TA3BEER: Meditations on Mediation

Bahrain Muzzled but not Latuff

2011-08-10T09:57:00.007-04:00

With the world's attention focused on the Arab Spring, one uprising seems to have been swept under the proverbial carpet. Bahrainis rose up on Valentine's Day this year, just three days after the toppling of Mubarak, with the modest hope of convincing their ruling family to institute reforms which would improve governance in the tiny Gulf island. The reaction was a catastrophic one. The Al-Khalifa government, the hosts of the US 5th Fleet, used brute force to quell the protests, leading to several deaths in the ranks of the demonstrators. For the following weeks, anger at the gov't reaction swelled their numbers and they effectively controlled the Manama's central circle, Pearl Roundabout. With every death and injury, the protesters' demands intensified and their calls became more pressing, with some calling for the end of Al-Khalifa rule. In the interest of space, I will not belabor everyone with the details. For that, I defer to the best account of this bloody episode in Gulf history--a documentary aired on Al-Jazeera English called "Shouting in the Dark" (which has caused a firestorm in the halls of power in Manama prompting complaints from Bahrain to Qatar). The video already has registered 220,000 views online in just the first week!

Unfortunately, because of Bahrain's strategic location as an anchor in the Saudi-US frontline against Iran, the citizens' legitimate call for freedom required "special" considerations! Saudi Arabia's concern that the uprising would trickle into its territory made it imperative to end the Bahrain uprising without any concessions to the predominantly (but not exclusively) Shiite protesters for fear of copycats in the Saudi easter provinces. This resulted in the effective burial of the Bahraini plight in Arab media. Once Saudi troops entered Bahrain, the headlines from the island state disappeared and everyone was muzzled. The few expatriate Bahrainis who dare to speak out face overwhelming risks. A few are active in some initiatives such as trying to get a television station off the ground to broadcast their cause. But the majority are silent but not defeated.

Throughout the maelstrom, one voice was unequivocal throughout. Now a recognizable name throughout the Arab world for his valiant efforts in solidarity with the people of Palestine, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and across the world, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff took note of Bahrain and took no prisoners. Dubbed the cartoonist of the Egyptian revolution, Latuff's cartoons for Bahrain were also held aloft at protests in Pearl Roundabout during the uprising. Due to the crackdown on all those who organized, participated in, or sympathized with the protests, much of this criticism is being drowned in a government-sponsored campaign of sectarianism leading to the erasure of all evidence of this movement. For this reason, I wanted to consolidate all of Latuff's cartoons on Bahrain in a single post. The complete collection is below. They can be divided into two themes, those depicting national unity in the ranks of the reform movement (first two) and those using King Al-Khalifa as a motif of division, violence, and complicity. Voila.........Lest we forget......

Al-Mirazi Brawls with State TV, Signs New Deal

2011-07-03T01:29:00.006-04:00

Over the past month, veteran television host Hafez Al-Mirazi has had a very public spat with the new hegemons of the Egyptian station media. Mirazi who until recently hosted a prominent Cairo-based show for Al-Arabiya was slotted to move into Egyptian state TV to host the national prime-time talk show post-revolution. His departure from Al-Arabiya was a turbulent one as he committed to take on the channel's funders Saudi Arabia by vowing to dedicate his next episode to the political conditions in the kingdom in an unadulterated fashion.

Incidentally, Al-Mirazi never returned to air the show although his employers didn't really lay him off to avoid the accusation of undermining free speech. So in a move that meant to signal Egypt's return to media eminence, Al-Mirazi was courted by state television to host a hardhitting show that would signify a new era in the long history of government media and an attempt to varnish its tarnished image after its scandalous coverage of the January 25 revolution.

However, things didnt go so smoothly for Al-Mirazi. With the Ministry of Information seemingly in hiatus, a new entity called the National Media Council was stuck up to act as a de facto governing institution and regulator for the country's media. Its members were appointed by the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces and the interim government with General Tarek Al-Mahdi leading the pack. In what was described by some as an act of protest against the appointment of a military man to run the show, Al-Mirazi quit his position on the board of the Egyptian Radio and Television Union (ERTU). This seemed to have angered the new council and they decided to derail his appointment despite having signed a contract to host. While he was scheduled to appear on televisions and promos for the show had already aired at the beginning of June, the show never came on.

The council described the freezing of the contract and decision to not assign Al-Mirazi the hosting tasks as the result not of his protest but rather a supposed mutiny in the Egyptian television by young enterprising journalists who demanded an opportunity to host shows rather than overpriced and overexposed Al-Mirazi. It is difficult to know where the truth lies in this. But at any rate, in a recent private conversation with the former VOA and Al-Jazeera journalist, Al-Mirazi explained that he has already accepted an offer to host a Ramadan show on one of the Egyptian private networks but did not specify which one.

In another twist, Gen. Al-Mahdi came out a couple of days ago in a press conference and claimed that Al-Mirazi's show is still slotted for broadcast but has been postponed (not cancelled) until after the Eid period in early September. It seems Al-Mirazi and Al-Mahdi are calling each others' bluff as the new lines between authority and journalism, civilian and military, institutional and occupational are all being redrawn in Egypt.

Online Travel Warnings: Multiple Audiences and Messages

2011-05-18T21:46:00.010-04:00

One of the provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 actively forbids Voice of America to broadcast in the United States. Today, of course, this provision, though still technically followed, has been rendered impotent. Why? Because the internet’s strange mixture of “there and now”—to use anthropologist Shanyang Zhao’s felicitous phrase—allows for livestreaming of content irregardless of regional borders. Externally directed propaganda efforts are thus now easily accessible to anyone in the internal U.S. audience who cares to listen. In much the same way, the internet has transformed information releases aimed at the U.S. citizenry into documents that communicate with a much larger, global audience.

What then, do items like travel warnings—in theory specifically targeted to U.S. citizens, but available to virtually anyone with online access—actually convey? It turns out quite a bit. This is a topic worthy of a much larger study, but here I will briefly explore five travel warnings issued by the U.S. Department of State in the months of March and April of 2011: those for Yemen, Mauritania, Iraq, Bahrain, and Syria.

But first, a word on Wordles. The image--Wordle--above, plus the five subsequent images, displays word frequencies (set to a maximum of 150 words displayed), with the most common words represented with the largest letters. This first one is a composite of the texts of all five of the travel warnings; each of the subsequent ones reflects only a single text. Their value lies in their strong visual representations of the relative weight given to different ideas. Of course, since they only measure the frequencies of specific words, rather than underlying concepts or even stems, their worth should not be overstated. That said, they do offer an interesting overview of reiterated terms. And most particularly, through the relative size of the country names, they clearly delineate a perception of the countries’ relationship--at least as it has been linguistically manifested.

This travel warning, issued on March 6, 2011, is the shortest of all of the travel warnings, coming in at only 453 words. It is also remarkable for the fact that it is the only one of the five to also offer an Arabic version. From the Wordle, it is clear that “U.S.” and “Yemen” occur almost equally frequently (15 and 12 times respectively).

Interestingly, the violent reactions of the Saleh regime to the protests that began in mid-January and continue to this day are quietly tucked away under the term “civil unrest.” This civil unrest--listed as a trigger for the issuing of this travel warning--repeatedly follows “terrorist activities,” as if merely an afterthought. Even piracy, the third security threat mentioned, receives more sentence space than this civil unrest does.

In contrast to the Yemen travel warning, the warning for Mauritania, issued March 11, 2011, is the longest of all of the warnings examined, comprised of 1246 words. Again, “U.S.” and “Mauritania” are roughly the same size, with 19 and 21 mentions respectively. Also in contrast with the warning for Yemen, here specific locations and groups also have a strong visual presence in the Wordle (e.g., Nouakchott and AQIM).

Indeed, whereas the Yemen travel warning was surprisingly sparse in details of the ongoing demonstrations and violent attempts to suppress them, this travel warning overflows with particulars of terrorist attacks stretching back to December 2007.

Interestingly, too, the text situates U.S. citizens within a broader category of “foreign nationals” and then proceeds to detail attacks on French, Italians, Spanish, and Israelis. It is the only one of the five travel warnings to offer this kind of narrative frame.

The Iraq travel warning, issued April 12, 2011, is the second longest, at 1144 words. Here the Wordle shows very clearly the relative weights given in the warning to “U.S.” and “Iraq” (42 and 27 mentions respectively). Interestingly, it is also the only warning among the five in which the word “government” appears so frequently (7 times; the next most frequent example is the Syria travel warning, with 2).

Perhaps not surprisingly, this travel warning demonstrates its predominant narrative frame quite clearly. The second paragraph is entirely given to a description of the withdrawal of U.S. forces--a description that reads as self-consciously careful in tone without providing any analysis of the potential relevance of this fact to the travel situation. A larger historical context that is assumed but never described directly can be seen in repeated assurances of improvement. Thus, for example, “...has been more stable relative to the rest of Iraq in recent years,” “...there have been significantly fewer terrorist attacks and lower levels of insurgent violence,” “...there have been no recent attacks on civilian aircraft,” etc.

Finally, there is but a single passing mention of the various demonstrations that have been ongoing in Iraq since February (“...avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations”). Although, to be fair, perhaps the author(s) of the travel warning deemed these less significant than worries like unmarked landmines along the Turkey-Iraq border. On the other hand, it does seem odd not to mention demonstrations that have led to riots and fatalities when detailed description is devoted to methods of attack (magnetic bombs, improvised explosive devices, etc.).

The Bahrain travel warning, also published on April 12, 2011, was the second smallest after Yemen, coming in at 630 words. “U.S.” and “Bahrain” are again almost equal, with 18 mentions of the former and 16 of the latter. On May 13th it was replaced by a travel alert.

As with the Iraq travel warning--and in strong contrast to the detailed historical context provided in the Mauritania warning--a larger context is assumed but unspecified in phrases such as “...daily routines are returning to normal” and “...there is a returning semblance of normalcy in day-to-day life.” Curiously, given the bloody crackdowns on demonstrations in mid-March, as well as the continued--albeit much smaller--protests, the warning (again, published on April 12th) begins, “The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the potential for ongoing political and civil unrest in Bahrain” (emphasis added).

In addition, the warning makes multiple use of a rhetorical device similar to that known to ancient Roman orators as “praeteritio,” the technique of drawing attention to something by specifically denying an interest in it (literally, “I pass over”). Or in this case, pairing the denial of a concern with an exhortation to take the concern seriously. Thus, “While demonstrations have not been directed toward Westerners, U.S. citizens are urged to remain alert...”

The Syria travel warning was issued on April 25, 2011 and comprised 810 words. As the Wordle makes clear, there are far more instances of “U.S.” than “Syria” (23 as opposed to 11).

In stark contrast to the lack of information in the Bahrain and Yemen travel warnings concerning those countries’ popular demonstrations and violent governmental responses to them, the Syria travel warning clearly states the widespread nature of the Syrian protests, the violence of the government’s responses, and the consequent fatalities. Thus the second paragraph begins, “Since March 2011, demonstrations throughout Syria have been violently suppressed by Syrian security forces, resulting in hundreds of deaths.”

Unlike the Bahrain and Iraq travel warnings which strive to emphasize ever-increasing stability, this one draws on descriptions of violence and volatility. Indeed, its overall tone is different from the other four. Thus, for one thing it directly states that “Contrary to the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, of which Syria is a signatory, Syrian authorities generally do not notify the U.S. Embassy of the arrest of a U.S. citizen until days or weeks after the arrest.” For another, it uses scare quotes; for example, “...especially in the case of persons detained for “security” reasons.”

As a final, intriguing note, this travel warning is also the only travel warning to urge readers to visit the Bureau of Consular Affairs “for [i]information on “What the Department of State Can and Can’t Do in a Crisis.””

Certainly, some of the linguistic and content choices described here may be attributable to the quirks of individual authors; however, it seems unlikely that they all can. Indeed, many of these choices reflect specific narrative frames and political stances. And perhaps there have always been such elements. Perhaps they are a consistent feature of travel warnings--possibly now amplified and intensified by online publication and the presence of a global audience.

By Amy Johnson

USAbilAraby: Social Media, Public Diplomacy, and the Audience Conundrum

2011-05-18T21:44:00.023-04:00

On February 9, 2011, the U.S. State Department launched an Arabic-language Twitter account. Its first tweet declared:

[“The U.S. State Department recognizes the historic role that social media is playing in the Arab world and we want to be part of your conversations #Jan25 #Egypt”]

In its Twitter profile, the service was ascribed to the Arabic Media Hub of the State Department, an organization for which no publicly accessible info could be found on the State Department’s website, but implied additional social media presences to come. Sure enough, almost three months later, on May 4, 2011, subsequent to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a YouTube channel was launched under the same account name.

This Arabic-language social media initiative is actually part of a broader exploration of newer communication technologies as tools of diplomacy, grouped together by the State Department under the rubric “21^st Century Statecraft.” This includes, among other elements, Twitter accounts in Russian, Spanish, Farsi, and Hindi.

But what conversations does the service actually facilitate?

In the forty-eight hours after the account’s first tweet, there were 400-plus mentions of USAbilAraby. Most were announcements of the existence of the account itself, such as this one from the Digital Communications Director at the State Department, which was then widely retweeted:

There were few attempts to engage in direct conversation. None of these tweets—neither those describing it nor those addressing comments to it—were in Arabic.

The first Arabic to appear in public conversation with/about USAbilAraby actually took the form of a translated retweet:

The first exchange to occur at least partially in Arabic appears to be the following set of three tweets, beginning with a comment in English from alysaleh, followed by a retweet by the same user of one of USAbilAraby’s tweets, and then closed by a response—in Arabic—from USAbilAraby, thanking alysaleh for the mention:

Soon after this, USAbilAraby starts to receive the occasional tweet in Arabic; for example:

However, the overwhelming majority of tweets mentioning or addressing USAbilAraby remains in English, a trend that continues today.

This doesn’t, of course, mean that USAbilAraby is a failure; there may be scores of people reading its tweets in Arabic, whether as followers or through retweets. But it is interesting, nonetheless, that an account that has explicitly stated a desire to take part in conversations of the Arab world remains enmeshed in conversations that occur in English rather than Arabic.

What, then, is the content of these English-language mentions/exchanges?

As one might expect, two of the most common content trends are retweets of official statements and criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. Thus, for example:

Twitter users are also situating it within the context of other public diplomacy efforts:

Using it to improve their Arabic language skills:

And scrutinizing which accounts USAbilAraby follows:

Finally, there is a significant metalinguistic thread in tweets mentioning USAbilAraby:

To a certain extent, these trends are not surprising. Retweets of official pronouncements, critical comments, and careful dissection of linguistic choices and accounts followed are only to be expected. However, it is interesting that the conversation surrounding the account remains strongly embedded in English-language discussion. A number of possible explanations for this exist. It may be that USAbilAraby has been unable to engage many Twitter users who tweet in Arabic. It may be that this is a natural reaction to public diplomacy efforts that aren’t shuttered from view by geographical localization; USAbilAraby cannot limit its audience in the same way as organizations on the physical ground often can. It may be a function of the fact that, despite the ever-increasing online presence of other languages, English is still widely regarded as the lingua franca of the web. It may be due to some entirely different factor.

Regardless, given that the spaces of social media aren’t tied to geographical borders—and the relationships between populations and languages may be hazier in these spaces—it will be very interesting to observe how public diplomacy efforts that attempt to target regional audiences through the use of global spaces and media develop. One can’t help but wonder if the first development might not be—shouldn’t be?—a redefinition of this limited conception of audience itself.

By Amy Johnson

Putting Sexual Harassment in Egypt on the Virtual Map

2011-05-18T21:16:00.004-04:00

It is no secret that sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on the streets of Egypt. From inappropriate remarks- to grabbing- to even more serious assaults, women in Egypt have to deal with street harassment on a daily basis. Until recently this problem was rarely discussed and most victims would remain silent out of fear and shame. Not anymore. A recent initiative called Harassmap utilizes new technology to fight this problem: Women can now send an SMS to report sexual harassment on the spot. Alternatively, they can do so my email, Twitter, Facebook, or directly on the Harassmap website. All they have to do is report their location and the type of harassment that occurred and the incident will be placed on an interactive map available online. By going to harassmap.org one can view a map of Egypt containing all the “hotspots” of sexual harassment and read a description about each incident. There are several categories including catcalls, ogling, touching, stalking or following and so forth. One report, for instance, reads: “Five cat calls as im waiting to get a cab at nozha bridge in masr gadida.”

Goals

Harassmap’s slogan is: “Ending the social acceptability of sexual harassment.” It speaks of the biggest problem about sexual harassment- the fact that it is largely tolerated and ignored. Even after the shocking attacks on dozens of women by a crowd of hundreds of men during the celebrations of Eid-al-Fitr in 2006, the state tried to downplay the problem claiming that these were isolated incidents. It was private Egyptian citizens and bloggers who posted online videos of the assaults and publicized the problem, thus breaking the silence and forging a campaign against the harassment of women.

But how effective can such an initiative be? I would argue that although it may not really stop sexual harassment, this initiative is doing exactly what it needs to do- raise awareness about the problem. By placing sexual harassment on the map, it makes this otherwise unspoken of and ignored problem visible and forces the public to confront the issue. It also gives women, who normally find it very difficult to report harassment to the police, a platform to share their story and express their frustration. Moreover, like the activists and bloggers who combined the use of technology with old-fashioned on- the- ground work to mobilize people for protests against their oppressive government, so do the volunteers of Harassmap organize events and outreach programs and work with NGOs to spread the word and get more people involved. The project has recently gained significant publicity and media coverage putting the Egyptian government and police to shame. Hopefully this will force them to do something about the problem of sexual harassment described as “Egypt’s social cancer” by the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights.

The Role of Technology

Harassmap utilizes FrontlineSMS and Ushahidi, an open-source software, which was first used to map reports of violence in Kenya after the post-election fallout in 2008. New media and technology are credited for playing a prominent role in the Egyptian revolution. Is it possible that new media and technology can help bring about a new kind of revolution in Egypt- a women’s revolution? Perhaps this suggestions sounds a bit too naïve and ambitious. Tackling a social problem like sexual harassment will not be easy and will require deep societal transformations. As we have seen in the aftermath of the revolution when women are once again being excluded from the political process, it seems that overthrowing a dictator will prove to be easier than changing deeply rooted gender hierarchies and social norms. However we can certainly hope that the wave of activism and citizen engagement that we have been seeing will continue to bring about positive change in Egypt and throughout the Arab world.

By Reneta Dimitrova

Women in Saudi Arabia Pledge: I will Drive Starting June 17

2011-05-16T20:38:00.005-04:00

I will Drive Starting June 17 is a bold new campaign calling for women in Saudi Arabia holding international driver’s licenses to defy the prohibition of driving and sit behind the wheel on June 17. Perhaps inspired by the recent revolutions and protests throughout the Arab world where social media played a prominent role, a few Saudi women launched the campaign over Facebook and Twitter as they are trying to spread the word and urge more women to participate. According to the Facebook page of the event, which is scheduled to take place on Friday, June 17, 2011, currently 2,267 people say they will be attending. In addition, the campaign has 1,606 followers on Twitter. It seems that women in Saudi Arabia are hoping to take advantage of the momentum that is currently sweeping much of the Arab world. Perhaps if the campaign gains enough publicity with the help of social media King Abdullah will be forced to take women seriously and the outcome could be favorable.

Regardless of what the final result of the event might be, I think that this initiative is one more proof that what we are witnessing is indeed an Arab Awakening as people throughout the Arab world, both men and women are claiming their rights. Ordinary citizens, activists, expats are all taking part in these efforts, inspiring one another and utilizing social media in creative new ways to call for reform. It is a historic moment where in such a short period of time we have witnessed so many changes in the Arab world- most notably- two revolutions and perhaps more under way. After seeing the fate of their Tunisian and Egyptian counterparts, the remaining Arab authoritarian rulers are more cautious than ever, some giving in to the demands of the people, lifting emergency laws, promising more freedom and more rights.

Now all we have to do is wish the women of Saudi Arabia all the best and wait to see what will happen on June 17.

By Reneta Dimitrova

Arab Media: A Useful Categorization?

2011-05-16T16:28:00.011-04:00

The field of Arab media is remarkable, if only because it stands apart as the sole regional classification in the field of media scholarship. The point I am trying to make can best be described in contrast to the nonexistent: there is no field of study devoted to European, Asiatic, or Central American media; additionally, there is no body of literature focused on English, Spanish, or German language. Why is this?

The reason for Arab media’s unique status is clear: it is the only large geographic area with a single primary language, in this case Arabic. All other regions in the world that contain as many borders as the Arab world possess a variety of languages that change from country to country. The caveat to this, though, is that each Arab country possesses a unique dialect. And even within each Arabic speaking country, there can be a variety of dialects, rendering communication between nationals difficult. For example, Egyptians in Port Said pronounce certain letters different from Cairenes. And some countries have more than one language in use altogether. French is prevalent in Lebanon, and Berber used in parts of Tunisia and Morocco. However, Modern Standard Arabic can be said to cross borders and act as a universal means of communication among all Arabs. Furthermore, it is the language of Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite network in the region. But anyone watching Al Jazeera or any of the region’s major regional networks (BBC Arabic, al Arabiya, al Hurra) that interviewees often use their native dialect to answer questions rather than MSA, presenting problems for viewers.

I wonder what value there is on focusing so intently on Arab media, as opposed to Egyptian, Syrian, or Lebanese media. I understand that applying groupings when able is useful for scientific study, if only because it makes compartmentalizing and comparing data possible. The more groupings available to a research, the more ways he/she has of interpreting and analyzing the data. There is no harm to this. However, the fascination and interest surrounding the field of Arab media is truly remarkable, and it would seem that the lumping of all states within the region into a monolithic categorization of “Arab media” blinds a researcher to potentially significant findings that would require a more nuanced, state-by-state approach to study.

By Patrick Friedel

Al Jazeera a State-Run Network After All

2011-05-16T16:05:00.005-04:00

On April 14, 2011, Andrew Hammond reported for Reuters that Al-Jazeera, the leading Arabic language news network, was failing to cover unfolding protests in Bahrain and the resulting crackdown by the government. The article struck a chord with me, and I believe it should be taken as a warning that even the leading free-press agency of the Arab world, Al-Jazeera, remains a state-run network within authoritarian Qatar.

Freedom House, a NGO tasked with ranking countries the world over in terms of Political Rights & Civil Liberties freedom, scores Qatar’s Political Rights 6 and Civil Liberties 5. The scale is from 1-7, with 7 being the least free and 1 being the most free. Thus, it should come as no surprise that when the tiny peninsula country of Qatar began witnessing protests fomenting in its immediate neighbor Bahrain, Al-Jazeera remained curiously quiet on the cascading events there. Surely, the monarchy was concerned of protests spreading to its own populace. In addition to Al-Jazeera not reporting seriously on the protests and violence in Bahrain, the network remained silent on the brewing demonstrations in both Oman and Saudi Arabia, too. Interestingly, Al-Jazeera has been vociferously reporting on the protests in Yemen and President Ali’s brutal crackdown there. Hammond and others have speculated that this is because Yemen, unlike Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain, is not a member of the GCC.

What has for years been remarkable about Qatar is the dichotomy between the inherently authoritarian regime and (until recently) the free press of Al-Jazeera. The two are simply not commensurate. In addition to the relative freedom and leeway that Al Jazeera has to operate within the Monarchy, the citizens of Qatar themselves do not perceive the country as being corrupt or tyrannical. The Corruption Perception Index is another NGO that globally ranking and scoring countries, this one on the level of perceived corruption within a country, either from the government or in general. Qataris ranked their country a 7.7, which is the 19^th highest ranking in the world. This ranking is better than the United States (22^nd), Britain (20^th), and France (25^th). This is truly remarkable. The citizens of Qatar – one of the most (empirically) unfree countries in the world – has a lower perceived corruption ranking than three of the oldest and most consolidated democracies in the world. Truly, this is a paradox.

Al-Jazeera is a metaphor for this paradox. Since 1996, the network has been a beacon of free press in an otherwise draconian and authoritarian region. It has defined and played this role unwaveringly. However, the network, despite its years of commitment to journalistic integrity, remains housed in an undeniably authoritarian country. The network is a victim of the circumstances of the Arab Spring, and as a result, has had to show the true colors of its sponsor: authoritarian Qatar.

By Patrick Friedel

New media revolutions: Egypt to China

2011-05-16T09:50:00.006-04:00

2011 has been an exciting year thus far. The new media revolution is upon us and new technologies are creating new opportunities for creativity and innovation. These developments are changing the ways in which people are communicating and sharing ideas and information. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube increasingly credited with facilitating the recent revolutionary call to action. These sites are proving to be powerful agents for change. During the Egyptian revolution earlier this year the government shut off the Internet in an attempt to keep a nation in the dark, the Internet was used a tool to control people by depriving them of access free flowing information and ideas. There are multiple reasons why the Internet shutoff was unsuccessful, primarily because the world began to identify with Egypt and the local news in Egypt became global news.

There was such an overflow of information and ideas entering and exiting the country that shutting the Internet off only strengthens their argument that there is a real need for change. We have seen other attempts of managing and maintaining what content is accessed, the obvious example is the Great Firewall in China. Here technology is also used as a weapon for control and users are kept away from a sea of information. Censoring content and restricting access to the flow of information and creative content on the web only pushes users to seek out illegal ways of access. It is clear that future regulatory frameworks need to take into account the rate at which these technologies expand and develop. There is no telling how these technologies could be used for good, but also for evil. There is an opportunity to use these technologies to communicate and congregate and inspire user involvement on and off the web, but they can also be used for censorship and propaganda.

The Middle East has experienced a wave of revolutionary action, and sees the power of social media and what capabilities lie in the Internet. I see this region as one that is expanding and changing, accepting new governments and working to promote democratic and social reform, for the people and very much so by the people. The governments in this region, both new and old will seek out ways to utilize this technology and I hope that there is a framework with free access to information and ideas for the future of this region. It would be devastating to see a situation arise like that in China where people cannot connect and use this technology for its good rather than its evil.

By Caitlin McCarrie

Al Jazeera’s quiet dot-com acquisition

2011-05-16T09:37:00.008-04:00

While spending time pouring of the Al Jazeera Arabic and English websites for a separate research project, I stumbled across sometime entirely new (to me, at least): aljazeera.com.

For years, the Al Jazeera domain for both Arabic and later their English site has been aljazeera.net. As any frequent viewer of the English channel can attest to, one is constantly reminded of where to find them on the web: “Al-Jazeera-dot-net-foreward-shash-English” (or aljazeera.net/english). I had always been struck by this constant advertisement of their web address, because it was, in fact, false.

Entering “aljazeera.net/english” into one’s web browser redirects the visitor to the actual location of Al Jazeera English’s website: english.aljazeera.net. I have wondered for year why Al Jazeera didn’t simply tell people to visit “English-dot-aljazeera-dot-net.” It would seem like a cleaner and clearer address, getting rid of any need for “shushes” (which people are sometimes confusing as “forward slashes” and “backslashes” … better to have no slashes altogether).

An then comes along Al Jazeera English’s new show, the Stream. The Stream launched this month as an interactive social media show, which is broadcast simultaneously online and on AJE’s satellite channel. The Stream brings up two interesting issues, however, and also led to my discovery of the dot-com (aljazeera.com) domain.

With the launch of the Stream came the launch of the program’s website, hosted on the Al Jazeera website. Well, sort of. The Stream’s website exists at stream.aljazeera.com. This may not seem like a big deal, but after years of being trained by Al Jazeera to find them at their dot-net domain, it was striking. It also required further investigation.

According to Wikipedia, the aljazeera.com domain was acquired by the Al Jazeera Network in March of this year (2011). I was able to verify that the ownership records (link: http://www.whois.net/whois/aljazeera.com.com) do indeed show that, as of March 16th, 2011, the Al Jazeera Network in Doha is the owner of the domain. Al Jazeera tried to acquire this domain unsuccessfully (link: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0309.html) in 2005 from AlJazeera Publishing, of no relation to the media network.

This acquisition is now a fait accompli, but not advertised anywhere on the Al Jazeera media outlets. The only exception to this rule is the Stream.

Poking around the dot-com domain shows that it functions as a de facto portal for the English language website. Visiting “english.aljazeera.net” and “aljazeera.com” will show the exact same page, at different addresses, leading one to assume that the dot-com is a mirror of the original AJE website.

Does this mean that Al Jazeera will be shifting its English content to a separate domain, and not keeping it buried in subdomains and subdirectories on the dot-net site? Probably. Since the network has yet to advertise the dot-com domain outside the context of the Stream, it is probably planing on a gradual transition.

Interestingly, looking at public traffic statistics for the dot-com domain (link: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/aljazeera.com) shows that nearly 85% of visitors already direct themselves to the root domain (aljazeera.com) and only 15% go to the Stream subdomain (stream.aljazeera.com). Normal internet use seems to be to go to the main domain, even if one is directed to go to a subdomain or a subdirectory. I wonder how many visitors wind up on the dot-net website seeking out English content, only to struggle to find the “English” button at the top of the page. Current traffic statistics (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/aljazeera.net) point out that over 30% of web traffic to the dot-net domain goes to the AJE subdomains, but this number could also reflect users going to the root (AJA) site and then redirecting themselves to the English site.

Ultimately a shift to two domains, an Arabic dot-net and an English dot-com would clear up some of these gray areas encountered when looking at traffic statistics. It also would reinforce the fact that Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, despite being part of the same parent company and both having the financial backing of the Qatari Royal family, are two separate news services.

By Tighe Flanagan

OBL is Dead… All Eyes on Al Jazeera

2011-05-05T16:51:00.011-04:00

On the heels of the biggest event to happen to the United States after 9/11, the killing of Osama bin Laden has gotten the world looking at Al Jazeera. Following the horrendous attacks of 9/11, Al Jazeera has been heavily criticized by the western media for being the voice of the terrorist organization, Al Qaeda. In the defense of Al Jazeera, they did not ask for the task of receiving the video messages. As Marc Lynch, Hugh Miles, El-Nawawy and Iskandar have all stated, Bin Laden's Arabic messages were sent to the most popular and internationally-recognized news source from the Arab world.

Al Jazeera worked hard over the past decade to shed the image of ‘the voice of the terrorists’ along with the obvious negative connotation that it brought with it to become a credible news agent for the ‘other’ dialogue in Arabic and in English for Western media. Evidence of a successful revamped image is the fact that Al Jazeera has become the ‘go-to’ news network for many officials in Washington DC including the White House and the State Department. Secretary Clinton has been quoted saying that people in the United States are turning to Al Jazeera for real news and the United States has nothing to compete with it; “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock”. This may already be irking those who see this growing influence as a problem.

But what surprised many including myself—an avid Al Jazeera English and Arabic viewer—is that Al Jazeera Arabic was not the first to break the news of Osama Bin Laden’s death. A good seven minutes passed since CNN interrupted their regular Sunday night programming to inform their audience that President Obama will make a statement from the East Room before Al Jazeera even posted a breaking news alert. Granted, it was unexpected for a Sunday night and assuming that the White House alerted the American media before alerting global news networks.

A valid fear that has been lurking these past few days is that someone will step up and will take leadership of Al Qaeda and once again will use Al Jazeera to broadcast their messages. CNN’s Anderson Cooper publicly denounced showing any videos or messages from Bin Laden (it is rumored one was made to air after his death) on his show or any show he is associated with, calling him “a mass murderer who should never be heard from again”. But in an era where social networking websites played a major role in bringing down two Arab leaders in the past few months of 2011, it is possible that Al Qaeda will go down the digital route—although the risk of leaving a digital trace to their whereabouts makes it highly unlikely.

Al Jazeera worked hard against the stereotypes and Western media accusation of being the voice of Al Qaeda, but we might see the world go back to square one if they become the only news network that accepts showing of Al Qaeda’s messages. All is uncertain right now with the war on terror and what does the death of Osama Bin Laden mean to Al Qaeda as an organization—but one thing is for certain, the world media has its eye on Al Jazeera to see if it will remain true to its new revamped image of credibility or if they will go back to being the outlet for Bin Laden’s anticipated postmortem message and new messages from his disciples.

By K. Ali

Al Jazeera English and Arabic live two different lives on the web

2011-05-03T22:43:00.016-04:00

At first glance Al Jazeera Arabic (AJA) and Al Jazeera English (AJE) have two distinct identities on the web. From a purely visual perspective, AJA and AJE are two different brands. You don't 'have to be able to read the news content of each site and look for subtitles in word-choice to reveal focusing explicitly on the visual aspects of each website, the only common element seems to be the iconic tear-drop shaped Al Jazeera logo—and even this is used quite differently on the Arabic and English sites.

The mastheads for each website (above) say a lot, especially when placed next to each other. the AJA masthead (right) is its actual size, whereas the AJE masthead has been scaled down to 70% of its original size. Even on a smaller scale, the AJE masthead simple, clear and bold. The AJA masthead is less powerful in part due to its scale, as well as the blue gradient background. And, perhaps most noticeably, the common element of the Al Jazeera logo is used in two different ways (color, position relative to text, and scale).

First, let’s take a look at the Arabic language website.

The colors of the AJA website are predominantly Blue, gray and white, with the occasional use of gold or orange (as in the usage of the Al Jazeera logo, typically). The masthead is a blue banner with the logo receiving the most prominence, and the site name ( ) written below in small white lettering, and then transliterated below that. Overall, it is not a very strong presence, but at the same time the whole site has a definite “news” feel to it. There is a news ticker with the latest headlines, as well as a slide show of news items, which appear to be images taken from the satellite channel’s broadcast.

When we scroll down, the page becomes very text heavy. In fact, there are no images in my window beyond a certain point (approximately mid-way down). The content is organized into a meaningful grid based on topics and regions, but by most standards it is visually uninteresting.

Comparing the Arabic site, which we have just explored in brief above to the English site, the huge visual disparity is hard to miss.

Al Jazeera English’s has different colors, a different layout, and a totally diferent feel. It is not simply a switch from right-to-left to left-to-right, it’s a different brand. The AJE masthead uses the same logo, but in a different color, and it gives equal prominence to the text, identifying the page as “ALJAZEERA.” There is no news ticker, and no automatic slideshow. To some, the AJE website may look less “news” and more “blog,” in the traditional sense, although I would argue that good design practices have been blurring those lines lately anyhow.

AJE’s website is much more visually appealing, with constant images and video links, putting it much more in line with a website like BBC News or CNN. From a web designer’s perspective, the two language sites are not only different visually, but embody a different set of design and web standards, with AJE being more forward-thinking and modern and AJA much more traditional, or dare I say, dated.

Having lived in the Middle East, and having traveled extensively throughout many parts of the world, I have come across a fair number of multinational companies who strive to present a coherent and unified brand in a multitude of languages—from English and Arabic, as well as Chinese and Cyrillic scripts. It is not an impossible task. Large multinationals like Coca-Cola create localized branding that translates both the words and the feeling that the brand aims to convey. Bi-lingual branding may also try to attract a wider audience in the Middle East, being accessible to Arabic and English reading audiences (or even adding foreign credibility to luxury brands for Western-leaning locals).

To the right are two examples of bilingual branding. The Abdali development project (above) makes the English reminiscent of the Arabic. Coca-Cola has a completely different Arabic logo (bottom), but keeps the same feel that is achieves with its traditional English logo (middle) through scale, colors and style.

Al Jazeera English lives as a child of the Al Jazeera Arabic site, quite literally, as a subdomain on the Al Jazeera (Arabic) website. The parent domain, aljazeera.net, hosts the English site on the same domain, accessible by adding “/english” (spoken as “slash English”) or going to “english.aljazeera.net” (spoken as “English dot Al Jazeera dot net”). This sub-domain or sub-directory presence for AJE is a constant reminder of its affiliations, as much as the use of the Al Jazeera logo, which is made up of Arabic calligraphy (illegible to a non-Arabic reading audience). AJE lives as a digital

dependent of AJA, which only highlights the visual divide between the two websites.

All this goes to say that Al Jazeera, a company with a wealth of resources, bilingual staff and designers, is obviously choosing to keep its two news services separate. Arguing from a purely visual standpoint (all news content aside) Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English are two distinct and separate brands. As someone who is interested in branding as well as a student of the Arabic language, I don’t understand fully why there has not been more of an attempt to unify Al Jazeera’s Arabic and English identities. The two brands have obviously led different lives, but it seems like both could be strengthened under a unified brand.

To the right is a side-by-side comparison of the Al Jazeera English (left) and Al Jazeera Arabic (right) websites. AJE has more images throughout, especially if you compare the mid-sections. The both use blue and yellow colors, but they are not close to the same shades. Even the Al Jazeera logo is used differently. AJA may have a more "newsy" feel to it, especially with a news ticker and slideshow, but the AJE website gains a lot from its simple and clean layout.

By Tighe Flanagan

The Revolution Will Be Put on Trial … Via Social Media

2011-05-03T11:15:00.004-04:00

Some have said that an incomplete revolution digs the graves of its own makers. Today in Bahrain this is happening. As soon as Peninsula Shield troops rolled in the island kingdom, and the protesters around Pearl Roundabout were forced to evacuate, it was clear that the uprisings have been crushed and the next step was going to be the witch-hunt.

Even though the Crown Prince of Bahrain HRH Salman Al-Khalifa declared that the protesters have the right to demonstrate and voice their demands in Pearl Roundabout, in the aftermath of this March 14^th crackdown, the government’s rhetoric changed and it became clear that everyone who participated in the uprisings runs the risk of getting arrested, interrogated or marked a traitor. This ‘witch-hunt’ first started on Bahrain’s state television through a nightly talk show called ‘Al-Rasid’ or ‘Media Watcher’ when translated to English. This show dedicated each episode post-crackdown to attacking government officials who allowed workers to strike, opposition figures who were present during the protests, and even the opposition’s main newspaper Al-Wasat for alleged fabrications. To a certain extent this was expected as state television represents government policies and positions. What seemed unexpected to many Bahrainis is that social media was going to be mobilized to contribute to a cyber witch-hunt of Bahraini ‘traitors.’

It started with a twitter account, and then a facebook page and now thousands follow eagerly to see who will be marked as a traitor next. I am talking about an account called 7areghum, which is just one example of how twitter and facebook became tools used to condemn and attack any Bahraini who criticized the government, attended the protests or expressed an opinion that goes against the current ‘loyalist’ discourse. When literally translated 7areghum means “the person who is burning them.” However what this title means in this context is “the person who is exposing them,” meaning exposing any dissident of the Bahraini monarchy. The description of the twitter page says it all, as it declares that this account is a “network to defend Bahrain and its leaders, and to address all the opposition and nation’s traitors.” The picture of this account is of a drawn image of a police-like figure conducting an official salute. Currently the account has over 10,000 followers on twitter and around 2000 likes of facebook. These numbers are considered high given the small size of the Bahraini population.

So how does 7areghum work? This account mostly receives ‘tips’ from other twitter or facebook accounts telling him/her of how certain Bahrainis (including full names and occupation) have acted during the uprisings, whether they insulted the leadership or called for the toppling of the regime. Sometimes even some pictures will be included of Bahrainis in Pearl Roundabout where 7areghum will demand names and personal information of individuals photographed, and several respond by excitedly reciting the full details of the targeted ‘traitors.’ The question is, does the government listen to 7areghum? I talked to a few Bahrainis and some of them seem to believe so, claiming that government officials started investigating and questioning individuals once their names popped up on this twitter or facebook account, but there is no confirmation of causality here.

Facebook and twitter played a most critical role in mobilizing the Arab masses, Bahrain included. Today, pro-government Bahrainis are using these very same tools to punish the revolution, making social media a double-edged sword that mobilizes youth to enact change but at the same time may very well crush them when they fail.

Arabs Love Blood…So Do We

2011-05-02T23:55:00.012-04:00

In the wake of President Obama’s official statement on the death and capture of Osama bin Laden, the amount of jubilation in the moments just prior and hours after resembled those of celebrations in the streets of Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was executed; and possibly even the post-September 11^th attack celebrations seen at some Palestinian refugee camps. The irony here of course being that while Americans can freely celebrate the killing of bin Laden, without the perception of being blood-thirsty; the Western media consistently perpetuates an Arab obsession with murder and massacre.

After the 9/11 attacks, while just about most of the world voiced their condolences to the victims and their families, many news outlets used images of Palestinians celebrating. In fact, shortly after, Palestinian Officials warned journalists that their safety would not be guaranteed if they continued to capture footage of celebrations. Yet, the Palestinian Authority Chairman, at the time, Yasser Arafat’s condemnation of the hijackings was not of course juxtaposed with these images. Additionally, lest us not forget the monumental release of the decapitation video of journalist Daniel Pearl and the hanging of Saddam Hussein; these videos were of course condemned and seen as incredibly vulgar although being looped on news casts for American audiences to see.

The perpetuation of this perceived sadistic obsession is furthered in many American fictional films and even cartoons. I must refer to this short video on the vilification of Arabs in Hollywood, as it chronicles the shaping of this characterization through these very films so well.

While the killing and capture of Osama bin laden is a feat that will certainly bring closure to many families who were affected by the murderous objectives of al'Qaeda, there is a disclaimer that should be attached. As Americans, we must understand the difference between justice, perception and reality. Arabs are no more blood-thirsty than we are. The video released of Daniel Pearl was done to incite terror and from agents not representative of anyone but the agenda of al’Qaeda. As the President explained in his speech, "…we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.”

By Kallie Ejigu

Tip of the Iceberg: UAE and Its People Call for Change

2011-04-26T23:58:00.003-04:00

Since the beginning of 2011, the Middle East has received a lot of attention—Mohamed Bouazizi of Tunisia burned himself in retaliation against the humiliation inflicted on him from the municipal officer, and ignited a wave of protests and revolutions across the region. As the Arab world awaits to see what happens in Syria, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and the aftermath in Egypt, questions of where is the wave going to hit next are being asked. Contrary to numerous Facebook groups and pages created, Qatar was not the next site of protest; but not surprisingly its neighbor United Arab Emirates.

In early March 2011, an online petition circulated in the UAE with more than 100 citizen signatures was given to Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahayan demanding an elected parliament with legislative powers, calling for comprehensive reform in the country’s Federal National Council, a quasi-parliament with no legitimate legislative powers (Malas, 2011). Behind the petition is a group of Emirati activists and intellectuals. The signatories are political activists, journalists, and academics who are believed to be trying to rally for more online signatures.

Like other Gulf states, political activism in UAE is far from the norm and is heavily sanctioned. It is assumed that political party formations and demonstrations are banned in all of the seven sheikhdoms of UAE.

According to a Reuters report, rulers of various emirates are appointed members of electoral colleges who then vote in half of the 40-member Federal National Council. The report states that the actual number of those who voted was 6,500 people—representing a mere 1% of UAE’s population (citizens); the rest of the members were then appointed by the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who is also the President (Solomon, 2011).

Inspired by the actions taken and changes that have been made/being made in Tunisia and Egypt, one cannot ignore the obvious influences and motivations behind the call of universal suffrage in UAE. Out of the seven sheikhdoms—Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al-Quwain, Ras Al-Khaima, Fujairah—90% of country’s gross domestic product comes from Dubai and Abu Dhabi. In addition, the national wealth accumulated is not equally distributed. This is evident when comparing the liberal and glitzy skyscrapers of Dubai with nearby calm and conservatism of Sharjah.

It is also believed that the emirates which least benefited from the national wealth generated by Abu Dhabi are the most likely sites for more unrest until equality is evenly distributed. First it has to start with equal right to participate and vote. The activist and blogger who helped organize the petition, Ahmed Mansour, was quoted by Reuters stating that this petition is about "the people’s right to participate in their society and the recent reforms gave the FNC no extra powers and simply increased participation to around 2 percent of Emirati citizens" (Solomon, 2011). I project that the next step would be a push for more equitable distribution of the national wealth between the sheikhdoms. If that does indeed happen, I believe it would be nothing less than what the world witnessed in Bahrain.

This sudden awakening of aspirations and calls for political reforms across the region has yet to be studied thoroughly. There is no end in sight for it as long as there are inequalities that keep coming to light.

By K. Ali

Malas, Nour. (2011, March 9). UAE Citizens Petition Rulers for Elected Parliament. Wall Street Journal, Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190012553500944.html

Solomon, Erika. (2011, March 9). Emiratis Petition Ruler for Democratic Elections. Reuters, Retrieved from http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE7281NN20110309?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Al-Jazeera to turn News Consumers into Producers

2011-04-18T15:46:00.012-04:00

The success of social media is progressively overpowering the failures. Revolutions are attributed to tools like Facebook and Twitter, enabling users to actively engage and unite. The question has increasingly become whether or not these tools are actually responsible for the revolutions that have taken place in areas throughout the Middle East.

In the days leading up to Mubarak’s fall, Al Jazeera became the prominent news outlet for the world. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Al Jazeera for its coverage, pointing out that they are reporting “real news.” Al Jazeera has undoubtedly gained international clout and with the increasing momentum is branching out into new territories. Al Jazeera’s coverage of the revolutions in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt, was unlike any other previous coverage--less commentary and more live footage. Al Jazeera gave viewers a unique opportunity to offer their think of their own commentary to the footage, undeniably encouraging the growing participation of citizen journalists.

Al Jazeera’s latest attempt to engage users in a new way is in the launching of a social media broadcasting experiment, The Stream. The concept behind the addition is a web community with a daily show element. The vision for The Stream is to integrate social media into news programming and stake a prominent claim in the American media space. Social media has immensely facilitated the pathway for citizen journalists. The show is said to launch May 2, 2011 according to an NBC source. The vision for this endeavor is to create a space where the dialogue facilitated by social media continues and increases as part of a news broadcast.

The Stream will operate off of a social media creation called Storify, which “interlaces freeze frames or original sources and videos and original analysis.” The interactive component makes this experience an entirely unique one. The interactive portion ensures that there will be continuously innovative. Various news networks are struggling to better connect with audiences and are seeking new ways of encouraging active viewing habits. This news program differs from other programs that feature Facebook or Twitter components because in this case users will play an active role in what appears on the news. The Stream hopes to break barriers in terms of user connectivity and engagement.

Al Jazeera acknowledges that the future of the news rests heavily on the notion that average viewers have the potential to be very powerful contributors; the future of journalism is inextricably linked to the degree of user engagement. This platform has the potential to be incredibly successful because it is more focused on connecting users with other users that creating content. Al Jazeera is embracing the future of news media and it is very telling that they are choosing to do so in the American media market and choosing to focus on international news.

In many respects Al Jazeera became the voice of the revolutionary uprisings in the Middle East just a few months ago. And while Al Jazeera has made its name by pushing boundaries and challenging governments, this latest endeavor is just the most recent iteration of the same path. While most media outlets lack objectivity because they respond to the wants and needs of audiences, Al Jazeera is going farther by embracing this notion. By using it as a foundation for reporting, this attempt has to either be revolutionary or self-destructive. There is a very good possibility that this is the future of news journalism. Is The Stream the a step towards rendering established journalists obsolete? Will it turn the profession on its head and transform news consumers into the most prominent news producers? Only time will tell. For now and as the show launches in just minutes, we can at least catch a glimpse of this experiment from the preview of the show's first episode.

By Caitlin McCarrie

More info:

Farooq, Sajid. "Al Jazeera Launches Its Great Social Media Experiment | NBC Bay Area."NBC Bay Area. 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.

Ferenstein, Gregory. "Al Jazeera's Social Media Experiment "The Stream" Launches Online Today | Fast Company. FastCompany.com. 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. .

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me an Online Nikkah

2011-04-16T23:21:00.010-04:00

In most conversations, online social developments are considered challenging to social norms or traditional methods of social interaction. In the case of online matchmaking sites for Muslim men and women, the traditional method of finding a suitable match is challenged, but the tradition of the marriage itself is strengthened. Muslim women can independently describe the kind of husband they seek while expressing themselves in ways not typically encouraged in traditional marriage-arranging settings such as those organized by an imam. When creating an attractive and intriguing profile, women can confidently advertise their education and professional achievements as well as a desire for respect and equality in a marriage while breaking no religious or social codes. This can boost self-esteem and feminist independence while seeking a marriage rich in traditional Islamic values. Several women state in their profiles they are looking for a partner in Islam or a “pious Muslim who can share with in me in every moment in this life.”

Muslimmuslima.com is an good example of these sites in which the focus is strictly finding a devout Islamic spouse. While reading the profiles of women, there is a common theme of desiring a good Islamic man who is “respectful, kind and faithful to me and Allah.” They often quote the Qur’an’s statements on marriage, and a few women wrote they’re seeking a man who can also quote Islamic text. There are also tabs at the top of each profile where users can include their education and professional lives, personal hobbies, previous marriages and physical appearance. The ability to simultaneously express themselves personally as well as their knowledge of Islam can be empowering particularly for young Muslim women in the Arab world. Anna Piela of the University of Westminster will further explore this topic in her upcoming book Muslim Women Online: Faith and Identity in the Virtual World.

The way in which users, particularly women, adopt these sites as an efficient and empowering new method of finding a spouse debunks the theory of technological determinism, the idea that a society’s technology shapes the way people think, tremendously. Several critics have used this theory to support the idea that online Muslim dating sites threaten the ideals of Islam. While altering the process of finding an Islamic marriage partner, online matchmaking servic es actually strengthen the ideal of a Muslim marriage. By making the process itself easier, Muslim singles do not have to rely solely on their family network or their local mosque. The technology itself does not directly effect or damage the essential model of Islamic marriage. In fact, not only does it fail to threaten cultural values, it offers a heavily-trafficked avenue for expression of these values. Evidence of this is easily found by reading the online matchmaking profiles of Muslim men and women around the world.

By Cassady Sharp

Facebook's Falasteen Feud

2011-04-14T08:04:00.013-04:00

Virtual space has long been a terrain on which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fought. We’ve all been witness to the back-and-forth shots at each other by Israel or Palestine sympathizers on some online forum. We’ve witnessed the accusations, name-calling, threats, calls for sympathy, finger pointing and the occasional allegation of Nazism. All of us feel that we are on the side of justice on some issue or another so what better place to give an outlet to our self-righteousness than safely behind our computer screens? The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict evokes a tremendous amount of passion from a tremendous amount of people, who know either very much or nothing at all about the situation, just makes it all the more frustrating (yet entertaining) to follow. In any case, the most recent battle in this virtual war of ideas has been over a…wait for it…Facebook page! This time though, it was taken to a whole new level.

Now, by no means do I intend to belittle the importance of a Facebook page today, especially with the unraveling of recent events in the Arab world and the creative ways in which Facebook was used for mass-mobilization. However, recent reactions to the “Third Palestinian Intifada” page have been curious and have lead me to question the significance of this recent online expression of the not-so-hidden agendas of the parties involved. Although there is very limited verifiable information on the exact sequence of events, this is a summary of what has been reported to have happened:

Three weeks ago, Yuli Edelstein, Israeli minister of diplomacy and Diaspora affairs, wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg asking him to remove the Arabic-language “Third Palestinian Intifada” page, which according to Edelstein violated Facebook’s terms of use by inciting hate and acts of violence against Israelis. Edelstein was not alone in his appeal; he was joined and supported by several major Jewish American organizations including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZoA). Facebook initially refused to remove the page claiming that the page description itself does not call for violence but rather for peaceful demonstration and that any user comments on that page, which do violate the terms of use, can just be removed on an individual basis. However, the battle did not end here. The ADL responded by releasing a statement condemning Facebook and the belligerent virtual attacks had commenced per usual order-of-business – some went as far as calling the fans of the page “Islamonazis” while others settled for calling Mark Zuckerberg a “self-hating jew”. It only took a couple of days for Facebook to retract its refusal and take down the page (March 29^th). Some report that the media attention against the page has incited deterioration in the level of incitement on the page by users – yet it is still unclear why Facebook retracted from their initial stance on this and did not simply continue to remove inappropriate comments. Despite the removal of the (original) page, rumor has it that Facebook is now being sued for $1 billion in damages for negligence.

Okay so the real question is, why this page? Is this just another virtual bickering episode or has it been taken to another, more serious level? Just browsing around facebook and different related groups on the topic of Israel and Palestine, or Jews and Muslims, I came across some truly appalling content that is still up there and not causing Facebook’s Zuckerberg a headache as big as the one he’s dealing with now. What is the significance of an Israeli law-maker’s involvement in this? One possible explanation is Israel buying into the ‘Facebook revolutions’ hype and going after this page because it’s calling for an uprising? And if Israel was really worried about this page because called for an uprising and the ‘liberation of Jerusalem’, then was it Facebook’s place to shut this page down while it has chosen to keep hundreds of other regional calls for uprisings. At the end of the day, it is one thing for Israel to attempt to censor and silence those Palestinians within its borders, as it has recently done with the passing of the Nakba law, but Facebook may have crossed a line by permitting Israel’s censorship to extend past the realm of the nation-state.

By Adrieh Abou Shehadeh

Remembering 1979 in 2011 Egypt

2011-04-11T00:40:00.011-04:00

The protests sweeping Arab nations since January have provoked several of comparisons to the Iranian revolution of 1979 particularly regarding Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the Egyptian revolution was essentially secular and exhibited an effective effort to distance the protests from the Brotherhood and any violent protesting, there is still talk amongst Arab historians and scholars that the 1979 revolution should not be overlooked when talking about post-Mubarak Egypt. Can the Muslim Brotherhood be compared to Ayatollah Khomeini and in this regard, should Egyptians be cautious when moving forward?

Although there are several differences in the two revolutions including Egypt’s lack of a charismatic Khomeini, there are some interesting parallels. Recently, prominent Iranian author Roya Hakakian has compared the two voicing her concerns about the democratic-building process in Egypt. Her February article in TIME magazine describes some of these issues including the fact that not all Iranian protesters were religiously motivated. Most interesting is her argument that throwing over the regime is the easy part compared with building a reformed and just government on the heels of a passionate and euphoric victory.

Since Mubarak’s upheaval, the Egyptian citizens have exhibited that they intend to vocalize demands throughout the transition process. After three days of protests in Tahrir Square, the Egyptian military, the interim government until September elections, has announced that it will remove remaining members of the Mubarak regime including several provincial governors. Yet, there has been little talk on who will run for election in September, and several sources have reported negotiations between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military. According to Al Jazeera, the Brotherhood called the recent Tahrir Square protesters “zealots” and condemned protesters for not supporting the military.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood seems to the be most prominent and most organized opposing political movement credits the parallels Hakakian draws between 1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt. An interesting difference, however, is that the Brotherhood made no statement supporting the revolution and Mubarak’s exit. Khomeini and his supporters obviously wanted the Shah out. So how will the Brotherhood proceed if they weren’t supporters of the revolution in the first place? And is there enough time before September for opposing political leaders and parties to emerge? Although the Brotherhood claims they support democratic political reform, Dr. Abbas Milani, director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University, recently made interesting statements on NPR’s Morning Edition that he believes the Brotherhood has every intention of enforcing Sharia law if elected similar to the intentions of Khomeini despite his claims of human rights and gender equality.

As evident in the efficiency of media savvy of the organized January 25 protesters, Egyptian citizens appear to understand the gravity of the challenges ahead because as Hakakian said, the easy part is over.

By Cassady Sharp

Hip Hop is not dead, it lives in Palestine

2011-04-08T17:42:00.004-04:00

Contrary to what mainstream hip hop today may indicate, hip hop is not about guns, objectifying women, and flashing your grill at the camera. The only elements that this deformed offspring of underground hip hop has retained from its forebears are the theme of rebellion and an in-your-face declaration that some voices will make themselves heard no matter how deeply they are buried in adversity and oppression. Hip hop, originating as an underground phenomenon born of a need to speak out for social justice, did not evolve into the auto-toned ballads about cars and men’s jewelry that we hear on the radio today. That is a different beast – a new genre entirely. The musical phenomenon sparked by early revolutionaries like KRS-One and Afrika Bambaataa is alive and well today, and has reached areas of the world that are geographically distant from New York’s Bronx River Projects. As the saying goes, “Hip hop is not dead; it lives in Palestine.”

Hip-hop is about transcendence. In the simply musical sense, the artist transcends everyday forms of expression by using those same linguistic elements to create something uniquely powerful. Through a process called “sampling,” even previous musical compositions are manipulated to yield a new product that simultaneously carries a message from the original and envelops it in a new context. On a societal and political level, the artist is transcending a situation in which he or she is traditionally silenced by the powers that be. Without the ability to be heard, one can’t communicate with others, which gives way to isolation. The hip-hop artist, however, is not only vocal, but also relies on his or her group. Traditionally, the hip-hop sphere is composed of networks of affiliations between various contributors – producers, rappers, visual artists, dancers, etc. Therefore the isolation that comes from silence is overcome by the creation of a community whose common interest is expression of the injustices that they perceive around them, and that they collectively experience. The subject matter is inherently communal and rarely individualistic.

Finally, hip-hop embodies transcendence in the sense that it rises above a familiar space to enter into an area that is entirely new. Like all art, it is about creation. So the opportunity for transcendence that the genre of hip-hop provides, first developed by black people in America and now sustained by people all over the world, is the transformation of the lack of societal and political influence into a capacity to produce change.

Hip-hop originated among an oppressed population of black Americans. Disenfranchised, silenced, treated like second-class citizens wherever they were, they used the creative tools they had to produce a vehicle to address and sometimes overcome these obstacles. It is no wonder that communities that share similar experiences feel that they relate to what hip-hop represents. It’s no wonder that people everywhere use it as a tool for expressing themselves or hearing their views reflected back to them so as to add strength to their experience by creating a community bound by an awareness of that experience. For example, Palestinians, in the Diaspora as well as in Israel and the occupied territories, have been participating in a hip-hop movement that is nothing short of a revival of the principles of transcendence that are no longer present in most American rap music.

Palestinians are silenced, scattered and confined. They are kept from speaking out and connecting with each other in Israel and the occupied territories, and communication between them is challenged by the fact that so many are compelled to live outside of their homeland as refugees. Palestinian rappers often compare their neighborhoods, blocked off and contained, to the “ghettos” or housing projects in New York from which hip-hop’s pioneers emerged. Mohammad al Farra of Palestinian Rapperz in the Gaza Strip explains that when he and his group saw 2Pac’s “Holla If Ya Hear Me” music video, “We saw our hood.” Palestinians in Israel are treated like second-class citizens in a country that is defined as belonging to the Jewish people. The Israeli authorities prevent them from speaking out and the systematic erasing of their histories is nothing short of official policy. Arguably the most popular Palestinian rap group, DAM, is based in Lyd, Israel. They are also touted as the ones who essentially began the Palestinian hip-hop movement. The documentary film “Slingshot Hip Hop,” created by Jackie Reem Salloum, illustrates how they

…start off mimicking the gestures and English lyrics of the U.S. rappers they see on TV, their songs celebrating materialism devoid of the social justice message upon which the genre of hip-hop was founded. However, this changes as the musicians' political awareness is sharpened by the rapid deterioration of the human rights situation in Palestine and they begin to see themselves in the images of America's oppressed black urban youth.[1]

They describe the appeal of exemplary rap figures like 2Pac, who “echoed their social frustrations and confirmed that their reality could be given a voice.”[2] And, Salloum points out, “How often do you get to hear the youth speak in the Middle East? It rarely ever happens.”[3] While Israeli occupation and exile silence and disconnect them, Palestinians find hip-hop, a music born out of a similar oppression, to be powerfully resonant.

By Alexis Toriello

Bahrainis Get Creative with Hashtags

2011-04-05T09:07:00.007-04:00

In reaction to the facebook revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt, Bahraini youth started a similar movement on facebook calling for a day of rage on the 14^th of February 2011. It started as a few protests across villages and neighborhoods, but ended up being a mass movement of thousands of Bahrainis gathering daily at the Pearl Monument in Downtown Manama. However, with GCC Peninsula Shield entering Bahrain and protesters evacuated from the monument (which was later demolished) on March 16^th, the youth movement was incomplete.

Throughout all these events happening in Bahrain, twitter became a forum of self-expression among Bahrainis. Existing Bahraini twitter accounts that usually contemplate weekend plans, discuss what new restaurant is opening in Bahrain or how horrible the traffic is on weekends became actively involved in political debates and discussion. That is not to mention the influx of new twitter accounts created everyday to follow and tweet news that are not usually reported on state media.

Bahrain’s current population is 1.2 million and 88% of them are Internet users compared to only 5.7 percent in the year 2000. In the world of social media, there are around 300,000 facebook accounts in Bahrain with a 41% penetration rate. Bahrain’s track record is very impressive as it ranks first in Internet penetrations (by % of population) in the Middle East. Also, though there aren’t any records of the percentage of twitter penetration among Bahrain’s population one can assume, given the mentioned statistics, that it is high compared to other Arab states.

If you knew which Bahrainis to follow on twitter you will be able to know exactly what's happening in Bahrain minute by minute, without having to tune in any news network. Sometimes you will even get the news from twitter with a pinch of humor and sarcasm. Other Bahrainis decided to use their presence on twitter to promote messages of equality, unity and peace.

A lot of these tweets usually include customized “hashtags”. The most common hashtag is #UniteBH, which surfaced early in the crisis when Bahraini society started becoming polarized. This hashtag was even mentioned on Bahrain television by the Foreign Minister himself and he later tweeted about it. The hashtag resulted into individuals making promotional videos revolving around the idea of Bahraini unity. What is fascinating about this hashtag is that one twitter account created it and different Bahrainis both in Bahrain and abroad later made three videos independent of each other expressing the need to #UniteBH. Though popular, there is still the question of whether one simple hashtag and a few unifying videos can actually help bridge the gap between different Bahraini communities today.

By Wafa Alsayed

Watching Miral, Hungry for Representation

2011-04-03T18:42:00.006-04:00

Opening night I went to see "Miral" with a group of friends: four Palestinians, two Egyptians, and an American. The film explores the schizophrenia of living under occupation from the viewpoint of four different women. All of us agreed on several things. First, the writing was poor. The screenplay was written by Rula Jebreal, the author of the novel this film is based on. The film preached, hitting the audience over the head with information about the Israeli occupation. This was not done artistically. In these moments, it felt as though the actors were pausing and reading selections from a newspaper article. English was the main language of the film. Very few Arabic phrases were interspersed, oftentimes translated back into English. I cannot say what this sounded like to the non-Arabic speaking audience, but for us it was quite jarring. Many phrases could have been articulated fluidly in Arabic, but when translated into English felt quite forced ("You are my hope" as an example). At times it was even comical hearing Frieda Pinto's Indian accent surface as she played a Palestinian. With a cast of non-Palestinians in the leading roles, we decided that the filmmakers were interested in gaining exposure for the film among a more international community. The director, after all, was Academy Award nominated Jewish-American director Julian Schnabel.

It was with this idea in the back of our minds that we analyzed the film after watching it. Did it matter that the writing was bad? Did it make a difference if the main actors were not Palestinians? If Arabic should have been the language of the film? If the film ended by insinuating that a two state solution would resolve our problems? Or were other considerations more important? There is a hunger in our community for mainstream media that portrays us in a positive light. The film went beyond this minimal threshold. Miral presented a story in which Palestinian men were tender and caring citizens, not blood-thirsty terrorists, and Palestinian women had agency and individuality. Arab men and women were characters that we recognized, they were familiar and normal. They had personal problems ranging from sexual abuse to unrequited love. Furthermore, the filmmaker was not an apologist for the state of Israel. The film could address Palestine and the Palestinians without making unnecessary concessions to tell the "Israeli side" of the story (which is a criticism made against the film in a Boston Globe Review).

I do not believe in "one-sided-ness" when it comes to Palestine and Israel. No one demands that we include the "other side" of the narrative when we discuss Apartheid South Africa or Colonial British-India. No one asks to hear the voice of White South Africans or of British settlers. So why should any film that tackles injustice against Palestinians give voice to the Israeli Apartheid Colonial system and those who benefit from it?

Those of us who watched the film that night had common knowledge considerations to take into account. The Palestinian-Israeli issue receives a great deal of media coverage in the United States. Most of this coverage fails to identify Israel as the aggressive pariah state that it is. Furthermore, this very same media sheds a negative light on the Palestinian people. We are used to seeing our men depicted as heartless, frightening terrorists and our women as oppressed objects of male domination and desire. This was about representation. All considerations of aesthetics in good filmmaking can be disregarded if we look at the film as a step in the right direction. We all agreed on the following: we need our stories disseminated to a broader audience through different media.

Without directly verbalizing it we fundamentally understood that film has the potential of shifting the prevailing mainstream discourse in the United States into a position that supports justice for the Palestinians. Of course Miral wouldn't be the first film to hit the American scene and attract attention. Hany Abu-Assad's 2005 film "Paradise Now" caused an uproar from Zionist organizations when the film was nominated for an Academy Award as Best Foreign Language Film for the country of Palestine. Even Elia Suleiman's "Divine Intervention" (2002) attracted much attention when the film was rejected for an Academy Award nomination on the basis that Palestine is not a state recognized by the United Nations. Many other Palestinian stories have been turned into films and released in the United States over the past decade. In my opinion Paradise Now and Divine Intervention did not sacrifice the art of film to tell a complete political history. But with a dearth of complete information about Palestine, there was little room for us to complain about the artistic pitfalls of "Miral."

By Nehad Khader

‘Of Gods and Men’ and US intervention in Libya

2011-04-03T11:29:00.005-04:00

What makes a good movie varies for each person. Some like captivating plots, others like to be pushed to their emotional limits. Others still prefer to be wowed by special effects, natural beauty or clever dialogue. For me, a good movie is one that effectively dislodges some idea that I'd previously been taking for granted. I may not ultimately change my convictions, but inevitably I'll question, examine and if I'm lucky, solidify them in my consciousness to draw upon in everyday life. 'Of Gods and Men' was just such a movie. Throughout the (extremely long, actually) film, I found the themes of stark good and evil, right and wrong, responsibility and innocence all treading dangerously close to one another in a way that challenged me to reconcile my own opinions as they arose in response.

Who are these men? Are we to view them as colonialist sympathizers, plain and simple? Or are they just frail old men merely living day to day for God? Are they resolute in character, or are they confused? Courageous or fearful? Even though they are portrayed as fair and compassionate, and the services they provide in their monastery seem to be a beneficial and even vital part of their small village community in Algeria, they are nonetheless perpetuating the racist hierarchy set up by their colonialist contemporaries. Even those who usually sit comfortably in the gray area will find the subjects of this movie to embody characteristics that are just a little too black-and-white.

What it says to me, though, is that you can't know the intricacies of human relationships through logic alone - just the monks’ in the film’s association with the colonizers of Algeria who are alone responsible for sowing an environment of brutality and oppression for so many years doesn't make it easier to judge these particular men in these particular circumstances.

So, the message I extracted from the from the film, regardless of what it was intended to convey, is that each situation must be taken as unique, must be measured not solely on what we may have decided we already know, but not completely without consideration of our prior knowledge either. I see this as relevant to the debate over foreign intervention in the crisis that is currently underway in Libya. Libya is not Iraq or Afghanistan. We've heard it so many times before: Egypt is not Tunisia. Bahrain is not Lebanon. Syria is not Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, OR Tunisia, however, Iraq is sometimes Lebanon, but not on Saturdays… It is true, though, all kidding aside. I happen to believe that logic is predicated on emotion, meaning that emotion comes first and logic is laid over it to justify its patterns and direction. So why don't we view absolute generalizations like, "international intervention is never okay," with a grain of salt like we would an emotional statement of the same solidity like, "rain will always make a person sad."

A stretch? Maybe. Chances are the creators of the film didn't intend for these thoughts to arise in response to their work. But ultimately this message makes sense in the face of the drastic and intricate changes in the Middle East that have been encapsulating mine and my colleagues' thoughts of late. Just like the subjects of "Of Gods and Men" are at once innocent, old, frail and confused as well as stubborn, consciously complicit, and at the same noble and courageous, the scenes of protest and demands for dignity that we see on our TV screens are not just showing one face selected by the various media channels that depict them. There are multiple faces to every situation and it is worth our time to step back and consider that values such as "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" are not always useful in assessing complex situations.

By Alexis Toriello

Rape or Revolution?

2011-04-03T10:50:00.007-04:00

The eruption of political unrest in Northern Africa has prompted a range of media coverage on the various issues which have stemmed from riots. One such example is the sexual assault on the chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News, Lara Logan. While the extent of the acts are unknown, the extent of the coverage has gone from painting Egyptian men to being “beasts” (as seen in the New York Post cover) to Lara being called a “war monger.” The outrage over the attack has been so pervasive that former New York University Professor Nir Rosen was forced to resign after backlash over comments he made on Twitter about Logan. He stated, "Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than I'm sorry". He further went on to say, "Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger."

The case of Eman al-Obeidy, the Libyan woman who went into a press room full of journalists, who tried to explain that she had been beaten and gang-raped by Moammer Gadhafi troops, has not surprisingly received mild media coverage. Comparatively, in Egypt, Logan’s coverage was and has been quite extensive and made to appear that other women, let alone men, haven’t been equally if not more brutally attacked. Yet, while al-Obeidy has continued to receive some media coverage, the general issue of attacks on civilians has been given light; really galvanizing women to protest on the streets on al-Obeidy’s behalf but in the name of all women who have been and are being attacked. Egypt’s women were not given a platform in the same way Logan’s incident was. For an example, a literature professor at University of California, Davis, Noha Radwan, was one of many women who were attacked. Radwan explained her experience, similarly but not as brash as Rosen’s comments, on how Logan’s experience wasn’t specific to her race, gender, or supposed attractiveness. Rape and attack are devices regularly used in war and civil unrest. Logan was seen as a representation of all things Western and negative as was al-Obeidy, as she was a lawyer; both made scapegoats in a shift from the status quo.

How then should Logan’s attack have been covered fairly? Al-Obeidy’s? Radwan’s? Equally. Al-Obeidy has been missing since having been dragged out after her confession by Libyan officials, while the backlash of Logan’s attack has continued although it has been reported that she is doing fine. This Orientalist obsession the West has in over sexualizing or making men barbarians is being exacerbated in the painting of the “lilly-white” victim, Logan, versus the al-Obeidy, the simple Muslim woman, who is still being attacked, expectedly, from the like. What’s missing, besides appropriate coverage, is an understanding of what happens in revolutions. What does it mean to have one? What are the repercussions? The risks? When a nation cauterizes a festering government, an unfortunate drawback is burning flesh. The suffering of one is not more than another’s and unfortunately the media coverage has painted this to be otherwise.

By Kallie Ejigu

The Revolutions will be Hashtagged: Twitter Turns 5 as the Middle East Demands Democracy

2011-03-29T22:09:00.001-04:00

Twitter, the microblog people love to hate, turned 5 this week. Twitter is probably most famous for the celebrities and politicians that use it to communicate with their fan bases, but in the Middle East Twitter is better known as a tool of political dissent and social mobilization. Deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak blocked Twitter before cutting off access to the internet entirely for five days.

Although Twitter has been around since 2006, it really did not start gaining popularity in the Middle East until 2008, when tech savvy youth and cyber activists started using the service for political activism. These early adopters tweeted mainly in English, not Arabic, were largely male (twice as many men as women tweeted in mid-2009), and interacted primarily with bloggers, with more than 80% using Twitter to find news and stay updated, according to March 2009 estimates. The same survey indicated there were only about 3,000 Twitter users in the Middle East, with that number growing to more than 40,000 by mid-2010...

From the beginning, Twitter has been one of the most important tools in Egypt's cyber activists' repertoire, useful for amplifying their messages, framing their grievances and demands, and organizing social protest. Twitter was a critical platform for Tunisian activists in the youth movement that helped oust president Ben Ali after 23 years in power. In the months leading up to the January protests, activists sent warnings via Twitter about government phishing attempts to obtain passwords for email and Facebook accounts. When bloggers Slim Amamou and Azyz Amamy were arrested their friends found out nearly simultaneously via Twitter, and because Amamou used his mobile phone to text Google Latitude with his location - an interior ministry building in Tunis - they immediately knew where he was being held. The Tunisian government was one of the most sophisticated internet censors in the world, and it had shut down several popular social networking sites.

By Courtney C. Radsch. Read the full article on Huffington Post.

Technologies of Revolution: Live Stream from Amman

2011-03-28T18:20:00.006-04:00

Only days ago, after finding a Jordanian friend's wall post to the March 24th facebook group, I found my way to the March Revolution's homepage. After reading the debates about the goals of the revolution and whether or not they are clearly articulated in the messaging I navigated my way to the most interesting part of the page: the little tab on the left that read al-bath al-hayy, Live Stream. I clicked to find young men and women in the Abdul Nasir Square in Amman, waving Jordanian flags, greeting each other, and maintaining their positions in the square. Immediately I began wondering about the technicalities of streaming live to the internet, how innovative this idea is, and what it means for the movement to be streaming images around the clock to the internet.

I cannot begin to explain the technology behind recording the events at the square and making them available live on the internet. In the past we have relied on mega media channels like Al-Jazeera, CNN, and the like to bring us live footage. During the events at Tahrir Square in Cairo we watched a banned Al-Jazeera service feed our televisions and computers live images of the square from a distance. Only later did we obtain on-the-ground footage from YouTube of the celebrations that erupted in the midst of a moment of group prayer when the ousted president announced his resignation through a mediator. The Facebook page from Jordan gives us live video of the people, by the people, without any intermediaries. Personally, I continue to rely on the big news channels for commentary from analysts and authorities. However, I monitor the developments on the ground directly from the people who make and experience them.

This potentially means a lot for the protestors. There were many debates in the midst of the Egyptian revolution about the implications of having Al-Jazeera's cameras rolling and broadcasting live images. At the time I thought back on a paper I wrote about the Hama Massacre in 1982 committed by the Syrian regime. After an uprising by the Islamic Brotherhood took the city of Hama, the Syrian military sealed the city off to journalists and bombarded the city for weeks. After interviewing people who resided in Syria during the events I learned that the total media blockade and the lack of cameras had two results. First, the military was able to destroy the city, looting and killing thousands using tanks and warplanes. Second, until today we estimate the death toll at 8,000-30,000-- this is too large a gap in the numbers. With no documentation we have no way of knowing how many people perished in Hama. Therefore, in my mind, one of the greatest benefits of the live broadcast of the protests in Tahrir Square was that everyone was watching. The regime was aware of this.

Likewise in Syria the Asad regime probably cannot raze Dar'aa as Asad the father razed Hama. Instead we are watching Buthaina Shaaban holding press conferences every other day to tell the people how the government will reform. In Jordan, when clashes between the government's forces and the protestors began we knew immediately. When Khairi Jamil was killed in those clashes the facebook page featured him (lifeless) on the profile picture with the slogan "The Youth of March 24th We are all Khairi Jamil Martyr of Freedom." The movement has both broadcasted its martyr and shaped its own discourse about the incidents, refusing to accept that it was time to go home. The live streaming is as much a preventative measure to ensure that the protestors remain safe as it is a documentation of the movement's presence and persistence.

The live stream can be viewed below:

shabab24march on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

By Nehad Khader

Arabia 3D: Selling Saudi

2011-03-28T17:49:00.006-04:00

Although the trailer for Arabia 3D proclaims “Arabia… it’s not what you expect,” Arabia 3D turned out to be exactly what I expected—from the very first time I saw the movie’s print advertisement, the eyes of a masked, veiled Arab woman gazing seductively at me from the pages of someone else’s Express on the Washington Metro. With promises to take us “deep into an exotic land … as if on a magic carpet ride,” Arabia 3D uses the flashiest in “cutting-edge 3D technology” to take audiences “behind the veil” to catch a glimpse of the “mysterious” East.

But what version of Saudi Arabia is this? (And it is only about Saudi Arabia, despite the generic, Orientalist title.) Who made it, and what audience is it intended for? And most importantly, why was it made? The answer is not nearly as simple as “to entertain American museumgoers.”

Now, about the audience: It should first be noted that there are no public movie theaters in the Saudi Kingdom, as so poignantly documented in the 2006 film “Cinema 500 km,” about a young Saudi who obtains a passport and drives 300 miles to Bahrain in order to fulfill his dream of watching a movie in a theater. Arabia 3D is a movie made, therefore, for foreign consumption, particularly since the IMAX format is intended for large-scale projection, not home viewing.

While filming in Saudi Arabia isn’t entirely forbidden, a glimpse at the short list on Wikipedia of movies shot in the kingdom is indicative of the difficulties involved, both environmental and governmental. The main funders and creative forces, according to the opening credits, appear to be largely Western—directed by Greg MacGilivray, written by Jack Stephens, presented in association with the Royal Geographical Society, the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, and the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. However, the closing credits, flashing by very quickly, indicate a certain level of Saudi governmental involvement and advisement, which was likely a necessity for even filming in the country.

This goes to the heart of the ideology at work here, behind what is presented as a seemingly transparent “documentary” about how modernity and tradition have come together oh-so-perfectly in contemporary Saudi Arabia. One short example: The history of “Arabia” in the 20^th century, according to the film, goes something like this: Abdulaziz bin Saud, through his brilliance, singlehandedly united the quarreling tribes of the peninsula in 1932 (What Ottoman empire? Lawrence who?). Just 13 years later, American President Roosevelt signed a treaty of friendship with the Saudi king, and now Saudi Arabia has skyscrapers, thanks to the modern version of Frankincense—which once led to an ancient golden age during the time of the Roman Empire—oil. And as the film states earlier, when depicting the “timeless” nobility of the Bedouin tradition: “Even today, once you make friends with an Arab, you’re friends for life.” Along the same lines, 9/11 is mentioned early on, though without noting the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

But Orientalist tropes (did the credits really need to open with a smoking magic lamp?) and Saudi official involvement aside, Arabia 3D provides a powerful, if simplistic, counternarrative to the extremely negative American preconceptions about Arabs in general, and about Islam in particular, which have become disturbingly prevalent since September 11. The frame story focuses on a young male film student studying in America, and a female poet, using the story of their lives to illustrate that we may be entering a third golden age on the peninsula, with roots in the beautiful traditions of an Islam guided, not by violence, but by knowledge and science—a vision emblematized by the newly opened King Abdullah University of Science and Technology or KAUST.

So for all of its deep flaws—including on the superficial level, a digital 3D process that makes the movie look at times more like 300 than it does a documentary—Arabia 3D is, in the final measure, an important film, coming at such a critical time of extreme intercommunal tensions, and filling a gap in the media representation of Saudi Arabia. For that, at least, it represents an important first step, and hopefully not the last.

Arabia 3D is shown several times daily at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History IMAX Theater, located at 10^th Street and Constitution NW, and will be playing through April.

By Jeff Reger

Gadhafi, Objectivity and Access to Information

2011-03-17T14:47:00.017-04:00

As turmoil continues across the Middle East and Arab world, a prominent question is where people get information and how reliable is that information. Social media tools have been able to shift the power of information control from the State governments to the people. The question is which source of information is reliable and is important for the citizens to have direct influence on these news and information sources.

Libya State TV recently aired Gadhafi claiming that the rebel forces are Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and kids on drugs. How have all these governments been able to exert such control over their media outlets and justify it to their citizens? Pre-Al Jazeera, State TV in the Arab world justified its singular view by explaining and enshrining the national history and providing local municipal news. It also served as an anti-hegemonic outlet of Western media (source). However, this control by one political party has led to a narrow view of actions and information and brings into question the truth of remarks by the political head.

Because Libya does not collect or release numbers of actual viewership for its State TV, we cannot know how many people actually watch it. We can, however, conclude that the rise in popularity of Al-Jazeera and foreign news such as BBC and CNN is directly related to the increase in black market satellite television. With the advent of satellite television, internet, and mobile devices, citizens have been able to access information directly and share content. It is this empowerment that has created a shift in the social structure and emboldens the people of Libya.

Al Jazeera has threatened dictators and won viewership by aiming for a more objective presentation of the news. By presenting multiple view points for topics of interest to the Arab world, Al Jazeera has been attached by almost every Arab government as well as the US government (Tuchman, 1972). However, this aim for objectivity has allowed Al Jazeera to grow into the most reliable and trusted news source for the Middle East.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria featured a guest in his analysis of media and the Middle East on Sunday, March 12 who concluded that all people are seeking the inalienable rights and freedoms upheld in the US. Particularly, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. To answer the reliability and truth of news is unachievable. But if objectivity is based on presenting multiple viewpoints, allowing citizens to directly access and contribute to news and information can only increase their personal freedoms. It is this that the State TV does not allow and the reason the movement has spread across the Arab world so quickly.

By Stephanie Vineyard

On the Internet and Invisibility

2011-03-17T11:43:00.005-04:00

By Adrieh Abou Shehadeh

Media, such as print journalism and radio or television broadcast, are venues for public deliberation. It is only natural that when print and mass media are co-opted by the state, as they have been in many authoritarian regimes in the Arab world, other venues for debate take life. Online media have recently been proven to be one such venue for unregulated articulation of the public sphere. However, an important question that arises is whether or not we consider the Internet part of the “public sphere” when neither literacy nor access to Internet are shared amongst most of the citizenry, as is the case in Egypt.

Social networking websites and blogs have been able to challenge existing power dynamics by creating multiple avenues for deliberation and expression that extend beyond the reach of the state apparatus. However, despite the emergence of such avenues and the heightened level of public deliberation that they enable, these tools are by no means ideal. While social media has had some success in challenging existing power structures, the disparities in access to news production have yet to evolve to true inclusivity.

Before we hail Twitter, Facebook, and Blogspot as new means of expression for the "masses”, we must ask ourselves who these outlets overlook as subject matter and potential audience. While accessibility to social network websites has grown significantly in the past years in the Arab world, it has not defied generational, gender, urban/rural or class divides. Access to social networking websites is still limited in many parts of the Arab world by economic, social and political obstacles. Syrian policy, prior to their lifting of the ban on Facebook, is just one example. Those with the ability to produce information and disseminate it online may not be part of the traditional elite but they represent a type of “new media elite”.

For many, myself included, it was all too easy to conflate headlines about the central roles of Facebook and Twitter with images of a sea of Egyptians calling for change. But how much do we really know about the relationship between the masses who were present in Tahrir and those organizing, posting and tweeting online? If the Internet was as important to ‘mass mobilization’ as some would have us believe, then what means of expression did those without the privileges exemplified by access to the Internet have? While we are reading notifications, posting, re-tweeting, responding, liking and disliking updates coming from Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen and the rest of the Arab world, we should also be concerned by those deemed invisible by the manifestation of the recent waves of change.

Qadhafi's Speech and Political Mythology

2011-02-26T11:24:00.019-05:00

As protestors intensified their calls for the fall of his regime after the brutal repression of its own people, Colonel Mu’amr al-Qadhafi went on Libyan national television to speak for over two hours on 22 February 2011 in a performance widely derided for its rambling nature—punctuated by readings of his manifesto, The Green Book. Contrary to its title, The Green Book actually consists of three small pamphlets, the first of which, published in Arabic in 1976, is entitled The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: “The Authority of the People.” Its distribution has long been a source of fear for regimes throughout both the Arab world and sub-Saharan Africa, particularly owing to Qadhafi’s oft-quoted ambition to create a “United States of Africa.”

Qadhafi begins by defining the “instrument of governing” as the “prime political problem” facing communities. The root of all conflict, according to Qadhafi, is that representative governing systems, even when called democracy, are false and unjust. He labels all governing political systems in the world “dictatorships,” especially those claiming a false cover of democracy, since any parliamentary representation is “fraud.” He particularly singles out “plebiscites,” with the idea that a candidate can govern even if elected with only 51 percent of the votes—which, in his argument, means that 49 percent of the population is then ruled by this candidate, which he terms a “dictatorship,” “imposed upon them.

The “final solution” to this problem lies in the authority of the people. While direct democracy would be ideal, it remains an impractical and utopian idea on the scale of the nation-state. Therefore, Qadhafi argues for a system of “popular congresses” as the “only means” to achieve popular democracy. He describes this system, which he asserts is the only true democratic form of governance, as follows.

The people are divided into basic popular congresses, with each choosing a secretariat. The secretariats then form popular congresses. Then these secretariat popular congresses choose administrative people’s committees to replace government administration. By doing so, Qadhafi claims that he has found the final solution to the problem of democracy, in correcting its very definition, changing it from the wrong “Democracy is the supervision of the government by the people” to what he calls the right definition, “Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.” Under this system, all secretariats join in the General People’s Congress, which creates the legislative directives passed to the people’s committees for executive action, which are ostensibly responsible to the basic popular congresses.

While all of this forms the theoretical basis for the government, in practice, the GPC has remained secondary to the rule of Qadhafi and the remaining members of the 12-person Revolutionary Command Council, which was established in 1969 and is not elected (Metz 255). While Qadhafi’s official title and direct roles in governance have varied since the establishment of the GPC in 1977, he has retained his title as the supreme commander of the armed forces and has remained heavily involved in governance through the security apparatus and other indirect means such as “revolutionary committees” assigned the task of “absolute revolutionary supervision of people’s power” (Metz 66).

After witnessing the slaughter of the regime’s very source of “authority,” putting the lie to whatever legitimacy remained to Qadhafi’s manifesto, protestors set fire to the People’s Hall in Tripoli (where the GPC meets) on February 22, in a fitting illustration of the disparity between the Qadhafi regime’s words and actions—this being the very same day that Qadhafi declared his intention to “cleanse Libya house by house” of protestors, vowing to “fight to the last drop of blood.”

By Jeff Reger

Twitter Revolution?

2011-02-21T22:41:00.011-05:00

Much has been made of the role of social media in the Tunisia revolts and those that spread across the Arab world. US media is quick to point out the role of social media in organizing and connecting people and to call this a “Twitter Revolution.” This, I believe, is a wrong assumption and doesn’t credit the people for their motives and grassroots revolution.

Technology is a catalyst, not an element for change.

Twitter did not stage a revolution – not in Iran, not in Tunisia, not in Egypt. People – who were frustrated with their government – staged protests and revolts. They did use Twitter and Facebook to communicate, but what should be noted here is the shift in power, not the platform used. One day, Twitter and Facebook will be replaced by the next greatest application. And that tool will assist people in a way these tools, or the communication tools of print newspaper, did before them. It is the people who use the social tools that cause social change – not the tools themselves.

I emphasize this point to try and move the conversation from what technology is being used to how the people are using it. At the crux of it, these tools provide access to information. And it is the democratization of access to information that empowers the people to push for change. Previously, the dictators were able to control the information available to their citizens. In doing so, these leaders could suppress the freedom of speech and assembly. Mobile technologies and the internet have changed the access to information. For good or ill, everyone is now able to gain knowledge and share information (such as myself on this blog). This is a critical power shift.

Dictators around the world should be scared. It is the access to information that sparked the downfall of the Soviet Union. When people realized there were other options to the tiny apartments with faulty electricity and lack of adequate food, they pushed for change. If the citizens feel they do not have the opportunities they desire, they will demand better. And as in so many cases, there is a tipping point. Tunisians reached theirs, Egyptians similarly have amassed, and many countries look to follow suit.

However, the “west” should not pat itself on the back and grin that “westernized democracy” is moving across the world. The important point to note is that these revolutions were started and led by the citizens of that country. The rights they demand, which Americans hold to be inalienable rights, are their own. The changes they will implement are their own. The leader of the democratic world had nothing to do with the people demanding better for themselves.

So before we make undue assumptions about these revolutions domino-ing across the Arab world, we should examine the cause and the power of the people. As Americans, we should recognize them in their own right and respect the changes they wish to implement on their behalf. Instead of calling it a ‘Twitter Revolution’ we should label it a ‘People’s Revolution.’

By Stephanie Vineyard

The Egypt Street Speaks, Government Resigns, But is that Enough?

2011-01-29T06:33:00.002-05:00

The Egyptian government resigned following a speech by Mubarak in which he completely glossed over the demands of the protesters and instead called for his government to resign. Obama also came out and gave a brief speech in which he also tiptoed around the true meaning of these protests, saying he told Mubarak that “He pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity,” and had “told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise.” Really, that's it?

(Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera English)
On the 5th consecutive day of protests the Egyptian people are once again taking to the streets. Meanwhile reports that 53 people were killed yesterday in several Egyptian cities did not seem to dampen the spirits of thousands of Egyptians who have taken to the streets to demand their rights and an end to the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. Meanwhile here in Geneva the head of the UN human rights body called on Mubarak to lift the emergency law that has been in place since he took power. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also said in her statement that more than 1,000 people have been arrested.

And now the Saudi king is throwing his weight behind Mubarak after speaking with him on Saturday morning, even as protesters continue to call for Mubarak to go join Tunisia's ousted president Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi after his overthrow.

Follow #jan25 on Twitter for the latest.

By Courtney C. Radsch (originally published on arab-media.blogspot.com)

Could there really be 'regime change' in Egypt?

2011-01-28T05:06:00.006-05:00

It is with great excitement that I've been following the events and protests in Egypt, albeit via Twitter, Facebook and online news sites rather than on the ground as I would like! Nonetheless, as I valiantly work on finishing writing my dissertation on cyberactivism in Egypt my fingers are crossed that this time the protests will lead to substantial political change. (Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera English)

There are many digital activists trying to get information out and evade the censorship that seems to be expanding as Mubarak attempts to shut down the Internet (the state-owned TE Data handles 70% or traffic), SMS and specific platforms. We are watching citizen journalism at its best; citizens attempting to document through various media the facts on the ground as they happen, and to provide sufficient credibility so that journalists around the world can rely on their reports. And in Egypt, and other countries that lack freedom of expression and basic democratic freedoms, citizen journalism is indistinguishable from activism, and is in fact the contemporary form of political activism (my basic thesis, trying to get this chapter out the door!). Or as blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy so eloquently put it, "In a dictatorship, independent journalism by default becomes a form of activism, and the spread of information is essentially an act of agitation." If you don't read Arabic, here are a few good English-language blogs to follow (and you can also check out the blog rolls in the right-hand column): http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/, http://bikyamasr.com, http://baheyya.blogspot.com/, http://www.arabawy.org/. There are many others but that's a start!

This is of course not the first time Egyptian have taken to the street demanding political change, but it is the largest in many years. And today's shooting by police of protester Mohamed Atef in advance of a call for massive protests following Friday prayers means that things have escalated beyond anything in recent memory (Mahalla, April 6, the judges demos or even the Iraq protests). 56,000 people signed up for the Facebook page within the first 24 hours, the Twitter hashtag #jan25 became a worldwide trending topic and once again the mainstream media is starry-eyed over the use of social media to galvanize, organize and mobilize Egyptians (I love how CNN calls the famous James Buck tweet "one of the earliest hints of the power of Twitter" without any context about his connections to the key digital activists who have been leading this and previous protests and without whom his tweets would likely have fallen upon deaf ears). It's hardly new anymore that people use digital and social media as an integrated part of their advocacy strategy and to galvanize offline activism (hello Iran and Tunisia, to name but two recent Middle East examples). I like Zeinobia's comment: "who said that people only revolt thanks to social networks !!? As far as I know there was no social network in 1919 or in 1977 !!??" But that's ok, because digital activists and especially those in the Middle East and other Western-supported authoritarian regimes, depend on the mainstream media to get interested and amplify their message, partially in order to put pressure on Western politicians back home (as I have written about before)

The US response has been awfully muted, though. Obama came out with a pretty weak statement about how for long-term stability Mubarak needs to move toward reform (an understatement if ever I heard one). Hillary Clinton finally called on Egypt to unblock the social networking sites that have proved so essential to the organization and mobilization of tens of thousands of Egyptians. What will Friday bring...?

By Courtney C. Radsch (originally published at arab-media.blogspot.com

Al-Ahram Weekly Gives Readers "the Finger"!

2010-12-06T18:55:00.007-05:00

One of the most scandalous election campaigns in recent memory led to Egypt's ruling party sweeping the already skewed parliamentary voting using a combination of faux legal tools, thuggery, bribery, and extortion all done in the most blatant fashion. Imagine setting up and planning a huge party, inviting all friends, family, co-workers and neighbors and then not letting them in when they arrive at the door. That is how the government/party (effectively interchangeable for the last 30 years) treated its invitees. The worst thing about the election itself is the media charade that surrounded it. A few weeks before the voting began, several satellite stations were taken off air, some of the top talk shows on private channels were unplugged, newspaper were pressured to drop their critical editors and opinion writers (such as the firing of Al-Dustour's Ibrahim Eissa). But the pinnacle of ridiculousness is the cover of Al-Ahram Weekly's election issue. In an election marred with protests, violence, corruption, boycott, rigging, and stuffing the newspaper now famous for doctoring a photo a few months ago to show Egyptian President Mubarak leading Obama and regional heads of state chose this photo (right) for its cover.

In light of the situation, I think Al-Ahram has completely gone bonkers. Have they lost their bearings? Where is the journalistic decency?! Where is the desire to speak truth to power? Where are the professional principles? More importantly where are the photos of the actual election? Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt this ecstatic woman is real as is her painted finger and her Falsaffian laugh. But does this photo communicate anything about THIS election? Is this a continuation of Al-Ahram's newfound commitment to what they describe as "expressionistic" photojournalism? Where are the photos of the protesters, the wounded, the angry, the campaigners, the boycotters, the unmonitored voting stations, the boxes being stuffed, etc etc? This photo is symbolic of the descent of Al-Ahram Weekly as an institution. A publication once known for its national expertise and global outlook, the Arab world's home for such intellectuals as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky now shows the photo of a simple middle-aged Egyptian woman celebrating a laughable election. I can understand if this came with some level of irony or parody a la the Onion or perhaps if she was in stitches over the comedy of this election production. Yet this is no laughing matter. The voters, politicians and locked out observers known it isn't, as does Al-Ahram.

And to top it all off, the newspaper of record and the Arab World's New York Times has the audacity to write this caption underneath "Jubilation of a purple-stained finger, a mark of having voted." Are you kidding me? Firstly, they chose not identify the one person who seems to be enjoying the election. No story, no history, nothing. Given how many photos we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan of purple-fingered elections, what makes this generic image anything but a stock photo? How unimaginative can Al-Ahram be? And if the dehistoricization, infantilization and denigration hasn't gone far enough, the caption isn't even about the woman, but rather her finger. This woman is jubilant because her finger is stained? Since the stained finger signifies that the person is illiterate, I am not sure whether this means the only jubilant NDP voters are the illiterate or if it's communicating that the NDP has popular reach among the lower castes of Egyptian society. Either way, the format and presentation is an act of condescension against the woman in the photo, the functionally illiterate, the informed citizen, and the public good. Or perhaps I misread the caption and it's the purple-stained finger itself that is jubilant. In that case alone would I agree with Al-Ahram that the photo is absolutely warranted. In an election where the only consistent reality is that the Egyptians have gotten screwed, the finger has emerged the only victor.

Meet Mohammad Sabry, Sinai's rising citizen journalist

2010-10-10T17:58:00.001-04:00

Earlier today, Sinai-based blogger Ashraf El-Anani published an article on his blog, " سيناء حيث أنا " (Sinai, where I am) telling the story of a rising citizen journalist also from North Sinai.

According to the piece emailed to El-Anani, Mohammed Sabry is an English teacher from Bir El-`Abd, a town in North Sinai. Sabry engaged in citizen journalism after the International Center for Journalists (ICJ)'s MENA regional office in Cairo admitted him to a course in social and popular media and news-writing run by the Center's Cairo office.

ICJ's initiative aims at empowering promising Egyptians with the tools and technical skills required to express the opinions and grievances of their communities especially in the run-up to the 2010 parliamentary elections and the 2011 presidential elections.

The course offers some training in news-writing, feature articles, investigative journalism and conducting interviews.

Sabry's achievements were quickly recognised by the Center which. Sabry applied and was awarded one of six competitive fellowships by the School of Media Studies at the University of Windesheim in the Netherlands.

Mohammad Sabry at Windesheim University, the Netherlands

The fellowship allows Sabry to attend a 3-month course commencing on October 1, 2010. It's worth noting that Sabry is the only one amongst the six awarded the fellowship who had no institutional experience in journalism. The other five work(ed) for Al-Jazeera Documentaries, Dream TV, Al-Dostor Newspaper and Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

Ashraf El-Anani refers to Sabry as "the citizen journalist" amongst the group.

In a competition with 48 other documentaries, Sabry's short documentary has recently been voted "most interesting topic" by the ICJ and the Egyptian Journalists' Syndicate. The prize was awarded to Sabry in absentia yesterday. The documentary is entitled " صخرة ديّان : مسمار جحا لعودة اسرائيل لسيناء " (The [Moshe] Dayan Rock: an Israeli excuse to return to Sinai?) and tells the story of North Sinai's most important monument and relic of the six-year Israeli occupation (1967-1973).

Sabry has expressed his intention to report on issues and grievances relating to his home region, North Sinai. The governorate is massively under-represented in Egypt's traditional media as well as in the Egyptian blogosphere and other social media despite its importance.

Not only does North Sinai border both Israel and the beseiged Gaza Strip, the governorate's inhabitants have suffered repression and arbitrary detention by state authorities and unfair publicity and discrimination amongst their countrymen in the Nile Valley and the Delta. North Sinai is home to a number of large and well-established autonomous tribes who have been engaged in waves of consecutive armed conflict with the state.

The under-representation of Sinai and its inhabitants in national and social media has left the grievances of the strategic governorate veiled behind the ignorance and negligence of the Nile Valley and its inhabitants.

Mohammad Sabry and his likes in Sinai are essential in the development of Egyptian civil society, citizenship and social media. The role played by Sinai-based bloggers like El-Anani, Sabry and others helps bridge the gap between the grievances and reformist movements on both shores of the Suez Canal. El-Anany's efforts at documenting life and society in North Sinai as well as conflict and repression against his community have shed light on the grievances and unfair treatment of an important segment of Egyptian population - a role that had previously been played by armed conflict alone.

More bloggers and citizen journalists need to voice their opinions and the concerns and events from within their own communities in Sinai and other parts on the peripheries of Egypt. Upper Egypt; Siwa and the Western Desert's Bedouin and Berber tribes; Sinai's Bedouins; and Nubia are but an example of the many regions and peoples of Egypt whose share of traditional and social media is all but sufficient.

Sabry's fellowship in the Netherlands might mean he will be out of the country during the parliamentary elections scheduled in six weeks, but it means that North Sinai will acquire a new technologically-savvy voice who will hopefully help reduce the ignorance that surrounds Sinai and its inhabitants.

Egyptian Rights Activists on Trial as Victimes Become Defendants

2010-09-12T20:01:00.002-04:00

By Courtney C. Radsch

The trial of Gamal Eid (executive director of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information), Ahmed Seif El-Islam (founder of the Hisham Mubarak Law Centre) and blogger Amr Gharbeia for defamation and blackmail has put on hold until Sept. 18, and represents what one lawyer called a case that “should be studied in law schools as an example of a victim becoming a defendant.”

In 2008 Amr explained how the government and individuals (especially through the use of hisba cases) can intimidate bloggers through the arduous use of legal proceedings, noting that "the real threat is pulling people into the legal procedures that are totally draining and inhumane. This has only intensified it appears in the years, since as the government has taken stronger and more targeted action against bloggers, especially as the 2010 elections approach.

Amr told me in 2008 how the whole libel mess with the judge started... In February 2007 Amr Gharbeia stumbled upon Judge Abdel Fatah Murad who was a blogger himself, and got in touch with him. He found out Murad was writing a book about blogs and the judge asked him if he'd like to review it, to which Gharbeia said yes. But as he was reading the book Scientific and Legal Principles of Blogs he felt that many parts sounded familiar, only to discover that 50 pages of the single-authored work were actually reproductions of a 2006 report by the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and reproduced content from several other blogs. In fact, Amr had written about the report on his blog, and as would be expected he blogged about the plagiarism in his review of Murad's book, linking to the blogs where the original work had appeared and documenting the plagiarism. The blog post elicited several comments which led to an accusation by the judge that the comment box was a form of incitement and the comments were libelous. Shortly thereafter a prosecutor tried to force Amr to turn over the IP addresses of those who made comments but he refused, he told me, though he has to filter comments now.

Murad conveniently 'forgot' to credit ANHRI, one of the leading defenders of freedom of speech and particularly bloggers in Egypt. The NGO issued a statement calling for Murad to clarify his use of sources that nine other organizations (including HMLC) signed on to. But it was the Feb. 11 press release that really got Murad up in arms and from which the current charges stem.

According to ANHRI, in April 2010 "the General Prosecutor‘s Office indicted Saif, Eid, and Gharbeia on defamation charges under articles 303, 306, 307 of the penal code, blackmail under article 327 of the penal code, which carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment, and “abuse of the internet” under article 76 of the 2003 Communications Law, which carries with it a prison sentence and a fine of up to 20,000 Egyptian Pounds (US$3,541)."

This is not the first time judge Murad has gotten caught up in legal maneuvers to censor free expression and internet freedom, in fact, this is the third time that Murad has targeted these three rights defenders with legal action. In 2007 he tried to force the closure of more than 50 websites through the use of hisba cases, including those of ANHRI, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, and Gharbeia's blog, but thankfully the administrative court threw out the case. In 2008 Eid, along with Egypt's First Couple of Blogging Manal and Alaa, were acquitted of similar charges. Oddly enough, since the judge was suing the government to block the sites, the bloggers were actually on the government's side! Gharbeia told me that some of the bloggers spoke with the Ministry of Interior and defended the right to maintain the sites. My how times have changed. What has not changed, however, is that the international community is watching and waiting to see what happens, and will hold the Egyptian government accountable for its treatment of its human rights defenders and citizen journalists.

State of the Media this morning : more people embracing new media amidst more restrictions

2010-09-10T04:34:00.000-04:00

Observers of the media today will agree that 'new media' or the non-traditional forms of media are undeniably becoming more popular by the minute. The number of blogs is increasing; more , newspapers are going online; their online readership is expanding massively and online journalism has made the flow of information subject to fewer restrictions and much faster.

Nevertheless, the expansion of new media is proving to be complementary to the perseverance of traditional media - not a substitute to newspapers, radio and TV.

Furthermore, the expansion of new media is not unchallenged: oligarchs, politicians, business tycoons and influential persons, communities, lobbyists and organisations are working hard to restrain the liberties of new media and prevent a backlash against their interests or an exposure of what they'd rather keep under the table.

This morning, I came across a few studies by media observers illustrating these contradictory phenomena:

First, I came across this study by the University of Missouri School of Journalism which argues that citizen journalism "isn’t stepping up sufficiently to fill the “information shortfall” caused by cutbacks in the newsrooms of newspapers and other traditional news organizations." According to the research team, the co-existence and complementarity between traditional legacy news organisations and citizen journalism - rather than the latter encroaching upon the former as some argue.

The findings of the 'Mizzou j-school' came in line with the findings of a journalism.co.uk survey which found that "nearly half of the respondents said digital and social media has improved their work." According to the survey, "for the first time, journalists across Europe view new media as an asset and not a hindrance to their work." The study was EU-specific and surveyed 774 journalists across 21 European Union countries. The survey also noted that more journalists are expressing their concerns over the future of print media with over half fearing their publication's offline formats may face the axe in the future, compared with 32 per cent in 2009.

Nevertheless, complementary or in competition - not all is positive on the media, news and freedom of expression front.

At the end of last month, the European Journalism Centre (EJC) reported one infringement on new media after another. On June 29, ECJ Media News reported that Google and the CIA are investing in 'future' of WWW monitoring referring to their backing of 'Recorded Future' a company dedicated to "scouring tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come."

Simultaneously, the Italian government of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi (who has been criticised time and again for his aggression on freedom of association, protest and expression), has proposed a new bill to parliament according to which bloggers, podcasters and even anyone who posts updates on social networks such as Facebook all face being slapped with fines of up to EUR 25,000 for publishing incorrect facts. The bill, which journalists' organisations are calling "authoritarian" will extend Italy's "obbligo di rettifica", or rectification obligation - a law dating back to 1948 that requires newspapers to publish corrections - to the internet and indeed anyone "responsible for information websites."

Similar trends restricting the free flow of information and the use of new media and the internet are a global phenomenon. I wrote earlier this month about similar violations in Egypt where the Ministry of Interior inaugurated a new department to monitor pro-democracy activists and polish the image of the ruling party on social networking website Facebook as well as on Twitter and personal blogs. Last month, I also wrote on violations of freedom of expression in Lebanon where the army has threatened its critics of imprisonment - this comes against a backdrop ofarrests targeting internet critics of the Lebanese president.

Ramy Raoof writes "Egypt: Security Department to Monitor Facebook"

2010-08-29T18:57:00.002-04:00

Ramy Raoof wrote the following piece for Global Voices Online today (August 29, 2010) revealing the latest efforts of the Egyptian Ministry of Interior (MoI) to curb Facebook-based pro-democracy and opposition activism in Egypt. According to Raoof, the MoI launched a new department on July 1, 2010 to monitor Facebook activists - something the MoI has been doing in numerous waves and ways since the threat of non-traditional 'New Media' became more obvious to the Egyptian regime.

The role played by so-called 'New Media' and 'Citizen Journalists' surfaced in the past few years, especially after the, arguably, successful organisation of the 6 April strike in 2008. Prior to the strike, bloggers and internet activists used blogs, social networking website Facebook, micro-blogging website Twitter and video-sharing website YouTube to reveal torture cases and other violations of human rights in Egypt.

2010 featured a new turn in internet activism when the murder of middle class Alexandrian entrepreneur Khalid Sa'id, 28, triggered a Facebook-based protest movement which quickly took to the streets and has been institutionalised in almost-weekly protests by a wide array of Egyptians from countless cities in Egypt and amongst the Egyptian diaspora. The fact that Khalid Sa'id was an "ordinary Egyptian" from a middle class background angered a segment of the population traditionally seen as tied to and acquiescent with the regime, hence, the significance of the "we are all Khalid Sa'id" movements which started on Facebook.

Raoof also draws attention to an alleged initiative by the National Democratic Party (NDP) and its followers amongst the youth to defend the ruling party, incumbent president Hosni Mubarak and his son Gamal.

Here's what Raoof wrote for Global Voices Online:

Egypt: Security Department to Monitor Facebook

On 1st July, 2010, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior (MOI) has reportedly established a special department to monitor Facebook activities and content in Egypt according to the administrative decision 765.

Based on the Kuwaiti newspaper Aljarida, this new MOI department works according to three shifts/8 hours each. Each shift is composed of 15 individuals: 2 police officers, 10 secretaries of police and 3 engineers. The main task of this group is to monitor Facebook content like groups, pages and chat and to publish reports countering online criticism of current Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak or his son Gamal.

An anonymous security source mentioned to Aljarida that Egyptian security authorities used to censor Facebook among other websites but the MOI paid special attention to Facebook in 2008 after the first call for 6 April Strike that was organized on Facebook.

The anonymous source mentioned to the newspaper that there are groups of paid young Egyptians from the National Democratic Party (NDP) youth, to defense the NDP and the government. According to the same source they have already created 166 Facebook group in support of president's son Gamal Mubarak and 38 other groups supporting his father, resident Hosni Mubarak.

In February 2010, the Egyptian digital advertising company Connect Ads announced to be the Facebook official representative for Middle East and North Africa and I wonder what is the current relation between the MOI department and Connect Ads, because at some point the MOI will need to collect personal information about the Facebook users in Egypt.

It will not be strange if a Facebook user faced a trial or get arrested based on his or her online activity in Egypt, like the trial taking place against Egyptian activists facing several charges, such as the misuse of world wide web.

The numbers of Facebook users in Egypt jumped to 3.8 million, according to a recent report by E-Marketing. Consequently, there is team of 45 members in Egypt who are monitoring the activities of these 3.8 million as well as the monitoring of e-mail.

Mourning Liberties in Lebanon: the army threatens journalists

2010-08-28T00:04:00.000-04:00

News from Lebanon, which prides itself as the region's leader in civil liberties and a hub of free expression and journalism, is once again indicative of a regression in freedom of expression. This time, the aggressor is the army - an institution around which much national unity and pride centres.

The army, whose performance in South Lebanon has been criticised for decades and its heavy-handed assault on the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr El-Bared was heavily condemned threatened Lebanese and foreign journalists of criticising it.

Bloggers, journalists and activists in Lebanon - to whom the threat is addressed - issued the following statement on the Facebook group and campaign "Mourning Liberties in Lebanon." Criticism of infringements on free expression by business tycoons, oligarchy-politicians and the army has been increasing on the social networking site since the establishment of the all-encompassing group/campaign "Insult and do not fear: No to the freedom-suppressing dictatorial regime in Lebanon."

The following statement was released by "mourners of liberties in Lebanon" on August 13, 2010.

إلى أصحاب النوايا الحسنة في لبنان

بعد المؤتمر الصحفي الذي عقده البارحة الوزير الياس المر وتصريحه الواضح بأن الجيش سيعتقل كل صحافي يكتب ضد الجيش،

نحن، مدونيين، صحفيين، وناشطي حقوق إنسان ندين عسكرة الأمة اللبنانية والتجاوز الخطير للسلطات القضائية، السلطة الوحيدة التي لديها الحق بأن تعتقل، تسائل، أو تعاقب أي إنسان على ارض لبنان،

ولذلك وإعتراضاً على تلك الإنتهاكات غير القانونية وغير الأخلاقية لحقوق الإنسان،

ندعو جميع الاشخاص ذوي الإرادة الحسنة للحداد لمدة ثلاثة أيام على الحريات في لبنان كعمل رمزي لادانة هذه المحاولة الخطيرة جدا لاستهداف حرياتنا،

ونعتقد أيضا بأن لكل فرد الحق في الدفاع عن نفسه ضد التشهير وخاصة الجيش اللبناني. ومع ذلك ، فاننا نرفض ان يأخذ الجيش حقه بيده،.

يبدأ الحداد اليوم الساعة الرابعة بعد الظهر بتوقيت بيروت ويستمر ثلاثة أيام حتى يوم الاحد في 15 أغسطس 2010 في الساعة الرابعة بعد الظهر أيضا

كما ندعوكم للمساهمة في هذا الحداد عن طريق إغلاق مدوناتكم الخاصة ووضع صور هنا

يمكنك أيضا المشاركة من خلال الانضمام إلى الإضراب عن الطعام والذي سيستمر لمدة 3 أيام (24 ساعة لكل شخص)

الرجاء تأكيد مشاركتكم من خلال الانضمام إلى المجموعة وإعلامنا بمشاركتكم

للإنضمام إلى صفحة الفايسبوك "حدادا على الحريات في لبنان"

Lebanon: arrests and accusations of "defaming the President" question Lebanon's commitment to freedom of expression

2010-08-09T11:02:00.001-04:00

Earlier today, I blogged about the alleged news of Saudi authorities' decision to dress up Blackberries in tiny Smartphone burqas (turns out its a hoax!). However, more importantly, I wrote of the increasing security worries amongst Middle Eastern, North African and South-Southeast Asian countries regarding Blackberry services and other Smartphones and mentioned how Lebanon - a country that prides itself as a "haven for freedom of expression" and other human rights - has recently been condemned for numerous actions believed to be restricting freedom of expression and the free flow of information.

This is old news, but its perhaps important to be reminded of this incident.

A few weeks ago, NowLebanon! reported a man, Ahmad Shuman, was arrested in Beirut Rafik Hariri International Airport and charged with defaming Lebanese President Michel Sleiman on Facebook. This was almost a month after the arrest of Naim George Hanna, 27, Antoine Youssef Ramia, 29, and Shebel Rajeh Qasab, 27, on similar charges: defaming Sleiman on Facebook.

Man arrested at Beirut airport for defaming Sleiman on Facebook (source)

July 27, 2010

Police arrested a man identified as Ahmad Shuman at the Beirut Rafik Hariri International Airport on Tuesday and charged him with defaming President Michel Sleiman on the social networking website Facebook, the National News Agency (NNA) reported.

Shuman had just arrived on a flight from Kiev, Ukraine and was taken to Roumieh Prison for questioning by Judge Ghassan Oweidat.

In June, Naim George Hanna, 27, Antoine Youssef Ramia, 29, and Shebel Rajeh Qasab, 27, were arrested after authorities interrogated them on charges of libel, slander and defamation against the president on Facebook.

-NOW Lebanon

Suspects interrogated for defaming Sleiman on Facebook

Three arrested for defaming Sleiman on Facebook

Defendants accused of Sleiman’s defamation released

Gulf states order Blackberry users to cover their phones in a tiny burqa

2010-08-09T08:03:00.000-04:00

I'm still not entirely sure whether this is a joke or for real, but NewsBiscuit had reported that Saudi and UAE authorities have ordered Blackberry users to cover their phones in a tiny Burqa. Ironically, the article claims that the tiny burqa might in fact result in poor reception - incidently, especially in burqa-phobic France and Belgium more than other countries.

This new hoax (perhaps) comes at a time when the two GCC countries, alongside Lebanon, start a new inquiry in the security aspect of Smartphone and Blackberry technology. The three Middle Eastern countries are all considering barring Blackberry emailing and instant messaging services over security concerns instigating US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's intervention on behalf of the investors and manufacturers of Blackberry and Smartphone technology.

India, Indonesia and Algeria are also "contemplating" barring Blackberry services in their countries.

Whereas Lebanon fears Blackberry Messaging Services (BBM) might be used by Israeli spies and operatives in Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia and GCC's Saudi Arabia and UAE are worried the technology might evolve into an uncontrollable terrorist communication networks. Imad Hoballah, chairman of Lebanon's telecommunications regulator, on the other hand, announced on Thursday his country's desire to assess concerns linked to Blackberry after the arrest of several telecoms employees suspected of spying for Israel.

Canada-based Research in Motion (RiM) is currently negotiating (or explaining) to authorities in these countries the potential of Smartphone technology and trying to convince them of the controllable nature of their threats. So far however, RiM has failed to address the concerns of the Saudi authorities who suspended Blackberry services as of Friday. In a conservative and highly-security conscious Saudi Arabia, a survey of 331 people found 178 opposed to the ban versus 153 in favour. For some Saudi businessmen, the ban means they can free to walk about with their Blackberries in public without the feeling that people are staring lustily at their multi-media applications. For others, it covers their "shame" for not owning an iPhone!

Many human rights activists and freedom of expression advocates however have a different take on the ban and the burqa. May of them, worry that barring Blackberry and other Smartphone technologies might in fact be part of the authorities attempts to limit the free flow of information and infringe on individuals' right to free expression.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE advertise themselves as prime business-friendly economies in the world. Lebanon on the other hand advertises itself as a safe haven for free expression, a liberal media and the free flow of information. Both Lebanon and its GCC peers have been heavily criticised in past months for new legislation and administrative measures believed to be restrictive of free expression.

Egypt's Hippy Movement!

2010-07-17T22:58:00.007-04:00

Osama Diab's assessment in the Guardian of why the current movements for change in Egypt will not produce results is because they are not "social" enough. He says they must be accompanied with a cultural component that transforms the basic morality and ethics of society from patriarchy, racism, misogyny, classism etc and uses the 1960s hippy movement as an example in the US. Despite my strong affinity for all things hippy, that is a serious leap of judgment and a flawed comparison. I'd rather wait until the next US presidential election to make sure the Palin Republicans haven't unseated Obama and co. before I conclude we've reaped any benefits (in the highest offices of political power) of the hippy movement 40 yrs ago.

Perhaps what Diab is describing is actually a movement in Egypt but of a different ilk? What is the likelihood that this youth cultural movement actually has a religious intonation and is currently taking the country by storm and inspiring dissidence rather than complacency? Lest we forget that even the Almighty Elbaradei can't get 10% of his desired signatures to change the Egyptian constitution without the Muslim Brotherhood's outreach among the youth. And yes they occasionally meet Diab's condition of having unique attire. They just may possess the sociocultural philosophy of precisely the revolutionary force that Diab seems to disregard for a utopian secular alternative.

Diab needs to understand that modest goals for dissidents in Egypt are milestones in the US he is so swift to compare. To scandalize the state's policy of police brutality alone and create an organic movement to unrelentingly confront it for weeks is actually a milestone on the road to social justice, not unlike that of the symbolic stand of Rosa Parks. Diab should not continue to gauge the success of these movements by whether they create radical change. And as far as the impact on social and cultural identification in Egypt, the immense popularity of their campaigns is a testament.

In fact, Diab got it all wrong!! The "hippy" revolution is already here! Unkept, Bango-smoking, torn-pants-wearing, sexually-expressive (judging from the things men say to women on Cairo streets), trash-dwelling, and occasionally barefoot Egyptian youth in the ever-so-trendy galabeyas are now the majority! After reading this article, I am optimistic that 40 years from now we will have a smog-free spotless Egypt ruled by a Bahai woman president who'll dutifully disbands the military and subsidize cannabis over the ever-so-scarce and overrated wheat crop.

Traditional media overlooks post-traditional demonstrations

2010-07-01T06:24:00.007-04:00

Ben Wedeman, CNN's senior correspondent in Jerusalem reporting on the demonstration protesting Alexandrian Khalid Sa'id's murder at the hands of two plain-clothed police agents. The protest which took place after Friday prayer at Khalid's local mosque in Sidi Gaber attracted much attention owing to the participation of Nobel laureate and pro-democracy figurehead Mohammed El-Baradei, better known as former IAEA head.

CNN has given the pro-democracy movement in Egypt little air time - even today as Wedeman reports from Sidi Gaber, there is no mention of the thousands who wore black, faced the Nile or the Mediterranean and gave their backs to Egypt in a silent show of protest, disgust and dismay at the regime and police brutality for the second Friday in a row - an initiative started on the "We are all Khalid Sa'id" Facebook group. This Friday, eyewitnesses, journalists and bloggers reported, tens of thousands took part in the silent demonstration all over Egypt: Cairo, Alexandria, Mansoura, Monoufiya, Dumiyat, Ras El-Barr, Suez, Ismailia, Port Said, Assiyut, Bani Suweyf, Fayyoum and other locations. Egyptians abroad also took part in the show of solidarity and protest raising banners, flags and dressed in black in Dubai, Mecca, Paris and elsewhere. This, CNN decided, wasn't too worthy of its airtime.

Another CNN report, viewable only in Europe, also reported on last Friday's demonstration - again, focusing almost exclusively on the protest patronised by the presence of opposition figure, Nobel Prize laureate and ex-IAEA director Mohammed El-Baradei and ignored the public disobedience demonstrations that have taken place in more than a dozen Egyptian cities and amongst the Egyptian diaspora, the video is still censored in Egypt for some reason.

[This article first appeared on "Reflections of a Nomad" on June 25, 2010]

«مبارك.مصر» : the first non-Latin web address launched by Mubarak in Maadi

2010-07-01T06:15:00.002-04:00

Yes, as patronising as it sounds: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak kicks starts a new phase in the digital revolution.

On 23 May 2010, I blogged questioning whether the cyberspace is a space for the marginalised voices or not. Back then, The Egyptian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology had announced that it'll launch the first-ever website to register a domain web address in non-Latin characters (i.e. Arabic) and is to replace the internet country code (.eg) with its Arabic equivalent (مصر.).

Now bear with me because this does cause confusion: a non-Latin website is one thing, and a non-Latin web address or web domain is another.

But yesterday, and on the sidelines of inaugurating the first phase of the Cairo Contact Center Part (IT Industrial Zone) in Maadi, President Mubarak announced the launch of his new website, «مبارك.مصر» which has become the first non-Latin web address. The ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Dr. Ahmad Nazif and Minister of Communications and Information Technology Dr. Tarek Kamel.

The idea of de-Romanising the internet gained momentum almost a decade with the ascend of non-Latin world languages - especially those using the Arabic and Chinese scripts.

Paradoxically, the Arabisation of the internet and the blogosphere emerged as a civil society initiative to allow more access to non-English users and give voice to the otherwise-marginalised voices in remote parts of the Arab world or the indeed in the less educated classes. Examples of such initiatives included the launch of katib.org which was the first non-Latin equivalent to blogspot.com and blogger.com offering Arab bloggers with little or no English access to the blogosphere.

Nevertheless, yesterday, the first-even non-Latin web address was inaugurated by the President of Egypt, a country where the state's commitment to freedom of expression and the free flow of information is very much under question.

This article first appeared on "Reflections of a Nomad" on June 21, 2010.

Obama leaves the Arab governments behind, reaches out to publics

2010-06-16T04:50:00.006-04:00

In the opening salvo of a conference held in Alexandria, Egypt to discuss the future of US-Muslim relations, it appears obvious the American and Arab governments do not see eye-to-eye on how to proceed. In an unusual display of dismay at a purely diplomatic occasion, the spokesperson for the Arab League reprimanded the US administration and the Ambassador in Cairo for not responding to Arab government demands and for intentionally ousting Arab regimes from major interfaith and dialogic events such as the Entrepreneurship Summit in Washington DC some weeks ago. It appears the Americans are investing their time in the publics rather than governments and pulling the carpet from underneath them given their fragile nature and their inability to represent their own people.

The conference featured speeches from US President Obama, Dr. Ismail Serageldin (Director of the Biblioteca Alexandrina) under the rubric of an event entitled "Initiatives in Education, Science and Culture: Towards Enhanced US-Muslim Countries Collaborations" which comes one year after Obama's Speech to the Muslim World from Cairo.

It appears that the qualms most Arabs and Muslims have with the United States differ depending on whether they are citizens or governments. And this might be the wedge that the Obama administration wishes to capitalize on for its longterm wellbeing. As the rifts grow between American and Arab government visions of progress, the prior appear to have taken strides ahead and left the latter to eat their dust as the US pulls a fast one and tries to outperform the Arab states at engaging their own citizens.

More Freedom Flotilla viewpoints?

2010-06-08T00:51:00.004-04:00

After all of the flotilla madness, accusations of activists using violence first, and Israel attacking in international waters and editing the tapes, here is what seems to be a totally factual, first-hand account of one of the events.

The event has unleashed a media frenzy and initiated massive information and disinformation campaigns from the Israeli government to manage the image of its operations and the viability of its sanctions, siege and blockade policy on Gaza.

The End of Al-Hurra?

2010-05-18T06:25:00.011-04:00

I am amazed at the perseverance of bad ideas and the resilience of those who birth them. Many of the failed policies and horrific debacles of the Bush administration have either been publicly condemned by the Obamacons (at least to save face!) or reversed entirely. More the prior than the latter of course. This is evidenced by the current administration's inability to curb a profuse hemorrhage of dollars in initiatives, projects, excursions, and wars that have proven either faultily-conceived or drastically-executed. From the Iraq war to the Guantanamo detention center to the Patriot Act to the NSA wiretapping to unlawful interrogations and extraordinary rendition etc etc, spending continues on campaigns that are leading nowhere. Nowhere is this nowhere more evident than the hundreds of millions spent on America's cliched-yet-endearingly-titled "War for Hearts and Minds" in the Arabic-speaking world. The satellite broadcaster Al-Hurra ("The Free One") was conceived as a counter-narrative to Al-Jazeera and other networks in the Arab world that were deemed hostile to US national interests in the region and beyond.

More than six years since its conception, it is about time to reconsider its reach, impact and whether it has accomplished its prescribed goals. The station first went to air on Valentine's day 2004 at the height of the Iraq War and since then it has been no honeymoon for a "Not-So-Free One." So far, it has already cost Congress more than half a billion dollars. And as far as viewership, Al-Hurra fairs worse than its regional competitors. When the logic for starting the station was questioned in 2003, the response was always "we at least need a horse in the race." At this point it appears Congress didn't purchase a raging buck (as even the station's promo suggests) that can compete for the triple crown, but rather an emaciated nag whose fate was sealed before taking its place at the start gate. There are many reasons for the station's inherent disadvantage that may not be opportune to discuss here. But rather what I am interested in is the complete obliviousness or disinterest in the negative feedback the station is getting.

Since its inception, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have railed one criticism after the next on the station but to no avail. Many an expert on the region has echoed the point that the station hasn't even made the most modest of upticks in US favorability among Arabs. Media scholars who are unable to study the station because of the prohibitive Smith-Mundt Act which prevents the station from airing or being rebroadcast in the US are left with little news let along good news to report. And the few surveys of viewership from the Arab world show the station with no more than 2% of the audience share compared to its arch-nemesis Al-Jazeera with 53% (Zogby and University of Maryland).

It seems neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations feel inclined to take such a radical decision as retiring this exhausted racehorse and take it out of its misery. And while neither government has answered their own reviewers, the studies from the field, or the opinions of experts and academics, there may be one estate that may hold some hope--the American press.

In last week's Arab Media Forum in Dubai, Joe Conason of the New York Observer, sat on a panel to assess the so-called "Al-Jazeera Effect," the English-language station, and the reverse public diplomacy from the Arab world to the west where he realized from the discussion among the hundreds of Arab media executives, editors, journalists etc that Al-Hurra was nowhere to be found in this landscape. Until more Conasons witness this reality and begin using the American press and media to push for greater accountability and an overhaul of the strategy, there seems little chance for change. At this point, there needs to be some self-reflection and a realization that America's horse continues to run alone, hyperventilating around the track when the race has already come to an end and the bleachers have emptied.

Diplomacy Through the Arts: Qatari Company Aims to Promote Understanding of Islam Through Silver Screen Mohammed Epic

2010-05-08T20:43:00.006-04:00

Alnoor Holdings, a Qatar-based film company, aim to counteract negative stereotypes about Islam by producing this grand historical epic, going straight to the source of the faith, narrating the life of Prophet Mohammed. Through the arts and through film, a mode that can potentially reach millions, they aim to help mediate non-Muslims' understanding of Islam and alter their public opinion of Muslims and the faith. We see how new media are enabling groups of people like Muslims, to be their own agents in influencing the way in which others view/perceive them.

It may be a well-intentioned step in a positive direction for cultural diplomacy, but how effective will the film and its message be?
The estimated budget of the film is around $150 million. Barrie Osborne, veteran producer of films including "The Matrix" and "The Lord of the Rings" is on board for this project. Still in pre-production, many Muslims worldwide are already skeptical of the film's portrayal of the faith as well as its effectiveness to a diverse audience. In adherence to Islamic belief, meticulous calculations will be made to ensure that no image nor auditory representation of Mohammed will be presented on film. Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar is set to lead a group of Islamic scholars in researching the content and checking for accuracy.

AlJazeera English's Riz Khan discusses "Islam in Hollywood:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AFe6BqCWbU

Crushing innovation - censorship or network neutrality

2010-04-28T20:21:00.002-04:00

The Arab world is making strides in the telecommunication sector with reasonable offerings for their citizens. In many countries there are multiple ISPs to choose from and at least two mobile telephone operators as well. While the situation is better in countries like Jordan where the have privatized telecom industries, nations like the UAE that are taking a more regulated approach are still doing fairly well - although lacking the level of competition needed for real growth and benefit.

While there is systematic censorship of websites across some Arab states, the blocked sites are political, pornographic or anti-religion in nature and therefore makeup a small segment. This sort of censorship may not be "free" in the idealized sense it but does not inhibit innovation or growth of Internet based industries. Therefore, censorship or the threat of it is hiding the real reason the Arab world is being held back - non-neutral networks.

ISPs in the region discriminate Internet traffic as they see fit:

Throttle regular traffic everyday traffic
Throttle (and essentially disable) P2P traffic
Low data caps
No oversight or testing of quality

In Jordan, certain ISPs "offer" unlimited downloads and no throttling between midnight and morning. Internet entrepreneurs in the country dubbed this "innovation insomnia", because reversing their sleep schedule was the only way they could truly work uninhibited on the Internet, download large files, access cloud services and most importantly - make mistakes and try new things which are at the core of creativity.

When you are limited to 12 gigabytes of downloads a month and want to grab the latest Ubuntu release you will definitely be doing it at midnight. Many users go as far as shutting down their network connection when they are not explicitly using it in fear that the operating system may download large security patches in the background (which counts against the cap).

Some ISPs have implemented plans which allow users to pay for more download cap space from their mobile phones, but what does this accomplish? The rich can create new products and services while the average person cannot. It is paradoxical in that the Internet is the great enabler of the masses, the leveling field for all to compete. Now everyone can begin a business with little or no cost. Well, everyone except in the Middle East.

Arab telecom policy needs to go to version 2.0. Governments need to intervene to ensure their citizens can create new industries and jobs via the telecom infrastructure of the nation. As long as networks are not neutral then they will do what is best for their bottom line which is to keep things in the status quo and the cash cow coming in. Telecom policy 2.0 in the region must take into account that cloud computing is the paradigm of the future, and this requires fast Internet access. How can you possibly have a 12 GB download cap when you have a DropBox account with 2 GBs of your files? It is beyond being incompatible, it is a matter of mathematical constraint!

There are many innovative minds in the region and some have created great services which are leveraged by many around the world but isn't it odd that a video sharing sight from Egypt is more easily accessible in the United States than its native country? It doesn't make any sense and neither does the status quo. I invite your suggestions, thoughts and stories...

Obesity in Qatar

2010-04-27T10:50:00.004-04:00

I thought this article in the New York Times on obesity in Qatar was interesting.

It notes how in Arab culture, social occasions are focused on bringing people together with food, and if you do not eat it is considered an insult, which leads to obesity and other health problems.

As for the statistics, the article notes that Qatar has the highest obesity rate of young men in the Middle East and North Africa region, and ranks 6th globally in the prevalence of obesity. Mmmm McDonalds and globalization... looks like the U.S. is "corrupting" the Middle East in another way!

The Producers: Audience as Actors

2010-04-26T14:49:00.006-04:00

The seventh Arab Media Forum (AMF) began yesterday in Kuwait City. This year’s theme: Media, Technology, and Communication.

In his opening remarks the Kuwaiti Minister of Oil and of Information, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah declared that the role of media is not only to supply information, but also includes social responsibilities. Al-Sabah calls on media networks to be responsible to the audience, and to demonstrate the contextual objectivity that best serves the collective understanding of the community.

AMF chairman, Mathi Al-Khamis, commented on the expansion of new communication technology and the potential impact of Arab media organizations hold in the realms of new and social media: “We found ourselves, whether willingly or not, forced to take part in this new world, and we need to learn how to influence it.”

And some have.

Rotana Group Chairman, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, was just awarded the CEO of the Year in the Media Sector 2010 Award in Riyadh. But what of those who lack such funding? Does contemporary media play into the social structures that favor the elite, trapped in a Western hegemonic discourse dominated by glitz and glamour? Or is there a space of influence whereby the blogger, tweeter, and Internet-obsessed teen have the same level of access and ability to disseminate information?

In a world where access to Internet is power, and those who lack access are marginalized into further fragmented societies, once again, we hear the call for producers—not merely consumers—of knowledge.

Public Diplomacy in Second Life

2010-04-24T16:59:00.003-04:00

Earlier this week at the CCT symposium on the "Crowd and the Cloud" at Georgetown University a representative from the State Department talked about Public Diplomacy initiatives in the cloud and specifically on Second Life.

Some examples of their current initiatives in the Arab world:

A live stream of Obama's speech to the Muslim world available in a forum for Second Lifers to come watch and discuss.
Virtual meetings with Ambassadors and other US officials in virtual town halls
Initiatives between universities on architecture and design

They have published a video as a summary of their initiatives, it is definitely worth a watch.

Is this a more affective form of diplomacy or will it simply be dismissed as a game? Currently, the majority of people think this cannot be taken seriously - but that view does not appear to coincide with the growth of places like Second Life and World of Warcraft. Virtual worlds are a place where people earn money (real and virtual), invest time, and most importantly build relationships - all of which increase trust - which is one of the main goals of any diplomatic effort.

Will the Middle East respond to this cyber-diplomacy with some of their own or better, will they one-up them by having a virtual Al-Jazeera talk show on Second Life?

Transliteration Services

2010-04-24T10:03:00.010-04:00

English to Arabic transliteration engines have been popping up all over the Internet in the past year. The first to market and most used is Yamli, who opened up the world of Arabic script to many Arabs living outside of the Middle East. For these individuals of Arab descent many type in Arablish (easier to say than Engabic) to communicate with family and friends all over the world. Yamli was able to fit a nitch market of people who do not always have access to an Arabic keyboard and who may be more productive typing in the Arablish that they have been using for years. In its basic offering, Yamli is not doing any translation, it is interpreting what Arabic script the author wants. So if I type in "khth" a "خذ" appears, if I type "5th" then "خذ" appears again. A little confusing? Watch this video of Microsoft's Maren offering and then come back to us.

What this does is simple, but what type of communication does it now facilitate that did not exist before? While native Arabic speakers and those using Arablish could communicate it was tedious, imperfect, and the messages lost some of their power when appearing in a non-Arabic script. If first and second generation Arabs born outside of the Middle East start using these tools they can reach the native speakers in their own tongue, but what if the recipients don't like the message they are now receiving? As you lower the cost of communications (time) then you usually see an increase in that enabled communication flow. It will be interesting to see what happens as this new direction of information is opened, and these "Western-Arabs" start blogging in Arabic. Perhaps both sides will yearn for the days that they discussed Hummus and Amr Diab, not economics and politics.

New report on satellite media from CIMA

2010-04-14T10:35:00.004-04:00

The Center for International Media Assistance over at the National Endowment for Democracy has posted a report on satellite media developments in the Arab World. While much of this information will not necessarily be shocking for anyone who follows Arab media, this report is laudable for its thoroughness in covering the media scene - a great primer for anyone that wants background on where things stand today. Go ahead, read it. I'll wait:

http://cima.ned.org/reports/shifting-sands-the-impact-of-satellite-tv-on-media-in-the-arab-world.html

If you fancy yourself already an expert, skip to the recommendations for policy-makers. While generally I think that if you have to make recommendations you could probably do worse than these suggestions, the first two are fairly problematic: micro-funding for 'innovative journalists', and producing a funded news or discussion hour on an already popular network.

Funding journalists to execute good ideas sounds like a great practice, in theory - but in reality if you have someone who is actually being paid by the Americans, any credibility he may have goes *poof*. While I'm not saying that you should "launder" American funding, it would probably be wiser to encourage the formation of third parties or companies that can fund such innovation. I'm not necessarily a "let the private sector figure things out" person, but in this case the toxic effect of US money is too great, I think, to be effective.

Sponsoring a program on a popular network is also a good idea in theory - although the first step will be to admit that al-Hurra is pretty much a waste of money (although I hear it's more popular in Iraq?). There you have another problem. Do you think al-Jazeera is really going to say: "this next hour presented commercial free, thanks to the sponsorship of the US Dept. of State"? I doubt it. Then again you have the credibility problem.

I realize that this raises a troublesome problem: how do you engage in public diplomacy (which I agree needs to be done) and support media development, while still allowing those outlets to maintain credibility? Anyone want to tackle that question? I bet there's a job at State waiting for you if you can...

US Public Diplomacy gets a Cultural Facelift!

2010-04-12T15:42:00.008-04:00

At a time when Washington, DC is under lockdown for the Nuclear Security Summit, the discussion behind the scenes revolves around building public consensus across boundaries through mediated outreach for the purpose of intercultural communication and exchange. In some instances, this consensus takes the form of sanctions against Iran in other instances it is justifying support for despotic regimes. In a period of 4 hours today and in two locates in the city, debates about how cultural diplomacy can be forged are brewing.

At Georgetown University, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts Bill Ivey opened the launch of a new edited volume "International Cultural Policies and Power" (Ed. JP Singh) by comparing how Cold War broadcasting is no longer a model to follow. He expressed the manner in which culture can serve as a resource to communicate an identity, a group or a nation-state.

There is hope that decentralization of creative and cultural production can show that the individual and the collective might be the new producers of content, previously the sole purview of the state. So the question becomes what is the state's capacity to subsume individual and collective creative productions and industries.

The answer comes from another event hosted by the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) which announced the launch for a high-budget second season of the reality television program "On the Road in America" (Layalina Productions) which brings together four Arab youth from various countries and backgrounds and takes them on a tour of America so as to showcase the country's breadth, diversity, openness, liberty and democracy. How much of this process--funded and sponsored by the state and executed by the private sector production companies--is authentic and constitutive of legitimate public cultural expression?

The case was also made for this kind of "cultural diplomacy" in the Georgetown session by former Ambassador Cynthia Schneider who advocates for a new generation of cultural diplomatic initiatives. This suggestion comes on the heels of an event she sponsored to showcase Pakistani Sufi rock musician Salman Ahmad who is a self-fashioned icon of cultural hybridity and intercultural tolerance, albeit in a cheesy fashion. By using artists such as Salman Ahmad, Schneider averts the most common problem--diplomacy missing easy cultural opportunities to advocate for the state. Rather than have art adorn the inside of US embassies, it should be moved to public display. The intent here is the depiction of the enormous breadth of America. Schneider talks about how in her capacity as Ambassador to the Netherlands she was tasked with selling "creative aerospace products" and laments why Ambassadors have not been tasked with leveraging US power through "cultural products" as well. Since to Schneider the line between culture and politics must be erased, she pitches the American Idol copycat "Afghan Star" which pushes the social boundaries as a platform for women, minorities, and exercised as a meritocracy. To what extent can protean and organic experiments in local and transnational expression be used to help promote the state and its national agenda? And is it ethical? Can the state actually utilize this form of cultural production without undermining authenticity of creative production? Can artists critical of the state such as musicians Mos Def, Lauryn Hill, the Roots, Banksy and others be appropriated by the government's international advocacy without hurting the legitimacy and credibility of the product and undermining the resistance narrative by hijacking the artistic message? In the case of "On the Road in America" what is the possibility that this approach renders true experience of intercultural engagement (including the migrant experience) artificial and theatrical?