Media in the Middle East

Until just recently, I wasn't at all very informed about the media situation in the Middle East. Although freedoms are extremely restricted to Western standards, (as always) I have hope! There are great things happening in technology all of the time. The onset of the blog has been amazing for communication. In the article, The New Arab Conversation, ordinary people who are experiencing war can reveal what it's like from the inside. People are embracing the idea of civic journalism and feeling a call to duty of informing and communicating with others. Governments may control much of the media and use it for their own propaganda but amazingly people can find a way around that and have a voice. The problem is that internet access in many Middle East countries is still severely limited. But I believe it will only take time. The article, Musharraf's Monster, shows that independent television is trying to take a stand and make changes. New, young leaders are generally more open to freedom of speech which is promising. Examples like Dubai and the Al-Jazeera media phenomenon are examples of what I see as an inescapable advancement thanks to globalization and the movement of ideas. How long can governments keep control of these institutions before they start "biting the hand that feeds them?"

All Things Journalism

The journal article Terrorism, Global Journalism, and the Myth of the Nation State, pretty much sums up what we've been talking about as of late. They are the "should be goals" of all reporters. The four objectives stated by Deni Elliott are:
1) News reporting that is independent of governmental agendas and public sentiments.
2) Investigative skills and a keen ability to look where others are not pointing.
3) Reliance on "old news" to give day-to-day stories context.
4) Patriotic rather than nationalistic reporting.
Elliott brings up some great points about terrorism and borders being dissolved and all of the problems we're facing today....but what else is new? These have been the endeavors of journalists (as long as I have been alive) since the beginning haven't they?
I did like the explanation of Nationalistic vs. Patriotic journalism although it makes sense and is somewhat common knowledge (like all of Elliott's points). But the hard part is the reason that these things are still being talked about are that...they're difficult! Reporting things that look bad for the government or big business can ruin a journalist, it's the right thing but a hard thing. It is scary though how, without the clarification and the investigation of journalists, the government could pretty much lie to our faces or confuse us as citizens! (such as the connection of 9/11 with Iraq) I like to think of the media as almost another "check and balance" for governments to keep an eye on. As for the Hobbes' "solid borders theory" and global journalism...our world has changed so that we're connected enough and borders have dissolved so much through the movement of people and cultures and information that we can't just be part of a single nation anymore. We're part of a global community. We as journalists have a duty to the citizens of the world. Happiness and safety are universal rights...universal things that transverse borders and cultures and rules of foreign governments. I guess that's why I want to be a journalist. If I don't feel a call to this duty, to help my global community find truth, who will?

Teach for America or Peace Corps? Who needs more help?

Both the Peace Corps and Teach for America do great things. The question is whether to help at home or abroad? The answer is easy for me. We have great school systems and a great economy (compared to many in the world) but there are still problems and poverty in the U.S. but when juxtaposed against the rest of the world...we are extremely privileged on the whole. I would choose to join the Peace Corps. My heart breaks for others who battle disease, poverty, starvation and political unrest and corruption is other parts of the world. I'm not saying individual people don't matter and that I'm leaving my homeland to fend for itself, it's just that overall...others just need more help. I feel a duty not only to my country but to the global community and to humanity.

Spiky or Flat?

All of the readings regarding the economy, politics, globalization, and technology (as well as other various topics) acted in almost a mental battle royale as to the current situation of the global community. I found the arguments very interesting to read when contrasted against one another. Friedman's "The World is Flat," seemed more of an optimistic look at the current and future economic situation. I'm entirely an optimist, or at least I try to be, but I can't help to be influenced by reality creeping in. Friedman's idea that the economic capabilities and potential of regions all over the globe are catching up to one another. He uses the argument that expanding technology and "connectedness" are helping to lessen the gaps between the have's and have not's of the global community. I found Ghemawat's and Florida's rebuttals to be unfortunately, but realisitically more along the lines of truth. Although the internet is becoming more widespread, people often don't reach out and connect with people from other countries and instead stay connected within their neighborhood or country. In addition, those being connected and those becoming economically successful are places that are very few but far between. Many countries still have restrictions on internet access or are so intrenched in problems like Malaria, AIDS, starvation, and pollution that technology and becoming a world economic power is far from reach or seemingly lifetimes away. In "The World is Spiky," Florida contends that the areas of high economic productivity and innovation may be spread out across the map but are concentrated in small areas, more specifically in the West. As these cities and regions become more successful and advance, it increases the gap and leaves the vast majority of regions in their economic dust.

NWICO and Development Journalism

I for one, am all about giving a voice to the voiceless and getting the messages of the less fortunate out into the world. I could only hope for the equitable and two-way flow and content of information but the hard part is getting there. The NWICO is a generally great idea...conceptually and ideally. The hard part is how to get the LDC's to the point where they can produce media and continue a flow of information that will equal the Western world. How do you implement a system or set of rules in a country where media is an extra; dessert if you will? When many countries have to deal with problems like famine, disease, lack of resources, and corrupt government, there may be a need for free and prolific media and the telling of their problems and stories but how? LDC's could use government money and have a government sponsored media outlet but there's no way that it wouldn't have some sort of agenda and usurp the very core idea of a true communication and flow of information instead of propaganda. So where will the money come from then? If American money were to sponsor it, there would be an agenda as well (we never really do charity without an agenda...sad and pessimistic maybe but true). Foreign correspondents are a step in the right direction but still need purifying to rid the information coming out of them of a Western focused filter and truly speak for the people. However, with the declining number of foreign correspondents...things are looking more grim by the minute. There are so many questions to answer in this issue that I'm at a loss. Where can the LDC's get the money for a media infrastructure and working free press without government propaganda? How can the U.S. and Western world help without colonialising? It's frustrating to think about but it needs to get figured out...I can only imagine what we would learn if the people of LDC's truly had a global voice.