Interactive foreign policy

Because of the media hype surrounding the YouTube presidential debates, I have not paid close attention. I figured eventually I would get to YouTube to check out the Q and A. My decision on the quality of the questions and answers, as well as the utility of the entire event, are still pending. But I was curious to see what questions were posed and answers given concerning foreign policy. Below are are two questions that were not used and two questions that were answered during the Democrats' debate. Take a look:

Questions answered during the debate:

Going beyond empty promises in Darfur


How do we pull out now?


Questions posed but not addressed during the debate:

America’s policy on preventing al-Qa’eda from using Africa as safe haven


Restoring America’s reputation overseas


Click here to view more video clips from the televised debate.

Betting on Stability

“Returning then to the ethnoscapes with which I began, the central paradox of ethnic politics in today’s world is that primordia (whether langage or skin color or neighborhood or kinship) have become globalized. That is, sentiments, whose greatest force is in their ability to ignite intimacy into a political state and turn locality into a staging ground for identity, have become spread over vast and irregular spaces as groups move yet stay linked to one another through sophisticated media capabilities” (p. 41).
Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization

As I prepare for next semester, I find myself clicking through websites to understand more about the world. I recently switched my class schedule around, dropping a political psychology class to take an international topics class in political science; I made the change partially because I think the class will be more beneficial. I also decided to accept an offer to teach a class about understanding the American news media.

I would like to enter my classes this fall with some basic grasp of international relations, so I have sought out information about which I always felt unsure. I think one of the most difficult differences for me to understand is the difference between Sunni Muslims and Shi’ite Muslims; understanding these differences forms a basic comprehension of both the history and current political environment in the Persian Gulf region. Cursory looks so far indicate that scholars disagree about the origins; some say the differences derive from Muhammad's death and his chosen successor. Throughout the years, though, these differences have manifested deeply into the culture leading to fundamental differences, such as how both the Quran and Hadith are written and interpreted.

As I work through these differences, I also find myself drawn to stories about the problems in Iraq, caused by sectarian violence and militias. In addition to pulling apart concepts like “Sunni” and “Shi’ite”, I also find myself picking through articles to understand the term, “militia.” Often, many of these articles fail to explain the differences between the two groups; in fact, a consistent theme of the Mehdi Army is anti-American. While I do not dispute this perspective, for lack of information, I wonder how I would react if others invaded my country. Given that I am originally from Oklahoma, I know how I would feel if Texas decided to annex the state.

As I stated in my post on Kurdistan, many believe that the U.S. government is aiding PJAK, which is aligned with the PKK and is causing problems in Iran. Both Iran and Turkey have shelled and amassed troops along the Iraqi border, as part of a solution to root out what both countries believe are “insurgent” groups. But as the American news media cover the meeting among officials from Iraq, Iran, and the United States in Baghdad, the focus – at least publicly – has been on the Shi’ite militia in Iraq. The Shi’ite militia baffled me because Iraq’s current government is predominantly Shi’ite and apparently many Sunnis are not participating.

In addition to the Shi’ite militia, Iraq also has an al Qaeda problem . I have no doubt that al Qaeda found its way to Iraq; the group seems to like a good fight with Americans. The L.A. Times article quoted in my Kurdistan post indicated that many insurgents held U.S. military custody are Saudi nationals, presumably Sunni Muslims who fight for al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, however, is not considered a militia, but rather a terrorist organization. The difference between viewing the Shi’ite group as a militia and Al Qaeda is still unclear to me; I would like to investigate that further.

It was a big week for the Persian Gulf region. While the U.S. Ambassador met with Iraqi and the Iranian ambassador for a second round of talks, the U.S. government has entertained the idea of selling arms to many countries in the area, and the U.S. military has sought out local Sunni tribesmen to work in the security forces. Bush also tied Al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda responsible for the September 11 attacks: “Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group funded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign leader: Osama bin Laden.” Of course, those fighting for al Qaeda in Iraq are thought to be Iraqi, though the leadership is foreign and is centered around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

I have to say, though, I am not sure how al Qaeda is still funded, as I thought their sources of funding had been frozen by the U.S. government. I understand the argument that Iran is giving guns to the Shi'ite militia, but I'm still not clear on how or why the Sunnis are armed. If you put all of the information below together in an expose in an everyday weekly American newspaper, I wonder what the reaction would be.

Playing with fire
Before the meeting with Iran and the United States, Al-Maliki called on the countries to help support stability and security in Iraq. Tensions between Iran and the United States aside, the meeting’s aim was meant to seek ways to bring security and stability to Iraq, including containing Sunni militants, or al Qaeda, in the country. As I mentioned in my previous post, some believe the U.S. government is supporting PJAK, and both Turkey and Iran have had troops positioned along the Iraqi border. Following the meeting U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Iran has not dealt with Iraq in an effective, efficient way, though I am not too sure what this means. The U.S. contends that Iran is supporting the Shi’ite militias; the U.S. military also has two suspected Iranian terrorists in custody. The two were caught during a raid, bringing EFPs into Iraq. However, Iran denies this charge, and the Khamenei in Iran still views the United States and Israel as enemies. The meeting did yield a trilateral committee that will seek ways of bring the violence in Iraq to an end. While this meeting took place, at least three stories emerged about the U.S. military’s idea for using armed local Sunni tribesmen for security.

The idea has its roots in the experiences of the U.S. military personnel in Iraq; many of the Sunni tribesmen have expressed frustration with militias and have aided the U.S. military in several cases. While it enables Iraqis to participate in the protection of their country, the Iraqi government is cautious and concerned about the program. In fact, one major difficulty with training the security forces resides in ridding trainees of their sectarian loyalties. While the Shi’ite dominated government has felt pressure to do away with the militias, a concern arises over the focus. If the government focuses on Shi’ite militias, does it legitimize the problems caused by militant Sunni groups? The government also wants the ability to screen volunteers before they are armed, in addition to bringing these groups under government control. One Iraqi official has called it the "seed for civil war." The military emphasized it is not arming the groups, but it is authorized to give them money and ink contracts with these groups to perform certain tasks, especially the protection of “critical infrastructure.” It is a way to then pull these residents into security forces to eventually train them to use weapons and understand the “American rules of engagement.” (Oddly enough, the deck on that story was: "Irregulars to patrol own neighborhoods").

Clashes with militia are common, like the U.S. military recent run-in with the Shi’ite militia, the Medhi army, while looking for one of its commanders in Kerbala. Although the news media consistently says Kerbala is one of the most protected areas in Iraq – because it is a holy Shi’ite city – 17 militiamen were killed in the city during the clash. The Medhi army is led by Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whom U.S. officials believe is fueling sectarian violence.

But it takes two to tango. Saudi Arabia is consistently frustrating the Bush administration; during a meeting in January in Riyadh, the Saudi government produced documents meant to debunk the legitimacy of al-Maliki in Iraq, illustrating that he has had contact with al-Sadr and that he is an Iranian agent. While U.S. officials reportedly believe the documents to be forgeries, tension between Saudi Arabia and Iraq have increased. And some believe it is NOT Iran or Syria contributing to the instability of Iraq but Saudi Arabia:

“Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years...the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there.”

Despite these frustrations, the Bush administration is preparing a proposal to take to Congress; it is seeking approval of an arms package for Saudi Arabia and surrounding countries. The arms package is partially a response to Iran but to secure American influence in the area as well. In addition to selling the arms to Saudi Arabia, the United States also seeks to bolster its deal with Israel, a “significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.” Egypt would also receive a similar deal. Other countries in the area that will likely receive weaponry include: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. Despite the U.S. government's concerns about Saudi Arabia and unlike its pressure on Iran, it has sought no public support from Saudi Arabia for the war in Iraq.

“In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.”

Although I have not heard a great deal about increasing U.S. troops in Iraq lately, I did notice the British are talking about withdrawing their troops from Basra. Iraqis fear the lack of a major military presence in Southern Iraq, as they believe the security force is infiltrated by those competing for control of Basra's oil. One British military official described the difference between Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq as "a problem of gangsterism not sectarian violence." Eventually the Iraqis will need to stabilize their own country, as not only the British mentioned but the Iranians have argued, as well.

As American officials search for solutions, the Iraq war has created a diaspora of refugees, fleeing to neighboring countries, which is rarely mentioned in the American news media. It seems a gamble to pump guns into the region, especially since it remains unclear who bats for which team. While I have no doubt that a link between the Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Al Qaeda responsible for September 11, I also know a link exists between the Al Qaeda responsible for the September 11 attacks and the nationalities of the terrorists involved. If gambling is indeed an art based on probable outcomes, it would seem the Bush administration would place far less faith in Saudi Arabia. And even if Iran's influence had grown in the region and its support for the Shi'ite militia was painfully obvious, to provide more weaponry to a country that has illustrated a propensity for creating terrorists seems reckless, if not hypocritical. In fact, I would say about Saudi Arabia what Sean McCormack, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, said about Iran:

"They say they want strategic stability in Iraq. Well, they should start acting like it."

Reshaping our view of the world

The gatekeeping theory has interested me for a while. I’m curious about where information comes from, where it’s going, who passes it along, and how it changes along the way. Originally the theory applied to food; Kurt Lewin examined how goods and services flowed through certain channels to eventually arrive in the home. But he drew a comparison between what he examined and news items. A short time later, David White applied the theory to a copy editor, and eventually Gaye Tuchman concluded that journalists have their own routines.

And perhaps that was the hook. As a journalist, I had my own routine; occasionally I would switch things up when I was short on time due to deadlines. What they say about lightening striking in the same place rarely applies to crime, and there was a high probability that I would cover two or more stories at once. I created a routine based on how long it took me to go from place to place, thumb through arrest reports and chew the fat (the best stories sometimes appear THAT way), and get back to the newsroom. My routine fit within the larger operation of the newspaper; my behavior usually worked within what the organization demanded of me.

There’s a logic that operates in the news media, and that logic varies from medium to medium. It is this logic that plays into the gatekeeping role, helping journalists determine the appropriate sources, types of information needed, and what is included or excluded. In this way journalists act as gatekeepers, but there are layers of gatekeeping. Think about the structure of a newsroom. Reporters go out and make contact with people, gathering news. The sources with whom journalists speak are gatekeepers; the editors are gatekeepers; even the readers are gatekeepers, choosing what they decide to read or skip over.

Additionally, the logic becomes apparent in how the information is included, how it is organized, and where the story is placed. While placement and organization are important, understanding which information is used as well as its source are at the top of my list. We often do not know the milieu in which the information was gathered. Is the reporter quoting a press release? Other news sources? Press conferences? Interviews? Archival material? All indicate how the information was gathered and packaged – and by whom. Recycled news scares me; if the information is inaccurate or incomplete, it becomes difficult to rectify that inaccuracy. And then how do we track the mistake back to its root?

Reused information renders news less poignant, less useful. It is the interaction with people (and sometimes documents and other artifacts) that creates the news; without them, you have robbed the news of its humanity. Journalists interact with a number of different people, and in doing this, help create an understanding (or misunderstanding) of people, places, and events. Each of us brings meaning to our interaction with one another and actively engages in consensus or disagreement about the world. Journalists use organizational values to shape their news product, and then send it down the editorial chain, where other people interact with the copy. Realizing this, it becomes important to understand the nature of information that we receive and the nature in which we receive it.

I wondered about this as I perused Google news Monday night. Look at the Kosovo stories that initially appeared in the Google search, knowing full well there are algorithms and other “techie” complexities that decide which stories come up. Typically the major parts of a story include the headline, a deck if present, the byline, the dateline, the lead, the nutgraph, the sources, the style, and ultimately the information that makes its way into the story. The order of information is also important, as often it indicates level of importance. Determining that all of the stories derived from news agencies, I sought to know if these stories changed from their original form and how.

Gatekeeping and Symbolic Interaction
Lewin (1947) said in order to change people’s food habits, it is necessary to find the “key positions” along the channel that carries the food, as items travel through these channels, proceeding through “definitive steps” (144). Often, this key position would include a person in a household who determines the necessary items needed and then sends them along the channel to the table. In my house, I would ultimately be the key position at the end of the chain, a definitive step for goods and services. But Lewin contended this concept also applies to other goods and services, especially the diffusion of news. David Manning White took Lewin’s concept and applied it to a wire copy editor, affectionately known at Mr. Gates. He found Gates used the type of news, or category, as a factor in his decision to include wire copy; Gates also made decisions based on how well written the story was and how well the story matched his readership. Finally Tuchman (1973) studied the routinization in lieu of unexpected events. Because variability poses problems for journalists in processing raw material, they ultimately devise methods for efficiently sorting through and labeling types of stories and bits of information. Many researchers have examined gatekeeping throughout the years, and use of the word "gatekeeper" has become as ubiquitous as the use of the word "framing"; many people use the words but rarely understand their theoretical underpinnings.

I imagine these channels to be more of a matrix, with several different possible sources of information and several different gatekeepers. As the information flows through these channels, they flow from and through different gates. For example, news is ultimately guided by an organization’s “common understanding of news values and imperatives” (Meyers, 1997, p. 21). But here’s the question: what happens to the information when it flows through each gate? While we might not be in a position to know pre-press, we can figure it out post-press. The question of gatekeeping becomes clearer when you begin to realize the journalist and each source are interacting with one another, and in turn the reporter’s product and the audience are interacting. They are creating meaning by exchanging symbols, through which a view of the world emerges.

Conceptualizing communication as symbolic interaction has a history. Blumer (1972) and Schutz (1967) both talked about how human beings exchange meaning. Goffman (1974) also talks about this interaction, and how it plays into human understanding and the organization of human experience. Both framing and media formats grew out of Goffman’s theory. But no matter which way you head – framing or formats – what emerges is the idea that the media help shape our view of the world. Ultimately, if you hold a gatekeeping position, you are charged with a responsibility that involves shaping how people see the world, not only the arena in which action occurs but their place within that arena.

In building a research project to study crime coverage in Philadelphia – affectionately called Killadelphia – I came across interesting tidbits about crime coverage. For example, Doris Graber (1980) concluded that many crime stories would include stock information; they tend to be cookie cutter stories, consistently employing specific pieces of information. Name and age of the suspect, address, and type of crime committed are typical in crime stories. Erickson, Baranek, and Chan (1991) contended that these stories would use the same sources; more often than not, many of the sources are official sources. Journalists and these sources engage in a symbiotic relationship. The sources provide information, which is needed by the journalists, and the journalists assure the sources have a place in the media food chain, which is often needed by those who want to disseminate important information. I have wanted to examine how this would play out in stories that didn’t deal with crime; thus, the Kosovo situation and the precipitating online news stories granted me an opportunity.

Kosovo
Late Monday evening and early Tuesday morning, news of the meeting between Kosovar leaders and U.S. officials went out over the wire. Kosovo is a province in Serbia that has long sought independence, and Serbia is attached to Kosovo; it does not want to let go. A majority of those living in Kosovo are Albanian, with a minority of Serbs. Both the United Nations and NATO have controlled and protected the province since 1999, when NATO led an air war against the Serbian military that sought to control Albanian separatists. This area has been a hotbed of contention; you might remember that an assassination in Serbia helped precipitate the war to end all wars in 1914. Of the four stories that appeared in Google news search, three originated from Reuters. When I say originated, I mean that Reuters put the copy over the wire, and other news agencies picked it up. The final story was an Associated Press article that Fox chose to pick up.

Reuters and AP both disseminate news; Reuters is a British news agency, and Associated Press is an not-for-profit cooperative owned by its 1,500 American daily members. This means if a news organization doesn’t have the resources to send its own reporter but has a newshole and thinks the content fits its readership, it can use the story. I wanted to see how news agencies portrayed the situation and how that story changed from news organization to news organization. I looked at five things: headline, lead, the nutgraph, the sources, and the context. I realize there are many ways to write a news story, but I’m from the Missouri school of journalism, so I reverted back to my education. Placed at the top of the story, the headline gives you the whole story in one sentence or less; absent of visuals, the headline grabs the readers’ attention. The lead tells you the news. The nutgraph, or as George Kennedy affectionately called the “rat’s ass” graph, tells you why you should care. “Why should I give a rat’s ass?” The sources tell you where the information came from, and the context gives you an idea of why the news is occurring and what is expected in the future.

The story that ran on Stuff.co.nz was nearly identical to the original Reuters’s story, so I will skip it. Fox ran an Associated Press story, rather than a story from Reuters, so I went to find the original AP story. I was unsuccessful on the Internet; I turned to LexisNexis, a database for news/legal nerds. There were a number of other news agencies that filed stories on the same subject, but since I’m not conducting a full-fledged research project, I decided to take a much easier route. Below is what I found when I looked at four stories. The links are included for all but the original AP story, as I only offer a summation of the articles. I encourage you to examine the stories.

Original Reuters Story
Written by Sue Pleming, this story describes the meeting between Kosovar leaders and U.S. officials.

The Headline: “Kosovo tells U.S. it will not declare independence”

The lead: “Kosovo told Washington on Monday that it did not plan to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia in November, senior officials from the United States and Kosovo said.”

The nutgraph: A paraphrase of a spokesman from the Kosovo delegation Skender Hyseni explaining that Kosovo's leaders assured U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice no unilateral action would be taken, and U.S. officials confirmed cooperation, not unilateral action.

The story provides context throughout, explaining Serbia’s opposition to independence, U.S. officials’ fear that unilateral claim to independence could lead to violence, and discussions within the UN Contact Group. Also, it provides the reason for the meeting: the U.N. resolution for independence was pushed aside by Russia. The story also provides an explanation for the fear of unilateral action: “Kosovo’s Prime Minister Agim Ceku, who met with Rice along with other senior Kosovo officials, had suggested on Friday he could ask the province’s parliament to declare independence from Serbia on November 28.” One additional tidbit to mention is the use of the word guerillas in the explanation of the war with Serbians.

The sources include Hyseni as well as two unnamed U.S. officials.

ABC’s version
Again, Sue Pleming’s name appears in the byline.

The headline: “U.S. urges Kosovo leaders to be patient”

The lead: “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Kosovo’s leaders on Monday to be patient in their push for independence after the United Nations put aside a resolution that Russia had threatened to veto.”

Nutgraph: The nutgraph in this story is the reason some fear unilateral action: “Kosovo’s Prime Minister Agim Ceku, who met Rice...urged the parliament last week to declare independence from Russian ally Serbia on November 28.”

While some of the context is the same material, it appears differently. In addition, some new information is also provided about the U.N. Security Council as well as the draft resolution that was removed after Russia opposed. Another sentence, which is without attribution, appears as well. “Last week Rice said Kosovo would get its independence 'one way or another,' but the Kosovo delegation was expected to make clear to her that patience was running out over the pace of international diplomacy that will decide their future.”

The sources include State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, an unnamed official traveling with the Kosovo delegation, and Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. The official traveling with the Kosovo delegation had no comment, but the non-statement included a tidbit about talks including National Security adviser Stephen Hadley. It is unclear in what context Churkin made his statements - are they archival? From an interview?

After seeing the differences in the two stories, it becomes apparent that if you read one and not the other, your view of the situation might be different. It should be noted that I recognize a need to know about the editorial processes of both these organizations; information that appears in one story and not the other comes from somewhere. I think it is common practice of many journalists to take information from archive stories to add context, but sometimes the readers might not realize this unless they have followed the story. So what about the Associated Press stories?

Original AP story (Retrieved from LexisNexis, July 25, 2007)
Desmond Butler wrote this story, and like Sue Pleming’s story, it describes the Washington meeting.

The headline: “Kosovo officials assure US they will consult allies before declaring independence”

The lead: “U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reassured officials from Kosovo that the United States would push for recognition of the breakaway province’s independence from Serbia within months.”

Nutgraph: Both the Kosovar prime minister and president told Rice they would not declare negotiations unilaterally; any action would be coordinated with the United States.

The context of the story includes the same information as the Reuters story, with additional information. The story cites U.S. President Bush "hinting" that the United States “could recognize Kosovo without Security Council consent” during his trip to Albania in June. It also adds Martti Ahtisaari, the U.N.’s special envoy to Kosovo, recommended the province gain supervised independence in April. The story also includes that Kosovo’s population is majority ethnic Albanian, while the Fox story does not.

The sources include Kosovo’s president Fatmir Sejdiu from an interview with AP on Monday. The story also includes information from senior U.S. officials “speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for attribution.”

Fox’s version
Again, Desmond Butler has the byline.

The headline: “Kosovo head assures Rice on independence”

The lead: “Kosovo’s leaders told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday that the breakaway province would not declare independence from Serbia without coordinating the move with the United States.”

Nutgraph: Rice gave Kosovo’s officials assurance of the U.S.’s commitment to recognition of Kosovo’s independence within months, “even without a United Nations Security Council resolution.”

The information provided for context is the same as the previous story, though the order of information is different. Some of the information has also been reworked: “The meetings in Washington come days after the Security Council set aside a resolution that Russia called a hidden route to independence.”

The sources include Kosovo’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu, as well as State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

What did I learn from this?
The point here is not to criticize these news organizations but explore how these stories might morph as they travel through different gates, and as they change, to understand the meaning presented to readers about these events. Of course news organizations will organize stories in a manner that fits their styles, their readers, and their organizational missions. But the perspective of the stories from organization to organization seems dramatically different, which warrants a closer look.

Obviously ABC completely revamped the Reuters story, changing the perspective from the Kosovar leaders to the perspective of U.S. officials. The change in perspective is evident in the headline and the lead. The ABC story also includes information that was not included in the original story; where did it come from? Fox, on the other hand, stayed more true to the original AP story, rearranging some of the information. Both its lead and nutgraph are different, but not quite as much as th ABC story. The sources also varied, but this seems indicative of news organizations making the content their own. To me, as long as I understand the context in which the interview took place or the information was gathered, I'm happy.

What is not mentioned in these stories? The Serbian reaction. The Serbian parliament passed a resolution, stating the government would act if Kosovo declared its independence; it also warned those who aided Kosovo. What is worrisome is that each of these stories provide only a two-dimensional view of this situation, where there seems to be many dimensions. While this does not surprise me, splitting the larger picture into separate stories skews the brevity of the situation and provides reality piecemeal. I also noticed none of these online stories provides a link to stories about the Serbian reaction, though a couple of them provide online forums for readers.

While it might not be possible to read every story, it is possible to be more mindful of where information comes from, keeping tabs not only on news organizations but on sources, as well. Technology has helped create a more open society, but it has also galvanized competition within the news media. One evil produced by the current media environment is news recycling; it is difficult to tell the difference between fresh information and recycled information used for context. It is also increasingly difficult to understand the context in which information is gathered. Given these reasons, examining the news media is more important than ever, especially when the world presented might fit into the narrow perspective of one news organization or another. Even from within this narrow perspective, we as active participants have the ability to break free and search for a more complete picture, understanding that while the news media might shape our initial comprehension, we have the ability to reshape our view of the world.

References
Blumer, H. (1972). Symbolic interaction: An approach to human communication. In R. W. Budd and B. D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to Human Communication. New York: Spartan. pp. 401-419.

Erickson, R. V., Baranek, P. M., & Chan, J. B. L. (1991). Representing Order: Crime, Law, and Justice in the News Media. University of Toronto Press.

Graber, D. A. (1980). Crime News and The Public. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper Colophon Books.

Myers, M. (1997). News Coverage of Violence Against Women: Engendering Blame. London: Sage.

Schutz, A. (1967). Some basic problems of interpretive sociology. In The Phenomenology of the Social world, (Original work published in 1932). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. pp. 215-220.

Tuchman, G. (1973). Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected. American Journal of Sociology. 79(1). pp. 110-131.

White, D. M. (1950). The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News. Journalism Quarterly. (27). Reprinted In Social Meanings of News (1997), Dan Berkowitz, (Ed.). California: Sage.

Whose freedom?

I have begun to realize how difficult it must be for many to truly understand world events. Finding information is difficult enough, but how do we assess that information? For instance, my previous post about RED completely skirted an explanation of foreign aid and investment in Africa. As some theorists have suggested, it is not possible to know everything. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand situations without understanding the local context.

I check the news each day, completely bypassing the print and broadcast media entirely now. While I do not discount them as viable media, they simply do not allow for the navigation that I prefer. I wonder now if I’m a little ADD because of my interaction with the Internet; it is a medium that doesn’t necessarily require my complete attention at any given point. I hop around, from page to page and site to site, though this ability is not always negative. It enables me to travel through the course of a story, checking out related stories that I might not get through more traditional forms of media. One such story concerns the developments in Turkey. It was an AP headline that first peaked my attention about Turkey and Northern Iraq.

It is always interesting to me who follows what in the news. One of my colleagues said she had been following the developments in Turkey; of course, she’s one of those who reads the Sunday edition of the Times. Another friend said she had not been following, and I was relieved to know that she was like me – no clue. Interestingly, the one who was following the developments said, “What I think is interesting is how the word “insurgent” has been used.” Again, it seems like an ancillary connection, but is it? Ultimately the word depends on your perspective.

Turkey, Iran, and Kurdistan
The headline was this: “Will Turkey invade Northern Iraq?” I have to say that I was a little concerned. Isn’t Turkey our ally? What is Turkey’s problem any way? What was in Iraq that Turkey wanted? I am sure there were a number of readers out there who saw this headline and did not know what to think, especially since our military is in Iraq. And speaking of our military, why weren’t military officials worried about this? If they are, we might never know considering it’s probably been filed in the “National Security” category. This category overlaps with the American’s freedom - transparency and the right to know, to engage in knowledgeable participation. When our federal government must act toward the public good, these two categories often conflict.

It was the word invasion that worried me. No doubt that word is immediately tied to the First Gulf war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or further back, Russia's invasion of Poland or Germany's invasion of Russia. Typically it conjures the idea of one nation-state taking land or resource away from another nation-state. A trite analogy: in the geopolitical sandbox, it would be like a little kid expanding his or her space into a space already occupied. So I wanted answers to these questions, and it led me on a journey through several websites. And what I found pulled me into several layers of complexity that seem difficult to untangle. I shall touch on some, knowing well I am merely scratching the surface.We'll start with Turkish elections and work through the different stories that I found. Elections hindered plans to cross into Norther Iraq, according to The Turkish Daily News. Almost a week later, The Guardian reported Vice President Cheney has placed pressure on President Bush to invade Iran, which is all we need, right? We’re in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can’t manage the real estate that we have already, so expansion seems the next logical step. In addition, women are not faring well in Kurdistan, and some believe the U.S. government is actually aiding Kurds in attacks on Iran. Turkey and Iran have also found a friendship in one another; they signed an agreement – a Memorandum of Understanding – to transport natural gas, and both countries have led operations in Kurdistan. All of this seems simple, right? But wait, what the hell is Kurdistan?

The other Iraq
Kurdistan is Northern Iraq. I am not sure if it is a country, though most of the information that I have found indicates that it is. It possesses its own democratically elected Prime Minister and National Assembly. It seems like both its government and national identity should be recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some history will make things more clear?

Some history of Kurdistan
The Treaty of Sevres provided for autonomy for the Kurds; however, the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 invalidated the treaty. The League of Nations placed Kurdistan under the protection of the UK in 1925 for 25 years to ensure autonomy. In addition, the Kurdistan Democratic Party also received an agreement from Baghdad for its autonomy and political representation in 1970; however, from 1971 to 1980, the Iraqi government expelled thousands of Shia Kurds from Iraq. The Algiers Agreement between Kurdistan and Iran in 1975 settled disputes over land in exchange for Iran ending its support of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Kurds in Kurdistan are predominantly Sunni Muslims, but some are other faiths and religions, as well. Kurdistan has had its problems, marred by internal strife. A unification treaty, signed in January 2006, served to end disturbances and civil fighting. Problems aside, websites indicate Kurdistan is its own politically autonomous entity. Why, then, does Turkey and Iran insist on shelling the “stateless nation?”

PKK and PJAK
The Kurdistan Worker’s Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, PKK) is a Marxist separatist group seeking to create an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey and parts of neighboring countries; I'm up in the air about this one. Do they seek to expand the already existing Kurdistan, or do they want their own parcel of land? The group reportedly has participated in guerilla warfare and terrorism, resulting in the eventual military crackdown by Turkey. Members of the group withdrew to Northern Iraq, and is considered by the United States as a terrorist organization. Turkey, of course, regards the group as a terrorist organization, but the group has actively sought independence from Turkey, which does not recognize its Kurdish minority.
These two groups have caused a tremendous amount of trouble in Turkey and Iran.

One concern of Turkey could be the size of its Kurdish population; about 12 million Kurds live in Turkey. PKK began in 1973 and eventually moved its base of operations to Syria. The “invasion” into Kurdistan is an ongoing situation; on June 8, Turkish troops crossed into Kurdistan pursing members of PKK, and Iranian aircraft bombed the camps of the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK. PJAK is seen as PKK’s sister party in Iran, though some of the literature suggests that PJAK has an entirely different politcal persuasion. Interestingly, the Financial Times Deutschland suggested the organization is not helping Turkey’s entry into the European Union. While countries like Syria and Iran entertained and helped train some of the members of PKK, the tide has changed; Syria has arrested its members, and Iran has now paired with Turkey to fight the organization. Would they be considered “insurgents”?

Insurgent
You have to ask yourself, what is an insurgent? What does that mean? According to WordNet, a “lexical database” from the Cognitive Science Lab at Princeton University, insurgent has two different meanings. As a noun, it carries both a positive and negative connotation. Take a look:

1. Insurgent, insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel: "a rebel who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority, especially in the hope of improving conditions";
-or-
2. Guerilla, irregular, insurgent: "a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment."

I wondered how the word would be used; I guessed that it would belong to the negative category, as I recall few instances where people were fighting legitimate battles for freedom. Oh, I’m sure they exist; however, it is a matter of knowing about them. I entered the word into Google; I just wanted to see who was using the word. I ignored the stories dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq. Below are the first five stories that I found:

*More violence in Mogadishu

*Insurgents could strike in Bangkok, warns Sonthi (not a stable link)

*Insurgents make another attack as troops deploy in Northwest (Sidenote: the headline mentioned here is the teaser that came up in the search; the headline on the story is different, and the story makes no mention of the word, insurgent).

*Military clashes with Insurgents in Sri Lanka

*Three Insurgents killed in Manipur

I will let you follow the links, but the word is used in areas around the world, and it seems to have replaced the word ‘rebel.’ Regardless of its use, it indicates a relation between or among groups. Again, it depends on your perspective.

And Back to Kurdistan
What does the word insurgent have to do with Kurdistan? Some believe the United States is aiding PKK's waging attacks in Iran, while on the other hand condemning its attacks in Turkey. In fact, some regard PKK as a legitimate resistance group. But this is the same behavior from the U.S. government that has led to problems in the past. The United States helped the Mujahadeen resist the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. And according to Ned Parker’s recent article in the Los Angeles Times, the Saudi intelligence service sponsored Sunni Muslims in the 1980s to help the U.S.-backed Afghan Mujahadeen fight the Soviets. Again, the word insurgent is relational.

Parker’s article is enlightening, even if spin-off articles are less intelligent and actually somewhat offensive. Matthew Mainen’s article describes Syria as the “highest exporter of insurgents,” which belies the complexity involved. As if there’s an insurgent making factory that simply needs eradication – if it were only that simple. Parker’s article provides a great deal of context and information, and it adds a whole other level to insurgency. According to Parker, most of the insurgents in Iraq are NOT from Iraq. In fact, nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. custody are Saudi. This distinction - NOT from Iraq - adds a layer of complexity to the word insurgent; are there domestic insurgents, and if so, who are they? And these insurgents pose the "greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security," which provides a glimpse into the stability of the country. What are the long-term threats, I wonder. One official in Saudi Arabia has said its government believes it is the disbanded army in Iraq that is the source of the insurgence and "backbone of the situation there today." That's great, but it fails to explain the number of Saudi captives in U.S. custody; some speculate the Saudis are happy to slough off some of the extremists to avoid problems in their own backyard. It seems almost like religious extremism is the ship of fools of the 21st Century.

Sometimes I find it difficult to sort through the immense amount of information out there. In backtracking to find the links for this post, I found a number of more recent articles, on the unhappiness of the United States with the agreement between Iran and Turkey, of the U.S.'s stance that it has not aided PKK, of the Turkish elections. It seems, though, to simply speak about insurgents in Iraq is to sweep under the carpet the number of groups involved and the connections between the groups. Am I to believe insurgents are good when they attack Iran and bad when they attack Turkey? When we talk about insurgents in Iraq, does that include PKK in Northern Iraq, aka Kurdistan?

Personally, I would not want to be a soldier in Iraq, and I could never begin to imagine determining who is good and who is bad. It has a familiar sound, like the stories I heard from men who fought in Vietnam, trying to distinguish the Viet Cong and the civilian. The task of the active democratic participant seems less arduous, but not by much. Ultimately it could be our voice that brings our troops home, perhaps to leave a fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself. We assume as active participants that we have access to information that aids in our decision making process. But in my searches over the past few days, I made a minute dent in the history and human connectivity of these groups. I find in my searches for information, I am paralyzed by the sheer amount of it. How do I sort? And once I have it, what do I do with it? If knowledge is power, then whose freedom do I choose when I vote by proxy?

Sharing is good

I wanted to share a couple of things that I've found over the past few days. One is a video is from TED of Hans Rosling. Normally I would run screaming from someone spouting numbers, but this guy has a great way of visualizing data that simply astounds me. And I love what he says when he speaks about AIDS in Africa, because the distribution of wealth WITHIN countries is stark, so solutions must be HIGHLY contextualized.



Another tidbit that I wanted to share is a writer who has written far more eloquently than I about the RED campaign and Africa. Her article for the American.com has drawn some fire, so I will include a link to both the article about the RED campaign and her response.

Africans to Bono...

The key word is THINK (RED)

“Appeals to the past are among the commonest of strategies in interpretations of the present.” Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism, 1993

I’m currently working on several research projects, including a project that explores President George W. Bush’s rhetoric concerning the Department of Homeland Security, how violent crime has been covered in Philadelphia, and how AIDS awareness ads have represented both gay men and AIDS. The last thing that I need is another project, right? Wrong. At the end of the spring semester, two of my colleagues said they wanted to pitch a panel for a conference coming to Philadelphia. We opted to look at cause-related marketing campaigns. A friend suggested the Red campaign because of my interest in AIDS and AIDS awareness. My interest in the campaign was double-pronged: first, I am really interested in AIDS awareness, and second, I have listened to U2 since I was 13 years old. Bono is a hero of mine.

Cause-related marketing, campaigns that bring corporations and social causes together to raise money and awareness, is not my area of interest or expertise, but the Web 2.0 environment fascinates me. Social networking and blogging are only two of the many features offered by this evolution in Internet technology. When the paper is finished, I will have examined how Red’s digital platform brought corporations, consumers, and the cause together into one online community.

Those who tout the capabilities of the Web 2.0 environment say these Internet tools can enable social and political change through collaborative knowledge and interaction; on its face, the Red campaign seems like an electronic web of interaction about products, information, and communication from those who’ve joined the fight for the cause. But my optimism about these changes is tempered with the knowledge that often something is lost in translation when American consumerism is brought into the mix.

According to its website, Red is a branding mechanism – a business model - that pairs global corporations with the Global Fund. The model involves corporations like Motorola, The Gap, and iPod, which have created product lines and donate a portion of their profits directly to the Fund. Bono and Bobby Shriver, its founders, hope to establish sustainable revenue through building a community around the issues like HIV/AIDS in Africa. So far, how has it done?

Chasing the Numbers
The campaign began in October 2006. To date, the Red campaign website says the money raised has helped:

*770,000 people with the treatment for HIV and AIDS;
*nearly 9 million people with voluntary HIV testing;
*more than 1 million orphans with care and support;
*2 million people with treatment for tuberculosis;
*more than 22 million people treated for malaria;
*nearly 18 families with insecticides treated mosquito nets.

Co-founder Bobby Shriver wrote not too long ago that the fund has raised $25 million USD. His response countered another article in AdWeek, which claimed that the campaign had only raised $18 million. Shriver argued the Fund has raised 5 times – quadrupled – the funds in one year than it had over the previous four years. His responses, I believe, can be found at Red’s website. While the disputes over how much has been raised are intriguing, I am actually drawn more to the campaign.

The campaign is unfolding in print, in music, in video, and of course, through the Internet. AIM and MySpace are both partners of the campaign. And recently, Vanity Fair released its Africa issue – with 20 separate covers. The MySpace page, of which I am a member, promoted the issue with several bulletins. According to the Vanity Fair media pack, which is available at its website, the UK magazine boasts a readership of 214,000. Red’s MySpace page boasts 630,406 friends, as of July 15. Likewise, Red’s blog has seen 313, 971 visitors since it was launched. The reach of the two Internet sites exceeds the readership of the magazine; I wonder if the Africa issue exceeded any expectations.

Nevertheless, the campaign has caught on; if you visit the MySpace page, you see happy people wearing Red t-shirts or holding up their Red iPods. They are more than willing to let people know what they have purchased, sometimes mentioning they bought for a worthy cause. What worries me is Africa.

Commodity=Simplicity
On the surface, the ability to help people in Africa through the purchase of a product is remarkably simple. Unfortunately, I think more often than not, American consumers reduce issues with exact simplicity: fixing Africa requires throwing money at a problem that simply revolves around disease and poverty. Neither the AIDS epidemic nor the poverty issue should be mitigated; in fact, in a June 4 Reuters’s article, AIDS is viewed as a new threat to African democracy, Bate Felix writes AIDS has had a devastating effect on governance, particularly in Southern Africa.

Poverty and disease have their devastating roles. But they play roles in incredibly complex machinery that predates any of my living relatives. This machinery grew out of now fallen empires that moved into these areas, took what they could, and eventually receded. Their remnants were left behind, and the inhabitants left to pick up the pieces. Two of the countries mentioned on the Product Red website are Swaziland and Rwanda. Let’s take a look at a little bit of history for each.

According to the Swaziland government website, Swaziland is located in Southern Africa between South Africa and Mozambique. The people of Swazi descended from the southern Bantu, and in the 16th and 17th centuries, migrated from central Africa. Swaziland is a former British colony; the British signed a convention recognizing the country’s independence, but “controversial land and mineral rights concessions were made under the authority of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890 in terms of which the administration of Swaziland was also placed under that of the then South African Republic.” Long story short, Swaziland finally received its independence from Britain in 1968.

According to the Rwanda government website, Rwanda was once a centralized Tutsi kingdom. Although Rwanda became a colony under German control in 1899, it became a mandate territory of the League of Nations under Belgium control in 1919, following Germany’s defeat in World War I. Under Belgian rule, discrimination based on ethnicity was introduced in 1935, and eventually led to massacres of Batutsi. Rwanda gained its independence in 1962.

The history of both countries is tangled with different Western powers; each is similar insofar as a Western power has tried to make it its own, and different insofar as they are separate entities attempting to exist, like every other nation-state in the world. As Tony Barnett (1997) writes in Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Globalization, communication & the new international order, “The varieties of colonial state influenced the specific organizational form and administrative tradition inherited by the successor post-colonial state. Other factors which affected state formation included the particular circumstances arising from economic developments in each area, as well as forms of resistance to colonialism and, related to these, the forms of political, social and economic organization which had pre-existed colonial rule or developed in relation to its encroachment.”

It’s not simply about buying products. It’s about understanding the history of each nation-state, the struggles of the people, their natural resources, the investment by NGOs and corporations, and their relations with other nation-states. Specifically these are my concerns:

1. As Sut Jhally said in part one in his lecture, Understanding Globalization, a good starting point to understanding globalization is through understanding our relationship vis-a-vis commodities. I have to say the Gap’s website offers detailed information about how it chooses manufacturers and promulgates corporate responsibility. Interestingly, one of the factories producing Gap products is located in Lesotho, one of the countries devastated by AIDS. One way to truly understand how you are helping is to begin with the products that you are purchasing - Get the bigger picture.

2. Along those same lines: What do we understand about AIDS and Africa? Charity with no historical context only serves to perpetuate what we might already think about many around the world. They are helpless and need to be saved. Adding historical context for American consumers is a double-edged sword; in the very least, the truth is not sexy. Some of these governments are struggling to maintain stability, are rife with civil war, or are overwhelmed with corruption. You want to help with AIDS in Africa? Let's start by opening a dialogue about the social, political and economic conditions that led us here to begin with, so that the peoples of each of these countries can work toward their own independence and build their own narratives.

3. Where is the African narrative? While my look over Red’s blog is cursory, the African’s narrative is scant, if it even appears. In the coming weeks, I hope to find people who can shed some light on how the Red campaign is received locally. And there are positive things about many of these countries, their people, and the cultures. Put a human face on the "cause," on the "disaster." I want to hear their voices; I want to know who they are as they see it.

Red’s reach impresses me, and I cannot wait to see how it will fare in the coming years. What seems absent, though, is the substantive understanding by consumers about Africa as well as explanation about Africa from Red. We should not overlook those throughout Africa; after all, the campaign was designed with them in mind. Many of the nation-states in Africa are still struggling, particularly to meet Western guidelines to receive aid. In fact, according to the Swazi Observer, Swaziland has lost $50 million USD in funds from the Global Fund, due to the lack of a patient management system. While we are first-world consumers who can speak with our pocket books, we can also be knowledgeable participants in the global environment. If you choose RED, then the key word here is THINK.

Parkridge47

I'm currently working on my next two posts, one on the Red Campaign and the other on the credibility of journalists. But while I work on those posts, I just wanted to post one of my favorite videos from YouTube.

I learned about Parkridge47 when I attended the Video, Open Content, and Education Symposium at Columbia University in May. If you have a chance, look up the site; I met a number of people who are concerned about making content more open, especially for social commentary and education.

Because I love YouTube, I had to check out ParkRidge47; I found "The Bank":

Introduction

In August, I will begin the second year of my PhD program, and I am in the process of discovering my areas of interest. As I have begun to unpack what I have read over the past two semesters - a task that I think is more arduous than actually reading the literature - I realize I have many interests, including how news organizations and their audiences exchange, use, and interpret information. I am also interested in how each of these groups interact and make meaning; finally, I am interested in globalization.

I began as a professional journalist in 1996, working in smaller markets in the midwest. I knew the estimated readership of each of the papers, but I always wondered who was reading and how they used the information. I found out through the course of reporting who read the local paper as well as what they liked or disliked about the stories, the paper, or just people around town. I eventually left newspapers and returned to school. I have been in higher education now for five years, and my growing awareness of globalization reminds me of these questions, though on a much wider scale.

The purpose of this blog, at least initially, is to write about my academic journey, to gain feedback about my research ideas, and share my struggle of being an American learning of new ideas, cultures and people - all of which involve my attempt to understand the complex process of globalization. How does information flow into the United States? What do Americans - average Americans - know about the rest of the world, or at least what do they learn from the news media? What is the cultural logic that colors their perspective of world events? Conversely, how do average people outside of the United States know about us? Is it through lived or mediated experience? Is it that our views, our perspectives are mediated by others? If mediation is key to our knowledge and understanding of one another, who is mediating?

On a personal level, what do I know, and how do I know it? Hence, the title of the blog, stupid American. Learning more and more about the world is sometimes a difficult feat, especially when I might be confused with those clumsy, clueless creatures traveling carelessly through the world, disregarding local culture and upsetting the sensibilities of many. Unfortunately the precedent has been set. The United States government, my government, has enforced its might on both willing and unwilling participants in a U.S.-dominated global environment. And my fellow Americans sometimes serve to reinforce widely held negative perceptions.

Buying into what we see on the surface neglects the complexity of our world and the process of globalization. I want to push through the surface to penetrate this complexity, to shed light on how communication, specifically news media, serves to hinder, inhibit, oppress, elucidate, liberate, or engage. I do not propose to have the answers now, but I invite you to follow me in my path of discovery.