Does the Western media impede media freedom in the countries that need it most?

The following is my (unsuccesful) entry into the UNESCO media freedom journalism competition:

By Andrew Webster

Western media can influence media freedom in other countries directly through their presence or indirectly through putting pressure on their own governments to lobby for change.

The extent to which western media organisations stick to the values of independence, impartiality and accuracy will determine how positive or negative their impact on media freedom across the world is.

In the past 15 years, western media’s presence in foreign countries has increased through 24 hour news channels and the internet. In the case of developing and dictatorial states the western model of media is often seen as something to aspire too.

Nicholas Jones, who was a BBC correspondent for thirty years, said: “The standards and political impartiality of public service broadcasting in the UK- and especially of course the BBC – do have a great impact in developing countries.”

But the influence of sensationalist and intrusive methods, as seen in UK’s tabloids, on editorial values in developing countries is a problem, said Jones.

“We must not lose sight of the fact that the lowering of editorial standards in the UK – which is something I am concerned about – does have an impact in developing countries which are building up their media industries,” he said.

Western Media: something to aspire to?
One place the influence of British journalism has been felt is Pakistan. Channels like the BBC and CNN have been viewed on increasingly large scale since the late 1990s and this has been something for Pakistani media to aspire to.

Saba Imtiaz, reporter for ‘The News International’, said: “Western mainstream news outlets have a large viewership in Pakistan and they often carry investigative news stories that propel the Pakistani media to follow up on them or carry stories by Pakistan’s political leadership that often ‘break’ news stories.”

But the same Pakistani journalists are worried about the perceptions of Pakistan that western media reinforces. Qaiser Mehmood, a journalist with 30 years of experience, said people are noticing that some western channels portray only what their governments want them to portray, which is considered biased against Pakistan.

He added, “If when reporting, you accuse the whole nation or whole population you create a negative perception in the mind of everyone.”

But it is difficult to be seen as impartial when reporting on issues concerning parties with different opinions, beliefs and agendas. A westerner working in the occupied West Bank, who asked not to be named, said an impartial organisation like the BBC is de-facto biased because of its even balanced reporting.

“To be biased regardless of the facts is to be biased to the more powerful party,” he said.

From this example, it is clear that western media can encourage media freedom in the countries that need it most by leading by example. But to do this they must ensure that they act impartially and maintain their high editorial standards. Although it is sometimes difficult to do this when operating in societies governed by certain political ideologies and agendas, it is essential that the western media stays true to values of impartiality and independence if they are to positively impact media freedom abroad.

Differing impact across the world
But in other areas where media freedom is needed, the impact of western media is questionable. The Israel, Palestine conflict is driven by an aggressive rhetoric through both sides’ media.

However western media in these countries is largely overlooked, meaning although it doesn’t impede media freedom, it doesn’t greatly help either.

Palestinian Omar Yasin, of Sharek Youth Forum in Ramallah, said: “The only people consuming western media are those who have lived abroad. The language plays a big role, as people can’t easily understand it.”

The BBC is also seen in the area as a few days behind so the information is already known before they report it. Mr Yasin said that Al-Jazeera was better at communicating things in a way people understand than western media.

It’s important to recognise that western media doesn’t have a huge influence in all of the countries it is present in, especially when there is a language barrier involved. However this doesn’t mean it can’t have an impact on media freedom in those countries.

Proactive Promotion of Media Freedom
Although Pakistani journalists acknowledge the improvements in media freedom in their country, they claim they are still subject to government and external pressures constraining their freedom.

Ms. Imtiaz said: “There is no protection for journalists covering high risk stories and there have been several direct attacks on the offices of media organisations that have either been orchestrated by the government or the government has turned a blind eye to them."

“Media freedom is still subject to the whims of those in power,” she said.

This was shown in November 2007 when President Musharraf called a State of Emergency and cut off all private news channels.

According to Ms. Imtiaz western media should champion the causes of media organisations, as too often they overlook media freedom violations so they can keep open communication with governments.

Numerous media freedom organisations are being formed independently to fill this role. The Doha Centre for Media Freedom, as well as directly supporting journalists, is trying to educate people on the issues.

During the recent attacks on the Gaza Strip, the Centre went to meet Arab and Israeli journalists involved. Their report said that a total media blackout was imposed on the Gaza strip for the duration of the war with the major Israeli newspapers content to go along with it.

Such a report can highlight the violations of media freedom to a global audience. But perhaps more effectively it can put media freedom on the global news agenda and pressure western media to take up the issues for themselves. If this happens, then there will be pressure on western governments to lobby for change in states that limit media freedom.

A media freedom centre with similar goals has been set up at the University of Sheffield, this time with the involvement of academia. Chair of the Centre, Professor Jackie Harrison said we are “dedicated to exposing ways in which news media freedom is abused and are committed to researching media standards of independence and truthfulness.”

On the whole western media have a positive impact on media freedom in other countries. However the extent of this impact is defined by how media organisations live their core journalistic values. With the rise of government PR machines across the western world, it is essential for journalists to get to the bottom of stories so they can hold their own governments accountable and educate people abroad.

The value of citizen journalism

The increasing influence of citizen journalism on mainstream media has been apparent to anyone who has seen a newspaper in the last week. Coverage of the G20 protests has been dominated by photos and videos of the scenes taken by the public.

This reached its pinnacle when the Guardian published a video showing newspaper salesman, Ian Tomlinson, being hit and pushed to the ground by a police officer shortly before he collapsed and died. The video was shot by an American fund manager visiting London.

The incident has triggered an investigation by the Police Complaints Commission and a second post mortem, because the first said Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes.

The citizen journalist has played a crucial role in highlighting this potential injustice and holding public services to account. Looked at in this light, the citizen journalist can reinforce the role and responsibilities of the media.

But if unquestioned, the citizen journalist can also mislead with the images and videos they take.

Watching the coverage of the protests it was difficult to make out who was actually protesting and who was there to take photos and capture the moment based on the sheer number of phones and cameras on show.

Speaking to a friend in London, he said it wasn’t that bad or that crowded despite the hype in the media beforehand.

It is becoming inherent in popular culture to record life through videos and photos and share them with lots of people on blogs and social networking sites.

Questions of the accuracy of video have always been around because they have a tendency to capture a snapshot of a far bigger event. However these questions need to be stronger now cameras are in the hands of so many and sensational content is in increasing demand.

As journalists, let’s welcome the greater interaction with the public to generate quality content. But let’s also remain vigilant in ensuring the content is reflective of what is actually happening in line with the values of impartiality and accuracy. Only then will citizen journalism and add and not retract from journalism.

Jacqui Smith and the adult films scandal: who cares?

Today the news broke that Jacqui Smith had claimed expenses for a number of pay per view films including ‘adult films’ (known to most of us as porn). She immediately apologised, claiming she accidently claimed the money thinking it was an internet bill.

The amount of the expense was £67, which seems so high for an internet bill that it would warrant checking before the claim was made. However thoughts like this have been brushed aside in the ‘Smith claims for husband’s porn’ scandal.

But this might be a good thing. It is clear that the level of scrutiny on MP expenses needs reviewing and this review is more likely to come from public pressure driven through the media.

It was refreshing to see Eric Pickles on Questiontime last week get hammered by the audience for his second home arrangements when he lives 37 miles outside of London.

But the problem with the current debate is that it’s too complicated. Many people aren’t aware of the expense rules for MPs or the time pressures on politicians like Eric. It is difficult to say what is fair and what is not. This means people can be engaged in the debate based on flimsy information or not engaged at all.

However when it comes to claiming tax payer money for adult movies then this is something easy to understand and has broad appeal amongst the electorate. It was interesting to see the BBC in its coverage cite the Sunday Express. I bet it’s not often the BBC use stories the Express break for their political news.

If I was working on the follow up story now, I would investigate smaller expenses further. How many extra costs accidently get slipped into ‘internet bills’ and the like across parliament? It’s like sticking an extra 15 minutes on the time sheet. If everyone does it, it can get accepted as part of the employment culture and that is a slippery slope.

Whatever though, let’s keep these stories focused on the human interest angle. How keen do you think people were to watch Jacqui Smith’s husband apologise today.

Online Campaigning - We've got a long way to go

I went to a seminar a few days ago where we looked at the Conservative Party and the Labour Party websites. It is not something I had done before, so I was shocked to see the gulf in quality between the two.

As much as it pains me to say it the Conservative homepage looks modern, up to date and professionally integrates social networking sites like facebook and twitter and multimedia technology such as embedded videos and blogs.

More impressive though is that much of the content is based on the users. There is a feature called the Conservastive wall which is a range of videos of Conservative supporters explaining what being a Tory means today. It shows the party realise that a modern website is more than just a page of information, but a platform for interaction between the party and the public.



The Labour site in comparison is wordy, poorly structured and the webpage is far too long. Whereas the Conservative homepage is a doorway for a lot of content, the Labour site is trying too hard to provide all of the content in one place.

Furthermore the way it has integrated videos is poor. If your finger doesn’t get too tired scrolling down the page and you do click on a video, you will be taken away from the website to YouTube. This is ridiculous, even I can embed a video. Look I will show you...





What did you think of the changing camera angles? Not what you would call slick is it? It's almost comical.

Also this homepage videos are months old. In comparison, on the Conservatives homepage there is a one minute video of David Cameron on a train to Birmingham. In it he talks about a speech he is going to make to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce in which he apologised for the party not recognising the causes of the credit crunch earlier. This was headline news a couple of days ago, and the video explains the party’s position in a succinct short sound bite.

An (old)Knight in Shining Armour

The motivations of Labour’s online approach became clearer when reading Toby Helm’s article, ‘Prescott reinvented as online campaigner’ in the Observer on Sunday.

The intro reads, “John Prescott has been chosen as the unlikely leader of Labour’s general election campaign on the internet, as the party prepares to launch a low-budget battle for a fourth term in government.”

So in the context of the vast majority of young(ish) people using interactive social websites to engage with the world every day, the Labour party see the benefit of online campaigning as cost cutting? Didn’t they watch the Obama campaign and the election of the first e-President?

This view is reinforced further in the story. Helm says:

“Labour which is struggling to pay off a deficit of about £20 million sees low cost internet campaigning as a cheap but effective way of to reach mass audiences.

“The party wants supporters to use its website to print off posters and leaflets, which they would then distribute to voters ahead of both June’s European elections and the general election, expected next spring.”

Is this the sound bite that signals Labour are mastering the online campaign? Printing off posters and leaflets?

At least Prescott has a better idea, which is evident from his blog. He says the party can build relationships with new voters through online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. But still, is he the best man to lead the online revolution? I think even Conservatives would agree that his content is entertaining, but that is not the basis for being a master strategist in online campaigning.





Thankfully, I’m not sure that a better website corresponds to thousands more votes. But what worries me most about this difference in approach is that is that it shows the Labour Party to be completely out of touch with the modern world and how people are communicating. I am not a Conservative, but if Labour are going to get my trust and attention they need to raise their game in this area significantly.

P.S I realise this blog is too long for an online post – I’m still learning too.

Politics: Leadership vs. Management

I started this blog by saying that I believe the paradigm of politics is changing. The essence of what politicians try to communicate, i.e. their political position, is becoming secondary to the way they communicate it and how this makes people feel.

I had a flippant conversation a couple of weeks ago, in which I suggested elections should be fought on the grounds of competence rather than ideological beliefs. It is difficult to predict the crisis’ a government will face in a term, so surely it is better to be led by people who are calm and collected under pressure and good at solving a problem?

With this in mind, I proposed general elections look more like a graduate recruitment assessment day than a forum for ideological debate. The public should watch live David Dimbleby give the proposed cabinet a task and then assess them on how they work together to complete it.

This should be followed by competency based interviews with questions such as ‘Describe a time you have persuaded a person to take a certain course of action’ and ‘Describe the biggest problem you have faced. What did you do to overcome the problem?’

The argument against
Matthew Paris, a conservative political columnist for the Times, prompted me to think of this in his article ‘Put away your mops and buckets’

Paris argues that politicians are becoming ‘glorified shop managers’ devoid of political position. They assume the big ideological questions are settled, the business of government is agreed and democratic politics is about who runs the business best.

To Paris this is negative. He says: “We want politics to be about more than wiping up spillages...We are looking for leadership dominated by a human mind, a unifying set of ideas, and the beat of a human heart.”

Despite my flippant comments about competency assessment, I do agree with Paris in principle. However in practice all too often the messages communicated do not correlate with the action being taken. Gordon Brown saying “British jobs for British workers” is a prime example. It’s a great sound bite underpinned by political principle, but in practice it’s an impossibility.

Paris describes politicians as ‘feeble managers’. But this is not acceptable. Someone with a vision and a set of unifying ideas needs the managerial skills to implement their vision effectively.
Otherwise the unifying ideas they preach are pointless and misleading.

The media shaping the agenda - The Guardian's 'Tax-Gap' series

The Guardian has been running a series of features under the name ‘Tax-Gap’ over the past couple of weeks. I have read a number of the articles which show how companies based in the UK are avoiding UK tax contributions by locating parts of their business, such as trademarks and brand names, in low duty countries such as Ireland, Switzerland and Holland.

The campaign has impressed me because the Guardian has actively put on the news agenda an issue that is of interest to the public especially in the current economic climate in which tax payers money is being used to stabilise the economy. But what power do the media have in prompting action by the government in relation to the issues it raises?

On the front of the Guardian on Thursday 19th February, nearly two weeks after the ‘Tax-Gap’ series started, the leading story was titled, “Brown targets Switzerland in global tax haven crackdown”. It reports that Gordon Brown has been negotiating with world leaders a tough regulatory system for tax and banking that will cover every country. The framework is likely to be discussed at the G20 summit in London in April, which Brown will chair.

It would be niave to say that Gordon Brown’s action is a direct result of the Guardian’s campaign or that it is just a coincidence that the story appears on the front page. However I think it is fair to say it makes a difference by putting the issue in the public realm and creating a feeling that this is something the public want addressed. The government will have been well aware of the Guardian’s campaign and the potential feelings the campaign invokes in the public.

This is where the media plays a vital role in holding government accountable in a way the average Joe never could. The homepage says: “[The series] has taken a team of specialists more than three months and involved checking scores of trademark registers and sets of company accounts in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.”

In the ‘Reaction to the tax-gap series’ page on the Guardian website one commenter says:

“What you are doing is what I feel is one of the primary reasons for papers to exist. Keep up the good work" Alan C Rollins, Tallahassee, Florida, 8 February

I would tend to agree.

Pressure from the Spin Doctor and the News Desk - A lecture with Michael White

Today I went to a lecture by Michael White, Assistant Poltical Editor for the Guardian. Michael has been with the Guardian for over 30 years and before that worked in local news.

He talked a lot about how the media had changed since he joined a newspaper and I wanted to highlight a couple of the things he said as they relate to the increasing influence political communication has in shaping the news agenda.

The first thing Michael said was that the media is now driven by market forces and by technological developments (new media).

1) The media is a hugely competitive market in which newspapers, broadcasters, news agencies and radio stations are competing to break stories first and provide the best and most sensational content.

2) Technological developments have transformed the speed and methods of reporting news. Rather than having 3 news bulletin a day people can keep up with what is happening 24/7 through the internet and television. Furthermore it is no longer acceptable to just do newspapers, or just do broadcasting. To compete in the news market you have to provide content through a variety of mediums.

What this has done is put pressure on reporters to deliver content that is better than their competitors’, in the quickest possible time.

In line with the increasing capability and competition within the media, spin doctors have emerged to try and influence political news. It is now a battle between the media and the spin merchants to control the news agenda.

Michael made this point by saying, you have the spin doctor on one phone, and you have the news desk on the other phone both putting on pressure. It means you don’t get the privilege and space to develop your own ideas as much anymore.

What this does is leave journalists continually questioning themselves,

Am I wrong or are they wrong?

Am I seeing what I think I am seeing, or am I seeing what I am told I am seeing?

What was also interesting was that he said, when referring to Westminster politics: “The chamber is empty but Abingdale Green is full.” (The green outside Parliament where camera crews do interviews etc). It seems that just as much political work is done outside of parliament as it is done inside these days.

Multi-media journalism seems like a cut throat world when thought of like this - Keep on top of the technology and be hungry for the competition is the advice I took!