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.

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.

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.

Director of Human Rights Watch discusses conflict between peace and justice at EPC briefing

On the first day of February in Brussels, the director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) addressed the conflict between peace and justice during a policy briefing at the International Press Centre.

Some would argue that seeking justice in the middle of a crisis – such as the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – interferes with the peace process. The logic of that argument assumes the prospect of prosecution will make leaders like al-Bashir less willing to negotiate peace while offers of amnesty will encourage them to end the violence.

But HRW director Kenneth Roth argued the opposite, insisting that the pursuit of justice is not a hindrance to peace efforts, and, in fact, often helps. Roth’s cited four points from a recent HRW report that analyses numerous conflicts to refute the idea that justice impedes peace.

Roth first rejected the assumption that attempted prosecution of war criminals will derail the peace process, the belief that violent leaders will abandon peace talks if prosecution is likely.

The evidence, according to Roth, suggests otherwise. Leaders regularly engage in negotiations despite the looming threat of prosecution. In Sudan, peace talks continue even after al-Bashir’s indictment. And in Kosovo, the war concluded after Slobodan Milosevic’s indictment by the ICC.

Not only is prosecution not a hindrance, it actually helps foster peace, Roth said.  He explained that an indictment for war crimes often marginalises the accused.  Richard Holbrooke, broker of the Dayton Accords, claimed the absence of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic – unwelcome at the negotiations because of their indictments for war crimes – made the Bosnian peace deal possible.  Roth also cited the indictment of former Liberian President Charles Taylor just as peace negotiations began. The indictment served as a “delegitimizing event” for him, “contributed to his flight two weeks later” and actually helped facilitate peace.

To facilitate peace, some argue for widespread amnesty.  But Roth used his final two points to attack that notion.  The assumption that amnesty furthers the peace process is false, he said.
“There are many cases where a lack of justice has made it more difficult to achieve peace.’’ 

He spoke of the violence in Afghanistan as unsurprising given that warlords and the Taliban routinely get away with horrific crimes and even receive jobs in the government.  Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, offers of amnesty operate more like incentives for violence.  When rebel leaders receive amnesty and then a position in the military, the message is sent that violence is not only tolerated, but can lead to a good job.  The violence in Sierra Leone offers still another example.  The Revolutionary United Front repeatedly followed concessions of amnesty with more violence.

Finally, Roth said, ‘‘amnesty (impunity) can fuel a cycle of atrocity and revenge. …’’ 

He highlighted the violence in Gaza as an example, where as long as no one is held accountable, the violence will continue.  In Kenya, as well, Roth explained that the instigators of post-election violence in 2007 have thus far faced no consequences.  There is concern that if these perpetrators are not brought to justice soon, even worse violence is likely after the 2012 elections.

Roth’s message was clear: peace and justice are not in conflict, but rather complimentary.
“Justice is an important value in and of itself,” he said, principle to the foundation of lasting peace. 

The policy briefing was hosted by the European Policy Centre (EPC) and chaired by Rosa Balfour, Senior Policy Analyst at the EPC.  Roth’s brief was based on the HRW report, Selling Justice Short: Why Accountability Matters for Peace.

—-
Flickr images from users Alkan Chaglar and Habeebee

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

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.

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.