First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Interesting story in the Times magazine this weekend: Digital Diplomacy.

It got me thinking that just 10-15 years ago the State Department was at the absolute bottom of rankings in use of technology. The main State HQ in Washington and the embassies around the world still depended on WANG work stations as late as 1996 when the rest of the government was moving to PCs.

Shortly after that, State was focusing on moving some of its records to an electronic system accessed using only GOPHER while the rest of the world was uploading databases using FTP and linking to it with Mozilla (and later Navigator and Internet Explorer).

Eventually State caught on and is now using new technology to carry out its mandate. Even with the technology in place, the problem still remains with the suits who don’t get this Internet thing. (They get e-mail, but Twitter? For most, not really. And the bureaucratic mindset still doesn’t get it.)

To be sure that is changing. But the bureaucracy is tied to a paper and ink mentality. Just taking a look at many of the websites or Tweets offered by some of the embassies shows that the folks in charge of those postings see the Internet only as a means of transmitting press releases instead of actually engaging the public in the US or in the host countries.

The strength of new technology at the State Department is focused on the Public Diplomacy section and Consular Affairs. And that is how it should be. After all these are the two sections of State that have the most contact with the general public.

The U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia does get it. According to a report back in April, the embassy has 128,000 “friends” for its Facebook page. And this is out of 161,000 “friends” for ALL U.S. embassies.

Making diplomacy less “pinned-striped cookie pushers” and more relevant to the American people can only help. this means using technology to engage people in a discussion about foreign affairs instead of just pushing information out. The technology allows American diplomats to establish a dialogue with the American people and the people of host countries more easily but only if the diplomats understand how to use it. (And so we come back to Jared Cohen and Alec Ross, the focus of the NYT article.)

And let’s face it, the problem of demystifying diplomacy and international relations is not limited to the diplomatic corps. The news media also play an important role.

A role they often fail to fulfill.

Until the US media and diplomatic corps get the point that domestic and international issues are linked, there will be less understand and limited support for our international activities. And more confusion about what is going on in the world.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World and the SPJ International Committee blog.

I have to admit, from the time I heard CNN had fired Octavia Nasr for her Tweet on the death of Hezbollah spiritual leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah I was upset she wrote what she did and at the same time I thought firing was a bit harsh but probably necessary.

Her response to the uproar over her Tweet was the usual backpedaling “what I meant to say is…” variety. She is a journalist and should know the importance of the use of words. But her firing from CNN was a bit more problematic for me. And now, it appears it is also a problem for Tom Friedman.

In his July 16 column — Can We Talk? — Friedman points out the loss to journalism and to America’s understanding of the Middle East by the loss of Nasr.

[We] gain a great deal by having an Arabic-speaking, Lebanese-Christian female journalist covering the Middle East for CNN, and if her only sin in 20 years is a 140-character message about a complex figure like Fadlallah, she deserved some slack. She should have been suspended for a month, but not fired. It’s wrong on several counts.

For too many years news organizations have depended on parachute journalism to get stories from hot spots around the world. The ever shrinking presence of American media journalists around the world — with the exception of NPR and PBS — does Americans and American society a disservice.

Here is a woman who is fluent in three languages and whose heritage is Arabic. She knows the Arab cultures and societies in the Middle East and can speak their language. Name me other journalists so blessed with talent.

And her credentials as a journalist are also impeccable. This is a partial list from the CNN website, which still had her bio up as of today:

• Edward R. Murrow Award for Continuing Coverage of the 2006 war in Lebanon;
• Golden Cable ACE Award in 1993 for CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War
• Overseas Press Club Award in 2002 for CNN’s post 9-11 coverage.

Her comments were wrong. However, it is still possible to respect someone without signing on to all the other parts of that person’s life. (There are a number of us who will always respect Richard Nixon’s political skills while despising everything he did to damage the Constitution and integrity of the presidency.)

I don’t see how anyone could respect Fadlallah’s hate for Israel, the United States or most democratic institutions. Yet, according to Nasr, Fadlallah was a pioneer in defending women’s rights in Shia circles.

[To] me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of “honor killing.” He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.

This, clearly is a position to be respected.

So the question is: Who will replace Nasr? How will CNN get news that explains how and why the Arab governments and societies operate the way they do. Anyone can report WHAT happened but the WHY is just as important.

And it is getting the WHY in international events that has been so weakened in the U.S. media. Having a bureau in London does not mean the reporters can get the full story in Poland or any of the African countries. Reporters are needed in key cities around the globe.

And yet, the U.S. news organizations keep pulling back. It is not enough to hire a few freelancers or pick up a story from “a partner” in another country. The foreign news needs to be made relevant to American audiences.

Americans are a notoriously isolated people. It is the responsibility of journalists to present news and information that people need to make intelligent decisions. And sometimes that means spending time and money to get the story right.

WHY a foreign event is important to Americans is just as vital as the WHAT and HOW of the event. And maybe it is time to start focusing on this point again.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

At first the July 16 New York Time story about Pakistani legislators claiming university degrees they never earned seemed like a fun story. One that would provide a small insight into Pakistan’s politics and earn a chuckle or two. (Pakistani Legislators Face Accusations of Faking Their Degrees)

In one case, a member was disqualified by the Supreme Court for holding a fraudulent master’s degree in Islamic studies. In a hearing, the man could not name the first two chapters of the Koran, the newspaper Dawn reported.

But then it became clear that the only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because of the tenacity of the Pakistan press.

[T]he news media have seized on the issue, pressing the case that politicians who did get fake degrees or otherwise misrepresented their educational achievements while the requirement was in force could be tried for fraud or forgery.

The nation’s largest newspaper, Jang, ran front-page articles five days in a row, while “Capital Talk,” its most popular television talk show, featured the topic twice this week.

The agency in charge of the investigation of the validity of the legislators has completed only 183 out of 1,170 cases. It found 37 unnamed violators

According to the NYT, analysts say the delays are an effort to stall the legal process.

The issue is so hot that the the commission took the unusual step of warning its members not to leak information to the media.

And to underscore how sensitive this issue is, in an apparent effort to put pressure on the commission, the brother of the head of the commission was arrested this week on corruption charges.

The penalties of being found guilty of falsely representing their educational credentials could lead to three years in jail for the politicians. They could also be disqualified from running for office for 10 years.

So, the issue is getting the slow-track treatment by the government and politicians are doing all they can to intimidate the investigators event further.

And yet the media continues to keep the issue alive.

And now, here is the kicker…

On July 9, the Punjab Assembly unanimously passed a resolution condemning the news media for “irresponsible propaganda” and demanding that they abstain from “insulting” reports.

But the resolution set off waves of protests by journalists across the country and intensified coverage.(My emphasis.) The Assembly rescinded the resolution four days later, passing another that honored the news media for their role in promoting democracy.

They learned that old rule: “Never get in an argument with someone who buys his ink by the barrel.”

Hopefully the Pakistani people will also appreciate the valuable resource they have in a free and independent news media.

First posted at Journalists, Journalism and the World

It is so nice to see the Poynter News University run a self-guided course on the very thing I (and a few others) have been harping on for so many years.

Local and global issues are linked. Editors and publishers who fail to see these links and who fail to allow reporters the leeway to report on those connections do readers/viewers/listeners a disservice.

No the News University is running a class to help established journalists see the links.

Reporting Global Issues Locally

I particularly like the second and third grafs of the class description:

Every day, reporters and editors in small- and medium-sized newsrooms miss opportunities for great stories because they don’t know how to take ownership of major international news.

Most big international stories have ripples that reach even the smallest of communities. “Reporting Global Issues Locally” will show you how to find the local angle in the broadest of international stories.

Again, this is the kind of stuff many of us have been saying is important to not only good local journalism, but also to the survival of local media outlets.

Cross posted with Journalism, Journalists and the World

The censorship squad in Beijing has got to be going crazy right now.

The European Community made the case earlier this year that censorship is a trade barrier. That means governments that engage in censorship of the Internet are in violation of trade agreements from simple bilateral accords to the whopper World Trade Organization.

Countries like China fought to get into the WTO to ease their sales into other trading countries. At the time, China said it was willing and ready to play by the rules of the rest of the world.

Of course, they only meant the “build cheap, sell expensive” and “Buy from me but I don’t have to buy form you” rules. Nobody mentioned anything about opening up access to information.

It was inevitable, however. Free and fair trade can only exist when there is also free exchange of information and data. The Chinese government understands that somewhat. They loosened some controls over foreign media access to China. More Western — non-Chinese government — publications are available to more Chinese people. And even some Chinese pubications are able to report more freely about economic and business issues. (But not social or political ones.)

But the Old Guard continues to hold enough power in the government to keep trying to control Internet access in China. But there has been push-back they never expected.

• The government failed to force all computers in China to install the stolen software Green Dam.
• Google refused to play ball by self-censoring information through its web site
• Hackers who provide ways around the Great Chinese Firewall are treated like rock stars by computer users.

And now trade, the lifeblood of economic well-being in China is under attack.

Basically the Europeans have told China: “Censor the Internet and we will file unfair trade practices against you.”

And now the U.S. has joined in. And Google is helping. (Google helps build trade case over Web censorship)

The usually boring trade issue stories now have GEEK APPEAL. It would be nice to see if some U.S. reporters — national and local — pick up on this technology and trade issue.

• How is censorship unfair trade?
• What does it mean for U.S. and local businesses?
• How has the Internet made getting cheaper goods easier? Harder?
• How has the Internet affected how people do business with suppliers from around the globe?

Just a few questions. Let’s see if anyone asks them.