Syria: Effectively Oppressing the Affected

 Has the Syrian government been effective in controlling and influencing the media? Yes. Has the Syrian government been effective in maintaining their oppressive state because of their control over the media? Yes. Interestingly enough, Syria provides the right to free speech in their constitution! So how are they (the government and the government’s allies) getting away with all the unjust censorship they employ? Well, they arrest journalists, forbid foreign journalists from reporting inside the country, almost all the newspapers are run and owned by the regime or it’s allies and they forcibly restrict coverage of the ongoing crisis, just to name a few. In this post I will discuss the extent of effectiveness the Syrian government has had in recent years on censoring, and thereby controlling, the media.

 Photo

The Syrian Civil War has been an ongoing crisis since 2011. It has been reported that since the beginning of this conflict over 100,000 Syrians have been killed. Yet, the Syrian government has been doing everything possible to keep news of the conflict from being reported nationally and internationally. Falsities about the war and propaganda are prevalent throughout the country and are being propelled by regime-run outlets and sources. The reporters from these state-run stations and the like continually call the opposition forces “terrorists” and “radicals”. Al-Assad has also instituted a “foreign media blackout”. This “blackout” has prohibited almost all foreign journalists from entering, and therefore reporting on, Syria. In 2012 the government offered 70 visas to foreign journalists, however the stipulation for these visas was that the reporters were required to be escorted around by representatives from the state. These representatives also determined what the journalists could cover. The effectiveness of this ban has been a success for the government because it has thwarted the amount of information coming out about the seriousness of the civil war and therefore has prevented the truth for circulating inside the country in addition to outside the country.

Civil War Destruction 

An example of national journalists being oppressed can be seen in an incident that occurred in February of 2012. Government agents invaded the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, which is a NGO based in Damascus. During this raid the government forces arrested the head of the organization and 13 other employees. Another incident of journalist persecution took place in July of that year. This incident consisted of a radio tower being demolished in Aleppo. The government perceivably saw this radio station as a threat because university students and staff members created it.

 In class we have seen how large a role ownership can play in allowing the government to censor pertinent news. Syria is an example of this. In the region the government and “allied business men” and responsible for the ownership of most newspaper publishing houses and they use this control to greatly control the media. The censorship of foreign and domestic news is controlled and monitored by the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Culture and National Guidance. The regime propagates their control by also placing heavy censorship on T.V. networks and the radio. When the almost the entirety of mass media is being censored it is easy to see how simple it is for the Syrian government to keep its peoples ignorant of reality.

What makes the Syrian so “successful” in influencing and controlling the media is their consistent suppression of basic human rights (i.e. the right to factual knowledge etc.) with little to no consequences. As the civil war wages on it will be interesting to see if the Syrian government maintains their power or if it falters in the age of uprisings as it has in other MENA countries.

 

The Power of Facebook: Is it all Positive?

Social media, namely Facebook, in the Middle East and North Africa are used just like they are used here in the United States. The people of the MENA region use these sites for communicating with family and friends, as a source for news, as well as a place to connect and engage with strangers who may share similar passions or beliefs. However, Facebook has played a role in some MENA countries that it has not played here in the U.S, and that role being promoting democracy in countries that have seen intense media censorship enacted by their governments.

 

(Photo)

In Tunisia Facebook played a vital part in the Revolution in that it “organized and energized young revolutionaries.” Now, several years later, it is still an integral part of the Tunisian media landscape. As of 2012, Tunisia had 3,134,500 Facebook users, which is 29.6% of the country’s population. However, Facebook has become less of a revolutionary tool and is increasingly being used as a place to catch up on national and international news. This is not an ideal situation because, even though Facebook has done a lot of great things for Tunisia, it is not a credible news source. Anyone who has Facebook will be able to point to at least one instant where they read something that was false and/or posted something they believed to be true and later found out was not. They would also be able to tell you how fast and how wide the spreading of said false story was. Once an article or online posting of any sort makes it’s way on to Facebook it is nearly impossible to stop the diffusion. With that being said, it is easy to see how in a place like Tunisia who relies heavily on Facebook for it’s information can fall victim to the wide dispersal of falsities and how in a developing democracy this can be incredibly detrimental.

(photo)  

Like Tunisia, social media is playing a crucial role in Egyptian life during and post- revolution. Today, Egypt has the largest amount of Facebook users in the Arab world. A report published in August 2013 related that 12 million Facebook users in Egypt are under 30 years old, with 81% of the total amount of female users being under 30. I found this statistic to be fascinating because according to an article published by BBC in November 2013, Egypt is “the worst country for women’s rights in the Arab world.” However, Facebook analysts have said that female Facebook users in Egypt are more culture-orientated than Egyptian male users. I hope that these statics mean that, as time moves forward, Facebook will allow Egyptian women to begin to fight for equal rights and use social media to propel and spread the word of their in a similar way that it was used to propel the Arab Spring.

Conviction of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith: What Does this Mean for the Future of Guantanamo Bay

Today, Osama Bin Laden’s son in law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, was convicted of “  …conspiring to kill Americans and providing material support to terrorists” as written in an article published in the New York Times. Abu Ghaith is an Islamic cleric who after 9/11 gave speeches on his father in law’s behalf as well as assured that there would be more terrorist attacks in the future. What struck me most about this article is that his lawyer, Stanley L. Cohen, believes that the guilty verdict reached by the jury is not entirely right and that there are grounds for appeal. When Abu Ghaith took to the witness stand, he claimed that Bin Laden asked him to “deliver a message to the world” about what had happened on 9/1. This message came in the form of a video that Cohen is arguing cannot be used to tie Abu Ghaith to Al Qaeda. He believes this video simply portrays a man doing his duty as an imam, or Muslim “theologian”, not a man being a messenger for Al Qaeda.

 

Defense Attorney, Stanley Cohen (source)                                               Sulaiman Abu Ghaith (source)

His trial also poses another critical question and that is whether or not people being held in Guantanamo Bay should have their trials at the prison before a military tribunal or on U.S. soil in civilian courts. The Obama administration has made this change from suspected terrorists being tried at Guantanamo Bay to being tried in the U.S. This change is seen as step towards closing the prison. The article states, “…the lightning speed from his arrest to verdict — would seem to serve as a rejoinder to critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to try suspected terrorists in civilian court, rather than before a military tribunal.” Personally, I am in support of the closure of Guantanamo Bay (on humanitarian grounds), but I understand the arguments of those who oppose the closure. However, I do hope that Abu Ghaith’s case, whether or not his conviction(s) get appealed, will set a precedent for future cases and begin to move more and more of these suspected terrorists trials into the U.S. courts.

Guantanamo Bay (source)

 

 

Are Americans Apathetic to the Crisis in Syria? Or significantly uninformed?

I am the first to admit that while at school I do not keep up with the news as much as I should in order to be considered a well- informed member of society, who can give well-informed opinions on the happenings of the world. However, last week while home on break, I was able to play some news-catch up and during a segment featured on NBC Nightly News my eyes were opened to just how disastrous and detrimental to the effects of the ongoing conflict in Syria have been on the population, but specifically on the Syrian children.  The segment was called “Forgotten? Syria’s Children of War” and while watching the horror unfold before my eyes I could not help but think, “How is it possible that a crisis of this magnitude is occurring and there is not a constant dialogue going on about it at school?” This question led me to a BBC article, “Wars, Public Outrage and Policy Options in Syria”, written by Kim Ghattas. This article deals with the overall apathy of the American people when it comes to conflicts that do not directly affect them. Ghattas writes, “The world inevitably tires of complex, long conflicts where there are no clear answers about how to end the violence”. This unfortunately is too true.

 

Photo

But how is this possible?  How do the faces of millions of suffering children not infiltrate the America media and create a movement to end this great injustice? Are the American people really that self-involved? Ghattas writes that part of the reason why Americans appear to be apathetic to the Syrian situation is because the Obama administration, “…repeatedly point to the fact that Americans have bigger concerns closer to home and that President Barack Obama is very mindful that the public has no appetite for interventions abroad, no matter how limited”. Yes, we have issues that need immediate attention here in the United States, but do we have any issues as pertinent and time-sensitive as innocent adults and children dying? I do not believe we do. Ghattas continues by saying that, “Lack of public pressure conveniently reinforces Mr. Obama’s conclusion that it’s too difficult and politically too risky to take action in Syria, but it’s in fact up to the president to galvanize public opinion”. I could not agree with her more on that point. Yes, the responsibly to stay informed as much a possible on current international affairs is in the hands of the individual, but the president is someone who the citizens elect to bring to light and help to fight against injustices (in what ever way possible), whether they be home or abroad. 

 

 In the coming weeks I plan to do what I can to get the word out on the crisis in Syria and I hope that I can make at least a little difference by spreading the word to my friends and families. I hope in the coming weeks and months that news stations do what NBC has done and broadcast to the American people the travesties being committed in Syria. In turn, I hope this creates a public outcry for action and that those who have the power to make a change in Syria will hear this cry and act on it.

 

 

 

Political Crisis or Popular TV drama?

Last week in class we discussed TV and TV shows and how readily available they are to those who live in the MENA region as well as the effects TV has on them. We talked about how their TV habits were not so different for ours here in the U.S. Sure, those with TV access watch the news, but they love their soap operas, dramas, comedies and reality shows just as much as we do. They look to TV for entertainment and as an escape from reality, just like us. And, just like us, when government officials make big, potentially detrimental, mistakes they are glued to their TV sets waiting for the next captivating moment to unfold. Currently, Turkey is enjoying a political drama of massive proportions.

Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan (photo)

 

What is spurring this political crisis? Leaked telephone conversations, of course. In an article published in the New York Times, Tim Arango reports on this present Turkish corruption scandal.  This scandal came to a climax Monday night when a wiretapped conversation, allegedly between the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, and his son was leaked. During this conversation the Prime Minister is supposedly heard instructing his son to get tens of millions of dollars out of the house because he fears an impending investigation.

This dramatic event caused the Turkish people to rush to social media platforms and thus government censors had an influx of work. This led to the original leak being taken down from the Internet. However, the Prime Ministers office made a statement saying that,  “Phone recordings published on the Internet that are alleged to be between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his son are a product of an immoral montage that is completely false.” This did not weaken the public’s fascination though. People have stayed glued to twitter and the TV trying to stay on top of the latest reports. One of the reasons the Turkish people are so riveted by this scandal is because they are uneasy to the consequences that may come of it. This is not unusual given the political unrest in the country. According to the Times article many analysts have said that Erdogan’s supporters are deeply enough involved in the Turkish state to be able to “do a great deal of damage”.

 

Photo

Although, here in the U.S. we are not accustomed to living in a constant state of limbo over whether or not our government will do something radical, we can sympathize with the Turkish people in that we have become “desensitized” to a certain extent to governmental scandals.  As much as it pains me to admit, if I received a CNN alert to my phone that a congressman, senator or political leader had sent out naked pictures of himself or has said something abhorrently offensive I probably would not even open up the app to get the details. In light of this he best thing we can do, I suppose, is to hope that political leaders on all ends of the globe start concerning themselves more with the state of their nation and less about power and all that comes with it as a result.

 

“Status: Not Free”

Straight 7’s. 

Freedom House ranks countries on a scale of 1-7 (1 being best, 7 being worst) in the categories of Freedom Rating, Civil Liberties and Political Rights and Sudan earned straight 7’s. It also assigns countries a status. Sudan’s status for 2013: “Not Free”. To highlight the severity of the situation in Sudan, Libya, arguably one of the most prevalent counties discussed in the media currently, is ranked by Freedom House as “Partly Free”. Libya scores a 4.5 in Freedom Ranking, 5 in Civil Liberties and a 4 in Political Rights. I was under the impression that Libya is an incredibly hostile place right now to be a reporter, journalist or civilian. But, after seeing it rank 2-3 points lower in these categories in comparison to Sudan has shown me how completely out-of-control the current state of Sudan is in.  

 

Picture

If not implied above, Sudan is a dangerous area for journalists. In June 2012, journalists who were in Sudan reporting on the antigovernment protests faced prosecution. At least seven journalists were apparently detained for reporting on the protests and they were held without charge until August. Agence France Presse, a French news agency, had their offices in Sudan raided after one of their reporters took a photo in the Sudanese city of Omdurman. In addition, a reporter from Bloomberg was deported for covering the protests.  Angelo Wello, a freelance journalist, reported that Sudanese had begun shooting through his house where he and his family live. These conditions are not conducive or safe for journalistic efforts, let alone being a home to civilians.

 In addition, the Sudanese government is currently trying to bankrupt Sudan media outlets through intense and unjustifiable censorship laws. In an article published two weeks ago on Reporters Without Boarders it was reported that, “In the past few weeks, the intelligence services have repeatedly and arbitrarily seized newspaper issues or ordered newspapers to stop publishing, without giving any reasons”. This act of censorship seems completely insane to those of us living in a country where the right to free speech are a part of our constitution, but to the Sudanese it is all too real and not stopping any time soon. What is so unbelievable to me is that the government can so simply flex it’s tyrannical muscles and there is nothing to be heard of it here in the United States. 

Picture 

With the political turmoil, a corrupt government, and systematic killings one can only assume that Sudan will continue to be one of the most hostile and hazardous countries for journalists to be reporting about and reporting from. However, Sudan is a country that is in desperate need of media attention because of  copious amounts of human rights violations that have occurred there for far too many years.  If there is good new though it is this, in the report published on the Committee to Protect Journalists website, Tom Rhodes wrote that the Sudanese government is beginning to realize that it needs media attention. I believe that if there can be some lenience in the governments actions towards the media, a little might go a long way.

 

 

Picture

I decided to write my blog this week in response to one of my classmate’s post on her blog from last week. She was reporting on and analyzing an issue that arose in Iran in 2009 and that the BBC wrote an article on in 2012. This article was titled “Neda Soltani: ‘The media mix-up that ruined my life’”.  This article recounts a horrifying situation in which Neda Soltani was mixed up with an Iranian woman named Neda Agha-Soltan. Agha-Soltan was shot and killed during a demonstration in Tehran, but Soltani, a university teacher, was the one who’s face was suddenly being shown as the face of the woman who was shot. In the article she wrote herself, Soltani tells her nightmarish story which ends with her having to flee Iran (after bribing a security guard with $14,000) and seek political asylum in Germany.

Solanti speaks about how the people she was most upset with in the situation was the Western media. The western media continued to flash her face across TV screens after they were made aware that the woman in the picture was not the same woman who had been shot. By doing this they continued to put Soltani, an innocent woman being made to look like a she faked her own death, in danger.

After reading about this article in my classmate’s blog and then reading the actual article I am overcome with disbelief and sadness. My first thought was how could a mix up like this happen and then escalate to the point where Soltani needed to flee her country. In an article in the New York Times Soltani is quoted in saying, “I never planned to leave my country and my family, but I was forced to”.  This is unbelievable to me because I cannot even imagine living in a country that would tell me to lie and change my story in order to clear their governmental image. On the flip side of that though, I also cannot believe, and am ashamed to think, that western countries like the United States who claim to be for protecting and upholding human rights would continue to show her picture and put her life in danger in order to generate a compelling story. In my classmate’s blog she says, “I have never read about Sotani’s experience before but I have always been under the impression that in Iran they treat women poorly, and hold them to a different standard than men”, I also share this same belief and in reading this article my beliefs were, unfortunately, validated. I could not help but wonder that if this same situation occurred and it was a man being falsely accused and not a woman would he have been made an enemy of state and forced to leave his love ones, his friends and his home.

 

 

Picture 

My classmate does a great job of summarizing the original article in a way that still provides the reader with the most important points. She also provides some analysis that I found well researched and, thusly, her analysis prompted many of my thoughts and feelings towards the media mix-up story. I also appreciated the way in which she broke her post up into three different sections titled, “Background”, “So What?” and “Presentation of the Story”. Having these three different sections breaks the post up so that a wall of text does not overcome the reader. It also gives the reader a little preview of what is in each paragraph, therefore making it easier to use for research purposes. 

 

138 Forbidden Words

Did you know that in April of 2011 there were 138 words banned from Turkish internet domains? No? Me either! What is even crazier is that some of the words that were banned are as common as the Turkish word for “crispy” and “adult”. In April of 2011 I was about a month away from graduating high school, so if this was a big story back then my “senioritis” is to blame for my total lack of knowledge on this matter. 

My first thought was, “Why did these words get banned from being used in site domain names”? The initial article I read about the matter on bianet.org did not give a reason so I began to research the topic further online. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a concrete answer primarily because it did not seem like the Turkish Government had given one. An article written on hurriyetdailynews.com provided a clearer picture than the first article as to the grievances being raised by internet sites that would be effected and possibly facing closure because of the ban. The article also explained that the TiB (Turkish Telecommunications Directorate) had no legal grounds for forbidding these words from use. 

As I said above, I did not have prior knowledge of this situation. However, I cannot say I was entirely surprised to read that this had happened. Growing up in a world post 9/11 it has been drilled into me by the media that middle eastern governments are”backward”, “tyrannical” and “controlling”. Therefore I have become desensitized to any information proving those assumptions. I know that not all middle eastern governments possess these qualities and I hope as I continue on in this course I will learn that the majority don’t. For the time being though reading that the Turkish government is taking away an aspect of freedom of speech, that we here in American enjoy without given the matter a second thought, does not shock me. 

The way in which this story was presented on an online news site was successful in that in got the main point across in a direct and clear manner. However, it did leave the reader with a lot of questions so I had to go searching somewhere else to find a more comprehensive article on the issue. The author of the bianet.org article also referenced a “Law No. 4982″a couple of times but never said what this law entails. This again led to questions that could only be answered by further research into the topic. The two other articles I found most useful were more detailed and explanatory as far as the technical terms being used to discuss the banning. I also felt that the article on hurriyetdailynews.com read more fluidly and eloquently and therefore I enjoyed that article more. This prompted me to explore around their website. Which is what I believe online article authors hope their readers will do.  

 

http://www.cartoonstock.com

Consume, Process, Repeat

Hello! My name is Cailin Walsh and I am a Political Science major at Dickinson College. As a twenty-one year old it is hard for me to recall a time when my life was not infiltrated by some form of media.  I grew up listening to NPR and for the first decade of my life my sole aspiration was to become Bob Edward’s daughter. I have moved on from my foolish desires and now I just hope that one-day my parents will transform into Steve Inskeep and Rene Montange.

 All joking aside, I am an active member of the 21^st century and I do receive coverage of the news from more than just the radio. Whenever I can, especially when I am home from school, I watch NBC Nightly News and various political pundits on MSNBC.  However, the majority of the time I catch up and stay abreast of current events via twitter, reading the New York Times and the CNN app on my phone. I wish I could say that I read the Times and watch MSNBC because I have tried many different news outlets and I have deduced that I prefer these, but unfortunately, like many of my peers, I watch/read what my parents do. As the semester progresses I hope that I will be able to say confidently that I watch and read what best fits my beliefs.

 As far as social media goes I consume it in large quantities. I check Instagram the most frequently though and twitter the least. I use social media to stay in touch with friends and family for the most part, but I do follow some Instagram and twitter accounts that report on what is happening in the world. My consumption patterns are constantly changing and since returning from Italy, where I spent the last semester, I have noticed that my addiction to social media has subsided significantly. I am interested to see how this class effects my media consumption in all forms and whether or not I return to my “pre-abroad” level of addiction.