AL JAZEERA ENGLISH: AN EXAMPLE OF MEDIA DIPLOMACY IN A BROADCASTING 2.0 ERA

International broadcasting and new media technologies have always played a key role in the public democracy and the development of events around the globe. Thus, the Cold War led to an increasing international broadcasting system, as both communist and non-communist states attempted to influence each other's domestic population.

More recently, the standards set by CNN in 1991 for the Gulf War television reporting with its global news-flow and its live coverage triggered a booming “fight” between major broadcasting companies to take over the flow of worldwide events, furthermore during times of conflict.

This prevailing one-way (North to South) model of information and the exposure to the main English-language TV channels dominating the international broadcasting system has resulted not only in a poor cross-cultural communication, but also in the creation of hard-line cultural and social stereotypes about the commonly referred to “the others”.

At the same time, how to bridge the existing gap between news-gathering and the audience has also become a main issue in the era of the so called “citizen journalism”. If this breakthrough happens to provide a new direction in the global discourse through the new media platforms, we will be in front of a riveting test case.

Al Jazeera English (AJE) represents this challenge.

“Giving voice to the voiceless” through media diplomacy
“Giving voice to the voiceless” reflects AJE's news agenda. This motto is also part of a large criticism aimed towards western news organizations and the North to South direction they have approached the news-gathering in the 20th century.

AJE´s reporting follows the principle that it is time for there to be a media fostering the cross-culture dialogue, for Africans to speak in Asia, for Arabs to talk to the west and for Asians to communicate with Africans. This represents a new dimension of global media and a challenge to the way news worldwide organizations have been addressing their information.

AJE has filled a gap becoming a vehicle for public and cultural diplomacy, offering other nations-states to project their voice, their policies and their representations of events in the global sphere, or shall we say “Anglo-sphere”.

Since the broadcast language is English, AJE has also allowed migrants, who find it hard to maintain the mother tongue after a few generations, to create a sense of nationhood in the distance.

At the same time, there is also a diplomatic aspect in it. The launch of Al Jazeera Arabic (AJA) in 1996, funded by a Qatari emir, put this small country on the map and part of the credibility it has as a regional diplomatic leader comes from the visibility AJA provides it with. In the same way, AJE could be argued as trying to reach the same objective on a global scale. Let's take as an example its apply for an Olympic bid in 2020 or to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022.

This demonstrates a more ambitious international agenda portraying the image of a country can come alongside a big investment in the news sector.

Bridging the gap between audience and news-gathering
Reporting is getting tougher and more dangerous, especially during a conflict or in a war zone. However it has been in the last decade when the media attention on this issue has seriously increased.

Coming up with a good story does not only depend on the professional skills of the reporter. It should not be very surprising to see how the traditional journalists are embracing potential citizen journalists to avoid censorship, intimidation or the restrictions imposed by the authorities of the country they are reporting from.

Hence when the pressure on professional reporters becomes so hard to deal with, there is an important role for public participation. Although difficult and complicated in many cases, relying on normal citizens has become the only way of getting around the lack of sources. As long as the broadcaster is completely transparent about where the material comes from we should not see any problem with it.

To make the audience participate actively in the communication process made its first appearance on AJA´s stage early on in 1996. At that time they launched the first political newsroom allowing an audience from the Arab world to call and present the Prime Minister of an Arabian country with questions.

This mentality has been in AJA programming since then and has also been featured in AJE. The embracement of this new trend should be deemed as a great chance to foster public interactivity between the audience and its politicians. However we are dealing with societies whose sense of political government is not exactly shared by the west and that have indeed turned democracy into a dynastic or monarchic regime, which in most of cases is handed down. Therefore this new trend of telling the news might not be a genuine attempt to get citizens to contribute to the news as much as it could be a way to make their “popularity” grow.


The Gaza conflict: The beginning of Broadcasting 2.0
The Gaza conflict was a turning point for AJE since they felt it could be their “cold war”. This is an analogy used to explain how CNN capitalized in 1991 the Golf War to become a global network among the eyes of everyone else.

During the Gaza squabble AJE has come to show how empowering a channel´s participatory culture will become a big challenge for news organizations in the future and how crucial is the role of multimedia.

AJE was one of the very few western English news speaking organizations to have their journalists and cameras rolling round the clock inside Gaza. In terms of credibility, it was also the moment when the American audience tuned into this channel, with an audience increase of over 600%. Whether this big jump will result in a consistent and loyal audience in the future, it is yet to be revealed.

Never before have citizens in Palestine and Gaza been so involved in the communication process like they have been in this conflict. AJE actively asked them to contribute to the news-gathering using their mobile phones, their Flip cameras, internet or twitter to integrate them into the mainstream reporting on the issue.

Events in Gaza were also the starting point for AJ Network to make some of its Arabic and English quality video footage freely available online for sharing and reuse by viewers and TV stations across the world.
The film clips were licensed under Creative Commons, the non-profit sharing system designed to protect creators' work online, and posted for use on the Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository site.
It was the very first time a broadcaster news network had ever released quality video under a very permissive licence. Since AJE was one of the few news channel in Gaza with English speaking journalists capturing all that was going on, they could have made some profit of it selling it to other news organizations. However, they made a profound statement where the market rules took a second place and the importance of information prevailed.

AJE´s new blogging network is another step that demonstrates this news channel has come further. Written by an extensive network of correspondents The Al Jazeera Blogs provide real information also licensed under one of Creative Common´s licences. This strong emphasis on field journalism cannot but provide the reader with a real sense of insight and in depth coverage.
These are only but a few pushes to make their content more accessible and to get it out there through all existing channels. Without any kind of doubt, these are important steps that could be drawn by future broadcasting networks.

Leaps and Bounds
AJE has come on leaps and bounds since it first started.
Thanks to an ambitious online strategy, it has won over new audiences in America and elsewhere. Despite the post-9/11 criticism AJA received for showing al Qaeda videos and the Bush administration’s calling in the early days of the “War On Terror”, the use of multimedia is convincing more people, although slowly, that it is a credible news organization.
The Gaza conflict showed how new technology can be deployed to inform with the participation of the public, but why were they not so interactive during the elections in Iran or in Egypt? These questions should be better answered before we can celebrate completely the organization news media effort.
For this reason, this author considers too risky to make the statement that AJE is all about distribution, although it cannot be argued whoever wants to reach them can do it indeed.
Whether it will beat in the future consolidated international TV channels like CNN or BBC World is yet to be seen. Nevertheless their statement that news matters everywhere, not only in the Anglo-sphere, it could not have been a better way to kick off.


.

Google searches for balance in China

Google was never able to overcome Baidu to take the lead in the search engine realm in China. The American giant has been unable to significantly increase its profit margins as a result of expanding into the People’s Republic of China. But its likely retreat from China

may help the Internet giant regain some credibility lost among Western users unhappy about Google’s compliance with Chinese censorship. Does this withdrawal, though, leave Chinese human rights activists in the lurch?

Isaac Mao was proud when he created his first blog post six years ago. “From tonight I am stepping out into the blogosphere,” announced China’s first blogger in August, 2002. Certainly it must have been a real challenge for a Chinese citizen to swim against mainstream local sentiment and start to blog.

It was not long until Chinese authorities censored Mao’s blog. He posted an article explaining the Chinese censorship system, also know as “Great Firewall.” Concerned about a lack of freedom of speech, Isaac wrote an open letter on his blog to the founders of Google. He argued that the giant search engine was making compromises to censorship by filtering content considered sensitive or immoral from search results. In some cases, Google removed some people’s names from its index database.

Mao saw it coming. Nearly three years after his imploring missive, Google has threatened to pull out of China in protest of government censorship. On 12 January, Google announced that it will stop censoring search results on its Chinese site, Google.cn, thus violating Chinese law in response to what the company calls “highly sophisticated” hacking of its website from within China and compromised access of the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists and other nationalities.

No longer, it says, will Google censor web pages deemed by the Chinese authorities to be injurious to the Chinese state.

... the Chinese market is only 1 percent of Google’s $4.8bn annual net profit. ...

By departing from China, Google may have gained integrity and honour as an international brand. But, at the end of the day, is there so much to lose in China?

Figures say it all

Google launched google.cn in 2006. As required by the Chinese government, it agreed to censor some search results - such as information about the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests or Tibetan independence, among other topics.

China has more Internet users than any other country in the world. For an international and rapidly growing Internet company like Google, China is a perfect market. At the end of 2009, China’s Internet users totalled 384 million, equivalent to one third of its population of 1.3 billion people. At that time, other Western search companies were already operating there, a sign China was a market no multinational company could afford to miss.

But does moving into China betray Google’s company motto: “Don’t be evil.”? Google described its decision to enter China as a way to improve the access to information, although censored. Google said it sought to provide a fast search engine to the Chinese people, and to promote civil liberties. But four years of self-censorship is a long time for any kind of justification.

Before it declaring “game over” in the Chinese online search battle it is worth noting the US company is only second to Baidu, its largest rival in China, and shares a third of the Chinese

market. An amusing example illustrating Baidu´s popularity is the fact the term “Baidu” is the most searched word among Google users in mainland China.

With very little recognition outside its borders, the Chinese brand has a great presence in its own country; its market share is almost 60 percent. If Google pulls out from the Chinese search space, Baidu’s share will increase substantially.

Figures don’t lie; it’s important to note that the Chinese market is only 1 percent of Google’s $4.8bn annual net profit. Most financial analysts agree that Google’s decision will only have little short-term impact on the company’s financial condition.

Google might not be withdrawing if it wasn’t losing ground. Just a few foreign companies could dream of having 30 percent of any Chinese market. Yahoo! has less than 10 percent; Microsoft owns only a tiny market share. Google used to taking a much higher portion of local markets. Nevertheless, Google’s decision to leave China may reveal a realisation that Google can’t beat Baidu, which has close ties with the government.

Google is not a charity. A for-profit company, it is in China to make money. If the international search engine had only stood for ethical and humanitarians values, it would not have entered the Chinese market in the first place. Google’s “no evil” policy is one to respect and admire. However, why did it not stick to this mantra from the beginning?

Too naïve…

When considering the politics of the largest public company in the US, which operates on a massive scale online, it must be noted that sometimes Google must put its principles aside to please the governments with which it does business. Nevertheless, did Google really think it could stay away from Chinese censorship and still do business? Was it not clear to Google that few, if any, companies can successfully challenge the Chinese government?

Google may have thought it could do good while making a profit in China without having to battle with Chinese authorities. Didn’t they foresee entering the Chinese market as a venture that involves compromising on specific political and economic conditions?

These problems are endemic to doing business in China; companies should be wary. Google´s management team is surely aware of China’s supreme geopolitical importance. Recent events paint Google as an organisation that does not handle politics as well as it develops technology.

Will China be provoked by Google’s retreat?

Google fans have applauded its threats to leave China. Many see this attempt as a way to engage in a constructive defence of human rights. Nevertheless, China does not seem to be fazed despite the hacking accusations.

It is very unlikely Google can provoke China by refusing to censor its search results.

Google has already stated that it will hold talks with the government in the following weeks to renegotiate their agreement and to examine the possibility of operating an uncensored search engine within the Chinese law. Even if China was willing to accept Google’s terms, which does not seem to be the case, it is very uncertain as to whether the Chinese government will allows a Western company to change their policies. Chinese authority was already echoed last summer when it decided to block citizens from accessing foreign web services like Facebook and Twitter after riots in its western province of Xinjiang.

Still, Google’s gesture does not give many options to the Chinese authorities beyond shutting down its operations.

At the end of the day…..a clever decision

With this gesture Google has drawn a line in the sand. It is difficult to foresee a different ending than Google retiring from China. If it does not pull out now and stick to its principles, Google now risks humiliation. If a company cannot prevent its customers from falling victim to hackers, pulling out might be the only way to restore consumer confidence.

So far, Google’s presence in China has not motivated openness or raised any kind of pressure on the Chinese government to reduce the degree of control and censorship. Furthermore, Google’s “stand” for human rights could in fact give it more credibility.

Google’s gesture has shown, unlike most blue-chip companies, it does business in a different way. Until now, no other multinationals have waged war against the giant Asian power. However one cannot help but wonder whether Google’s management team would still agree to leave China if it had taken 70 or 80 percent of China’s search market.

Most unsettling is not Google or the effects that its retreat from the Chinese market will have on its future expanding business. The big debate here is China’s imposing manners and its unilateral policy and conditions towards other countries. That is the real concern.

The EU journalist’s guide to the Spanish presidency

The first six months of 2010 will show whether the affable and modern 49-year-old Spanish socialist and non-nationalist President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero can hold his own in a wresting match with the serene and very religious 63-year-old Belgian conservative and nationalist Herman Van Rompuy within a new European architecture in which the chain of command seems quite obscure.

Although the presence of a fulltime president of the European Council will diminish the stature of the rotating Council of the European Union presidency, the Spanish EU’s chairmanship will certainly set precedents when it comes to the Lisbon Treaty implementation.

The priorities for the Spanish EU chairmanship, rather than trying to set up too many undefined goals, should initially focus on the specific task of bringing into operation the new EU political architecture and fostering a new political system. The kickoff of the Lisbon Treaty will be a challenging objective in light of the period of institutional instability the EU has just left behind. If the Spanish presidency manages to do that, it will have already taken a big step forward.

Peers, not rivals

A main uncertainty about the Lisbon Treaty is how the six-month rotating presidencies, in this case the Spanish one, will work alongside the permanent president of the European Council.

The EU has an undefined hierarchy, which will only lead to domain confrontations. Therefore the Spanish transition presidency will have to face the challenge of setting up the terms for how successive countries manage the relationship between national leaders and the permanent EU president.

Some skeptical voices suggest plenty of hustle will be needed to determine the role and relation between Zapatero and the Belgian Van Rompuy. Could they be wrong?

The new EU president, Herman Van Rompuy, is not the celebrity politician many would have wanted. In fact, his nomination has been seen as a reflection of limited EU ambitions. Prime Minister of Belgium by coincidence, Van Rompuy, a

master used to making consensus, will not have a personal or a political interest in having President Zapatero as a rival. The Spanish president himself is known for his open-mindedness, fairness and tolerance. President Zapatero is aware political ideology does not play a crucial role at a European level, (he was one of the first European leaders to support Barroso´s candidacy to chair the European Commission). Hence Zapatero’s belief in European integration will prevail over his political manner of thinking, as a Spanish correspondent in Brussels has commented. For all these reasons, these political figures should fit together well.

Economic challenges: national and EU interest to clash?

Another challenge for the Spanish presidency will be to fight the financial and economic crisis. Recovering from the crisis and the creation of jobs remains at the top of the Spanish agenda.

Recently published figures reveal the cost of the Spanish EU presidency will be around 55m euro, a third of what was spent on the French chairmanship. Certainly good news for the Spanish public.



Spain had one of the fastest-growing economies of the past few years, which made the impact of the economic crisis much more significant than in any other country in the EU. The latest official figures reveal that Spain’s unemployment rate has reached 19.3 percent, which translates into 3.9 million people in between work. This is second only to Latvia, where unemployment stands at 20.9 percent. However, taking into consideration Latvia’s population of about 2.3 million inhabitants, Spain is by far the European country with the highest amount of unemployed people. These figures represent more than double the 9.2 percent rate for the EU as a whole.

Bearing that in mind, Zapatero will have to be able to act on an EU and a national level at the same time — without causing any distortion in the European sphere. In times of economic turmoil, European integration has been threatened by protectionism and nationalism. The principle of free movement of goods and workers was challenged a few months ago by British workers striking against Italian staff hired at the Lindey refinery. In Spain itself, the minister for industry, Miguel Sebastian, urged people last January to buy Spanish products to avoid the loss of some 120,000 jobs.

In addition, during the Spanish presidency the European Council will have to make a decision on the successor of the so-called Lisbon Strategy. Launched in 2000, it aimed at making the EU the most competitive economy in the world and achieving full employment by 2010. It can be now stated without any fear the Lisbon Strategy has not fulfilled its goals. For that reason the Spanish presidency’s efforts to foster and encourage a post-Lisbon agenda are essential.

President Zapatero will have to work toward the new EU 2020 deal expected to be adopted in March, 2010. This new strategy should trigger a full EU recovery from the current economic crisis and boost a smarter and greener economy based on innovation. The new agreement would probably be in tune with the new Spanish Sustainable Economy Law, one mainly pointed to the promotion of renewable energy, quality education, reform of the financial system, investment in research and development in both the public and private sectors.

Empowering the European citizenship, right to decide

EU institutions are still deemed very faraway entities.

Europeans citizens feel somehow alienated from the EU institutions. In addition, the EU has not had the ability to make itself appear clear and concise, which reinforces the lack of interest.

Among its benefits for citizens, the newly ratified Lisbon Treaty includes the application of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). It will enable 1 million Europeans to come up with a legislative proposal to the Commission in any of the EU areas of responsibility. At the moment it is not possible to present the ECI on a legal basis, but the mechanism to make it function is already on its way. Within its efforts to bridge the gap between Europe and its citizenship, Spain should try its best for to implement this transnational tool of democracy to be passed on during its presidency.

It is about time EU institutions were under pressure toward a more motivated citizenry.

Trying to speak with a single voice

Development of a real external European policy is among the top priorities of the Spanish EU presidency. The Spanish agenda will have to give the Council president and the High Representative maximum visibility so that the EU can speak as one in the international scene. Europe’s credibility and efficiency will only come after it implements a strong and solid foreign affairs policy.

Having a president of the Council, representing the EU abroad; the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, who stands for the EU as a real foreign minister; and the European External Action Service (EEAA), is likely to cause confusion not only in the public opinion but with international counterparts.

Focused on relations with Latin American countries and the first ever held EU-Morocco summit, the EU foreign policy lead by Spain will reflect its geographical location and its colonial past. Spain will not necessarily seek the interests of most European countries, which may lead into harsh critics from its compeers.

A chance to shine in Spain?

True, Zapatero might be elbowed out of the political scenario by the president of the Council. Nevertheless: has anyone wondered if he would mind? Spain has made clear it will not get in Van Rompuy’s way. What opinion would the public perceive if the first rotatory presidency under the Lisbon Treaty was to twist it?

On the other hand, Spanish public opinion should not be affected if Zapatero does not shine at a European level. According to a Spanish journalist, the Spanish government has already foreseen that its EU presidency wont necessarily benefit Zapatero in terms of neither winning nor losing popularity in the national domain. Spaniards are very pro European, per se.

Spanish colour after all

Spanish priorities have been described as ambitious, but also as unfocused. For those who know president Zapatero, that should not be surprising.

Zapatero, just like other Western leaders (Barack Obama in the US) has been able to master a discourse lavished with beautiful-sounding words that capture many of his listeners. But in the final analysis, he does not say as many things as he means, thanks to to his imprecise rhetoric. Let’s take as an example the so-called “alliance of civilizations” proposed by the Spanish president in 2004 to inspire international, intercultural and inter-religious cooperation between the Western and the Islamic world. Five years after its creation, this initiative, except for delivering a kind and harmonious speech about peace, it has not intervened to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Having said that, there are a number of matters that will bring along a bit of color to the Spanish agenda. Although the Lisbon Treaty obliges Spain to chair its EU’s presidency, it will still have a bit of its national colour mainly because of the specific Spanish reality and its geographical priorities. With a new debate on social policy, including gender equality and the fight against domestic violence, and EU relations with Latin America and south of the Mediterranean Sea as some of its top priorities, the Spanish chairmanship should make an outstanding and different performance from the ones made by previous EU’s presidencies.

Despite the fact the Lisbon Treaty attempts to avoid blunt changes in the priorities, which has in the past resulted ina discontinuous political performance, the incoming Spanish EU presidency suggests the next six-month European agenda will follow the trend of bringing a national taste to the European arena.

—-
Flickr images from users Chesi - Fotos, infomatique

China’s official media: Will the West ever want to watch?

A performance with more than 60 traditional drummers and an eye-catching float parade featuring Beijing’s famous scenic spots guided the opening of the Beijing International Tourism Festival. Held at the city’s Olympic Park, the 2009 event featured artists from 71 countries and 18 districts around the Chinese capital.

Amid international financial turmoil, Beijing’s tourism is believed to be an emerging pillar. Beijing aims to build itself into an international brand, akin to Brazilian Carnival or the Oktoberfest in Munich.

And with an annual revenue of 186.2bn Yuan (18.08bn euro) from tourism in Beijing alone, China’s capacity to attract foreign visitors is without question.

But it fails to attract the same interest in its media, be they products foreign or domestic.

World Media Summit: Professional exchange or business platform?

That Western media companies have included the Chinese market in their strategies is not a secret. Rupert Murdoch has long-standing ambitions in China. Indeed, to face the challenges of the digital and multimedia era in China’s media market will require exchange and co-operation among biggest media outlets in the world.

Li Congjun, the president of Xinhua News Agency, is very aware of that. He held a series of talks during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing with the chairman’s and CEOs of major Western news organisations. Those meetings led into the consensus for sponsoring the World Media Summit,WMS, celebrated in Beijing in early October, 2009.

Like any other event of its kind, the WMS included many generous words accompanied by the requisite speech of the Chinese president, Hu Hintao, on the importance of the role of foreign journalists in his country. That sounded pretty ironic considering the communist government still limits and restricts foreign coverage of issues like human rights.

The bottom line for Western media moguls: China must fight against its backdrop of rampant piracy and a sheltered and protected market if it aims to compete in the international sphere.

With very little to do with press freedom or professional journalism, the forum resulted in an international platform for business and trade on which all the attending organisations perpetrated a hypocritical performance ignoring the constrained reality of the Chinese media.

Chinese media in the spotlight

In order to gain insight into the news information space in China, this author has interviewed two reporters based in Beijing: David Bartram, a freelance British journalist, and George Sun Xiaoji, a Chinese reporter who writes for several Chinese websites and newspapers.

EJC: Why has the development of the media in China been so protracted?

Bartram: You have to remember that it has only been relatively recently that China has opened up to the rest of the world. For a long time the Chinese press was only writing for a Chinese audience. It has only really been in, say, the last decade that it has considered a foreign audience at all, and even now that is still only a comparatively minor concern. The Chinese media can only develop fully when it starts to take a truly global approach.

EJC: What makes journalists in the West be more pervasive than their Chinese colleagues?

Bartram: Well I think in the West there has always been a tradition of the media having a duty to hold politicians, business leaders, etc., accountable for their actions. This doesn’t really exist in China. In fact most state-run media is there for just the opposite reasons. That said, there are some local Chinese newspapers who do some good work uncovering local government corruption. Still, in China there far greater a sense of deference and respect shown by journalists towards public figures – whether they be politicians, businessmen or celebrities.

EJC: Despite the appearance of more media outlets in English, Chinese media seem to be failing to attract a Western audience. Why?

Sun Xiaoji: I don’t think the word ‘failing’ can quite exactly describe the effort the Chinese media have recently made to attract Western audiences, though it is not very successful. Here’s the reason:


I don’t work for the official media but I had heard some gossip going around earlier this year that there’s a very big project the Chinese official media is going to launch. And, of course, it is supported by the government. In a nutshell, this great project is about the establishment of a 24-hour TV channel reporting English news to the rest of the world. For example, last month, CCTV (China Centre Television) established a series of foreign language channels ranging from Russian to Slavic focused on audiences outside China. This, which seems to be huge enough, is only a small part of the whole project for the government to establish the Chinese counterpart of CNN or BBC.

I got access to some clips of the TV programmes produced and broadcast on CCTV foreign language channels and, ironically, found they are just the same as what we got on the Chinese channels. The only difference is the language. But, to the audiences who have limited knowledge about China, it is very likely they take the content in those TV programmes for granted.

EJC: What kind of approach would be necessary to attract Western readers?

Bartram: At the moment I think China’s primary concern is to create a global voice for their political opinions. This will always be a niche area in terms of the world media. Beyond that I think a simple approach is key: produce swift, accurate and entertaining news and people will read it – wherever it has come from.

EJC: China seems to be targeting the West not just with economic and political news, but also with celebrity news…

Sun Xiaoji: Absolutely true. More and more Chinese audiences need to know news outside political and economic circles. The markets of celebrity, fashion, avant-garden arts, and sports news are increasing. For example, in October the Chinese edition of GQ magazine was launched.

EJC: Is China ready to embrace the digital era? Will we be able to see in the near future potentially influential media companies in China – without the influence of any major Western company?

Bartram: China’s online population is growing extremely quickly, but it is still lagging behind in terms of digital innovation. Western digital media companies (Google and Yahoo! in particular, Facebook and Youtube to a lesser extent) are keen to secure a share of this new market but they do face local competition. Chinese censorship of certain sites (I’m thinking of Facebook, Youtube and Twitter here, all of which are currently blocked in China) could well be seen as an attempt to allow Chinese equivalents of these sites to grow without having to face established Western competition.

EJC: Do Chinese people normally trust their own media? How often do they use blogging and other social networks to keep informed?
Sun Xiaoji: I think the Chinese people don’t normally trust their own media but they don’t totally trust Western media either. Now that China has the largest blogger population around the globe, we can describe the current development of blogosphere in China as booming. Most bloggers, as far as I know, update their entries every day. This has become the most popular and easiest way for Chinese netizens to gain information and communicate with each other since a lot of them can read and write fluent foreign languages.

EJC: Are the majority of Chinese consumers ready to demand a change into the digital challenge and the transformation of their media in order for China to exercise a leadership in the world?

Bartram: Although China’s online population is growing, it is still a relatively minor section of society. That said, there is a very vocal – and strongly nationalistic – group of netizens who want China to exercise a firmer type of leadership globally. This group occasionally pulls stunts and protests. For example, I recall a few months ago when Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama, there was an online campaign to boycott French imports. The “anti-CNN” campaign was another example of this.

EJC: The Wenchuan earthquake is the perfect example that shows how Chinese media focus more on heroic stories and touching incidents rather than death toll and the collapse of buildings. Is that seen as a way of censorship and propaganda?

Sun Xiaoji: We cannot deny that there exists propaganda and censorship when we look at how the Chinese media cover the Wenchuan earthquake last year. It’s also absolutely true that the coverage made by Chinese media is not impartial. However, the Wenchuan earthquake got full and instant coverage, which was incredible compared with the Tangshan earthquake in 1976. Although journalism freedom in China is still only a piece of slogan, I think we should see the bright side of the progress Chinese media have made.

EJC: Are Chinese media as critical of Western policies in the same way as the West is critical of Chinese policies?
Bartram: The Chinese media are generally more critical of Western attitudes than Western policies. I think the overarching desire of the Chinese government is to be left to its own devices, and this is reflective in the media. The Chinese media will rarely come out and say “What the US is doing is wrong.” It is far more likely to come out and say “Hey! Stop criticising us. It’s none of your business, and it’s hypocritical anyway.”

EJC: Is China’s image in the Western media really distorted?

Sun Xiaoji: Generally speaking, I don’t think the image of China is completely distorted by the Western media. The rub is when they talk about China, it is quite often for us to see the key words like dictatorship, inhumanity, censorship and things like that. But the Chinese audiences have known these problems very well. What they care about is how to solve those problems instead of yelling to the world that they got them, which will make the Chinese embarrassed.

EJC: Are Chinese media obsessed with Western coverage of China?

Bartram: I think it only becomes an important issue when they feel they are being misrepresented. I remember during the whole Tibet issue last year, the Chinese were very angry that Western journalists were getting facts about the issue incorrect. But then at the same time, they banned basically all Western journalists from entering Tibet. How can a country which provides no access to a story expect journalists to get all their facts right?

EJC: Would a complete political change (just like in the former communist governments in Eastern Europe) be necessary in order for China to improve its image overseas through the media?

Sun Xiaoji: In my perspective, the opening of media is one of the premises of political revolution in China.

Beyond the barriers

China’s state-run media exerts an influence beyond the borders of China, challenging digital and multimedia technologies. China has a history of censoring domestic media and sometimes setting up barriers for foreign journalists not to report inside their own country. As such, the concern should not be when or how China opens to the new broadcasting 2.0 era. Rather when and how will it give the green light to freedom of expression?

The last example of censorship took place when US president Obama visited the People´s Republic of China only to have his prodigious public speaking talents stifled by his hosts. Any chance of delivering his message via Facebook, YouTube and Twitter would have been futile, as these sites are also heavily censored.

After such displays, it is not likely the rest of the world is willing to take Chinese media seriously. Only with an ideological and political shift of their content will information developed by the Asian giant be openly consumed by Western readers.

—-
Flickr images from worldcitizen, xiaming, never original, xiaming

Reporting the financial crisis: A media failure?

The financial crisis exploded this year, but the media industry has published its business sections, websites, TV programmes and magazines for eons. Did the press fail to shine a bright enough spotlight on the dismal economic outlook? Were financial journalists too dazzled by the glittering market to predict the coming storm?

“We were all greedy and everyone is to blame,” said Jason Schenker, the president of Prestige Economics.

The first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 15 September, has come and gone. The failure of this financial services firm is widely viewed as the largest bankruptcy in the financial history of the United States.

Policymakers, bankers, journalists and ordinary people watched, read, discussed and Tweeted their surprise about the collapse of one of the most well-known worldwide banking institutions – whether they understood the implications or not. The collapse triggered dramatic turmoil in global finance. For the first time in 60 years the economy’s growth ceased; the world’s accounts consequently find themselves looking far different.

For the past 15 months, financial coverage has dominated the information spectrum. It has consumed broadcast, print and online media arenas that attempt to aggregate the voices of the most respected business end economics editors.

But what was happening in this media space before the economic breakup? What was the focus of financial journalists? Did a glittering market blind them all? Above all, has financial journalism played the role it was expected to?

These topics were up for intense scrutiny at Covering the Crisis, an EJC Interface conference on the role of media in the financial crisis. Bankers, top financial journalists, politicians, social scientists and financial regulators from both sides of the Atlantic gathered on 9 and 10 November in Brussels to search for answers to all these questions. The result was a long-awaited and riveting debate. It was captured live here and here.

“At the end of the day we must remember the importance of journalism and the importance of making it right,” said Eithne Treanor, the moderator of the conference.

Indeed, it is an unquestionable principle; this article does not aim to question Treanor’s assertion but instead to describe the complex context in which financial journalists work and to analyse the main challenges to good financial journalism.

The role of financial journalists should not differ from that of journalists covering politics, culture or sports. We all must write well. We must analyse information in a clear, fast, concise and accurate manner.

Financial journalists in particular must try to see the turmoil coming. Their task is not necessarily reactionary. They must track and advise their audiences about coming events and trends. Then, in the aftermath, they must follow events and make sure longterm implications are covered.

Challenges everywhere

The connection between coverage of the financial world and events impacting the economy don’t seem to have run on parallel tracks. One of the best metrics of the economy is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all the goods produced in a country in a given period of time. According to The Changing Narrative, How the News Media Have Covered the Slowing Economy, media outlets tended in recent years to be slow to track GDP figures and inform the public about the declining economy. If reporting about the GDP was erratic, coverage of other related key economic indicators was even more unpredictable.



That said, the complexity of economic issues appears to be one of the most crucial problems for journalists covering the crisis. It can especially confuse the audience.

But are financial journalists at equal risk when they try to simplify a complicated subject? Could that also be dangerous?

Sources are another major challenge for financial reporters. It is essential to dig into and examine important data before making it public. Some questions asked in Brussels: Have journalists been too condescending with their sources? Have they accepted market logic as the only logic?

Journalists might have become too close to their sources. In some cases, the interests of their newspaper might have manipulated reporters. However, many journalists are currently working under the pressure of a 24-hour news cycle. They have to compete with one another. Timing has become so crucial that journalists might not have time to distance themselves from their own sources.

With regard to sourcing, most speakers at Covering the Crisis accepted that business journalists are stuck in an unfair competition. Journalists all normally stumble upon the barriers set up by public relations staff. PR staff aim to protect the interests of the companies they represent. The growing distance between the journalism industry, which is insufficiently funded, and public relations teams, often sophisticated and powerful lobby machines, is worsening the confrontation between the interests of the two. Who win will this battle? Only the future will tell.

We must all agree that responsibility and professionalism are principles any journalist has to keep in mind when doing her job. Any information requires a detailed verification procedure before it is published. Damian Tambini, a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics, states in his report, What is Financial Journalism for? Ethics and Responsibility in a Time of Crisis and Change, “financial journalists have particularly difficulty reporting rumours.”

Tambini is of the opinion that mainstream and political journalists could take a more relaxed approach to their stories because the effects on the political scene “are not so immediate and measurable as the impacts on financial markets.”



Could it be the amount of responsibility for financial markets that separates financial journalists from the others?

The case of British bank Northern Rock is an example of how a particular institution can collapse following a news report, in this case one crafted by the prestigious BBC reporter Robert Peston. Never-ending queues of customers waiting desperately to be able to withdraw their savings from the bank stood as a testament to how much mass hysteria can be triggered and exacerbated by a financial report. Since the media are often referred to as the “fourth estate,” journalism must be aware of its powerful and social responsibility.

As such, financial journalists have to avoid panicking markets for petty reasons. But they should never have scruples about telling the truth.

To this respect the audience at Covering the Crisis acknowledged that financial journalism requires a high level of training. Specific knowledge is needed to analyse data in depth and to accurately convey that data correctly to the public. At this point, journalists have to find the balanced way — unfortunately not very specifically addressed in this conference — to make the financial information appealing to a layman audience as well as to highbrow readers and academics.

Steve Schifferes, former BBC News Online economics correspondent, observed that academics have been “quite absent from this debate” and ultimately “journalists have defined the parameters and have raised the questions more than the academics.”

Had academics, bloggers and other social networks been more present in financial coverage prior to and early on in the crisis, the subject would have been addressed from all perspectives, all walks of life. If this crisis has brought any tests for the future, they would include: how to make the readers care and how to shrink the gap between audiences and newsrooms.



On the other hand, had individual citizens understood the complexity of the crisis, they would have felt empathy for the difficulty of the journalist’s role.

Who is to blame?

In times of turbulence there is always an attempt to assign blame, to look for victims and villains. These terms may be too simplistic, though, as we are going through a profound reshaping of how capitalism and markets work. This shift has its roots in globalisation and the world economy.

“We are all greedy and everyone is to blame, on ‘Main Street’ to Wall Street,” said Jason Schenker, the president and chief economist of Prestige Economics. From financial institutions to construction companies to policymakers and consumers, some have profited from the crisis. Media companies receiving advertising revenues from troubled lenders.

And in regards to the banking system, could it function if it was not based on greed? This subject could trigger a very interesting discussion.

True, financial journalists might have been too close to the subjects they covered. Perhaps the interests of their papers manipulated them. Danny Schechter, executive director of Mediachannel.org, got it right in Brussels when he said that the media industry has gone “from telling to selling.”

It must be understood journalists are people, with investments. They take a major interest on seeing the market be optimistic, seeing their salary go up and not loosing their job. “When doing financial journalism, you really have to think financial,” said Christopher Hughes, Assistant Editor for BreakingViews.

Journalists with their own investments know that what they cover will impact their own lives. Does that make them loath to sound alarms?

The public did not sound the alarm. Individuals normally take information in their own way. Some did take it in and reacted one way, but most ignored any warning signs. The reason might be because it is in our nature to believe prosperous times will last forever.

Or, in the words of Mark Gilbert, London bureau chief for Bloomberg, “people were not watching what was coming because the crime until it has been committed” is not a crime.

Bottom line

Will this financial crash and the attempts to counteract it lead to real changes? Or will potential solutions simply skim the surface of the problem and fail to repair the flawed system? Is the crash destined to happen again, years after the memories of all that happened have been erased?

In ancient Greek, “Krisis” referred to the point on which a plot turns toward either death or triumph. Let’s hope this pivotal moment is not wasted; that future generations do not repeat our mistakes of the greed, fear, passivity and ignorance.



The lesson journalists must learn is one that cannot necessarily be implemented right now. A bedrock of investigative reporting must be formed. Sadly, it has little chance to form while the market and, consequently, resources in the newsrooms, are dwindling.

Advances in technology have made journalism more efficient than ever before. But many an editorial management team, concerned about timing and competition, has prioritised productivity over quality.

Financial journalists have to be better trained. They need to be free from the pressure of their sources. They need to be given more time to dig into stories. They need to have time to develop deeper connections with editors, academics and social networks.

For all that to happen, it may be the time to think about a different business model on which our profession can rely, one that provides it a better sustainable funding system.

An economic model not for media companies but for individual journalists could also be very interesting. Would it be possible a new funding system supporting individual reporters who could train themselves, have access to all multiple media and reach a wide audience? If mainstream media companies have so far been unable of creating such a scheme, it may be not the right time to pursue further more centralisation.

We live in a global world where practically all events can somehow be covered in real time. Since everything is interlinked, our stories can generate threads that connect all the world. If we are given the chance to report financial stories well, it would make our job much more worthwhile and in the public interest.

—-
Flickr images from users chrisjohnbeckett, tais, dominicspics and hitthatswitch