is realized by new media and this helps democratize the environment. It makes it possible for people to communicate and coordinate such that they have a shared understanding of events.
On the back bench lobbing objections is Evgeny Morozov claiming that we are all deluded into believing that the Net is so powerful and that it too will be subject to power and end up of more use to autocrats than democrats.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is Malcolm Gladwell, writing in The New Yorker, that social media only make for different sorts of ties between people. New media increase the frequency and speed of what are called” weak ties” or connections between people that are somewhat shallow, spontaneous, and fleeting. It is simply fast and easy to” friend” someone on Facebook and that’s why people have so many Facebook friends but not” real” friends. Strong ties are relationships that are deep and critical, and have significant potential for commitment.
I retrieved from Wikileaks a copy of a briefing (reference ID 09CAIRO544) about bloggers broadening their discourse. The briefing from 2009 warned that Egypt’s bloggers were playing an increasingly important role in broadening the scope of the acceptable political communication. Bloggers’ discussion of sensitive issues such as the military and politics represented a significant change from the previous five years and had influenced society.
As recently as 2009 the cable noted that a more open atmosphere had been created. Bloggers were influencing independent media to break important news and cover previously ignored or forbidden topics. One personal rights activist in Egypt stated that the youth were able to view their views about social and political issues in ways they never could before. Free speech tends to produce free speech, and the accumulation of effects from blogs in Egypt is apparent.
Social media are important and have significantly changed the political environment in many countries. They are a platform for supporting a connected public sphere that creates public will and a shared sense of perspective. All historical media have had social effects and altered their environments but new user-generated content media are particularly potent. Activists and political entrepreneurs will try to effect change by using social media, but their ability to target change and shape the future is limited.
Just as we would not credit a city park for provoking revolution just because people gathered there, we also cannot credit social media for creating revolution or change. Still, the park like its electronic counterpart is a necessary arena for facilitating activity. We have to remember that Egypt is in the bottom half of countries with Internet connectivity rates. About 20% of the Egyptian population uses the Internet on a regular basis. So it is not availability alone that matters because most Egyptians do not have access to the Internet.
Social media provide meeting platforms, weak ties, public spheres, and broaden the discourse. These can be important or not depending on the other political conditions. Remember that six months ago no one would’ve imagined the changes in Egypt that took place in 18 days. We didn’t know what was going on in the subterranean electronic levels of the political culture. And right now, in the subterranean levels of some other political culture, there is something else going on that we do not realize is coming.
Peace and Conflict Politics 