Archive for October, 2007

Philanthropists paying for investigative journalism

Monday, October 15th, 2007

Who will pay for the really expensive journalism like in-depth investigations when many news organisations are cutting back on budgets? The New York Times brings the news about one solution to the who pays-question. Super-rich philanthropists will fund a complete investigative journalism team that will give away their work to the media:

The nonprofit group, called ProPublica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations.

(via Center for Citizen Media).

Just fish?

Monday, October 15th, 2007

23719993_c814dc14b3.jpg

It’s Blog Action Day for the environment today. With all the buzz about the climate, there’s always the risk that one or two other catastrophes will be forgotten. So what about, for example, the immense damage to the marine ecosystem that trawlers do? Biology professor John S. Gray has been talking about this for years to anyone that would listen. When I interviewed him in 1995 he pointed out that dramatic oil spills generate enormous media attention, but that other human activities are much more damaging to the marine environment: increasing population in coastal areas bring construction booms, coral reefs are destroyed, forests cut down and wetlands filled. The fishing industry contributes with its ever bigger and more efficient trawlers. It’s sad, but typical that a story from january this year where Gray is quoted is almost exactly, word by word, the same as my 12 years old story, (which probably wasn’t very original, either), and even published by the same news agency.

(Photo by Haakon Hansen, Creative Commons license ).

Why democracy? Here’s why

Monday, October 15th, 2007

“Why Democracy? Because we deserve justice.” Wrote Sokwanele today.

It’s deja vu: At conferences and in other settings where democracy, free speech, the media etc are discussed, it’s so healthy to put people from different continents and countries side by side. Typically a participant from a Western country will lament the erosion of democracy and standards of journalism, the commercialisation of the media. All important enough. Then someone from China, Russia, Thailand or any other country where freedom of the press must be fought for and defended every day, often with bitter defeat, will just talk about their experiences — and the perspective changes completely (another example, in Norwegian). When you happen to be in a place where democracy does not exist, or if you have experienced that condition, that’s when you can write like Sokwanele. Or like Ory Okolloh:

You couldn’t dare criticise the President or the government – the repercussions were harsh and most of Kenya’s intelligentsia went into exile. But the activists perserved and slowly change came to Kenya, culminating in the historic 2002 elections when Kenyans finally said “No” to Moi and his appointed successor. Today, I have free! I can write and say what I want about the government or the President without fear. I can work on projects that shine a spotlight on the performance of Kenyan politicians without a shred of concern about my safety. I have a plethora of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and TV stations where I can obtain information. Hell, I can surf the net freely. It’s easy to take these freedoms for granted once you have them…the events in Myanmar have reminded me to appreciate them and to not take democracy for granted.

Surfing becomes zapping

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

A friend told me he uses Reddit much as he used his television (before he got rid of it): as a remote control, zapping from story to story as from channel to channel. When you think of it, as the media and the audience/users become more and more web-centric, it is inevitable that our previous habits migrate to the web, but mutate in the process (this must be old news for those spending a lot of time at video sites, but still). Reddit zapping is also a way to reinvent the serendipity of newspapers. And it works! Look what I just found! Another indicator of the web becoming more entertaining as well as analytic and serious is examples like this one from the indispensable Freakonomics blog, about The economics of gold-digging. The comments are half the fun (as at Wonkette’s.)

Noe for NRK en vakker dag

Friday, October 12th, 2007

Denne uken lanserte Spiegel Online sitt nye store samtidshistoriske prosjekt einestages. Her presenteres daglig artikler om historiske emner, og publikum inviteres til å bidra. Dette kan gjøres på ulike måter. Et fast innslag er “Bilde søker historie”, hvor publikum kan hjelpe til med å identifisere personer på et foto. Registrerte brukere kan laste opp bilder og tekst. Det er også kommentarmulighet. Man går her forsiktig til verks: ingenting publiseres før redaksjonen har gått gjennom det. Denne forsinkelsen tar vekk spontanitet, men det er kanskje ikke så avgjørende for et slikt prosjekt.

Historien gjøres også aktuell: I forbindelse med fredspristildelingen i dag er det publisert en sak om graving i Nobelkomiteens arkiver.

Spiegel har fått med seg tunge partnere på prosjektet. Det tyske statsarkivet Bundesarchiv og flere andre.

Det er her overskriften kommer inn i bildet. Et tilsvarende prosjekt kunne vært nøkkelen til endelig å få åpnet NRKs radio- og TV-arkiver. I en allianse med statlige og private aktører kunne NRK ta ledelsen og presentere et norsk “einestages” (som altså kan oversettes med “en vakker dag”, “en gang” og lignende). Et av problemene i dag er mangel på finansiering, spesielt av digitalisering av TV-arkivet. NRK har ikke lyst til å bruke av lisenspengene. I tillegg kommer nok at man ser for seg at det kan være økonomisk gevinst å hente i å selge arkivmaterialet istedenfor å gjøre det tilgjengelig. Uansett årsak er minimalt av det allerede for en stor del digitaliserte radioarkivet åpent tilgjengelig ennå (men det lille som er, er ofte fantastisk — se tidligere innlegg der eksempler nevnes).

Et norsk einestages kunne altså gjøre mange ting for NRK: Det kunne utløse (noe av) den manglende finansieringen av arkivdigitalisering og tilgjengeliggjøring, det kunne utløse stor publikumsaktivitet og styrke NRKs omdømme som nasjonsbygger og unik kulturinstitusjon. Faktisk en strategi ganske i tråd med den medieforsker Graham Murdock har anbefalt allmennkringkastere å satse på.

(via Netzeitung).

The end of “democracy”?

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

“Democracy” should be banned – the word, that is. That’s the recommendation from Edward Lucas at Economist.com (the comment is also published at Lucas’ blog). The reason: “democracy” is misused, anyway:

If Vladimir Putin of Russia describes himself as a “perfect democrat”, he is welcome to the term, along with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and those nostalgic for the German “Democratic” Republic. Democracy all too often means buying votes, rigging elections and mob rule.

Instead of “democracy”, Lucas suggests that we use “law-governed”, “free” and “public-spirited”. He ends up with Karl Popper’s “open society” as a good candidate for a term that covers the kind of society he wants to describe.

Worth pondering. Maybe with a compilation of democracy definitions in mind.

(Originally published on the Why democracy website.)

Understanding linking

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

Re my earlier post about news websites inviting the readers to participate: there is another way that is used far too little – the automatic linking of external blog entries from news stories. I’ve seen this before on US websites, and several Swedish news websites offers it today. See example from Dagens Nyheter — the links to bloggers referring to the article appear under the heading “Bloggat om artikeln”.

There are several advantages to this system. People who take the trouble of creating and updating their own blogs may be more inclined to comment under their full name and comment constructively. News websites attract more attention from blogs and give something back to them via the links. So this is also a way for websites to show that they understand the function and power of the link. As Jeff Jarvis says:

It is the key architectural element supporting a new structure of media, the steel beam that enables journalism to build past prior physical limitations, to grow taller, wider, and stronger than before. Just recently, I have heard confusion from working journalists about the role of the link. They still think it is an endorsement rather than an extension or an FYI. They don’t always understand how links power the algorithms that organize knowledge today, and how links are the basis of media distribution from now on.

(I found the Jarvis link via Kristine Løwe.)

Originally published on the Why democracy website.

How to support dissidents

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

Organisations and initiatives like Reporters Without Borders and Global Voices Advocacy are doing excellent work promoting freedom of expression and helping the cause of journalists and citizens who are persecuted (as are the bigger and more well-known Amnesty, Human Rights Watch etc).

Supporting dissidents may be more important than ever – because it is more dangerous than ever to speak out against repressive regimes. German editor Joachim Widmann makes this point in an essay published this week (in Norwegian), one year after Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered in Moscow (disclosure: I commissioned the article as editor of the Norwegian magazine Vox Publica. Die Zeit Online has published the original German text.) Widmann compares the situation for dissidents during the Cold War and today. People like Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov and Robert Havemann could count on the media and citizens in the West for support and continous attention. The media knew how to portray the dissidents as brave heroes for freedom. The public supported them by buying their books. The news from the West crept back behind the iron curtain and made it difficult for the Communist authorities to silence the critics.

But today, the fronts aren’t so well defined. There is no clash of consistent ideologies. Stories about dissidents drown in the noise of
the millions of voices on the Internet. It simply isn’t possible for the media to create the same kind of attention for and interest around the dissidents anymore, Widmann argues.

I hope he is wrong in this conclusion, but I’m not sure. It is probably too early to interpret the events in Burma over the past weeks in this context. On the one hand, there was a massive surge in interest and sympathy for the Burmese people in countries around the world. Here, the traditional media and “citizen media” seemed for a few days to cooperate perfectly in creating a heroic narrative. But can the mass public’s interest be sustained for more than a few intense days? And what about the dark side of the Internet – the possibility for authorities to track what citizens do and then hunt them down afterwards?

“We neglected to tell Politkovskaya’s story loudly and clearly and to bring it into the consciousness of the global public. In the end she was alone,” Widmann writes. We owe it to her to do more for those brave dissidents still alive. To identify methods that work in the post-Cold War, post-Old Media age is our common responsibility.

(Originally published on the Why democracy website.)

Corruption is poison

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

This past week only, the English version of Google News has registered over 34.000 news stories about corruption.

Democracies are by no means vaccinated against corruption. According to Transparency International, the Nordic countries rank among the least corrupt in the world. Still, corruption is seen as a growing problem and there have of course been high profile scandals in these countries as well.

Why do I think corruption is poison for society? Because it destroys trust — in democratic institutions, in business relationships, in civil society. And trust is needed in all these areas for a democracy to be healthy.

Corruption often happens where business meets government, for example when contracts are awarded or licenses granted. A civil servant can be bribed to look the other way, or a politician paid off to ensure the signing of a big contract. Look at it from an honest businesswoman’s perspective: if she has fought with legal weapons and then loses out because a competitor paid someone off, she’ll lose faith in the system. She might quit the entrepreneur project she tried to get off the ground. No wonder more corrupt societies are less innovative and poorer.

But this is about more than the economy. As a voter and citizen, if you believe elected politicians and bureaucrats can be bought, why should you bother to participate, to vote or even run for office yourself? It might be argued that rampant corruption has been a major factor in destroying democracy in Russia before it could take hold.

The few independent voices making themselves heard out of Russia these days, like Natalia Novozhilova, often point to a kind of apathy among the people as a result of years of economic and political corruption (Novozhilova is the winner of the 2007 prize from the Norwegian Freedom of Expression Foundation and the German Zeit Foundation).

I’ll just put it this way: It takes a very strong democracy to withstand the poison of corruption. What about weak democracies or
societies on the threshold between dictatorship and democracy (there are many of those around today)? How can corruption be fought there? Could the fight against corruption be a catalyst for democracy? What do you think?

(Originally published on the Why democracy website.)

Democracy blogger for a day

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

I’m a guest blogger at the Why Democracy? blog today. If you’re interested, have a look at my posts and check out all the other material there.