Non-hierarchical news gathering the new wave sweeping journalism ?

In an interesting discussion, which brought together the stalwarts of journalism in Washington DC, as well as some member of other new media, several issues were discussed – including, but not limited to the Arab “social media revolutions”, the democratisation of news across the Middle East and also questions of access. The keynote speaker at the event, organised by Washington DC based International Center for Journalists was Riz Khan, the celebrity anchor at Al-Jazeera, the news network, which has caught everyone’s imagination.

Khan started off by saying that one of the keys to the success of Al-Jazeera has been its presence on ground in all the Arab countries where revolutions have taken place, and also to be open to non-traditional means of news gathering and also being open to ideas from the public. “This is the democratization of media. There is a batte of the Old school vs new school going on as far as i can see. We are faced with questions such as, whether blogging a valid way of gathering news. This idea has driven what has happened in the Middle East,” he pointed out.

I reproduce some of the questions and answers that were part of the discussion. The participants include, Riz khan, Mona Eltahawy, well-known blogger and Jeff Ghanem, media commentator.

Q : What is the twitter revolution, does it deserve the attention that it is getting ?

Riz : If it hadn’t been for the mechanisms, i don’t think the traditional media would have caught onto the dynamic on the ground. For sure, the social media added momentum to the whole process.

Mona : Twitter, FB were essential, and one of many tools in changing the consciousness of young people, who were the dissidents. By this, I mean, a platform to vent out their frustrations. The youth realised that they count, and their lives had value and they could make a change. This was the reaction on the Arab street. Social media didn’t invent courage. For decades, they were trying to do this, but it was social media  that connected all these people.
Jeff : I find that by calling it a Facebook ( FB)  and twitter revolution, we must look at the motivations of the people. You cant credit FB . Would these have succeeded ? Yes, because  of demographics, courage. The MENA region is made of vast number of marginalized, disposed young people. 50% of the entire population of some of the countries is  youth.

Natasha : Citizen journalists should get credit here.  I disagree with many of the points here. I will give credit to the Social media. Let me quote a personal anecdote as an example. In 1991, during the First Gulf war, there were rumors that Saddam’s pic was on the moon. We all believed it. Facts were not checked and corrected. And i remember that in school, people talked about it all the time.

Tunisian veg. seller- inspired the whole revolution in many respects. International pressure caused the whole movement to take the form and shape that it did. Actually, we must give more credit to them.

Q: Is this the age, where there will be an over-flow of info, and that it will be self-correcting?

Riz : I think information flow is much easier these days and there is  less hierarchy. In the old days, when i worked at BBC, balance was important. How interviews were supposed to be conducted was clearly defined. It is a bit different these days, with more horizontal modes of information flow. I believe there is a self-correcting mechanism in social media. If someone posts something incorrect on their Facebook, someone would correct them in no time.

Natasha : I believe some journalists also made big mistakes during the entire period. They took sides and did not report. They did their own commentaries.

Riz khan : It is funny that each era has its own challenges and i am faced with similar questions. During my stint at BBC, I had to defend the  BBC –it was seen as a British imperial project.  I think journos should leave their opinion out. The trouble is, channels have become very commentary based. Al-Jazeera tries to balance opinion, but provides a very clear Middle Eastern perspective to issues, which is fresh and original.

The panel went on to discuss issues related to the image of Muslims across the world and how the Arab revolutions may change it. While many of the speakers agreed that this was not about Islam, nor about Israel or about the USA, the mood was clearly that of Arab solidarity and one of the emergence of a new intellectual discourse in the Middle East. A new language has to be invented to talk about the Middle East these days, Mona pointed out.

The discussion ended on a high note, with a reception, attended by well over 300 people. Among those present, included the veteran journalist Helen Thomas.

Battle of intelligence vs intellect

While investigating the role of spoilers in the Middle East peace process, I started off with the rather objective and fair assumption that the lobbies in Washington DC are skewed positively in one direction. That is to say, the Israeli lobbies are so powerful and influential that they dominate the discourse on the issue and set the agenda.

From the time of president Truman, this has been a trend which has continued unabated. There is enough proof both historically and even in present day American politics to demonstrate that this is true. While it is perfectly rational to consider that there is also an Arab lobby, my intelligence told me that this is virtually non-existent. A cursory glance at the media in American mainstream shows that the Palestinian perspective is virtually non-existent, and the context of the creation of Israel is totally ignored, if at all acknowledged ( Pens and Swords, Dunsky).

Though there is a book called the “Arab lobby” by a certain Mitchell Bard, it seems to talk about non-core issues such as Academic influence of Arabs and the oil lobby. The political ramifications of the same are not examined at all.

My intellect tells me that perhaps there is a small grain of truth to this argument, and one should not dismiss it, if one is claiming to be fair and objective. So, i will investigate this further and try to inform my intelligence.

In the meanwhile, it is a battle of intelligence vs intellect. I am curious to see which one wins.

Discussion with Daniel Bar Tal, Middle East peace talks and the Israeli public

Dr Daneil Bar Tal, Branco Weiss Professor of Research in Child Development and Education at School of Education, Tel Aviv University visited Maxwell School of Syracuse university last week for a  two day lecture tour, during which he spoke with us, during a moderated panel discussion.I got to spend quality time with him, talking to him about the issue of Middle East peace and learnt from him, among other things, the latest in the field of conflict studies as well as his insights into what works and what doesnt.
Here are some key points from the discussion and also a few Q&As from the moderated session that took place later :
On spoilers in the Middle East peace process : We are all spoilers to some extent, in that there are no “sacred goals” that we adhere to in peace processes. Sometimes these are flexible, especially in intractable conflicts. When we analyse the rhetoric used by settlers ( Israeli) about moving settlements, there is no reference to economic losses, but usually only about symbolic issues. That the land belongs to the Jews alone, since the time of King David. The rhetoric is intentionally kept at this symbolic level, and not played out at the rational level. Jerusalem wasn’t really an issue in the Middle East peace talks until the 90s’, when it was used against Shimon Peres as an election issue.
On peace making : This may sound counter-intuitive, but moving towards peace usually means moving towards uncertainty, simply because no two parties can absolutely guarantee that the peace will last. Once both parties have signed on the dotted line, they commit themselves to living by it, but there are spoilers out there, who are going to try and scuttle the process. This places the onus of responsibility on the parties involved; and this is not an enviable position to be in.
So, given a choice between a peace treaty that does not guarantee peace ( and relies on trusting the perceived enemy) and having one’s peace by not agreeing to peace, the Israelis are choosing the former.
On Intifada : The real intifada really started in 1994, when an Israeli jewish settler opened fire at muslims praying at a mosque in Hebron. In this incident, several dozen people were killed, and this led to the uprising as we know it, later. The seeds of discord were sown then.
We also realise through our research that people are biased and have distorted views of how they want to remember events. The first intifada actually began with massive killings of Palestinians, and the first suicide attack took place as late as March 2001.
On leadership : We need a leader who is organised, has the determination, and is in a situation to deliver peace. Rabin seemed to be in that situation,but was assisinated. Security has always been an obsession with the Israeli government, despite the government in power. Though the labor party believes in Security through Peace, other parties believe in security through land. A new line of leadership or a new sociological framework will shift the dialogue.
On the 1967 war : Until then, the religious element in Israeli society was latent, but post the war, it became increasingly important, and war was seen as a way of redemption.
On the Israeli/ Jewish diaspora : They function as  a very well oiled machine, and the US house of representatives at times is more hawkish than the Israeli Knesset. There are many perceived similarities between Israel and the USA which have made the relationship so unique, and people have worked hard to maintain it that way.

On the younger Israelis : They are more hawkish than the older generation. We have seen the Green zone, and are aware of the suffering we went through, while the younger generation havent had any direct experience. In theory, most Israelis accept the notion of a two-state solution, but it is the specifics that create a problem. Opinion polls indicate that 65% of the Israelis believe that Jerusalem should not be divided.
On peace education : One of my biggest lessons learnt is that peace education is a long-term process. You sow to reap 10 years or more later. If you are looking for immediate returns, you will be disappointed. I was personally involved in re-looking at the way our history is taught in Israel, and through a very high chaired committee involving the ministry of education, oversaw this project. The irony of it all is that the person incharge of the theme for the year of education was a settler, and extremely hawkish; which made our task difficult.
Soloman Gabriel is  a researcher who has carried out evalution work on the effectiveness of peace education and he has reached the conclusion that peace education is not very effective in the short-run.
On societal change : It is not an easy process, nor is it quick. Imagine trying to change a southerner in the USA to be a secular person. Would that be an easy process ?
On the fundamental problem in achieving peace : I would say it is people who wear ideological glasses, they dont want to look at alternative information which challenges their world-view. They will interpret any information provided to them in a manner which suits them. This is our biggest challenge.

Hello world!

Hello All,

This is my second  attempt at serious blogging, the first one resulted in a failure. Well, not really. I do write at, but not with the seriousness and regularity that i would like to. Signing up for Digital Democracy, a course at Syracuse University has pushed me to start this blog, which i hope to be more regular with.

Watch out this space for exciting stuff about digital democracy, political activism, Middle East politics and democracy and other relevant stuff.