Citizen Journalism by Josh Mull

[The following is cross-posted from Small World News]

Brian Conley on RocketBoom

John Yemma writes about the speech given last Thursday by Marty Baron, Boston Globe editor, in the CS Monitor “Editor’s blog” Connecting the Dots.

Mr. Baron raised the hopeful image of a “new era of entrepreneurship.” This very image has been raised before many times. The question we should concern ourselves with is of course, where will it lead?

The New York Times purchased the Boston Globe in 1993, at the time one of its top regional competitors, and one of the nation’s most acclaimed and profitable newspapers. Although analysts say its been losing money since then, and the Globe had a 10% circulation drop in a six month period in 2008, the question has to be asked yet again why this occurred?

I remember the Boston Globe being the only paper covering the 2000 Presidential Debates with the courage to clarify the fact that police officers were the first to use violence against demonstrators, which later escalated into something resembling a full-scale riot by the end of the evening. However, I can’t help feeling that the quality of the Globe’s coverage decreased dramatically from this highlight in 2000 until the present-day.

I also can’t help feeling that the cause of such a decrease is directly tied to the profit motive. There was a previous era of entrepreneurship, just after World War I, when journalism truly began to flourish. Unfortunately individuals such as William Hearst and others, the first media moguls, were the ones whose motives for an earlier version of “a million page views” led to the eventual situation we find ourselves in today.

But it wasn’t their profit motive alone, it was also our failure to recognize that although freedom of speech must be a vehemently defended right, where there is a tendency toward profit and a bottom-line motive, regulation is a necessity.

Had the New York Times been prevented from purchasing its rival the Boston Globe in 1993, and other similarly monopolistic moves throughout the US media industry, perhaps a new era of entrepreneurship might have flourished sooner, one that recognized if we wish to have honest, forthright, quality journalism, we need to protect, cultivate, and value journalism as something which should never have a primary directive of selling soap. Either we are in the pursuit of honest, informed journalism, or we are in the business of selling soap. I don’t believe it can be both.

Last week I started to imagine for you a new world of journalism. I’d like to continue that with a few questions,

What do you want to see from journalists and newsmakers in the future?

What do you desire most that’s not available in your news currently?

Would you pay a subscription fee to support journalism that mattered to you?

What if it provided you the ability to ask questions of those interviewed?

What if it enabled you to interact with the producers and subjects of content?

What else might convince you to pay to support journalism that matters to you?

______

Please comment below and reblog!

Popularity: 4% [?]

As you’ve probably heard through the usual channels, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has resigned in the face of impending impeachment charges. This is the first step, and a good one, toward reforming Pakistan’s political structure, but the security situation in Pakistan is still very dire. You have the Taliban civil war in the tribal regions, ever escalating tensions with their nuclear-armed foe India, and an internal power struggle with their own intelligence services over ties to jihadi groups. But for just a moment, we’re allowed to be at least satisfied that the brutal dictator, whose contemptible negelect led to the assasination of Benazir Bhutto, has finally stepped down.

The story is by now a cliche. For years, the Bush Administration has had a “Musharraf Policy” instead of a Pakistan policy. Even while US troops suffered withering insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, Musharraf was simultaneously cutting deals with the Taliban and American weapons manufacturers. When his power was threatened democratically, Musharraf declared a state of emergency, which Washington backed, and promptly gunned down his detractors in the streets and put his most powerful political opponents under house arrest. Most damning of all, Musharraf refused to give Benazir Bhutto adequate security and protection, all but handing her over to the jihadis for assasination. The fact that these same jihadis are trained and supported by Musharraf’s own intelligence services makes him doubly accountable.

But there is some small justice in this democratic process. Though weak, Pakistan’s parliament is exerting power and control. And best of all, Musharraf is denied the usual pomp and circumstance of a dictator falling. He won’t be made a farsical martyr like the sadist Saddam Hussein, and neither will he be the supernova flame-out of Benazir Bhutto. Instead he will suffer the same humiliating defeat that cruel and lousy democratic leaders have known for a long time: A peaceful transfer of power. No lights, no cameras, just Musharraf and his rotten destroyed reputation all alone to digest. The terrible murder of Bhutto should be enough to haunt his nightmares for years to come, and that’s just the beginning of a long, long rap sheet.

And hey, let’s not forget, the same thing will happen to Bush in just a few short years. That’s something the whole world can celebrate.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Popularity: 5% [?]

Under the Bush Administration, this country has pissed away all of its moral integrity and respect around the world. Thus any calls by Bush for restraint from Russia as it pummels the former Soviet province of Georgia ring rightfully hollow. As likely heirs to this smoldering empire, we in Obama’s new liberal base have an opportunity to show that we are not pragmatic usurpers capitalizing on the failure of George W Bush, but rather a base of clear moral leaders on the full spectrum of American policy. So far, this opportunity has been mostly squandered.

Iraq and a Hard Place

A lot of the conversation on the left regarding Georgia centers on the US invasion of Iraq. When Bush and McCain take the press conference stage and bitterly scold Russia for invading a sovereign country, the left sneers and, quite correctly, lambastes them for hypocrisy. What they fail to do is then pivot. First, go to one of the original and core messages of the new liberal base, that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake and should never have been attempted. Second, explain Iraq’s precise relevance to Georgia in that when we blow our military wad on ideological pipe dreams like Iraq, the US ties down one of its main tools of leverage against real threats to democracy, namely Putin’s Russia, among others. Along with the numbing loss of over 4,000 American lives and the catastrophic damage to our economy, the savage mishandling of our great military force should stand as the foundation of our opposition to the Bush and McCain policy of Middle East war mongering. Georgia is the perfect illustration of what happens when the most powerful democracy in the world misuses its military: Other democracies die. As liberals, we would never allow the US to become so distracted and negligent. This is how we must connect Georgia to Iraq.

Know Your Enemy

We all know the pitfalls of traditional media: bloviating opinionators, bite-sized information, the pervasiveness of corporate infotainment. Sometimes however, during extreme situations, such as the Burmese cyclone, election crises in Zimbabwe, we on the left forget our normal media inhibitions and go off furiously googling for any tiny source of information. The conflict in Georgia is no different. As soon as Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia, CNN instantly becomes again a credible source of news. The on-air employees with their laser-precise hair-dos and augmented breasts heaving stutter out breathless headlines about Russian aggression and almost seem to sexualize horrifying and disturbing images of burning and bloodied Georgian corpses. We liberals seem to forget that this is the same CNN that refused to show images of our soldiers in Iraq because they were “tasteless.” Next in our frantic googling we come across things like Russia Today. We echo endlessly their gracious YouTube contributions across our blogosphere, not understanding that this is the same Russian media that can be brutally gunned down in the street for daring to criticize the state. They report whatever Moscow tells them like a Russian FOX News and some on the left are completely oblivious, refusing to connect the dots. And this isn’t to say that even the media themselves are oblivious to misinformation. I saw ABC employees openly asking on the internet for any articles “around 1000 words” so they could quickly catch up on the Russia-Georgia conflict they were about to cover. This is a war between a nuclear superpower and a tiny western democracy and the good folks at ABC didn’t even know where to begin. Also you had infotainment demigod Larry King interviewing former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. As Larry flung softballs like “are you optimistic,” Gorbachev went down the line one by one listing the exact same talking points as Putin’s foreign minister. The soldiers are Russian Peacekeepers (wtf?), Georgia attacked Russia first, Georgia was involved in ethnic cleansing, and CNN ate it all up and shat it back out as “Breaking News.” This is unacceptable. Quality information and a clear understanding of the facts on the ground are absolutely crucial to making our arguments against conservatives regarding Georgia.

It’s Not All Groovy, Baby

Before President Clinton demolished the liberal base in the 1990’s, liberals were often smeared as new age hippy leftovers from the 60’s love generation. They’d say liberals have no limits, they’re for whatever feels good, man. Worse than that, they’d be painted as “Anti-War,” weaklings, afraid to use violence for fear of upsetting someone. Given that one of our core issues is opposition to the war in Iraq, and that we generally refer to any Iraq war opposition activities as “Anti-War,” we in the new liberal base are in very clear danger of falling prey to the very same political smears. The conflict in Georgia is the perfect opportunity for us to make crystal clear exactly what are limits are. We stand in opposition to distractions like Iraq, but we draw the line in the sand at dictatorships invading democracies, especially European ones. Even dense and backward newcomer democracies in the backwaters of the EU deserve the full and complete protection of the US military. While we liberals can indeed be quite open minded about things, Russians invading Europe is absolutely out of the question. This is our opportunity to make that explicitly clear.

So, what do you think? How can liberals best make their case vis a vis Russia and Georgia?

Popularity: 21% [?]

From TheRealNews:

Last year, when the time of renewing the United Nations mandate approached, Maliki cabinet and the Iraqi presidency went ahead and bypassed the Iraqi parliament, despite the fact that the parliament is the entity that has the exclusive constitutional authority over ratifying or approving the international treaties. This year, I think, the situation is different because the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution earlier this year, in May, stating that any United Nations renewal that doesn’t come back to the parliament is illegal and unconstitutional.

It may only be coincidence, but for the last few years, every time this particular vote comes up in the Iraqi parliament, talk of a coup against prime minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to peak. For instance, in 2006 after Maliki waivered before ratifying the UN mandate outside of the parliament’s authority, rumors began to circle that former regime elements might stage a coup. DemocracyNow had this:

I don’t think any of this could happen without American support, but I do know that there are a number of people inside the Baker commission, within the U.S. government, in the CIA and elsewhere, who are thinking about this. And just the other day, I spoke to Salah al-Mukhtar, who is a Baathist and former Iraqi official, who said that there are rumors all over Jordan that the CIA has been going around looking — the military going around looking for a general or two, who could take over in the event of a coup d’etat in Baghdad.

In August 2007, two months after Maliki passed on vetoing the parliament’s authority over international treaties, the rumors of a coup again burst into the open, even being speculated about on major cable news outlets. InformedComment offered this from private sources:

“There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]

The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.

The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure.

Could the surge in rumors of a coup actually be US pressure on Maliki? Why do the rumors only surface during controversies surrounding the UN mandate, as opposed to the countless other scandals and errors that plague Maliki on a daily basis? The most interesting thing to note about all of these rumors is that they are all supported by the US, either overtly or through the CIA. While it’s highly unlikely that the US is actually spending the time and money to shuttle around the middle east and train mini-Iraqi juntas, it’s almost certainly a signal to Maliki that his status as favored son of the US is not guaranteed forever.

It’s pretty clear, however, that this time the US will continue to attempt to push the UN mandate through the approval process secretively and away from the oversight of the Iraqi parliament, probably even without resorting to overtly pressuring Maliki. With rhetoric between Iran and the US at its current escalation point, the US wouldn’t dare subvert the Iraqi constitution with a coup given that it may send a dangerous message to Tehran, that nothing is sacred in the battle for control of Iraq. Even rumors of a US-backed coup may fatally destabilize Maliki’s Shiite coalition, some of whom would gladly side with Iran over yet another Sunni police state.

Unfortunately, that does not mean Maliki’s position is entirely safe. Concerning a coup, Maliki had this to say to McClatchy’s in August of this year:

MALIKI: This is a sick mentality, a hangover, from the Baathist era. The era of coups has departed. Rule was through security and military agencies, but now the people rule. Coups were the distinguishing character of rule in the country and the people were excluded from the process. Now no one has the capability or the power to pull off an overthrow in this country and those who travel to the capitals of the world begging for support are delusional. This country will see no more such overthrows. The only possible overthrow is from within the constitutional democratic establishment. And if it were to be achieved through the parliament and the democratic political establishment then I am happy and it is welcome. Indeed I would cheer it on because for the first time we would have effected change through political means and not by weapons and tanks.

FADEL: But can the parliament really agree on anything?

MALIKI: So, then the government is safe. (laughter)

Essentially what Maliki is saying is that the parliament doesn’t need a coup to get rid of Maliki. They only need the political will to throw him out of office using legitimate constitutional processes. It’s almost certain that any replacement would be nowhere near as compliant as Maliki, and given his results, it could prove disastrous for the US effort. Worse yet, any major destabilization of the central Iraqi government, even if it is a normal constitutional process, could prove fatal. If that happens, the freshly ethnically cleansed Iraq may no longer be able to contain its civil war, whether US troops are present or not.

Popularity: 2% [?]