Iraqi shoe-thrower's message to the UN

The Iraqi journalist from Al-Baghdadiya television who (in)famously threw his shoes at George Bush might serve jail term for assaulting a foreign head of state. Most Iraqis now consider him a hero for insulting a person who is largely responsible for more chaos in their country.

Muntazer al-Zaidi's first offense earned him a less severe verdict even though he pleaded non-guilty. He said, "Yes, my reaction was natural." He felt he was innocent and he merely represented the frustration felt by most Iraqis toward Bush, who is largely held responsible for the situation in Iraq. "It is the farewell kiss, you dog", shouted al-Zaidi when throwing both his shoes in less than 5 seconds before security forces pinned him on the floor.

Most of the family members feel it's a political decision and they will appeal.

This incident speaks glaringly about the image Bush and other aggressors have in Iraq and the middle-east. The outburst of emotion clearly sends a message to the international community that America's achievement is not the same as Iraq's perception of achievement. The former US president George W. Bush may have been standing next to Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki amidst tight security and might perhaps claim to have the support of the allied forces, but the Iraqis only consider him worthy of the sole of their feet for his role. That's so much to say about the anger toward a distant country whose soldiers are dying to bring some normalcy in a country that wouldn't have meant much had there been potato fields instead of oil wells.

Why isn't Bush's policies directed toward the military junta of Myanmar or the oppressions in Egypt? If this experiment in the middle-east succeeds, the actions of the United States will become even bolder despite the falsity of the statistics upon which it waged a war. The United Nations should play a decisive part in the world affairs. The US cannot dictate the roles of the UN just because it is one of the highest donor countries. Nobody wants an invasionist America today.

Perhaps the shoe-thrower would have felt otherwise if the UN had played a decisive role in his country.

Powerful Friendship Kills Professional Ethics

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.)

Public interest, intrusion of privacy and news value

News value and good journalism are synonymous. But what are the limits of the media in reporting events that are not intended to be made public? Or, what is the relationship between public interest and the right to privacy?

For most people, privacy is guaranteed by the virtue of them enjoying less important position in the society. Yet there are others whose status in the society alone is sufficient to arouse interest of the media at any given point of time. Here, media professionals like to defend news value by calling it “public interest.”

Two popular tabloids in the UK, The Sun and the News of the World are found to be highly intrusive into people’s privacy. The nature of reporting in these tabloids is mostly gossip and story of “affairs.” These tabloids have functioned as channels that report the unacceptable behaviors of individuals. Perhaps these are the values the society ideally seeks for. At the other level, however, public interest also serves as a democratic ideal of open government where the public has the right to inspect public figures.

One important issue is: How much of news judgment should the media apply to distinguish between celebrity-type sensational news and genuinely decent public service news?

The 9-11 incident is one recent example that has brought this issue to the forefront. Was it proper for the media to publish videos or photographs of people jumping off the building, either live or within few hours of the incident? What purpose did it serve? Did it intensify the “horror” factor even further? Moreover, how much close-up shot of a dying person is just about right?

While attempting to dramatize an event or intruding into a celebrity's life or dealing with a private grief, I believe editors should weigh as much on taste and decency as they should on news value. The public is also best served by feeding less sensational stories.