“His legacy is a free newspaper, an independent newspaper”

 

It is with sadness that the European Journalism Centre reports the death of Portuguese journalist, EJC Advisory Counselor and friend, Mario Bettencourt Resendes, who died on Monday 2 August, 2010 in hospital in Lisbon at the age of 58.

A renowned political commentator, both on television and radio, he is perhaps best remembered in his role as Director of the newspaper Diario de Noticias [Daily News], a position he held from 1992 to 2003.

Born in 1952 in Ponta Delgada, Mario Resendes began his career in journalism in 1975, following his involvement in the April 25 Portuguese revolution for democracy in 1974.

After a journalism internship with Diario de Noticias in 1975, he joined the founding team of the anti-Gonçalves daily New Journal. He also briefly worked for weekly magazine Choice, before returning to work for Diario de Noticias in 1976. He became its Director in 1992, witnessing the newspaper’s purchase by Portuguese integrated media corporation Lusomundo.

In addition to his journalism career, Mario Resendes was a prominent political analyst and a Professor in Political Science at San Diego State University, as well as a spokesman for the Information and Freedom Movement.

He assumed the vice presidency of the European Directive Committee of the Association of European Journalists, the presidency of the General Assembly of the Portuguese section and in 1994 was appointed by the European Commission to serve on the Advisory Board of Users.

A much valued board member and counselor of the European Journalism Centre, he was awarded the European Prize for Journalism by the Association of European Journalists in 1993.

Tribute from Portuguese EJC colleague, Alexandra Lobao

“His name was synonymous with Diário de Notícias” – From the left to the right of the Portuguese political spectrum, everyone subscribes this remark by the current director of Mario’s newspaper.

Mario had an unusually colorful coffin: by his own request, it was covered by three flags - the flag of his beloved newspaper (DN), the flag of the Azores Islands where he was born, and that of Benfica football club. He used to say it was out of the question to die before Benfica once again became champions of the Portuguese league. They did so, last year.

In recent times Mario was the only DN director who managed to put the newspaper at the top of the most read daily publications list. He led it through the difficult 1990s, the years of privatisation, demonstrating his negotiating ability and deep social conscience, as he tried his best to prevent people from being fired and working conditions from deteriorating. Once he left the top position, DN was bypassed by competitors.

As a reporter, he started working during the unstable year of 1975, a couple months after his country’s democratic revolution that put an end to the era of dictator Salazar. He also covered from Madrid, Spain’s liberation from the other Iberian dictator, Franco. He is known to have thought independently, “by his own head”, but never hid his preference for the Portuguese socialist party (social democrat).

“Wise”, “competent” (he was one of the few Portuguese journalists ever invited to attend the Davos economic forum; he interviewed some of world’s most powerful leaders) “patient”, “lucid”, “balanced”, “cheerful”, “generous and smiling”, “intelligent”, “honest”, “a man of culture and intellectual curiosity”  –  superlative adjectives keep on being repeated on the Portuguese news both by Mario’s many friends and numerous bloggers and politicians as well.

Some thoughts from EJC colleagues and friends

We remember him for his wisdom, his loyalty to the EJC and, not least, for his cheerful and optimistic nature, also in the face of his illness.  
Ove Joanson, EJC Chairman

Really sad news. Mario was an extraordinary person and journalist. Diario de Noticias said, “His legacy is a free newspaper, an independent newspaper”. Can’t imagine anything better to say about a journalist.
Vicent Partal, EJC Vice-Chairman

I am extremely sad to hear this. Mario was a great journalist and friend who was both warm and wise. We will miss him greatly.
Jonathan Fenby, EJC Counselor

What sad news. Mario was one of those people who had the gift of making others feel better about themselves. And his contributions to meetings were thoughtful and well argued. I shall miss his cheerful presence.
Kieran Fagan, EJC Counselor

I am shocked and very sad. Mario has become a real friend since I met him for the first time. Mario was a defender of the freedom of the press and a convinced European who was very engaged in bringing journalists and publishers in Europe together.
Mercedes Riederer, EJC Counselor

Posted on August 9, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under announcements.

Social Media Day, Maastricht

The social media day initiative

An initiative of social media news blog Mashable, Social Media Day on 30 June, 2010 was an attempt to gather social media fans and users in cities around the world on the same day.

“Social media has changed our lives. It has not only changed the way we communicate, but the way we connect with one another, consume our news, conduct our work, organize our lives, and much more. It’s a revolution worth celebrating,” Mashable wrote on its blog.

The Social Media Day in Maastricht was one of 600 meetups that took place in 93 countries.

Organised by the European Journalism Centre (EJC), the event gave Maastricht residents a platform to talk about the impact social media on their lives and what role they play in a city like Maastricht, especially in the light of Maastricht’s bid to become the European Cultural Capital in 2018.

Planning is everything

The Maastricht Social Media Day 2010 organising team consisted of a few members of the EJC (staff members Eszter Pakozdi, Emma Brewin, Veronica Krupova,Brook DuBois and cameramen Ivan Picart and Remko Nijsten), along with two independent social media users (Mitchell Lee and Monika Saraca).

The event was planned as an international, informal and social evening, consisting of a series of themed presentations/workshops and a final overall group discussion, all held in English.

The promotion effort was done via social sites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Couchsurfing and immediately gave encouraging results.

Through Facebook alone, 37 people confirmed their participation, with 49 indicating that they ‘might attend’. This example is a clear demonstration of how fast messages travel through social media channels.

Due to the high level of interest, the initial location (Jules and You office) had to be changed to a more spacious one (the Cafe de Twee Heeren conference room upstairs).

In the end however, it appeared that in spite of their information-spreading capabilities, social media platforms are not necessarily reliable channels: only 16 of those Facebookers showed up. Nine participants joined the event through personal invitations.

Six speakers were invited to provide the audience with a general overview of the emergence and the impact of social media in our society, highlighting the connections between social media and business, social media and activism, and social media and participatory journalism.

After a short introduction, the evening began with the presentation of Nicolaas Pereboom from Crossmint, explaining the origins and development of social media. Then Klaus Röhrig from Amnesty International explained how activist organisations can utilise social media. Our third speaker, Irene Senden, gave a presentation about the business social platform, LinkedIn. Speaking from a more local perspective, Sofia Tussis and Seraina Soldner of Maas Media introduced the concept of participatory journalism.

Lei Meisen from VIA 2018, who was to introduce Maastricht’s Cultural Capital concept, informing the audience about the city’s goals and ways of reaching them,  regrettably cancelled his presentation, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Meisen’s absence left the audience wondering about Maastricht’s Cultural Capital concept, all the more since the VIA 2018 website provides no information to the largely English-speaking international community in Maastricht.

Tinkering with participation


Three workshops followed the presentations.

The workshop led by Klaus from the Amnesty International Maastricht Student group looked at how social media can be used to mobilise people and small organisations. Participants were asked to reflect on how student groups can contribute to support Maastricht’s bid for 2018. Lack of integration of foreign students within the city of Maastricht, due in part to the language barrier, was identified as an important obstacle. A possible solution could be the creation of more multilingual cultural programmes to encourage bottom-up/grassroots cultural initiatives in the city. International student groups such as Amnesty International Maastricht Student mainly consist of foreign students who say that they are not involved in activities run in Dutch.

In their workshop about participatory journalism, Sofia and Seraina from Maas Media, a student initiative aiming at encouraging individuals participation in journalism, highlighted the role that media platforms can play in helping Maastricht become a more thriving cultural city, by “collecting existing initiatives across the region and pooling them under a virtual umbrella”. They also emphasised “the need for media to act as a catalyst and to create events where participants can contribute to make local life richer” and “the necessity to keep close to local stories”. The main goal of participatory journalism as they see it is to help spread opinions (ie. blogging) in a community in order to enhance cohesion within a community and to encourage the will to organise and attend cultural events.

The goal of the LinkedIn workshop was to investigate whether LinkedIn could be used to help Maastricht’s 2018 bid. Once again, the language barrier was identified as a main obstacle for the international community, since the discussion on the VIA 2018 group on LinkedIn is carried out in Dutch.  Since translation is not an option on the website, participants concluded that social media such as LinkedIn can only be a helpful tool to support Maastricht’s bid if the dialogue takes place in more languages. Participants also suggested that by excluding non-Dutch speakers Maastricht loses a large number of potential supporters. It was noted that most Dutch people have an excellent command of English, and, more importantly, seem to be happy to use English in their communication via social channels (eg. many links and messages on Facebook are posted in English by Dutch people).

Social media: for integration?

The final group discussion brought everyone back together for a deeper conclusion.

After giving a general overview on the negative and positive aspects of social media platforms and discussing privacy issues on Facebook and best practices on Twitter, the organisers invited the audience to suggest ideas to help Maastricht’s Cultural Capital bid.

Lack of local integration among the large number of international students and foreign residents working for locally based international organisations such as the EJC, as well as language barriers, were flagged as key concerns.

Participants were keen to share their opinions and comment on the fact that the VIA 2018 website, which is responsible for Maastricht’s bid, is not easily understandable for the international community because it is not available in English. Foreign residents are generally oblivious to explanations about the work being done to support Maastricht’s bid and how the city intends to reach its goal.
The main suggestion was again to offer an English page of the website next to pages in Dutch, French and German.

It was also noted that the Maastricht VIA 2018 groups on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn have few participants and activity at the moment. This could be improved by generating discussions and suggesting cultural events in English in order to attract and involve the international community. The introduction of more social events in English would attract international students and lead to more culture-related social media posts, tweets, and so on.

One of the participants, Amanda Potter, later blogged about the event (her post, Social Media & Maastricht’s Bid for Cultural Capital 2018), further encouraging the discussion on the topic and even involving Lei Meisen from VIA 2018.

The organisers of Maastricht Social Media Day hope that the event will result in an ongoing ‘discussion board’ and stimulate the local community to attend or organise follow-up meetings.

Posted on July 10, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under events.

Prezi: Europe, the Media and the Financial Crisis

Howard Hudson’s presentation at the EPP/CoR Summer University for local and regional media, 2-3 June 2010, Brussels

Posted on June 1, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under events.

Brussels English: the international city versus Belgium

Brussels is an international hub of correspondents, diplomats and political aficionados. It is easy enough to forget where Brussels is; for all intensive purposes, it could be located just about anywhere, given the global scope of the governmental bodies and non-profit groups that populate the city. It has been, and continues to be, the midway land between a whole bunch of other places; someone is always traipsing across Belgium on their way to somewhere else. In doing so, one comes across many languages and people, as well as a funny pervasiveness of “Brussels English” amongst them all.

Unilingualism

Linguistic differences have continually been a source of conflict in Belgium. It is, in fact, the reason its prime minister quit his post last week for the second time since 2007. Belgium has seen four governments in the past three years, partially a result of its language divide.

The country is split into two major linguistic areas, with a little German chunk often overlooked off to the east. To the north, in Flanders, you have Flemish, a dialect of Dutch,. To the south, in Wallonia, you find French.

Brussels, although located in Flanders, was declared bilingual in 1993 as a compromise to the French-speaking majority residing here. At first glance this lends to such trivial problems as printing public signs in two languages and the dilemma of what to call a person from Brussels (“Brusselaar” or “Bruxellois”?).

To what extent does the current contention stem from this linguistic divide? Belgium is divided into both language communities and regions that govern their respective provinces. The electoral districts to vote for the Belgian Parliament Chamber are constituencies that overlap the provincial boundaries. The Brussels area is an exception. It is in the electoral and judicial district known as “BHV”, or Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.

The BHV constituency is a lump formed from bilingual (in reality a French-speaking majority) Brussels and the surrounding Flemish Halle-Vilvoorde in the Brabant province. What this means is that a Francophone candidate from Halle-Vilvoorde can run for election there, but a Flemish individual living in a different language region cannot enjoy the same privilege and run for election.

The effects are larger than just representation in the Chamber. At the Senate and European levels, it means that a Francophone party can receive votes from a Flemish-speaking area, but a Flemish party cannot do the same in a French-speaking area. The electoral district was declared unconstitutional and discriminatory in 2003, but has nonetheless remained unresolved.

There have been talks since 2000 to split the province so that Brussels would be a separate constituency. However, only the Flemish want to pursue this course of action. French-speakers and parties in Halle-Vilvoorde are adamantly against such a move as this would deprive Francophone parties votes in the Brabant province.

A foreign affair

From my naive outsider’s perspective, the problem has another face to it, because the region has so many international dwellers. When I first ventured into the Flemish-speaking region of Belgium, I was advised not to try to putter along in French, but to simply speak English, as doing otherwise would cause offense. I received the same advice when going the opposite direction. The distilled fact then is that absolutely every person I have encountered during my four months living in Belgium has been capable of speaking English.

I attribute this in part to the presence of the European Union. The affairs of the EU had previously been almost entirely conducted in French, but all this changed with the 2004 addition of 10 countries, where second language skills were more likely to be English than French.

A 2007 Economist article on the subject concluded:

“the expansion of the European Union has let English not just edging ahead of the two other working languages, but in a position of utter dominance. The union now boasts 27 members and 23 official languages, but the result has been the opposite of a new tower of Babel. Only grand meetings boast interpreters. At lower levels, as it turns out, when you put officials from Berlin, Bratislava, Bucharest and Budapest in the same room, English is by far the easiest option.”

For a journalist, the ability to find a common language currency among many different people is essential.  The EJC office is a case in point.  The first day of my internship, I watched avidly as Greek, Italian and Macedonian colleagues chatted together in English. The three all speak French - not to mention a few other languages - with the ease and grace of native speakers, but the office typically conducts conversations in English. They joke that they speak “Brussels English”, or the English of non-native speakers who work together in the city.

As my Portuguese colleague explained, one could comfortably live in Brussels for years and never speak a word of any of the official languages because most people work in English and then speak whatever their national language is in private settings.

Dealing with fractions

A new Belgian prime minister cannot take office until the BHV issue is resolved, the Belgian justice system declared this month. As Brussels considers its options, it should perhaps investigate an even lower common language denominator.

A public poll could determine what portion of the population speaks English in the BHV. If the majority does, then this could serve as grounds for an altogether different compromise. True, it is a lose-lose situation, but the lose-win choices have yet to make much headway. I admit, this is a cultural poke in the eye to both groups. But if the country cannot proceed, it needs some new plan on the heretofore stalemate table. If this plan fails, at least Belgians can feel a new sense of unity amongst their brethren in a collective dislike of the English language (and/or me).

The Belgian government has been evaluating this issue since its creation nearly two hundred years ago. But as the German-speaking region has demonstrated, it is feasible to function while speaking a separate official language. To make Brussels and the surrounding area an English hub, creating a “BHV English” in effect, might not be so unreasonable. It might also mean little to no linguistic transition for the city.

Whether Belgium decides to become an official language qua-fecta or eventually arrives at a decision to split, the country will have to use its historically strong skills of compromise to finally find a solution to its linguistic predicament.

—-
Flickr images from users MorBCN, Simon Blackley, mcfarlandmo, batigolix

Posted on May 3, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

Saviano to open Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Geneva

Italian journalist and best-selling author Roberto Saviano will open the 6th Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC) in Geneva on Thursday 22 April, the organisers announced on Tuesday. Saviano, who has been living under police protection for more than four years, will deliver the opening keynote at 9:00 am.

Saviano is an Italian investigative journalist who has written and published extensively on the Camorra, a Neapolitan organised crime ring deeply entrenched in Italian business and politics. After he published his best-seller Gomorrah in 2008, he was threatened by several Neapolitan ‘godfathers’. The Italian government subsequently granted him police protection.

The GIJC organisers have said the conference will go ahead despite the disruption to air traffic in much of northwest Europe. Besides Saviano, other keynote speakers include Seymour Hersh, Stephen Engelberg of Propublica, Spanish prosecutor Baltazar Garzon, and Iraqi journalist Montazer al Zaïdi, who spent time in jail for throwing a shoe at US President George W. Bush in 2008.

The GIJC programme includes a total of more than 60 sessions over four days. As a partner, the European Journalism Centre, will provide a live video stream. Go to www.livestream.com/ejcnet to find out more.

Follow the conference on Twitter via www.twitter.com/gijc2010

For the conference website: www.gijc2010.ch

Posted on April 20, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under events.

Selling science to the media: The researcher’s view

Researchers need reporters and vice versa, but how do we strike the balance between a story that sells and a story that informs?

By definition, high-tech research pushes the limits of human understanding, and translating this into something understandable for the general public is notoriously difficult.

Sometimes journalists don’t go far enough and the story is lost in complex, stilted language. Sometimes they go too far, simplifying or promising too much about the next breakthrough in anything from healthcare to the environment.

Doing too little loses the reader; going too far raises expectations. Where there is no follow-through, this dents the credibility of researcher and reporter alike. Either approach is likely to widen the gap in understanding – and sympathy – between scientists and the general public.

So is there a third way? Diederik S. Wiersma, researcher at the European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy (LENS), thinks so. While hosting young reporters for the project ‘REsearch LAbs for TEaching journalists’, he spoke to EJC Editor Howard Hudson, and gave his views on the beauty and necessity of fundamental research.

—-

There’s a fine line between oversell and underachievement when it comes to science journalism. How should researchers and reporters try to hook the general public?

DW: The tendency is to try to get people’s attention by explaining all the possible applications of a certain result. The risk is that the researcher being interviewed is doing whatever he can to find or invent any possible application. That may not be very realistic, but there is so much pressure to invent something and use it to capture the attention.

I have the feeling that it’s not very necessary to do that. It seems the easy way for the journalist because saying things like “this is going to cure cancer” or “this is going to make you wealthier and healthier from tomorrow onwards” is the easiest way to hook the general public. Clearly, that’s not always possible or justified.

I feel that journalists should do something more: they should try to convey the beauty of the scientific result as such. That is in order of magnitude more difficult than just inventing a couple of applications from the result. It is more about seeing the beauty of the world in which we are living, and the beauty of understanding that world.

Do you mean hooking the audience with beautiful images? Like your photograph (above) that appeared on the cover of Nature magazine?

DW: That is something that helps. That is an artistic expression of a scientific result that has both a didactic and an aesthetically appealing aspect to it. But it’s more than just the artistic beauty of something.

It is really the excitement you have if you understand your world better. The excitement you have when you look at the light emitted by stars millions and millions of years ago and which only now reaches your eye.

That is not immediately useful for curing cancer but it’s something that enriches our world and distinguishes us from animals. Animals need to find food, to reproduce and somehow survive—but we are more than that. We have cultural interests. We want to have a fuller, richer life than just bare survival.

Did you became more aware of these cultural aspects while working in Florence?

DW: No, it’s unrelated. That has always been my driving force for doing research… I always had the feeling that what I’m doing is nearer to the work of an artist than it is to the work of a normal employee.

What you’re doing is very creative, in the work itself, how you do it, and what’s behind it – which is this curiosity in trying to understand how the world works around you.

So you feel empowered by the research environment in Italy?

DW: I’m not sure if that’s the research environment in Italy in general, but it’s definitely the research environment at LENS, the lab I’m in at the moment, which is very positive and inspiring. People are very enthusiastic about what they’re doing and about sharing their results with others.

It’s a very friendly, competitive environment. So on the one hand, it’s very collaborative but on the other hand it’s a very productive environment in which people are trying to get results and working hard to make progress. It’s the main reason that I’ve stayed here so long, because I think it’s a unique combination.

Either you have a lab in which everyone is really friendly and nothing is happening or you have a place where everyone is working very hard and competing with each other and not sharing any results. Neither of the two is the right environment for doing research because in the end what you’re trying to do is to understand nature and get excited about that. The first thing you want to do is go to a colleague next door and say “look what I’ve found!” “See how this works – now we understand it!”

That works if you have that combination of enthusiasm and hard work, as sometimes it is not so easy to make any progress at all. And on the other hand, the openness and trust in each other so you can share your results without having to be paranoid about things getting stolen.

Tell us more about your own work and your strategies for getting published.

DW: The topic that our group is dealing with at LENS is photonics: how light waves behave in photonic materials. Our daily life in the lab consists of a lot of thinking, a lot of doing experiments, aligning optics and lasers and trying to get all the equipment to work. So there is a lot of time involved in getting the experiments going.

The most exciting part is, once you have some experimental results and bits and pieces of theory, when you start to sit down again together and to understand it and interpret your results. That is the added value of making a good scientific paper: you don’t simply report on what has been done and what the outcome was, but you give a deeper understanding of what that means and the physical insight that comes out of that.

That is our strategy of getting published. We don’t think all the time about getting the paper published. We try to get the insight and once you have a nice result and it is really good stuff, then you write it in a paper that’s easy to read and easy to understand. This usually gets published easily because you have written a good paper.

So it’s the opposite: we don’t think what do we have to do to get published, it’s rather “how do we get good results”? Then getting that published is automatic. Sometimes you have difficulties or misunderstandings, but that’s always resolvable.

What I really hate is repeating tiny little results or writing the same thing three or four times for different journals in a slightly different way because it’s completely useless. It’s just time lost. It would be like Rembrandt trying to make photocopies of his paintings. He wouldn’t have any satisfaction about the work.

The same approach applies to scientific as well as non-scientific publishing: for the general public, newspapers, things that are in between – like Physics Today, Scientific American – I love writing those kinds of papers because it gives you the chance to explain what you’re doing to a very broad audience.

Again this is the moment when you can try to get this excitement about nature and to somehow convey a little of that to the general public. And if you manage to do that, that’s a great satisfaction, especially if you can do it without having to oversell your results. If you do that clearly, that is when the general public sees the beauty of it.

That is what I think a journalist should try to do: try to really understand it and explain it clearly in simple terms, and then people will say “that is interesting!”.  When the baker or the butcher in my village understand my scientific results, that is when I have achieved something in journalism or scientific publishing.

You’re a Dutch researcher, working in Italy, published in the UK (Nature magazine) and USA (Physical Review Letters). What are the main differences in working with the media in these various countries?

DW: The most surprising thing is that I didn’t find such big differences. I had quite good experiences so far with journalists that wrote about our work. I always try to spend a lot of time with the journalist to talk about the results, to understand them, and once he or she has written the article, I always give feedback.

You recently visited China on business. How is the scientific landscape there compared with Europe?

DW: I went to China for just a week to teach. I didn’t have any contacts with journalists, but it was very interesting to see their very different way of working. What was very interesting to see is that the Chinese Government is investing heavily in fundamental research; so not necessarily application-driven.

Just looking at the statistics, at the moment in China it is easier to get funding for fundamental research than it is in Europe or the USA. That is completely the reverse from what we’re used to; as we’re used to seeing the Chinese copying what we are doing and not adding a lot of technology.

What they have decided is that, with their money, they should now invest in fundamental research to create the basis for technological development in their country. That is something that we have forgotten in the meantime, that we’re doing less of now in Europe and the USA. I’m very curious to see what consequences that will have in 10 years’ time…

They now understand that you have to do fundamental research to create a knowledge basis, from which the engineering can develop all kind of new technologies and devices. Of course it takes courage to do that because you are creating knowledge that is accessible to everyone. Chinese research results can be used by US engineers to develop technology, so it’s investment for the general benefit of mankind, and it’s new for China to take that approach.

They have a very different system and a lot of decisions are taken by the relatively small group of people that form the central committee. A local professor told me that the central committee had simply decided that a lot of the money that they’ve made in the economic boom should now be used to do basic research…

There may be problems due to the lack of democracy; but it’s impressive to see that the people running the country in China understand that you have to do basic research. This is something that in Europe we don’t manage to justify to the taxpayer anymore. There could be an important role here for European science journalists to improve on this in the future.

NOTE TO EDITORS:
REsearch LAbs for TEaching journalists (RELATE) is a project funded by the European Commission under the Science in Society research area of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

In 2009-10, 80 young journalists are visiting labs across Europe, interviewing researchers, then publishing their findings. These young journalists are ‘embedded’ on week-long study tours, giving them the inside track on all kinds of research.

This is not a PR exercise: participants are encouraged to explore all sides of the issue in question – whether healthcare, climate change or laser research – and to comment on both the benefits and impacts of the research.

Project partners include the European Journalism Centre (The Netherlands), Minerva Consulting and Communication (Belgium), and three European research bodies: ENEA (Italy), EPFL (Switzerland) and TÜBITAK (Turkey). In 2010, the project welcomed new labs, including ICFO (Barcelona), INRA (Paris) and LENS (Florence).

For more on RELATE, please see the participants’ blogs and interviews with Dr Markus Lehmkuhl of the Freie Universität Berlin, and Professor Mark Brake and Seema Jilani of the Science Communication Research Unit at Glamorgan University (UK).

 

Posted on April 6, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under projects.

Coverage of the burka debate “hijacking” the real issue

The burka debate playing out in web and newspaper pages is “hijacking” a more important and broader concern.

The real issue, according to the panel at a recent debate in Brussels, Europe’s Muslim Women: under cover and under pressure, is the integration of Muslim women into European society.

“We’re talking about active citizenship,” said Shada Islam, the event’s moderator and a senior programme executive at the European Policy Centre.

But challenges European Muslim women face to achieving active citizenship are broad and significant. They are also largely ignored, overwhelmed by the complex and emotional debate surrounding the veil. Even in the panel discussion, the veil threatened to obscure the greater debate, referenced again and again by both the panellists themselves and in the audience’s questions.

But as the first inquirer asked, is the burka really an issue? The number of women in Europe who actually wear one suggests otherwise. Fewer than 2,000 women in France wear a burka or niqab. In the Netherlands, the number is closer to 100.

Political leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy in France, and many others elsewhere, insist on making the veil a political priority. In many areas of Europe, the debate extends even to headscarves – quite a different (and less controversial) matter than the face-covering burka or niqab, insisted Member of the European Parliament Sajjad Karim. Politicians aren’t the only culprits though. According to Karim, Britain’s first Muslim MEP, the media is at fault as well, with an “agenda,” he claimed, that is “misrepresenting Islam and Muslims in Europe.”

The political and media emphasis on the controversial issue of dress has taken Muslim women “hostage,” argued Malika Hamidi, the director general of the European Muslim Network, and overshadowed the fundamental problems Muslim women confront.

Karim framed these challenges in a larger context: What does it mean to be a European? More specifically, what does it mean to be a European Muslim woman? Karim believes there can be and is a distinct European Islam. Islam, he said, is a “universal” religion, one that “does not belong to the people in the Middle East.” Rather, it takes on regional and cultural distinctions.

Neither European identity nor European Islam is easily defined or understood. And for Muslim women, the definitions are particularly problematic. There are tremendous internal and external pressures. Internally, Muslim women must often deal with the traditional expectations of their families and religion, dictating much of their roles both in and outside of the home.

Outside, they encounter the expectations of a largely secular society and face discrimination on three fronts: racial, sexual and religious, which compound obstacles all women confront related to employment and pay, and childcare. Overcoming this discrimination and negotiating the two sets of oft-conflicting expectations pose significant challenges for Europe’s Muslim women.

These are the challenges Shada Islam implored her panel and audience – and all of Europe – to focus on. She wrote earlier this year, “prosperity, stability, security and social peace across the continent depends on the successful integration of Europe’s Muslim citizens.”

“We need to move beyond it [the burka issue],” she said, so Europe’s Muslim women – and Europe as a whole – can move beyond it too.

The burka and headcovering debate is unlikely to go away any time soon.  Though much of the current media attention is focused on France’s proposed burka ban, the controversy extends across much of Europe.

The following is a look at eight Europen countries struggling with the issue. 

France

On 26 January 2010, a parliamentary commission recommended a partial ban on veils that cover the face.  It would apply to most public buildings and public transportation, but not on streets.  It is estimated that less than 2,000 women in France wear the burka.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s stance on the matter is clear. He said on 23 June, 2009, “The problem of the burka is not a religious problem.  This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity.  This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering.  I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France.”

A 2004 law banned all “conspicuous” religious symbols (large crucifixes, Sikh turbans, Jewish kippah, Muslim headscarves) in French public schools.

In 2008, a Moroccan woman was denied French citizenship because she was deemed too “radical” for wearing the niqab. 

In the summer of 2009, a Muslim woman was expelled from a French public swimming pool for wearing a “burquini,” a “head-to-toe swimsuit.” Authorities defended the move as an issue of hygiene. 

Earlier this year, French authorities refused citizenship to a man who “allegedly forced his wife to wear’’ a veil.

Belgium

A January, 2004, proposal to ban the wearing of “conspicuous” religious symbols in Belgian schools was rejected. But a number of schools and towns in Belgium have instituted their own restrictions.  And in September, 2009, controversy led to a ban on religious symbols in public schools for all of Flanders. The ban includes headscarves.

A 2007 Antwerp city council policy says city employees who work with residents should not wear religious or political symbols. 

The city of Maaseik instituted a complete public ban on the burka in 2004, with a fine for non-compliance. 

Germany

There is some new debate regarding a national burka ban in Germany, although a ban is controversial and not imminent. Eight of Germany’s 16 states states do not allow public school teachers to wear religious clothing or symbols. A similar ban in Berlin applies to civil servants.

There has also been controversy over the construction of new mosques in Germany, particularly in Cologne. The new Cologne mosque, currently under construction, will be Germany’s largest.  It received approval from the city council in August ,2008.  Germany currently has more than 160 mosques, and nearly 200 more under construction.

Italy

Members of Parliament from the Northern League party proposed a burka ban in October, 2009, although Parliament has not considered it.  The controversial proposal would strengthen a 1975 law that forbids clothing or helmets that obscure identification. The original measure was intended to combat domestic terrorism.

Netherlands

The government has opted not to impose a general ban on burkas. The decision was made regarding a proposed ban ffirst introduced to the Parliament in 2006 by Geert Wilders, a right-wing leader of the anti-immigration party.

Although the general ban was rejected, a ban on full-face veils applies in schools and universities.

Switzerland

The Swiss cabinet announced in February that it opposes a burka ban. The written statement answered an inquiry from parliament.

The debate in Switzerland is focused more on buildings. A ban on the construction of minarets gained approval in a public referendum in November, 2009. Though the referendum proposal was submitted by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the federal government opposed it. An appeal on the referendum has already been made to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  Switzerland has about 400,000 Muslims and 4 minarets. 

Turkey

Viewed as symbols of political Islam, head coverings have been banned in public buildings since the 1980s. In 1997, the ban was applied more strictly to universities.  But opposition to the university ban has grown.  In February, 2008, the Parliament approved an amendment to allow headscarves in universities, only to have it declared unconstitutional by the county’s highest court the following June.

United Kingdom

In a column on 5 October, 2006, the leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, asked Muslim women to “remove their niqabs in order to help community relations.” His article sparked controversy and further explanation.

Also in 2006, a teaching assistant was fired for wearing her veil while working with students.  She said she was willing to remove it around students, but not if male colleagues were near. An employment tribunal dismissed her claim of religious discrimination.

A 12-year-old girl who was told she could not wear a veil covering her face in school lost a legal challenge in 2007. A 2007 directive from Britain’s Schools Minister permitted schools to ban head coverings on the basis of security, safety or learning environment.

—-
Flickr images from users superblinkymac, kamshots, rob7812, Razan Ghazzawi, chrisschuepp

Posted on March 30, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

Polish economic reform architect to speak at EJC conference

Former Polish Finance Minister Grzegorz W. Kolodko, will be in Brussels on Monday 15 March to deliver a keynote speech at ‘Exiting the Crisis: Europe 2020’, a conference organised by the European Journalism Centre.

Professor Kolodko is widely considered as the key architect of the economic reforms that took place in Poland during the past two decades. In his keynote, he is expected to share his views on the new economic reform plans that are currently under discussion at the European Union.

The conference is open to all accredited journalists in Brussels. You may register your attendance by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). The event starts at 9:15 in the Sofitel Europe Hotel on Place Jourdan

Posted on March 12, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under events, seminars.

Journalists play key role in confronting world’s water crisis

A water crisis is quietly wreaking havoc on many developing countries, and threatens to engulf the entire world.  Yet the problem is often overlooked in the West, where water is taken for granted.  The burden has fallen on journalists to alert a naive European and American public about the global problem and inform them of their governments’ related efforts.

A February seminar hosted by EuropeAid, the development arm of the European Commission, and the EJC, brought journalists from across Europe to Brussels to learn about water shortage and development issues.

While the world water crisis can be difficult for many Europeans to comprehend, for a billion people in the developing world, water – and especially clean water – is scarce.  Often the water that is available comes from cattle tanks or stagnant pools – breeding grounds for insects, parasites and disease.  Contaminated water kills an estimated 2.2 million people every year, more fatalities than from any war.

In many areas, women and children must walk great distances to get their water.  The United Nations Development Programme estimated in 2006 that households in Uganda spend 660 hours a year collecting water.  These lost hours take away from other important activities like education, work and rest.  This lost time plus the detrimental effects of contaminated water perpetuate poverty and low life expectancy.

On the global level, just 3 percent of the Earth’s water is fresh.  And of that fresh water, 68.7 percent is contained in icecaps and glaciers.  Of human water consumption, 69 percent goes to agriculture, 23 percent to industry and only 8 percent to domestic uses.

“We are already water-stressed,” said Sylvain Lhôte, Director of EU Affairs Water for the World Programme. Yet the demands are still rising.  According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the global demand for freshwater is doubling every 20 years.  Lhôte insists the question is not “if,” “but where the tap is running dry.”

Although Europeans are not faced with the immediate challenges encountered in developing countries, they are nonetheless affected.  If nothing else, their taxes go to programmes of the European Commission dedicated to development and water security in other countries.

The European Commission focuses most of its water and sanitation aid on the ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific).  Based on a commitment to the Millennium Development Goals to “halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation,” the Commission established the ACP-EU Water Facility in 2004.  The 10th and latest European Development Fund has allocated 200m euro for the Facility.  In addition, other geographical aid programmes provide financial assistance for water projects and the European Investment Bank gives loans for water sector development programmes.

“You can’t be happy as a human being if there is suffering somewhere else,” the new European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, told journalists at the EJC seminars in an appeal to European idealism.

While such noble sentiment may be reason enough for Europe to help, there are also practical implications facing the continent.  In an increasingly globalised world, stress in one part often spills into others. Water stress can lead to poverty, migration, civil unrest and political instability.  Europe is sure to be impacted.  As Thanasis Troboukis, editor of the Greek science magazine In Vitro, said, “Water is an issue that meets no borders.”

Europe will be affected by problems abroad and at home. Water stress is a looming challenge here as well.  Demand is rising in Europe too. And the affects of climate change, though uncertain, may prove troublesome for a continent accustomed to plenty of water – and unaccustomed to efficiency or conservation.  Lhôte argues water supply and climate change are closely related.

Despite the attention climate change receives in the media and the efforts of the European Commission to combat water problems, the reality is, many people in the developed world – where the resources reside to confront the water crisis – are simply unaware of the problem.

Journalists will need to bridge the gap.

“The role of journalists here [the water issue],” said Gregor Zamude of the Slovenian Press Agency, is “no different than in any other area that affects the public.”

Journalists need to “scrutinise, interpret (make comprehendable) as objectively as possible the policies pursued by individual players, and subject them to approval or rejection.”

With so many different players involved, water policies can be difficult to implement, especially if the public is unaware of the problems.

“However,” Troboukis insists, “journalists have the needed power to discharge pressure towards nations for measures to be taken.”

First journalists themselves need to understand the issue.  Troboukis explained that development issues are complicated – like a puzzle.  And without all the pieces, the truth is incomplete.  The EJC seminar gathered all the pieces together: scientists, policy makers, NGOs, commissioners, etc.  The seminar, he said, helped “international journalists to gain knowledge, expand their contacts and get closer to the truth.”

Informed journalists are key in confronting the water crisis, tasked to inform the public of the problem and how the European Union is responding.  They hold the power to turn up the volume on a global crisis that has yet to attract global attention or solutions.

—-
Flickr images from users niOS, Ravi Dixit, mckaysavage

Posted on March 11, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

“Up Rompuy!” gives taste of Brussels, Barroso and buffoonery

The congregating of the press corps to watch the annual, eagerly awaited theatrical production with a cast comprised almost entirely of journalists has become a regular feature in the Brussels calendar.

This year’s production, held on 27 February, had the irreverent but appropriate title “Up Rompuy” a satirical celebration of the new face of Europe in the world. But, was it not Lady Ashton to represent Europe on the international scene? The jury is still out on that case. And willy-nilly raising Europe’s profile on the world state is so daunting that the two can easily share this Sisyphean task (Sisyphus v Hydra 0-1 after extra time).

This was the butt of one of the numerous sketches that journalists both write and then act out. A plane is about to leave for …Haiti. Hermann Van Rompuy (Geoff “Rick” Meade) desperately tries to convince a Lady Ashton dressed for a starring role in Casablanca (Jacki Davis manfully taking on the Ingrid Bergman role) that she has to get on the plane roaring in the distance. Indecision prevails and amid a flurry of good-byes, the plane leaves - the aeronautical equivalent of Europe missing the boat (the SS Copenhagen).

It was pyrotechnic with sketches coming thick and fast representing some of the most relevant protagonists on the EU stage - from president Barroso to the head of the spokespersons’ service who impersonated herself, very convincingly, in one of the scenes together with a few other spokespeople. All were the subject of some hilarious exchanges of “repartee” that had the audience (which included many Commission officials) splitting themselves with laughter.

The Lisbon Treaty was the real prima donna of the evening, even if it was somewhat like Banquo’s ghost: nobody could see it far less understand it. But it was omnipresent, sketch after sketch, exemplified in the exchange between two drinkers in a pub in middle-Britain trying to analyse how to put into practice the fuzzy provisions of the citizens’ initiative article which has been hailed as a great democratic advance but which nobody knows how to implement.

The Barroso Avatar was another great sketch with longtime correspondent Enrico Brivio returning from Milan for a guest appearance. A cameo role would be a gross understatement! And German journalists imitating some of the commissioners were another clou of the soiree.

The first satirical shows of the British press corps were held in local community halls dispersed in the area of the European quarter in the ’80s when Geoff Meade, correspondent for the Press Association in Brussels, orchestrated this satirical get together among British journalists. The show graduated a few years ago to the Albert Hall, a beautiful Art Deco style theatre in Chaussee de Wavre.

From an initially all-British cast, it has gradually come to include journalists from all over Europe, especially from Germany and Italy, who write and act their own sketches. But even the 500-seat Albert Hall has now become too small.  Requests for tickets outstripped demand and the Meade-Davis duo had great difficulty persuading friends that the show had sold out as soon as the tickets were available in mid-January. But if the journalists left without tickets were disappointed, others also not in the audience will benefit from the show, ie, the charities targeted by the organisers (Meade and Co.) who passed to them all the profits of the evening.

Posted on March 9, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under events.