Tweeting the Arab Spring: The Dangers of Optimism

I attended a fascinating discussion yesterday at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto.

It was called "Tweeting the Arab Spring." And three young journalists who are part of this new media expression spoke to a standing-room only crowd.

Moderated by one of Canada's most experienced and thoughtful foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart of CBC TV News, the panel consisted of Sarah Abdurrahman, a Libyan American producer for NPR/WNYC’s "On the Media". Sarah is described as "a key player in the worldwide effort to disseminate news from Libya and connect the Arab diaspora." 

Jill York is a columnist for Al Jazeera English and Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation based in San Francisco. 

And Sonia Verma is a print reporter with the Toronto Globe and Mail who has been providing powerful reporting on the ground from Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya.

All had amazing stories to tell about how new media in general, and twitter in particular have been used to pinpoint stories, to identify locations where demonstrations would occur and to give a level of participation from English-speaking demonstrators that would have been impossible only a few years ago. Reporters have been tweeting regularly to find people who can help them tell the stories with more clarity and power. Arab tweeter are eager to connect with western reporters.

Ms. Abdurrahman was the youngest of the three young women there. Interestingly, she was the most skeptical about the value of tweets in reporting. But as she explained, the clarity of the communication couple with the urgency of events allowed her and the others on the panel to have access to a journalistic experience that is not as easily available for other more conventional reporters with cameras and microphones.

All agreed that there are dangers inherent in this process. First, there is the sophistication of the still functioning regimes. Chinese technology has been sold to the governments in order to identify tweeters and facebookers. Syrian and Moroccan authorities are jailing cyber-activists and demanding they reveal their passwords under threat of torture for them and their families. This is a tough neighborhood, and the stakes remain incredibly high.

While it was impossible not to admire these journalists for their courage and sense of the story, it occurred to me that they all expressed tremendous optimism about the future of the region.

Unstated (and unasked by anyone in the audience) was the historical parallel with previous revolutions and the eagerness of western media to anticipate the best of all outcomes. 

Specifically, Iran. 

Many western journalists were eager to embrace the fall of the Shah and to contrast him, in western media terms, with the Ayatollah Khomeini. The former as a vain and corrupt despot and the latter as a colorful if somewhat severe leader who at least was surrounded by deeply democratic and liberal progressive advisors such as Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and Shapour Bakhtiar. Their moderating effect was short-lived, as were they. 

That's not to say that the outcome of the Arab Spring is doomed to end in a frenzy of theocratic repression as did previous efforts at reform in the region. But, as Ms. Abdurrahman told me afterward, the demonstrations in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak were far from spontaneous. Young Egyptians and other North Africans spent years in Europe, learning the craft of internet communication and organizing tactics. And clearly, they learned their lessons well.

But she added, the Muslim Brotherhood is better organized and they have been waiting even longer than the young cyber-rebels...waiting for the right time to make their move.

Western media might do well to keep a skeptical and a historical eye on events as enormous change rolls across the region. 

Where Next for Ombudsmanship?

With the annual conference in a very rainy Montreal ended, now we have a chance to assess where the Organization of News Ombudsmen is heading.

First, to acknowledge a very solid conference, and thanks to Radio-Canada/CBC and the Canadian Journalism Foundation for their support. ONO had a good turnout of members including newly appointed ombudsmen from Mexico, Switzerland and elsewhere.

Second, there was a sense that the value of ombudsmanship is more vital than ever for the one simple fact that in an increasingly complicated and distracted media environment, an ombudsman is the person who is able to see the issues with clarity and uses that perspective to engage the audience.

We in ONO know that. How can that value be communicated more effectively to media management?

ONO simply hasn't the resources right now to launch a comprehensive survey with the credentials to prove its value. But as we discovered over the past year, there are a number of academics who are devoting their energies to analyzing news ombudsmanship.

Professor Flavia Pauwels at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina contacted us and through her, another ten Latin American ombudsmen joined ONO. We are grateful to Prof. Pauwels for her help and now we need to find others in the academy who are similarly committed.

In that region, an independent news ombudsman is an increasingly important guarantor of independent media - which in turn is an essential component of democracy.

In developing countries this is ombudsmanship's most powerful value. In North America and Europe where so-called media criticism is looking increasingly like media censorship, the ombudsman is a counterweight to that distressing and growing tendency.

The idea of ombudsmanship needs to change and expand along with the nature of modern media.

I proposed that ONO allow for more public engagement and support for this organization. It was not an idea that the non-Americans leaped on with enthusiasm. But my own thinking - influenced as it is by my time with public radio in the US - is heading toward the idea of asking the public to become members of ONO.

This is what news ombudsmen do best - relate and connect to the public. They do that from the confines of their own media organizations. Why not continue that from ONO's vantage point?

Ethics Guides for Management?

The conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen has begun in Montreal.

At an opening reception last night, we heard words of welcome from two of the top managers from Radio-Canada and CBC, cosponsors of the conference.

Sylvain LaFrance from Radio-Canada is the VP of French services. He spoke about the importance of ombudsmen and the public broadcaster's commitment to the office.

Esther Enkin is the Executive Editor of CBC News. She spoke about how the CBC has, under her leadership, re-written and trained more than 1000 CBC journalists, bringing them up to date on how broadcast and online journalism must now be practiced. She has visited stations, used webinars and in consultation with the offices of the ombudsmen (English and French), done a thorough updating. The approach was - and is - impressive.

One question posed to her caught some of the dilemma of her situation. It came from Michael Getler, the ombudsman from PBS and former ombudsman and senior editor at the Washington Post.

Getler asked if management is also part of the training, or is the burden of ethical excellence entirely on the journalists?

I sensed she preferred not to answer that one. Instead she spoke about how the board of the CBC had given their approval for what she is doing, and while the occasional manager might sit in, there is no requirement for the top brass at the CBC to be part of this process.

This is a problem for Esther Enkin and the CBC.

Senior management may give their blessing to ethics training, but in a corporate culture of cuts to news budgets and more news on the cheap (aka crime reporting) in pursuit of a downmarket agenda, means that CBC may be ethically pure but still stuck doing the same mass market journalism practiced elsewhere.

And all the ethics training in Canada won't make the CBC a better public broadcaster until that changes. 

Canadian Election Results: Who's Tory Now?

As the CBC's city hall reporter in Montreal in the 1970s, we media types were absolutely convinced that Mayor Jean Drapeau who we considered a reactionary ward heeler, would finally be defeated by a ragtag group (yes, a coalition) of unionists, Quebec separatists, ex-journalists and anglophone progressives known as the Montreal Citizens Movement (MCM).

Drapeau, who served as mayor for an astonishing 29 years, would not be denied.

Even though not one Montreal newspaper had endorsed him, the 1978 election saw him roar back to power with the MCM winning only two out of 52 wards.

On election night the press was corralled behind a rope in the foyer of the baroque city hall.

Drapeau stepped up to a riser and glowering at us hacks he intoned, "Vox Populi,Vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God).

We were being classically chastised for our hubris and wishful thinking.

In 2011, the same admonition can be applied by Stephen Harper's Conservative Party to the pollsters and to the journalists who love them.

The polls all said that it looks like a Conservative minority government.
     - Wrong. It's a majority.

The polls said the Liberals would be reduced.
     - Wrong. They have been relegated to third place.

The polls said the Bloc Quebecois would be reduced to a smaller presence. 
      - Wrong. The BQ is down to two seats and has lost its status as a party in the next Parliament.

The polls said that the NDP would do somewhat better than before.
     - Correct. They are now the official opposition with more than 100 seats.

So how did the media get caught? In fairness to the pollsters, they were only indicating voter intention, not seats won or lost. But the media drew the conclusion that Canadians would not - COULD NOT - give Harper his majority. He might come close but still have a hung Parliament.
     - Wrong again.

Pollsters and the media need to do some soul-searching about why they weren't more cautious. "We need to go back and do some work to find out what went wrong, but nobody has the resources to do this," pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research told the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Say what? If pollsters don't have the money to do this properly, why are we listening to them at all?

Media organizations have also been whittled down to a shadow of their former selves. They need to reassess their approach to coverage.

My sense was that while they followed the leaders, few media organizations did much systematic reporting at the local level. They needed to get off the bus. But pack journalism ruled this campaign. Claims by the leaders were rarely tested. Bellwether ridings (as Canadian electoral districts are called) were not regularly visited by reporters to check out voter intention.

Nor did social media seem able to get past the shared assumptions. Tweets and facebook pages were in a similar echo chamber to mainstream media.

Until news organizations get back to more shoe leather reporting, and wean themselves from their jones about polling, political reporting will remain stalled, easily manipulated and prey to self-delusions.

In which case reporters will just assume the role of stenographers. Which suits the parties just fine...