When Kantipur, the most-widely read vernacular daily in Nepal, came in the scene two years after the restoration of democracy in 1990, people had high hopes toward independent media and other democratic institutions. In fact, Kantipur's early success was due its ability to fill the void that the state media had created. People needed to know more than one side of the story, and Kantipur told them without an agenda. That's what I thought what Kantipur was - a newspaper without it's own agenda, a newspaper that "served" the public - until the day when I met the chairman who told me and my friends why his newspaper would not publish the acts of nepotism of the Vice Chancellor of Kathmandu University where I worked. That was the day when I lost hope in Kantipur. This is the same daily that fought so bravely against the corrupt monarchy. It dared to publish articles by an underground Maoist leader for which the editor and two executives were locked up in 2001.
When we met the chairman of Kantipur Publications Pvt. Ltd., we gave him proof of how the VC had blatantly compromised all academic and professional values in the university. We gave him facts about all acts of nepotism, like appointing his brothers, daughter and close relatives in academic and administrative positions. We told him how he influenced the admission, examination and how he virtually controlled everything in the university. Besides his own act of nepotism, we gave sufficient proof of how other administrative heads are directly involved in policy-level corruption. We met the Chairman as members of a newly formed professors' association that was agitating to oust the VC.
(Please remember that the editors of Kantipur told us they cannot publish without the publisher's consent.)
After listening to everything that we had to say, he frankly told us, "The VC is my friend. I have known him for 20 years now. He has asked me not to publish anything against him. What you are saying is true. But I will not publish."
We had nothing to say after that. We did not argue. We did not rationalize. Later, we discussed how a poor country like ours is ruled by a bunch of corrupt people who thrive purely on such collusion.
How can we further the cause of democracy if universities and media don't function transparently? How can media serve the public if they have their own favorite agenda?
Later, we organized a series of protests against nepotism, corruption, and lack of transparency in the institution. We took the case even to the prime minister who heavily favored the VC. It was the biggest revolt in the history of the university. After our visit to the PM's office, one of the technical staff was called by the dean in his office and threatened to fire him if he went against the VC. Three days later, he committed suicide. No media reported it. The regional reporter from Kantipur had sent the story, but it was not published. The newspaper killed the story in favor of the VC. The wife of the deceased gave a testimony to the media that was sufficient to charge the dean with second-degree murder. But, we later heard that she was silenced with a job in a remote area. The media did not report. The media is least interested to go beyond the PR loop that successfully feeds the 'good image' of the VC who has been head of the institution ever since its establishment in 1991.
I think we have to go beyond write-what-you-see model of journalism to find-out-so-that-others-can-see model if we have to serve in the public interest.
(Originally written for JMC ethics blog.)
April 28, 2008
April 08, 2008
Creating Youth Identities in Digital Era (Book Review)
Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. ix, 206 pp.
The period of youth is a time to define and redefine individual identities in relation to the environment around them. Creating these new definitions is influenced by the way people engage themselves in various socio-cultural and technological entities. Today, the use of technology is one such influence that affects the sense of self in creating an identity.
Unlike two decades ago, today young people are exposed to digital media almost as a natural part of their life. Interaction with digital media forms is becoming a casual routine that has grave implications on their experience as learners or consumers or members of the family. The book deals with the effect of digital media and how it impacts individual in the creation of their social identities.
Eleven authors contribute to explore the ways young people use digital media in their “networks.” The individual liberty in creating one’s own network is what determines the actual level of influence the media forms will have upon that individual. The authors discuss the roles media genres have in both Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 settings and explore whether the digital environment actually is a true platform for social interaction.
As digital media become more and more pervasive in our daily lives, their roles “escaped the boundaries of professional and formal practice” which originally led to their development. This “non-institutionalized” use of digital media is best exemplified by the way youths have imbibed the technology in their daily lives almost as a granted phenomenon. The book discusses how learning takes place in such informal and non-institutional settings as digital media cuts across the formal educational settings.
The chapter by Sandra Weber deals with what will become of a “techno-newborn” who is instantly exposed to the multitude means of digital communication. She examines this question with case studies to “highlight the roles that digital media can assume in the construction of youth identities.” Because understanding the identity involves understanding the ways in which digital products are produced and consumed, scholars propose collapsing the two into one word, “prosumers.” This is one of the entry points that unravels the mystery in the construction and deconstruction of youth identity. She refers to how youths visit their Web sites to check the number of hits to understand how their self-created identity is faring in their own network.
Another significant feature discussed in the book is the tendency to break away from the formal educational setting once youth find opportunity to do so. Rebekah Willet discusses the engagement on the Internet within the context of commercial culture to “analyze online activities in ways which account for the power and influence of commercial industries, while at the same time recognizing how young people actively engage with the commodities these industries offer.” Her discussion focuses on the relationship between the “structures of consumerism and the agency of the young consumer/producer.”
Once when television was beginning to be accepted a part of the living room décor, older generation often complained at how the “idiot box” is waning away the creativity of a child. Nevertheless, later generations were born into the house where the TV was always on. The situation is similar today with a new breed of babies born not just with the digital technologies, but with the latest know-how to play with them. On one hand there is a large digital divide across the globe, on the other, there is generational divide – a divide between the older generation separated by youths who are more tech-savvy. Susan Herring’s “Questioning the Generational Divide: Technological Exoticism and Adult Constructions of Online Youth Identity” explores whether the present tech-generation will actually guide the future of the digital media, or whether “today’s young trendsetters become conservative technology users over time.”
In this interesting study, she speculates about the “dual consciousness” of youth perspective to “imagine what the first generation to be raised in a world in which Internet and mobile technologies are taken for granted by everyone will be like.” She concludes saying the “fascination” with technology will move away to focus more on the “communicative needs.” Such needs also function to show “commitments to community dialogue and social justice” as youths engage in social participation. Shelley Goldman and Angela Booker refer to this as “social and cultural technologies.”
Several authors touch upon the notion of “identity politics”- a concept that ties issues of social status. This is manifest in online expression, use of technologies by socially excluded groups. Since the book is about the digital experience of urban youth, there is no evidence how youths in rural areas seek identity with the minimum technology they are exposed to. A pertinent question is, do differing identities also share dissimilar characteristics of identity politics in disparate socio-technological environments? Or, how is individual identity made possible by digital technology?
In this regard, dana boyd analyzes use of social network sites from the perspective of creating “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality.” But the study is not clear whether these identities actually give empowerment and promote vibrant social relationship. Whether what is expressed online actually explains why youth engage in digital dialogue is another topic in the book. Because the phenomenon of cyber-bullying has caused deaths among teenagers, it would be worthwhile to understand the relationship between the content and the psychological impact it creates in the process of finding one’s identity. The book could have added a chapter that dealt primarily with theme of how being overwhelmed by the digital technology, youths lose their tendency to mold natural identity but instead mold vis-à-vis the technology around them. Though the chapter “Producing Sites, Exploring Identities: Youth Online Authorship” tries to fill this gap, elaborate discussion is needed to explain the intricacies of making and breaking of youth identity.
Overall, the book examines identity and tries to explain how youth relate with the digital media. Since explaining an abstract concept in terms of empirical methods poses methodical difficulty, the book does some justice by using the available scholarship till now. I would recommend this book to those readers whose interests lie in media effects, especially to understanding the role of youth as primary actors.
The period of youth is a time to define and redefine individual identities in relation to the environment around them. Creating these new definitions is influenced by the way people engage themselves in various socio-cultural and technological entities. Today, the use of technology is one such influence that affects the sense of self in creating an identity.
Unlike two decades ago, today young people are exposed to digital media almost as a natural part of their life. Interaction with digital media forms is becoming a casual routine that has grave implications on their experience as learners or consumers or members of the family. The book deals with the effect of digital media and how it impacts individual in the creation of their social identities.
Eleven authors contribute to explore the ways young people use digital media in their “networks.” The individual liberty in creating one’s own network is what determines the actual level of influence the media forms will have upon that individual. The authors discuss the roles media genres have in both Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 settings and explore whether the digital environment actually is a true platform for social interaction.
As digital media become more and more pervasive in our daily lives, their roles “escaped the boundaries of professional and formal practice” which originally led to their development. This “non-institutionalized” use of digital media is best exemplified by the way youths have imbibed the technology in their daily lives almost as a granted phenomenon. The book discusses how learning takes place in such informal and non-institutional settings as digital media cuts across the formal educational settings.
The chapter by Sandra Weber deals with what will become of a “techno-newborn” who is instantly exposed to the multitude means of digital communication. She examines this question with case studies to “highlight the roles that digital media can assume in the construction of youth identities.” Because understanding the identity involves understanding the ways in which digital products are produced and consumed, scholars propose collapsing the two into one word, “prosumers.” This is one of the entry points that unravels the mystery in the construction and deconstruction of youth identity. She refers to how youths visit their Web sites to check the number of hits to understand how their self-created identity is faring in their own network.
Another significant feature discussed in the book is the tendency to break away from the formal educational setting once youth find opportunity to do so. Rebekah Willet discusses the engagement on the Internet within the context of commercial culture to “analyze online activities in ways which account for the power and influence of commercial industries, while at the same time recognizing how young people actively engage with the commodities these industries offer.” Her discussion focuses on the relationship between the “structures of consumerism and the agency of the young consumer/producer.”
Once when television was beginning to be accepted a part of the living room décor, older generation often complained at how the “idiot box” is waning away the creativity of a child. Nevertheless, later generations were born into the house where the TV was always on. The situation is similar today with a new breed of babies born not just with the digital technologies, but with the latest know-how to play with them. On one hand there is a large digital divide across the globe, on the other, there is generational divide – a divide between the older generation separated by youths who are more tech-savvy. Susan Herring’s “Questioning the Generational Divide: Technological Exoticism and Adult Constructions of Online Youth Identity” explores whether the present tech-generation will actually guide the future of the digital media, or whether “today’s young trendsetters become conservative technology users over time.”
In this interesting study, she speculates about the “dual consciousness” of youth perspective to “imagine what the first generation to be raised in a world in which Internet and mobile technologies are taken for granted by everyone will be like.” She concludes saying the “fascination” with technology will move away to focus more on the “communicative needs.” Such needs also function to show “commitments to community dialogue and social justice” as youths engage in social participation. Shelley Goldman and Angela Booker refer to this as “social and cultural technologies.”
Several authors touch upon the notion of “identity politics”- a concept that ties issues of social status. This is manifest in online expression, use of technologies by socially excluded groups. Since the book is about the digital experience of urban youth, there is no evidence how youths in rural areas seek identity with the minimum technology they are exposed to. A pertinent question is, do differing identities also share dissimilar characteristics of identity politics in disparate socio-technological environments? Or, how is individual identity made possible by digital technology?
In this regard, dana boyd analyzes use of social network sites from the perspective of creating “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality.” But the study is not clear whether these identities actually give empowerment and promote vibrant social relationship. Whether what is expressed online actually explains why youth engage in digital dialogue is another topic in the book. Because the phenomenon of cyber-bullying has caused deaths among teenagers, it would be worthwhile to understand the relationship between the content and the psychological impact it creates in the process of finding one’s identity. The book could have added a chapter that dealt primarily with theme of how being overwhelmed by the digital technology, youths lose their tendency to mold natural identity but instead mold vis-à-vis the technology around them. Though the chapter “Producing Sites, Exploring Identities: Youth Online Authorship” tries to fill this gap, elaborate discussion is needed to explain the intricacies of making and breaking of youth identity.
Overall, the book examines identity and tries to explain how youth relate with the digital media. Since explaining an abstract concept in terms of empirical methods poses methodical difficulty, the book does some justice by using the available scholarship till now. I would recommend this book to those readers whose interests lie in media effects, especially to understanding the role of youth as primary actors.
April 01, 2008
Coverage of the Tibet crisis by CNN.com
Allison Rupp writes the magnificent journey to Lhasa in his article The Sky Train on CNN.com only three days before the exiled Tibetans in India began their march to China to protest Beijing’s hosting of the Olympic Games. The March 10th protest coincided with the uprising against China that forced the Dalai Lama into exile in 1959. Protests in India and Nepal were marked with violence. News of unprecedented world-wide protests were reported all over the world. The Chinese government ignored the issue for couple days, but as the protests grew more violent, China reacted by saying that the whole episode was orchestrated by the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has condemned China's statements and extreme actions.
Ever since the protests began, CNN.com has written more than 70 articles to date, and has posted nearly 140 videos on the Web site. This is a remarkable media coverage given the time span of just three weeks.
Let me briefly discuss how CNN.com reports present the Tibetan side of the story more positively or neutrally and the Chinese side of the story more neutrally and negatively. These reports cover violence in different parts of the world, mostly in India and Nepal. The write-up is based on my experience of reading and watching stories posted on the Web site over the period. I haven't employed any empirical methods to come to a conclusion, hence I must warn you the evaluation might seem subjective!
As violence continues across Lhasa and Nepal, the international community has appealed for peace. The European Union has appealed China to handle the Tibet crisis peacefully calling for respecting Tibet's cultural heritage and maintaining China’s integrity at the same time. The Dalai Lama has called this crisis a ‘cultural genocide’ and the Chinese government blames him for perpetuating violence deliberately.
In the CNN.com reports, what is most glaringly seen is the viewpoint of the Tibetans mostly and not that of the Chinese. The Tibetans have a human interest frame, whereas the Chinese have only the official version which is mostly the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. But as we go to alternative media like YouTube, there are several videos counteracting what the western media have been portraying about the protests. These response-videos and blogs have mostly targeted the western media for overweighing the Tibetan’s cause. In doing so, they have used this medium to put forth their own biased message. One of the YouTube videos shows why an independent Tibet is not acceptable to the Chinese.
The video attempts to expose the myth of the ‘crackdown’ in mainland China. It shows images that were actually taken in Nepal and printed by the western media, including the BBC, Bild Zeitung, CNN, Aljazeera, and others. Very clearly, this video itself presents a slant, but the international media haven’t been fair either in reporting the exact nature of violence that erupted in the streets of Lhasa or in Nepal, India or other parts of the world. This is an excellent example of how the gatekeepers control the message in the newsroom. The Tibet crisis also brings the question of whether international media have differing parameters in tackling issues of the Communist regimes like Russia, China, and some Latin American countries. The historical aspect of the country in the present crisis is completely ignored.
The history of how Tibet was a part of China during the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties until the making of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 is what is often referred. China ‘regained’ Tibet in 1950 when it was under the influence of the British Colonial Empire. Historians contest whether Tibet is a suzerain of China or an autonomous region. But the Chinese consider it as part of the territory, much like Taiwan and Hong Kong. While the relationship with Taiwan isn’t what the Chinese want to discuss, Tibet’s case has brought infamy to the Chinese. A majority of the Chinese believe the Dalai Lama is funded by the CIA ever since his exile in 1959. In the news covered by the CNN.com, there is no indication of any covert funding, but the US has sponsored a radio station and a Web site. The Chinese see this as signs of anti-China policy, and actually an instance of supporting the Tibetans cause in breaking away from China.
The media have, however, not reported the history behind the present crisis. News reports have merely focused on the event itself, and long form report that occasionally report the historical facts use most of their space talking about how the upcoming Olympics will be hurt.
Once I had an opportunity to talk to a Chinese student regarding this crisis. He candidly remarked that it’s the so-called ‘fair, western media’ that actually propagates ‘Free Tibet’ slogan more vociferously than the Tibetans themselves.
The Chinese model of authoritarian press doesn’t permit independent reporting. In China, you ought to support the state, and it’s the state’s interests that matters most. The press is the product of the regime.
When the only journalist from the western media -The Economist - was invited to visit Tibet, Chinese official had hoped a more positive coverage based on the subsidy granted. However, the nature of violence was too brutal to be ignored. The magazine reports that Lhasa television “broadcast over and over again, alternately in Tibetan and Chinese, a government statement accusing the “Dalai Lama clique” of being behind the violence by a ‘small number’ of rioters.”
Where can you find a truly objective media?
Ever since the protests began, CNN.com has written more than 70 articles to date, and has posted nearly 140 videos on the Web site. This is a remarkable media coverage given the time span of just three weeks.
Let me briefly discuss how CNN.com reports present the Tibetan side of the story more positively or neutrally and the Chinese side of the story more neutrally and negatively. These reports cover violence in different parts of the world, mostly in India and Nepal. The write-up is based on my experience of reading and watching stories posted on the Web site over the period. I haven't employed any empirical methods to come to a conclusion, hence I must warn you the evaluation might seem subjective!
As violence continues across Lhasa and Nepal, the international community has appealed for peace. The European Union has appealed China to handle the Tibet crisis peacefully calling for respecting Tibet's cultural heritage and maintaining China’s integrity at the same time. The Dalai Lama has called this crisis a ‘cultural genocide’ and the Chinese government blames him for perpetuating violence deliberately.
In the CNN.com reports, what is most glaringly seen is the viewpoint of the Tibetans mostly and not that of the Chinese. The Tibetans have a human interest frame, whereas the Chinese have only the official version which is mostly the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. But as we go to alternative media like YouTube, there are several videos counteracting what the western media have been portraying about the protests. These response-videos and blogs have mostly targeted the western media for overweighing the Tibetan’s cause. In doing so, they have used this medium to put forth their own biased message. One of the YouTube videos shows why an independent Tibet is not acceptable to the Chinese.
The video attempts to expose the myth of the ‘crackdown’ in mainland China. It shows images that were actually taken in Nepal and printed by the western media, including the BBC, Bild Zeitung, CNN, Aljazeera, and others. Very clearly, this video itself presents a slant, but the international media haven’t been fair either in reporting the exact nature of violence that erupted in the streets of Lhasa or in Nepal, India or other parts of the world. This is an excellent example of how the gatekeepers control the message in the newsroom. The Tibet crisis also brings the question of whether international media have differing parameters in tackling issues of the Communist regimes like Russia, China, and some Latin American countries. The historical aspect of the country in the present crisis is completely ignored.
The history of how Tibet was a part of China during the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties until the making of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 is what is often referred. China ‘regained’ Tibet in 1950 when it was under the influence of the British Colonial Empire. Historians contest whether Tibet is a suzerain of China or an autonomous region. But the Chinese consider it as part of the territory, much like Taiwan and Hong Kong. While the relationship with Taiwan isn’t what the Chinese want to discuss, Tibet’s case has brought infamy to the Chinese. A majority of the Chinese believe the Dalai Lama is funded by the CIA ever since his exile in 1959. In the news covered by the CNN.com, there is no indication of any covert funding, but the US has sponsored a radio station and a Web site. The Chinese see this as signs of anti-China policy, and actually an instance of supporting the Tibetans cause in breaking away from China.
The media have, however, not reported the history behind the present crisis. News reports have merely focused on the event itself, and long form report that occasionally report the historical facts use most of their space talking about how the upcoming Olympics will be hurt.
Once I had an opportunity to talk to a Chinese student regarding this crisis. He candidly remarked that it’s the so-called ‘fair, western media’ that actually propagates ‘Free Tibet’ slogan more vociferously than the Tibetans themselves.
The Chinese model of authoritarian press doesn’t permit independent reporting. In China, you ought to support the state, and it’s the state’s interests that matters most. The press is the product of the regime.
When the only journalist from the western media -The Economist - was invited to visit Tibet, Chinese official had hoped a more positive coverage based on the subsidy granted. However, the nature of violence was too brutal to be ignored. The magazine reports that Lhasa television “broadcast over and over again, alternately in Tibetan and Chinese, a government statement accusing the “Dalai Lama clique” of being behind the violence by a ‘small number’ of rioters.”
Where can you find a truly objective media?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
