Supporting Somali journalists in exile

Josh LaPorte and Marjan Tillmans, longtime media development project leaders at the EJC, met recently with the directors of the Hayaan Media Development Center, Abdullahi Jama Ali and Abdiweli Ibrahim Aden.

The Hayaan Media Development Center (HMDC) is a new nonprofit dedicated to improving the experience of Somali journalists in Europe and east Africa.

The meeting, in Utrecht, was held to discuss support for refugee Somali journalists based in the Netherlands as well as their colleagues working under harsh and almost impossible conditions in their homeland. Much overlap was discovered between EJC’s core media development goals in Africa and those journalists HMDC reaches out to regularly inside Somalia.  A number of possible joint fundraising opportunities were discussed, as well as integrating Somali journalists into future EJC practical reporting seminars planned in neighboring Kenya. 

A key part of the discussion concerned the Exiled Journalists Network (EJN) based in London, and the possibility of building networks with HMDC and an organisational structure based on the EJN’s successful model.

From an article on Hayaan’s website about the meeting:

“The general director of Hayaan Media Development Center Abdullahi Jama Ali detailed about the insecurity problem in which the journalists work inside Somalia and their needs to be supported on the side of upgrading their professionals.

The senior project manager Media Development of the European Journalism Center Josh LaPorte welcomed the briefings given praising HMDC’s efforts towards Media Development in Somalia regarding it as the appropriate and timely organization that has the capacity to maintain such greater media tasks in east Africa region.”

Posted on January 25, 2010 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under development.

The future of journalism. Or: why journalism is not “media”

We have to accept that industries fail. It happens everywhere, and all the time. Detroit is kaput: we saw it coming, and we all know now. And it made good copy.

Manufacturing went to China and India. There were blue collar casualties. We saw it coming, and it made good copy.

Did we cry? Did we bother? Did we care?

Then the banks failed. We didn’t see it coming. But it made good copy still.

Did we cry? Did we care? Oh yes we did! In no time, billions of taxpayers’ dollars were thrown at the problem.

To try and make it go away. Unlike everything else, the banking sector was considered “too important to fail.” If what you did was “systemic” enough, abundant funding was made available. Overnight if necessary.

Now our own industry is failing, and we feel it is failing us.

Pulp press products are going kaput, and selling our audiences’ attention to advertisers is a failing proposition. We saw it coming, we all know now, and it does make good copy.

Did we cry? Did we bother? Did we care?

Oh yes we did. Studies, task forces, committees, conferences, serious navel gazing, books and grave op-ed articles galore: we saw it coming, and we did care.

But why care? Why care indeed?

We confounded journalism with “media.” “Media” is going the way of Detroit; journalism isn’t.

Incumbent media structures turned out to be too big, too slow, and too much one-way. Too much focused on “bottom lines,” ownership, walled gardens, and proprietary infrastructures.

Old media was too much focused on shareholder value, and on incessantly selling eyeballs to third parties.

Did we really think this was sustainable?

“Media“ knew how to speak. And speak it did. But it didn’t learn to listen.

Now, on the internet, the people formerly known as the audience are learning to speak for themselves. And they listen to each other. They tag, they twitter and share what they feel is important. They create their own channels, tools and platforms. It is a civic debate, it is not media selling attention to products.

Media’s worth has been predicated on extrinsic values:

“Quarterly profits,” or, more recently: “quarterly losses,” are categories we use to measure media. Journalism must be measured differently. We confound media with journalism.

The umbilical cord once connecting media and journalism is becoming toxic. Media is trying to abort journalism, and journalists should seize the opportunity and leave the hostile womb.

Let media look at its shareholder value, and let it perish in the process. Maybe, meanwhile, it will spawn new Paris Hiltons.

(Then again, Paris Hilton might just single-handedly save the whole eyeball industry once she marries Brad Pitt.)

Media may be a dinosaur. But journalism will be alive and kicking as long as it addresses issues of real relevance. Ideally, it enables, moderates, and curates our civic dialogue.

Journalists will survive if they are conducive to the public good.

That they can, and should, make a difference to society is why they joined the profession in the first place. (It’s also why journalism schools keep on attracting a large number of students.)

So journalism got all tangled up with media?

It is not a historic necessity anymore. Publishing tools, and platforms to publish on, no longer need ownership, or copyrights. There is an ever-increasing wealth of content out there. But all that new content is in dire need of “moderation,“ of perspective, and criticism. It needs professional and dedicated journalistic work, a meta-commentary, if you like, for it to cohere and make sense. Journalists will have to enable their audiences to find and articulate their own voices, they will have to share their “media literacy,” and even their writing and producing skills, with their readership.

So what if journalism were “systemic” to modern societies, what if it is “too important to fail”?

Let’s forget the “media” business model. Let’s find new ways to make journalistic work sustainable. A one-time levy on all internet enabled devices would do the trick. So would a special rate the Google keyword algorithm allots to all “systemic” content on the web. So would new ways of distributing the public broadcast service fees. Or what if, due to its systemic value, journalism is able to receive, let’s say, one hundredth of a percent of all that bail out money going to the banks. You go and figure out how much that is, what with the current estimate of the cost of the crisis amounting to 25 trillion dollars.

The future is the decisions we take today.

So let’s talk, listen, network and share. We have some convincing to do. And a long way to go. Nobody said this was easy.

- Wilfried Ruetten / European Journalism Centre

Posted on December 20, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

Pitching for Publication: What Media Want

As part of its RELATE project, EJC presents the third in its series on pitching best practice.

In this interview with Dr Markus Lehmkuhl of the Freie Universität Berlin, we ask what different media want and how to build a network.

This follows interviews with Professor Mark Brake and Seema Jilani of the Science Communication Research Unit at Glamorgan University (UK).

—-

What are your three main tips for pitching science news?
ML: Well, it depends on where you want to publish. Is it a daily paper, a magazine, or radio? The rules—and chances—of getting published by a magazine are different compared to the chances of being published by a daily newspaper. It really depends on the medium, as each may have very different editorial styles or cultures. The main problem is when the editor doesn’t know who is proposing a topic.

So trust is important?
ML: Yes, trust, is a big issue. It is not very usual to propose a full script or a story already written. The editor, so far as I know in Germany and the USA, will want short proposals. They will ask: What is the message? And what is the issue?

So it is about developing a relationship and then constructing the idea together?
ML: In general, yes. There is only one area where this is different: regional or local papers. They prefer ready texts, at least in Germany. They do not want to work together with freelancers on the angle or even the main message of the article. They want to have a text that is ready to publish.

Is that unique to Germany or is it the same in other countries with federal systems, like Spain or the United States?
ML: I really don’t know. Here it has to do with the difference in the budgets or of the papers. The bigger the budget, the more likely editors will want to work out the main message together whoever proposes the topic. People in the big papers, they usually don’t want ready texts, but rather to influence the story. Editors want to shape things from the very beginning

How different are things in radio and TV?
ML: Radio stations are similar to the big papers. They do not want ready texts, they want proposals or short abstracts. When it comes to TV, well, this is not a sector where you can author something without knowing the editorial team.

So TV is a more closed system?
ML: It is generally impossible to propose an issue to a science programme on TV in Europe. First of all, we have few specialised programmes that broadcast scientific news. If you want to realise your proposal then you need the help of all the technical staff behind TV programmes. This makes it very difficult to act as a single freelancer on this market. Very difficult.

Networking at festivals and conferences must be a key way in? For example journalism or EU events. Is that what you’ve found?
ML: Yes, of course, these are good opportunities for freelancers to get in touch with the staff of news organisations of any kind. This is a crucial aspect because it gives the chance to get in touch personally with people who are decisive in this respect.

Does membership of the university or a journalism union help your credibility in that sense? Or is it not that simple?
ML: I think it is not that simple. TV programmes get many, many proposals every day from different people. And it is quite hard to assess how good somebody is, even when he claims to have a degree from a university or whatever. It is very difficult because every media outlet has their own - let’s say – language, their own things they want to have, their own style of writing and things like that. And when they don’t know who is proposing the topic then it is difficult for them. So you have a degree and you may be able to write an article. Fine, but this is not enough. They need people who write in the way they want to.

How did you get your ‘big break’ as a younger journalist?
ML: I sold my stuff to radio because I did a one year internship; it is called “Voluntariat” here in Germany. It is an internship, a trainee programme or whatever. This is just a year where the news institution, in this case the broadcaster, educates you to become an editor. And after that, I started my freelance career and sold the stuff to the editorials where I was working for in my internship. This was quite easy. They knew me and I knew them. I knew what they wanted to cover in their sections and so on. This is vital, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible in this respect. So when you are active, and successful in publishing science stuff in the media, then your credibility grows in a way. Other journalists recognise what you did in section a, b or c, and that in turn enables you to work for them too without doing an internship.

So it snowballs?
ML: This is one of the strategies we recommend to younger people: that they should start with an internship and after that pursue their freelance career. Starting from this point, they become known by other editors. After that, you can work on more advanced strategies, like getting published in national newspapers (although they don’t pay very well). But you publish your stuff there to become better known by other editorials; they read the national newspapers, and special sections, which are always searching for new authors, new talents.

What was your toughest pitch to the biggest publication?
ML: The most challenging for me was to get published in the biggest national newspaper in Germany, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, located in Munich. It was a section for which I hadn’t worked before. It was quite hard to get published here and it took quite a lot of effort. It was a matter of credibility. They didn’t know me and this was challenging for me. But this is 15 years ago at the very beginning of my career. The start is always quite hard.

So you convinced them through sheer persistence?
ML: Well, it was the topic that was decisive, because it was relevant and interesting, but specialised to an extent that no other reporters wanted to cover exactly this story. It sounded interesting, but nobody else in the paper wanted to cover this topic. And that was decisive.

The unique angle was the key?
ML: Yes, well, it was also the topic. They did not have this topic on their screen. But it was relevant and so they decided to publish it. But, once again, it was not a full text. I made my proposal based on an abstract. That was it.

—-

Note to editors:
RELATE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Science in Society research area of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). Up to 80 young journalists will visit labs across Europe, interview researchers, then publish their findings. Their articles should ‘make sense of science’ for a non-specialist audience. Project partners include Minerva Consulting and Communication (Belgium), the European Journalism Centre (The Netherlands), and three European research bodies: ENEA (Italy), EPFL (Switzerland) and TÜBITAK (Turkey). Dr Markus Lehmkul sits on the Advisory Board for the RELATE project.

Photo credit: ObLiterated on Flickr (Creative Commons)

Posted on November 20, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under projects.

Science Journalism: Selling Without Sensationalism

As part of its RELATE project, EJC presents the second in its series on pitching best practice.

In this short interview with Professor Mark Brake of the University of Glamorgan (UK), we look into the pitfalls of science writing, including dealing with editors and publishers.

How do you prevent dumbing down? Who is to blame for sensationalism? These and other questions add more pieces to the puzzle of selling your story. The idea is simple: to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Please see related interviews with Dr Markus Lehmkuhl and Seema Jilani, a RELATE participant and fellow of Glamorgan University.

—-

Can you give any special tips for pitching a science story?

MB: I always try to link any story I write with something topical or contemporary. That holds for whatever I publish: either on my own account or for the University of Glamorgan. But it’s important to remember: if you make it too topical, the story may have a rather short shelf-life.

By focusing on the topical, do you also run the risk of ‘dumbing down’?

MB: I think if you do it skilfully then it won’t be dumbed down too much. The important thing to be aware of is the difference in attitudes. Journalists’ news values aren’t necessarily the same as those of scientists. So there is always that discrepancy.

The title of one of your articles is ‘Taking the fiction out of science’s portrayal’? What exactly is the problem?

MB: The article that I wrote for The Times, Taking the fiction out of science’s portrayal was specifically about a science fiction course that I used to run at Glamorgan. The course was flagged up during the ‘dumbing down’ debate, which I found a misrepresentation by some elements of the media (though not by science journalists). The more narrow-minded elements of the media had the habit of claiming that such courses were ‘dumbed down’ without actually speaking with me or anyone on the course and without knowing anything at all about the content. That is a very shallow kind of journalism.

So is just the media to blame for this simplification and sensationalism? Can you give any examples?

MB: Well, I think it’s the publishing industry in general. My first of six books – all communicating science to different publics at different levels – was about the relationship between science fiction and science. I remember my editor telling me to make my hypothesis extreme for the purposes of the book. 

For instance, during the scientific revolution, some of the first science fiction stories were written during the 1600s. One of them was written by the German mathematician Johannes Kepler: a story called Somnium. In that story Kepler imagines alien life on the moon. So, rather than putting it in a more academic way, a slow-burn argument as to Kepler’s place, position and contribution, my editor favoured the idea that Kepler invented the alien – which is a popularised shorthand. It struck me that that had a lot in common with the way one might report it in a journalistic way.

Also, when my editor sent me her instructions on how best to write popular science, it was a sheet for how to write better journalism. So the rules for popular science writing adopted by this publisher were the same as the rules that one would adopt to write popular journalism in science. So yes, there was the same tendency towards those kinds of values – i.e. simplification.

—-

Note to editors
RELATE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Science in Society research area of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). Up to 80 young journalists will visit labs across Europe, interview researchers, then publish their findings. Their articles should ‘make sense of science’ for a non-specialist audience. Project partners include Minerva Consulting and Communication (Belgium), the European Journalism Centre (The Netherlands), and three European research bodies: ENEA (Italy), EPFL (Switzerland) and TÜBITAK (Turkey).

Flickr photo credit: Mtsofan

Posted on November 17, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under projects.

Covering the Crisis, day 2 - Live blog

Posted on November 10, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging, events.

Covering the Crisis - live blog

Posted on November 9, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging, events.

The digital evolution of analogue paper

The presence of “T-paper” in Seoul was an absolute shock.

No, not that T-paper.

Europeans have become familiar with the term e-paper, but the Koreans went even further and created a “Television paper.” The idea is very simple albeit high-tech: why not read newspapers in public places on a plasma TV?

Even now when I think about it, I can only congratulate whoever had this idea.

Bare bones background

Until a month ago if someone had asked me anything about Korea, I would have not been able to tell them much. Aside from associating the country with industrial giants such as Hyundai, Samsung or LG; or thinking about the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon from a political viewpoint; down to the more superficial recollection of Italy’s loss at a match during the 2002 World Cup, I have to admit my knowledge was rather light.

During my recent trip to Korea I bore witness to one of the most impressive inventions, something I never imagined I would ever see. I come from Italy, where people read less and less, where the media “inform” worse and worse. While living in Brussels where I have observed a deep crisis within European media, the presence of “T-paper” in Seoul was new.

Finally, innovation

One of the major daily newspapers, Chosun Ilbo, pioneered the development of T-paper. I asked a Korean friend who works there as a journalist for more information about their use of T-paper. He explained that it was first developed in March, 2005, when Chosun Ilbo celebrated its 85th anniversary. It is not for commercial purposes, but exclusively for PR and that explains why in Seoul you can only find two exemplars: one in the city centre and one at the “Ubiquitous Media Lab.” While searching for more information about this UML, an area dedicated to research and development, with my even bigger incredulity, I also came across ‘‘M-paper’’ (where users can read newspapers in mobile circumstances) and of an ‘‘I-paper’’ (where users can read the newspaper selectively by search function).

Finally, a great example of innovation in media. Maybe we, the Europeans, should keep this in mind before blaming the widespread loss in readership to ‘‘The Profound Crisis in the Media’’ and additionally follow this example as a direction to strive toward.

While it is undeniable that the publishing industry is - with the exception of few countries - experiencing radical changes, I am increasingly convinced that those who manage to make use of such new technology (thus providing the quality, plausibility and in-depth reporting that newspapers have always done) are the only traditional print media outlets that will continue to succeed in a digital age.

Having already seen this shift seize Korea, I cannot help but expect it to transpire over Europe as well.

Posted on October 5, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

Media laws spur summer debate, autumn actions likely

As lawmakers around the world return to their posts after summer holidays, expect to see renewed attempts to either pass or overturn restrictive media laws.

While compiling the EJC’s daily roundup of media news over the past weeks, several ongoing proposals and debates stood out. The following is a non-exhaustive roundup of proposed or recently passed laws that could either curtail public access to information and/or to cast a chilling effect on the production of various content:

Europe

Great Britain
The government has proposed a law to limit peer-to-peer filesharing. If detected, illegal downloaders would initially receive warning letters ordering them to stop. If they persist in downloading, enforcement officials could require Internet Service Providers to sever their Internet connection.

The proposal is strongly reminiscent of the failed Hadopi law in France.

France

Earlier this year, the French government prompted the ire of Internet activists when it attempted to pass the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet, or Hadopi.

The law would have allowed French authorities to cut off Internet access to computers whose users were previously caught and warned about illegal downloading. It also addressed other matters, such as giving online media status similar to that enjoyed by printed media.

It did not pass France’s Constitutional Council, which demanded judicial oversight before Internet access was denied.

But officials have said they plan to re-introduce the bill in the upcoming session with some oversight built in.

Italy
The Alfano proposal, so called for its author, Angelino Alfano, the Minister of Justice, requires bloggers to edit posts about which a complaint of defamation is filed with the government – within 48 hours. Bloggers who refuse may be sued.

Italian bloggers went on strike in mid-July to protest the right-of-response law.

According to Global Post, the Alfano proposal has been approved by Parliament and is moving on for Senate approval.

Czech Republic

Lawmakers put the “Muzzle Law” into effect on 1 April. It criminalises the publication of material gathered from police wiretaps. The law is dangerous because it prevents, for example, police departments from giving journalists information about potentially corrupted investigations. The law also bans the press from releasing the names of victims of violent crimes.

The punishment for breaking the law, which Czech president Vaclav Klaus signed in mid-February, is a five-year term in prison and a fine of around 170,000 euro.

A group of Czech journalists led a campaign called Prison For Journalists, prompting a group of senators to challenge the muzzle law in court. Some stories say lawmakers are perhaps considering an amendment to the law.

Slovakia

In April, 2008, the Fico government passed the Press Act. Challenges to the law are expected in the latter half of 2009.

According to Reporters Without Borders, the ministry of culture is allowed, by way of the law’s Article 6, “direct control over the media on a number of issues seen as sensitive.” Anyone who makes a complaint to the government about defamation is granted a right to respond. Papers who do not grant the request are subject to fines.

The law also allows the ministry of culture to penalise 16 different forms of hate speech.

Latin America

Venezuela

Starting in mid-July, Hugo Chavez’ government began taking more than 200 radio stations off the air. Both AM and FM frequencies came under fire.

Also, as the Economist reported, the government has plans to “restrict radio stations from sharing programming so that local broadcasters would no longer be able to relay national news programmes.”

During the same week, regional newspapers were threatened when “government delays in providing foreign currency needed to import paper,” Editor & Publisher reported.

The first week of August saw pro-Chavez activists barge into Globovision, an opposition TV network, and attack staff there.

It’s all leading up to attorney general Luisa Ortega Díaz’ proposed Media Crimes Law. The purpose of the law is to curtail freedom of expression, which Ortega Diaz says has of late been abused in Venezuela.

Middle East

Iraq

In mid-August, active Iraqi academics, parliamentarians, booksellers and journalists gathered in Baghdad to protest a series of government measures meant to limit the amount of “immoral” information to which Iraqis have access.

The government is requiring Internet cafes to register with the government. And according to a recent New York Times report, “In July, a government committee recommended that the drafting of a law allowing for official Internet monitoring and the prosecution of violators be expedited.”
Banned material would include Facebook, pornography, negative materials on Islam and content about gambling, terrorism or drugs, the NYT reported.

Some books will also be banned.

Saudi Arabia

This state’s censorship of the Internet is well documented. But it managed to make headlines over the summer with its restrictive practices.

In early August, Saudi Arabia yanked a satellite TV station after it broadcast a show in which a host spoke candidly about sex.

A few weeks later, Saudi Arabia blocked the Twitter accounts of activists inside the kingdom.

One of them, Khaled al Nasser, told AFP that he “had sent tweets about several human rights cases that he and other lawyers are pursuing, most recently that of rights lawyer Sulaiman al-Rashudi, detained by police for two years without being charged or tried.

Nasser said the action on Twitter accounts could reflect CITC taking note of the use of Twitter by Iranian democracy activists to provide people inside and outside the country information on their protests in June and July.”

In coming months, the government may require websites to have a license to operate inside the kingdom and privatise more television stations.

—-
Flickr images from users calamur, quecomunismo and albazi

Posted on August 25, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under blogging.

Clinton helps free two, but many journalists need help

Bill Clinton 2, Kim Jong Il 0.

The former American president has landed in Burbank, California, after securing the release of CurrentTV reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

The duo was arrested in March and subsequently sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in North Korea. They were arrested while reporting about human rights issues near the China-North Korea border.

But many journalists who have become entangled in the lairs of oppressive regimes aren’t coming home today. In fact, today is a particularly busy day in the world of disturbing news about threatened journalists:

Africa

In Gambia today, six journalists charged with “sedition, defamation and conspiracy” are facing judgment. If they are found guilty, they face fines and jail time of up to two years.

Elsewhere in Africa, two journalists who have been held in police custody since Saturday may be formally charged today. The pair of editors from Niger are detained after publishing reports about “corruption charges involving the national human rights commission.”

Russia
In a courtroom in Russia today, the four men charged with the 2006 murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya are being retried after a successful appeal by the prosecution. According to Reporters Without Borders, “The Russian justice system’s inability to punish those who use murder to silence critics and protect their interests just feeds the cycle of violence and serves as licence for the killers to continue killing.”

China
AsiaMedia, a daily digest of media news from that region, is reporting today that a Chinese journalist has been sentenced to three years in prison on charges of corruption. It is a “rare case of a female journalist working for the powerful state broadcaster, CCTV, being sent to prison.”

Iran
Good news today from Iran, though, the world’s leading jailer of journalists with 36 in jail. The Islamic state released five journalists from its prisons today. One of the quintet had been in prison for a year; the rest were arrested in the protests following the June elections in Iran.

—
Suddenly, the “furloughcations” facing many a journalist in the United States and Europe don’t look so bad.

Check out this CPJ report for more information on detained reporters.

Bloggers’ credibility: A challenge for SYNC3

The mission of SYNC3, an EU-funded project, is to map the blogosphere.

In June and July 2009, SYNC3 held focus groups to clarify exactly what users will need. These groups were held in Maastricht, London, and Moscow respectively hosted by EJC, Google and RIA Novosti, three of the project partners.

One crucial point came up time and again: “How to check the credibility of unknown bloggers?” 

Credibility check
The broad mix of journalists, bloggers and communicators agreed that SYNC3 will be a useful tool for making sense of the blogosphere. But there were different views on how to judge the influence and credibility of bloggers.
Today’s bloggers do much more than share opinions on hobbies and political interests. Many are paid by groups worldwide to promote and build a positive image. So in some cases, their “opinions” are little more than public relations.
Participants agreed that SYNC3 should identify bloggers and rate their credibility; and this could be achieved via a rating system based on readers’ feedback.

Testing the water
Another focus group said that SYNC3 will be a great tool for testing the “social temperature” on a range of news items. Journalists can use SYNC3 to predict what will be “hot topics” and concentrate their efforts accordingly.
Meanwhile, communication professionals, including members of the ‘International Association of Business Communicators’, said this would help their work and planning for how to share stories with bloggers.

The next focus groups will be held in Brussels and Prague in late August.
Note to editors: SYNC3 was launched in March 2009. Co-funded by the European Union, it aims to track the posts and views of bloggers and citizen journalists in the context of traditional media news.
The SYNC3 consortium includes EJC, RIA Novosti, Google, Xerox, Athens Technology Centre and other partners, and is seeking feedback from as many potential users as possible. A questionnaire has been prepared on how SYNC3 can help people who follow blogs in their everyday work. The questionnaire and example scenario are on the project website http://www.sync3.eu. Latest news is available also through Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn updates.

Posted on July 30, 2009 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Filed under projects.