Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Behrouz Afagh:Very good evening and thank you all very much for coming to this what promises to be a very, very interesting and stimulating discussion about the very topical issue, the new media, the digital media. My name is Behrouz Afagh. I worked the BBC World Service. I'm responsible for journalism in the World Service for Middle East and Asia. I'm the moderator, I'm your moderator this evening, and before I introduce the discussion, let me warn you that this whole event is being recorded as live on television and it's going to be archived on the web and it's going to be stream on at least three websites. The addresses of which are here. I can post it on later if you want to watch yourselves. So be careful what you say, just a warning. So what we are talking about tonight, I think probably it's fair to say that it's a clich to talk about information and media revolution in the last 10 years. But it is true. It is a clich because it's so true that the digital revolution in the last decade or so has brought a massive, massive change the way we live now to the way we consume information, to the way we travel, to the way we do shopping and to the way we do politics, and also it's become a very hot talking point. You would find very many people, ordinary people talk a lot about how new media is changing politics and changing our lives. One piece of very interesting statistics behind so recently is that there are more people using a mobile phone now than they use toothpastes. So you know, or toothbrushmore people use the mobile phone than they use a toothbrush. They brush their teeth. So it's a massive phenomenon. So how our lives have changed by the new digital media, by the new digital revolution. It's a very, very important topic. One of the most comprehensive perhaps studies of how digital media is changing the way we consume information is the project that OSS has supported through the media and the information programs, and it's called Mapping the digital media. It's been going on for the last 2-3 years and it is producing a very, very comprehensive report about how media trends are developing and changing in large parts of the world. It covers a very, very wide geography. The person whos managing this project is Marius Dragomir, who I will introduce as our first speaker. He's going to give you a brief overview of what this research is doing and then we'll come back to a number of our panelists who have helped produce that report and we'll get some comments from them before we come to questions about it. Marius Dragomir:Thank you Behrouz. Before I get into that, for those who want to Tweet this event, please use the hashtag, #MDN. Mapping digital media, well, it is I believe the largest research undertaking that the media and the information programs of the Open Society Foundations have ever taken. It's a project covering indeed a large geographical area. We are examining digital media in 60 countries on all continents. And so far, indeed we have been working for almost three years on this project. So far, we have, in various stages of editing, almost half of this reports. To be more precise, 27 reports. Eight of these reports have been already published and you can consult them on the websites that I believe are listed on your little paper that you found on your chairs. WhyI would try to answer the question, why are we doing that? Well, we are doing that because digital media are changing indeed massively the ways we consume and access news content. Secondly, I think digital media are producing money changes to the role and position and influence of public service media in society. Thirdly, digital media are affecting sometimes in a positive manner, sometimes in a negative manner, affecting as I said, the ways people are reacting to media coverage and equally, digital media are affecting the ways journalists are researching their stories and writing their articles. And equally, digital media are affecting the size, the speed and the forms of cash flow in todays media markets, and the ways media are regulated and legislated. In other words, all these changes are affecting the ways we are getting ourselves informed. So this is mapping digital media and I'm really looking forward to hearing from our guests about what's happening in countries that are either covering as editors or authors of the national reports. Behrouz Afagh:Thank you very much. There will be a chance later on if youve got questions to ask Marius and other colleagues whove worked very closely in this project to answer or indeed people on this panel. I think one of the most important features or aspects of this work is that a lot of people, dozens of people are involved in drawing up research and drawing up their reports from various countries and we got three people whove been very closely involved in that and we're going to hear very briefly again the comment from each of them about something that theythe trends that they find interesting or emerging from their part of the world and then we'll open up for discussion and questions. So the people, the panel, the people on the panel, from my left is Fernando Bermejo, who is associate professor of Communications at University of Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, and he is the editor of the report on Latin American World. We have got Aboubakr Jamai, whos the editor of the Arab World Report, and Aboubakr is also the editor of lakome.com, which is a very highly successful new sighting. And we've got Tom Glaisyer, who is a Fellow of Knight Media Policy and works for New America Foundation and he's one of the authors of the American Report. So I'm going to ask each of the analyst to speak for 2-3 minutes as it were piece to camera and then we'll ask questions, and I'm going to ask, I'm going to start with Aboubakr because kind of in a way he represents the most tropical countries in the Arab world and youve heard so much about the impact of media on the revolution that we've seen there. So Aboubakr. I supposeI mean, if I wanted to ask a question, I guess you started the work on this project well before these revolutions. Are youdo you have to update it now or? Aboubakr Jamai:Well, take a wild guess. Of course, if you talk to our researchers who are working on these countries, they have headaches actually because they started out this journey on with MDM in a different universe. They're a new work right now and they have to adjust to what's going on just to give you one small example. Morocco, which is supposed not to have known a revolution, when the researches began to work, there were 800,000 Facebook users. At the end of their research, there were 3 million. So this is the type of massive change that is just not a statistic. It is more than that. It is illustrative to a profound change in society, and actually, a lot of academics are right now, trying to make sense of the relationship between social media and revolutions. We've heard a lot of journalistic stories about social media in the Arab world. We are yet to see some solid academic piece on how exactly social media had played the role into motivating, igniting, organizing these revolutions. There is, I think one piece of research from the University of Washington that showed that there was a linkage between social media and the activities on social media and revolutions, but the account on as to how it exactly played out is not clear yet, and I believe a lot of scientists and media experts will work on these issues for a very long time. But I dont thinkI dont think there is a doubt that social media and Internet has empowered people to know. You know, one of the big solid findings in political science is that you cannot predict a revolution. One of the explanation is because that type of information in authoritarian societies is kept secret is privatewe call it Private so we cannot fathom what people are thinking, so we can summarize what they might do, revolt or not. So maybe this is a very personal and adventurous conjecture. Maybe that social media had played a role of allowing people to know a little bit of what was going on in their neighborhood that maybe their neighbors are thinking likewise, that they really dont like [as heard] they really dont like [as heard]. And secondly, that we know a little bit more aboutit played a role into organizing people. There was for example, in this study from the University of Washington. We see a spike in tweets about, you know, what will happen to Harry Square, then it happens to Harry Square. So obviously there's communication going on there. So to sum what I have to say is actually at the very early stages of how exactly Internet, social media had played a role into this revolution. Behrouz Afagh:I mean, one big question is that what's your sense, is this just an urban thing withmany people may argue that yes, I can see this playing a very big role in Cairo for instance among the young university students. But somehow, an Egyptian farmer? How is social media kind of reaching in or directly or indirectly? Aboubakr Jamai:I think it's safe to say that it's an urban thing. It is definitely an urban thing. But, you know, the revolution one day happened outside the big cities, happened in small cities but yet, cities, small urban centers. So I think that urbanization is part of the story somehow in what happened in the Arab world and the rate of urbanization is certainly in the mix. It is certainly out there in this equation that might explain what happened recently in the Arab world. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. We'll come back to this question. Okay, let's move on to Tom Glaisyer, whose one of the authors of the American board. What are the kinds of conclusions you are beginning to draw from your work? Tom Glaisyer:Well, thankfully, we havent faced quite the upheaval that I our backer has. But there's still something different going on. There is still a significant change, the barriers to entry, the ability to produce content is open to many, if not everyone, who has a connection and can afford a connection, has the skills of a broadband connection. There's something magical about this openness of the Internet. The flipside is, the media, economic, the flows of money around media companies, despite us often spending more money on media and communications and spending more time looking at news, those of us who look at news. There's less money going to journalism. There's less money going to produce facts that will hold the powerful to account, and it's this paradox of more content and lessfewer journalists by some estimates, somewhere between 800 million and 1.3 billion dollars a year inannual editorial salaries have been lost over the last few years and thats a huge sum, and much as I may admire my own tweets, T. Glaisyer, youve got to really drawit's difficult toyou know, I dont try and compare my tweets to [as heard] tweets or other senior journalists who really have worked in the trenches and day to day reporting our news, and I think we have to really take a hard look at what's happened. It hasnt happened in the vacuum, there are policies in the US that have created some wonderful things, but have also created significant challenges for us as a democracy with the media we've got there. I'll just leave it at that for now. There's plenty more to be said. Behrouz Afagh:I'm coming to the question of policy. I think I can imagine a country, which has got an authoritarian regime trying to filter the Internet, etc. So policy does matter in a way. I mean, a nave question is that in a country like America, in a free information, people can produce some that they like, people can read whatever they like, what's the need for policy? What's the need for media policy? Tom Glaisyer:Thats a great question. It seemswell, isnt this great coming to go home, but it hasnt happened for no reason. There are ownership implements on the number of radio or TV stations, someone can own a market or ownacross the country. Spectrum key for distributing an increasingly mobile environment is allocated on a basis and is being allocated on different basis over time. Its allocation of the spectrum by the FCC to non-commercial radio and television stations in the 50s and 60s created a set of institutions that have really served as quite well in many ways. No, maybe they should be doing more. But there's something quite special about the way spectrum is allocated, ownership is limited or constrained that produces a certain media system that will service for better or for worse. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Thanks very much. Let's move on to Fernando, perspective from Latin-American World. Fernando Bermejo:Well, first of all, I guess if you want to make a summary of what the situation of digital media in a region like Latin-America isI think first you need to take a couple of steps back when one is the one that I had to do when I started working in this project, which is what we mean by digitization and digital media, and I realize that even though we all seem to understand what it is, when we actually have to be precise about it is much more complicated than it seems. And I realized that actually when we talk about digital media, we're talking about many different things. You have digitization is a very kind ofyou have technical term but can be applied in many fields. And so when we're talking about it, we're talking on the one hand about how mass media are moving into the digital realm. I'm talking about television. I'm talking about radio. I'm talking about the print press. And then on the other hand, you can think of digital medias, basically what goes on the Internet, which is digital. It is kind of native digital. And so those two waves seem to be colliding, and I think what we're witnessing right now is that the moment of fluxing, which those two things are happening at the same time and we're seeing a new space for communication and media evolving and being born. On the other hand, there's also an issue of regional trends. Latin-America is a pretty big area, geographic area. So there are many difference between let's say, countries in Central America like Nicaragua or Guatemala and what goes on in Brazil or Argentina or Colombia. So there are many different details that get lost when we just do a general summary. So having said that, what I perceive is emerging is on the one hand, the media, the traditional media are slowly moving into the digital realm. There's a process of transition from analog to digital television happening in almost every country. But it's still going to take about a decade for that process to finish, and so there are still the first few steps. So it's difficult to tell how thats going to play out. In terms of the Internet on the other hand, you can see a growing number of users and penetration of the Internet in basically all these countries. It's very different as well that some countries have very high Internet penetration. Some others are still pretty low. But the use of, for instance, social networks is huge among the people who are connected, which of course then there we have to look at differences in terms of digital device and rural versus urban areas and educated versus uneducated people. But I would say that in these two ways that I was describing at the beginning probably the one that comes from the Internet, it's coming with more force than the one that is moving from analog mass media into digital mass media. Behrouz Afagh:How about social revolution or accountability phenomena in countries, which are less democratic than others? Is it seen like for instance increasingly in the Arab world or countries where there is a, you know, struggle for democracy? Is it seen the social media and Internet as a tool, which can be used for that? Fernando Bermejo:You can see that it's being used. However, it's still, in terms of activism, it's still a verya small number of people who are doing that and the repercussions are not as probably felt as some might wish or think. It does. Behrouz Afagh:Good. Thanks very much. Okay. Let's open up to questions and comments and particularly if you got direct experience of media in any of the countries that we've discussed or indeed that we havent discussed. A comment or insight that youve got to share, it'll be very, very useful. And can I ask you please also when you want to speak, say who you are and what organization you represent. Microphone there. Doug:Hello. [as heard] from Community Media Network and I'm in Jordan covering some of these countries. The question to Aboubakr but also to other panelist, the fact of the government control of most of the media in the Arab countries, radio and television almost 100% control by government, most of the newspaper is are partially or fully controlled by governments. Did that trigger because of the availability of social media because of the globalization basically invited many countries wanted to be involved in globalization for exchanging goods, and as a result, they also had to, they were forced to exchange information. So was there a relationship between the fact that media was very oppressive in the sense of ownership and platforms, and at the same time, some of the same countries were basically encouraging globalization for economic reasons and they got stuck also with the information globalization that basically brought them down. So can you talk about that relationship between media repression, globalization and the information exchange? Aboubakr Jamai:It's clearly one of the contradictions of pro-market authoritarian systems, where you adhere and it's part of your marketing campaign toward the west that you adhere to pro-market the policies but at the same time, you are using authoritarian policies towards your own people. I think one of the interesting cases to illustrate these points, what happened in Asia between at some point, I think Mubarak should down Internet completely. But the same gesture, he killed off the whole industry ofI don't know remember the name, the call centers industry because they were using Internet. So by trying to quell the revolution, he was wiping out the whole industry, which was very important for Egypt. So definitely yes, here you just put your finger on this very, very center contradiction in how they did and how globalization is not only a dirty work. I mean, it can be something positive and in this very case, it certainly played a role, and it's a reputational thing as well. For Morocco for example, one of the good things, one of the positive aspects of Morocco via media and Internet is that Internet has been free almost 100% with here and there some censorship towards Islamist websites, pro-Sahara websites, etc. But by in large compared to the rest of the Arab world, it has been free, and one of the major reasons is not that the regime is philosophically, you know, completely inlike in this freedom of speech, etc., but because it's part of how Morocco has to be perceived in general and it led to the creation of a public space that has been used and is been used by the pro-democracy activist. On another scale, you can version that. Tunisia, it's interesting to see how the [as heard] was so adamant in organizing the [as heard] summit, the telecommunication summit a few years ago with the huge role that happened. Well, you can look at it from the angle of the regime, you know, for the regime to be so, put so much energy into being perceived as being pro-freedom of speech and technologically advance by hosting this summit in itself shows this contradiction in their behavior. Behrouz Afagh:The back there. Collins:My name is Collins. I'm from Nigeria. Currently a visiting scholar for [as heard] from Colombia University. My question is about looking at what the moderators talked about [as heard], you know. I'm a little bit curious about the role of media especially in the Arab revolution. If you consider it as an phenomena, would it be that the media played a role, you know, more like encouraging the revolution, what it may not have been the majority of the people? The majority of the peopleif it's concerned the people the rural area have no access to media and were not part of it, would it not be fair to say that the media more like encourage the revolution without actually, you know, being a true representative of various countries. And my second comment is that, being from Nigeria and Sub-Sahara Africa have been more interested in seeing many reports on the media in Sub-Sahara Africa. Thank you. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. What's your own experience of changes in the media in Africa? Particularly, I mean, not necessarily media in the very traditional sense, but this advent for instance, the importance of mobile phones for instance. Coolins:Definitely, in Nigeria, been a tremendous growth in the role of mobile phone and the media. But again, it's more an [as heard] thing. So if you consider it as an [as heard] maybe because I'm an activist [???][0:26:13.8] So you cannot say precisely that it reflects the majority thought. You know, I go to the villages, I walk in the communities, majority of those in the community have a cellphone just to communicate. They dont use Facebook. They dont use Twitter. They dont use all those fancy stuff. So it's only the educated that use those things to communicate, and that can actually lead to phone manipulation. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Thank you very much. Anne:Anne Nelson. I teach at Colombia School of International and Public Affairs, and I have a few of my students here. Tom Glaisyer, you and I have been corresponding recently about some movement in the spectrum assignment or at least the proposals to allocate more of the spectrum to first responders and to help public service organizations in general have more access. It seems to be a fairly technical area and I was wondering if you could update us and tell us what's happening with that discussion. Tom Glaisyer:It is an incredibly technical area. [Chuckles] So Ill just sort unpack it a little one and give a general update. There is, as we know in the US, some questions behind the federal deficit. One of the solutions to solving that is to sell spectrum for the highest value. To basically repurpose spectrum and allocate on allocated spectrum to different purposes. So there are currently a number of different ways this can happen. You can takeyou can encourage the broadcasters to give up some spectrum. Perhaps theif you set it or a dollar and they get 20 cents and they give it up for 20 cents and the treasury gets 80. You can take currently on allocated spectrum and sell it in the same way and the treasury gets $100 for every dollar. It's sold foror you take on allocated spectrum and allocate it for different uses. Now, there are several proposals for different uses. One, driven quite strongly by the public safety lobby for the allocation of an allocated spectrum, and some energized by the anniversary of 9/11, that really, we need to get on this because we [???][0:28:48.3] to solve this problem of first responders be able to speak to each other. And the other is allocating that spectrum to unlicensed users, and that would be a sort of Wi-Fi on steroids. So we think of Wi-Fi at home that goesmaybe goes to one wall or two, and it's kind of useful. We've all really, may have deployed it in our houses. But imagine if you could take a much better band of radio spectrum that actually goes not yards but miles, and imagine if that was allocated on an opportunistic or unlicensed basis, though everyone got there, they could use it when they needed it. We designed devices that use it, how much innovation that could yield. And really, what's going on in congress is a battle between the forces who want as much money for the treasury as possible about nothing. A group who wants some spectrum allocated for public safety, dedicated public safety, and then a group who are supportive of unlicensed spectrum. I personally am very interested in the unlicensed opportunity because I think it will spur incredible innovation and connectivity and lower our cost for connectivity. But Iand I'm really hoping for some sort of balanced outcome has with many things in congress these days, I'm not optimistic. Behrouz Afagh:Yes. Female:I wanted to ask you a question. Do you have any work inside of Cuba and if you do, I would like to know what the young people in Cuba have accessed to. Fernando Bermejo:Unfortunately, Cuba is not one of the countries that is being covered in the Latin-American region. We have Mexico, which isit's already finished and published. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Brazil and Uruguay, but not in Cuba unfortunately. So I couldnt speak beyond what I know from reading the news about what goes on in Cuba about what really is happening there in terms of access to media or the Internet. I wouldnt be able to specify any information that you probably dont have already. Behrouz Afagh:Through tradition of new media, is there anyone in the audience who knows more about it, about Cuba, what's going on there? Okay. Yeah. You have more information about Cuba? Female:I've written some about it. Behrouz Afagh:Would you mind kind of telling us? Female:Yeah. What you have is this incredible hacker culture going on in Cuba. [as heard] just is been building a fiber optic cable to Cuba, which is going to be multiplying the band with many times over, and so everybody is saying, how do political leaders who incline towards censorship think they're going to control this expansion of content because they're not like the Chinese where they have tens of thousands of sensors sitting ready to go after it. So you're going to have this explosion of access. Youve got [as heard] which have been designed in Brazil but are being built out rapidly in Venezuela and now in Cuba that you have community access. So school children get them during the day. Community people get access to the Internet after school hours. There's government vigilance. There's a very lively blogging culture. [as heard] has become an international rock star and she builds her computers pretty much out of parts that have been thrown in the garbage partly because of our embargo, which means that we can't get advanced equipment to the people who are pressing for democracy in Cuba. So there we are back to policy. Behrouz Afagh:Thank you very much. Thanks. Maybe the gentleman at the back there. Male:My name is [as heard]. I'm also from Colombia University. My question is for Sir Abou. You said about from 800,000 to 3 million, right, Facebook, like, we're talking about how the new media has influenced or positivelyare there also, out of the 3 million, were there a few thousands who were pro-government, you know, because I'm a journalist but I also know thatin IndiaI come from Northeast. I'm from Nagaland. Hundreds of fake identities in the name of counter-insurgency, they, you know, they suppress movements. They influence the youth, you know. So it's likeI just want to know from Behrouz Afagh:Thank you very much. Let's get one or two more questions in and then we'll try and answer them. The lady in the front. Lydia:Okay. Thank you very much. I'm from Uganda. I work with the women in [???][0:34:09.1] but I'm here as a visiting scholar at Colombia University. My question isit's going to be like an observation but also a question is, how will you be able to verify that the same people who are maybe signing up for Twitter, Facebook and the same people who are using the TVs and televisions are different people. Because it could be the same people but they are just keeping to change. And then the other one is, what is your finding on the role of women in influencing the revolution or in the use or accessI don't know. Something like that. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. One more question at the back there. The lady there. Yeah. Oh. Elvis:Thank you very much. Elvis Bembe. I'm from Ruanda and one of the 14 advocates participating to the Human Rights Advocate Program at Colombia University. I've noticed that media is a really powerful instrument. This cannot be proved today because we know what's happened in the Arab world but this is a positive change. But it can also contribute in a negative change. Those who followed the 1994 genocide in Ruanda, remember what was the role of the sadly famous [as heard]. At that time, they tried to find ways to interfere with their broadcast. At that time I think also it could be done because only we did not yet have digitalized media as today. But today with the proliferation of digital media such as Internet, mobile phones, iPads and so on, I'm wondering how we can still control such issues especially when it's going at the bad side. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Thank you very much. Let's try anddo you want to first talk about how were we sure thatlet's say that the 800the new people who are using the social network in Morocco are not necessarilythe question was that, were they alsodid they also include government supporters for instance? So were they all kind of opposition? Aboubakr Jamai:Well, you have two types of government supporters. You have those who are paid to be government supporters and those who are ideologically convinced by the government or regime position, thats a better word. And the problem is with the first kind, not the second one. The second one is absolutelytheir presence is absolutely legitimate in thein the public space. We think that in Morocco, we had some people who were employed by the government to be present in theon the Internet, on Facebook, on Twitter and to hound people who were advocating democratization in the country. Now, from my personal experience, if they were paid to do it, the few I thought were picked to do it were not verybecause it sufficed to look at their profile on Facebook, which is very easy to do. For example, you findthere was one who was a Harvard graduate with four friends, you know, for example, that was very, very unlikely. A Moroccan Harvard graduate with four friends, that was not very plausible, so that kind of things. But at the end of the day, the conversation that took place ended up being in a constructive one, in the sense that it was not polluted enough to become meaningless, and thats a very positive outcome I believe of this explosion of Internet user chain, social media user chain in particular. I know that in Tunisia during the [???][0:38:08.1] that obviously, this is a story that has been well-reported on. Social media have used the Internet as the tradition media has been completely domesticated. The government has put a lot of resources into trying to control social media as to how by paying people to go in the Internet and go after a democratic activist. This is to say that this is a double-edge sword, that this is a medium, which means that it can be used by the government. The other thing about Internet is everything is traceable, technically speaking. So if you are, as a state, rich enough and generally you're richer than your opponents, you can always hire some western company that should give you the technological tools to trace back whatever is going on your blogosphere, on your Twittosphere, on your Facebook. So this is a real challenge. So it is a double-edge sword and it seems that democracy activist are a little bit ahead of the curve on this one. Besides again, you know, we shouldnt think, you know, the way I'm talking about this might lead us to think that social media or a center stage to enter the revolution. I dontagain, let me just repeat that. We did not sort out the real way of each phenomena, urbanization, social media, demographicall of these things are still being worked out in the mix that lead through the revolution, and it's premature to say that social media or central. They played a role. We dont know yet what type of role and to what extent they have contributed to the revolutions. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. There are three kinds of points where fairly general, can it be a force for evil as well? Can it help the forces of evil? I guess Aboubakr replied to some extent but we'll go back to the others as well. But also the involvement of women and then also how can we differentiate between uses of different medium. Who wants to have a go at it? Fernando? Fernando Bermejo:Well, in terms of the evil uses of the media I guess has ahuman tool can be used for many different purposes. What you would hope is that by promoting access and diversity in the production and distribution of media, those evil uses will be countered by other, more positive ones. So I guess thats my best answer at that. In terms of the issue of how do you know whos using what and where that will lead us in a very kind of tangent direction, which is also relevant, which is the issue of, how do you know what goes on online and what are the tools that we have to know what goes on online and who has access to that information, and thats a very complicated situation because we tend to do comparisons between media and say for instance, 40% of the newspaper readers read the New York Times but 80% of online users use Google. So the Internet is actually more concentrated than the printing press. Actually, beyond or below the level of Google go on so many things that are so different from what goes on behind or below the name of a newspaper, is so much more complex what is behind a URL than what is behind a newspaper name that it's difficult to make those kinds of comparisons. So if you want to go specifically what goes on within a particular website, then we have the issue of access to data. The data is precious that we all know. It's a wonderful commodity. Thats what drives the online economy, and so you're not going to be able to get the data from the companies that own that data, and there are all these different platforms so to speak that own a lot of data about online behavior. None of them of course want to share that data with other platforms and let alone with researchers because thats their goal, thats how they make money. Behrouz Afagh:Any kind of insights about theyeah. Tom Glaisyer:I'll respond a little bit. Yeah, I'll try to respond as many points as I can. I started off with the Internet is liberty and openness and there's a paradox of the potential for control and what Facebook canif [as heard] still existed, Facebook would tell it all that ittell them all they ever dreamed of. You get to some really serious questions of how can you get out of that issue because can you regulate your way out of the issue or it's ultimately if that data exists, someones always going to be able to get hold of it. So then you started getting into questions of design and questions of not storing things in centralized databases or storing them in an intuitive manner, encrypted on your own data stick. These are the sort of questions we're going to have to struggle with. I'll respond to the gentleman from Ruanda. I got into this business in a way by looking at the genocide in Ruanda and media and I always reflect on thatthe community media here is a soft, fluffy word in the US. It's a nice thing. We all want more of it, and the low power radio stations thathere, there was an act, the local community radio act, which was signed by President Obama, which is going to open up more community radio stations. It's going to be a very good thing and a very positivebecause of the ecosystem in which those stations exist. For Ruanda, it was not. They were tools of the [as heard] terribly problematic, and we really need to retool our policy-making apparatus for this converge well of digital data and consider what we do and just to reiterate a little bit on the questions of anonymity and verification. The online economy is, Fernando have mentioned, depends on that, yet the questions of justice in the world with total surveillance, I think just sitting out there at how we get, how we address them both in policy and design have yet to be resolved. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Any insights? Any kind of interesting trends about involvement of women? I dont knowMarius has some viewsokay. Nothing. Any, no, no, no. Tom Glaisyer:The one thing I have heard about in the UK and this may be connected with the use of sort of moms network in the [as heard] response to the hacking for that I think the shadow of that latent group of connected people was, you know, known and recognized by politicians. Behrouz Afagh:I think thats a good sort of intro Segway for a video that we've got about the hackings and the how, if you like the over concentration of media control can damage and, you know, what effect it can have on the relationship between media and politics. I think we've got two video comments, very brief, 2 minutes each. One from UK by Des Freedman, whos the author of the UK Report and he's particularly commenting about the news international scandal. I think we'll play the video in a minute and we'll come back to the question. [Playing video recording] Des Freedman:I think the phone hacking saga brought the tension of millions and millions of people in the UK what the impacts can be of concentrated media of power, that an organization might use corporation can have its fingers in so many puddings have so much influence, be able to draw on friends in the police and in government in a very unhealthy way for democracy. Now, that in itself did not cause the phone hacking scandal, did not cause the behavior that upholds so many millions of people. That is the result of another I would say systemic structural set of circumstances where journalists are forced to work harder across more platforms to try and get the be there competition and that arises from the kind of media market that we're seeing of enormous competition and enormous pressure. And I think the problem is where you have that kind of pressure, that kind of competition together with the huge and very unaccountable institutions, groups like news corporations, it can be catastrophic, both the journalism and for democracy. So what we need now out of the phone hacking saga, is a serious debate about what kind of ownership structures would be best? How can we best use this opportunity, not just try and make sure that those kind of unethical journalistic practices go away but to look for systems of regulation, structures of ownership that will present a much more open inclusive representative immediate system. So it's a very complicated situation where you have journalistic debates. You have all sorts of unhealthy political relationships approved from this concentrative power, epitomized by news corporation and we have to see this as they reel opportunity to start to deal with questions of ownership concentration. So I think you have to be an optimist in this set of circumstances to think this is the one chance we're going to have for some years to tackle one of the most serious problems that we all face in Britain today. Behrouz Afagh:Thanks very much. I think the question in whichand if I have about this, is that, is this, you know, overconcentration of power or control. Is it a byproduct of the new media environment? Is competition, as he says, harming, if you like, public interest, harming public interest journalism or, you know, what you see in the phone hacking scandal is really something, which is outside the environment itself. I mean, thats the key question. In other words, can we all lump it all together. I wonder whether anybody would like to comment on that. Tom Glaisyer:Yeah. The phone hacking saga in England is justquite so simply represents an event you dont want to have happen. You dont want to get to that point. And for me, it just reinforces the need for media ownership concentration, rules and regulations to be maintained, and Iwe're going to the history of the 2003, maybe the rare moment of [as heard] really when the SCC voted to massively deregulate media ownership and find yourself facing for raw from the left and the right and a voting congress, which basically rolled back some of the media ownership relaxation limit in 2003, and I was really quitea tremendous sort of moment of for the media and before movement and youd like to think it would still happen today, the outcome of a lot of that media deregulations actually still in the courts and is going to come back and bite us fairly soon. I've got to say that thank god it happened over there because maybe it'll stop us from having it happen over here and we'll maintain these limits. So thats my really sort of impaction-- Fernando Bermejo:Yeah. You asked whether, with thing that has something to do with the digital media. I think it does and however we shouldnt think that the online world is kind of free from issues like the ones have been discussed here, and I wonder also whether we have the tools, if not just legal, but even intellectual at this moment to understand the dangers of concentration in the online realm. And I'm saying this because we're witnessing an increasing relevance of a few online platforms that control search and social networks and video online, and all these platforms, they have at least two things that make them tend towards monopolies, and one of them is that they all seem to learn from their own activity. They're constantly learning like a sure changing gets better the more its been used. So the more it's been used, the better it is so that more people want to use it. And also you have the network effect, which is the more people who are in my network, the more interest in the network, so the more people join the network. So that creates this kind of like, niche platforms for different online activities in which in the end seem to be unaccountable in certain levels about their behavior because they dont have competitors basically. So to go back to the question, no, this has, I think had nothing to do with digital media. However, we shouldnt lose sight of possible similar issues taking place in the online realm. Aboubakr Jamai:Yeah, I want towell, I amI can see why concentration has led to or some might think that concentration had led to this accident. But my question would be, was it an accident waiting to happen, a catastrophe waiting to happen or is it just by chance or by, you know, conjunction of different things that led to it because if you believe in the first story, then it's systemic and then you must do something about it. I'm not totally convinced that it's systemic. What is extremely troubling for someone like me coming from where I come from is the behavior of the police, the behavior of the politicians. That was something extremely shocking that all these politicians were cuddlingall these police people were completely in cahoots with this rogue journalist to expose simple citizens lives and thats something extremely troubling and again, where does it come from? Is it systemic? Is it something built in the system that led to this and then we need to religiously regulateI don't know. Behrouz Afagh:Increasing power of the faction of media I suppose. Tom Glaisyer:I think thats some interesting design challenges. The Internet was designed on open standards. The Facebook is notyou get application and API, basically accessing in to data on terms that Facebook provides you to their very valuable set of data. Thiswe can makeall make choices both as individuals, as system designers or as legal pot makers around the future, the online digital future that we have, and I thinkFernandos point, we havent yet got the people with the right set of skills to really understand the challenges in the way they need to enter and to work our way after that. It's a work in progress and I hope that there are some people in this room who want to be part of that. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Let's go back to some questions. Yes, at the back there. Tiffany:Good evening. My name is Tiffany Jerome. I work at the [???][0:55:15.7] Can you hear me? Sorry. So I repeat. My name is Tiffany Jerome. I work in the media program of United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. For those who dont know what it is, it's a special project of the secretary general launched in 2007 to address intercultural tensions between the west and the so-called listening world. We actually just launched about experience and activities and some of the region interest tonight. We just launched an online training yesterday together with the New York Times including involving American, French, but also Tunisian and Egyptian journalists on the topic covering elections because we think it's a crucial topic, not only because it's a time for election for Tunisia and Egypt in the coming weeks but also because obviously there's the issue of how to cover elections in regimes that we're not used to covering election democratically. So my question is to Aboubakr and I'm pleased to meet you in person after talking to you over the phone. How do you see the challenges particular in Morocco where you're from but also in Tunisia for websites like [as heard] but also [as heard] in Tunisia. How do you see the issue of ethics for social media, for bloggers, of course for important, you know, moments like elections but more generally with this new generation of online presence, how will ethics would be handled. How will training also in general be handled for people who dont necessarily have a traditional training in journalism? Behrouz Afagh:Thanks very much. Let's have a few more questions there, there at the back. Guy:Hello. I'm Guy Berger from South Africa and I did the South African Study for this, and I came across two things that might be of interest to people here. One is it was extremely difficult to get an understanding of Internet access in South Africa. For example, the ITU data gave a certain statistic, which was based on them surveying people, did you use the Internet once in past year? Which is a basic question, and it also then, what is the Internet, and what I found is that lots of people use the Internet on their cellphones. They dont know they use they use the Internet. So it turns out that most people using a fix line of Internet users at their workplace, which has got implications for how they use it and what they could use it for. Those people who have Internet access on their cellphones, on 3g, dont have necessarily broadband on their 3g. Second, the size of the screen limits what they can do and the bandwidth and the cost limits whether they can do a video or heavy density stuff on their phones. So I think these are quite importantbecause one throws around Internet access as if it was good thing. Thats fairly easy to kind of measure, but actually it's really [???][0:58:26.8] in terms of what it really means. What I found in South Africa is actually the killer application with cellphones is not Internet access. It's still SMS, which is a one to one medium and I suspect even entire square, probably SMS played a great role in social mediathe other thing that I looked at was digital television and the transition from analog to digital television raises the huge question, well if you got this digital bandwidth for TV, what's going to go in it, and even in a rich county like South Africa, it is not the business model to put indigenous content to a local content in that digital space. So either, there's going to be a lot of ravish, important from elsewhere such as tele evangelism that comes from this country trying to squeeze local citizens for the nations, or there's another alternative and this I think becomes very important. Whether the bandwidth can also be used for download of Internet content thats high-bandwidth. So in other words, whether you came from a hybrid system and the hybrid system then points to the setup box being the actualbeing the critical key potential for convergence. By people who have uplink through their cellphone modem link to their setup box and download coming through the [as heard]. So thats one of the debates thats taking place in policy circles in South Africa at the moment, except that the broadcasters dont like that because they're still stuck in the model of broadcasting. We deliver to you, and of course, once you give people the technology through a setup box whereby they can begin to actually choose what they want and where US broadcast have to come on ISP, it changes your paradigm. So those are some of the obstacles to digitization of media in South Africa. Behrouz Afagh:Thanks very much. Thank you for that. Hayley:I'm Hayley Cowen and I work as a fact checker at The New America Foundation this summer and I'm going on a year-long fellowship to Yale to study the new media line in Argentina but I havent gone yet, so there hasnt been any questions about that yet. But to speak to Toms point aboutyou talked about the salary cuts in journalism and obviously that translates to actual positions being cut, reporters being cut from beads, and I was wondering if any of you have any insights on how to fill those reporting gaps and if those reporting gaps are to be filled with what's expensive operators. So citizen journalism or things along those lines, how do we keep less expensive kind of systems accountable to the facts and I think as a former factor especially interested in that just in terms of if you dont have the money to employ editors and factors, how do you make sure that what's being reported is accurate? Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Thanks very much, and one lastfor this round I meant, not last, as in last. Gwyneth:I'm Gwyneth Henderson. I've been in journalism and media for a very long time. I just want to go back, if I may, to the UK thing for a minute. Social media had nothing at all to do with the phone hacking thing. The phone hacking started long before and it goes back to the 90s actually. But I think there's something else very important and we forget this, why did the phone hacking come out at the end? It's not systemic. It came out because of journalism. It came out because of incredibly good journalism over a number of years of enormous pressure supported by the private eyes and everything else, and of course I'm talking about The Guardian, and I wonder if, you know, we're talking about a lot about technical things. We're talking a lot about, you know, whether we, maybe talk a little bit, ask you to address the questions of content and the impact on the content and therefore the agendas and the subjects of discourse that are actually happening within the nation or globally because thats the thing that truthfully most concerns me. I dont much care what the platforms is but actually what are people actually getting and being able to assess, being able to examine, being able to use because [as heard] net first actually really important thing was during the election had nothing to do with phone hacking. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Thanks very much. Your question I guess is very much related to your question as well, you know, how you covered the reporting gaps or you know, cutting of the salaries, etc. or bigger question, is the digital media helping journalism, helping reporting, helping understanding? I think thats one question, and then second question, which is sort of related howwhat are the ethical challenges particularly in the Arab world. Let's concentrate from the first question first. Do you want to Fernando Bermejo:No, actually I was thinking that Aboubakr for Behrouz Afagh:Yeah. You want to talk about the ethical question first, fine, fair enough. Aboubakr Jamai:You mentioned [as heard] is a news website, Tunisian news website doing a fantastic work, and you mentioned [as heard] which is trying to do the same, and in fact this an answer to this ethical question because if you think about the strategy of these two news website, they're trying to build a brand and if you want to try to build a brand, well, you should be ethically sound, and in fact, in answers one of the big problems with this new Internet era is that information is scattered all over the place. Thats one, and secondly, there is a dirt of ways to make sense of this information to render it intelligible, to connect the dots. So when we castigate editorialism and use analysisactually, we do need editorialism and use analysis to make sense of this vast amount information we are bombarded with. So what's going on and it's very hard because no one has come up. We're talking aboutI was talking to Marius before about the US Report, on the MDM US Report, and my question was simple. Did they find a business model because everyone is looking for this miraculous business model? So I was asking in the US, did they find some business model that you can emulate elsewhere? And the answer was no, not yet. What [as heard] and [as heard] is trying to do as other news website before them all over the world is to build brands. There is a reason you read the New York Times, and there is an economical rationale behind it because you cannot read everything of interest to you. Thats too much. So you need to go to one brand that will knowpackage all the interest in subjects for you and give them, deliver them to you in a way you pretty much like, not 100% what you pretty much like. Thats what we're trying to replicate but over the Internet, and everybody else is trying to do the same by the way. So it's a good evolution, is to have this new institutions that are behold into their reputation, so that will be investing in ethical journalism in trying to produce some sound analysis, sound information, to put some money. We have talked about how the most expensive journalism is investigation. Behrouz Afagh:You want to comment specifically on that? Sorry. Male:I want to add to what Gwyneth said about good journalism because I think it's really important that we dont lose that and I'll give an example in Jordan. I mean, I think we've seen like a circle. We were witnessing at one time almost no access to good journalism or good information let's say, and then now, there'severybody can write, everybody can create their own website. But the quality of journalism hasnt increased. I mean, the same good articles are being republished in all the new websites, and there's a lot of rubbish thats also been published under the new website. So I think we come around. The fact that there was not enough platform, now there's too many platforms but the quality of journalism has not improved in a good way. I mean, important stories and breakthrough stories, people can break now stories. And so information is now available but hard-hitting, investigative reporting, that takes a lot of really good journalism and you know, just quality of the time to be done hasnt really changed. So I think we need to give both these issues and in fact, the bad stuffing on journalism is giving Internet a very bad name, and now, countries, they are putting a lot of laws and raising up very much high fine. It feeds for things like, you know, character assassination now they just passed the law in Jordan. 30,000 is like $50,000 that character assassination. So if you think somebody is a corrupt person or an official, and you can prove it, you go to jail or you pay $50,000. It's a lot of money, and it's basically to kind of create these legal systems to stop people from saying things without proof, and if you dont have access to information, how can you get good proof. So it's a vicious cycle. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Did you finish your point, Aboubakr or Aboubakr Jamai:No. In fact, thanks for this intervention because I happen to have a different opinion on this. I think that if the quality of journalism has not improved, it's not because you have this wild space that is Internet because it's a problem of a business model. It's not a problem ofon the contrary, I do believe that these lowering of barriers to entry to everyone, to write and to make his information public, is actually very hard on professional journalism because it's keeping them on their toes because if their work is not good enough, it's known in the second and everybody will know it. So I would guess that on the contrary it helps produce better journalism. But the big question is really the business model. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Fernando and Tom, is it helping better journalism and how are you filling that reporting gaps or fact-checking gaps? Tom Glaisyer:It's a huge question and it's a very ripe one especially in the US with the massive layoffs that are happening. I understand your concerns. We need good journalism. It's notif you havent got the journalism, it doesnt matter what platform it's on. We've struggled with this and we've, you know, the report is looking at what's going on, and really youve got to sit back and say, so we're spending more on media and communications per capital than we have before, but less money is actually going to produce news. It's because the market isthe bundling of the [???][1:09:52.5] the box scores and the baseball that are easy to collect with the hard-hitting news that you had to buy because you had to buy it as a newspaper isno, it's not happening. You get [as heard], people go to the website with the box scores a lot more and general the advertising revenue. The economics of newspapers are just getting worse. So there's noI personally am notthere's a magic bullet anywhere for this. The question is where did it come from and people have struggled to see this, see where it could be and Iand the obvious one is philanthropy or greater non-profit for journalism, and I think thats definitely an element. But I think we have to look really seriously in the US especially. The publicly funded media, weas US tax payers pay a buck 35 per capita per year on public media. There's OECD competitor kind of spends 20, the UK spends 60. Is it any one tothere's a difference between the journalism, the BBC produces thanks toand the scope of what PBS and public radio can produce, and the other side of this issome of this I think at the local level will come out of some citizen reporting but this is not going to magically appear. System reporters are not wonderful journalists just because they're citizens who see a car crash. We've got to think about the local anchor institutions that we need to design in the community of having libraries or community centers that will get funded in some way to connect people with news and I think we've just go to recognize that the business modelwe're not going to innovate our way out of this. We're going to get lower cost as the cost of news printers disappears as people stop using printing presses. But the [as heard] still just cost money. Fernando Bermejo:Yeah. To try to answer that question and also link it with part of what the gentleman from South Africa mentioned before when he says, well, you know, we have all these list of these channels but how are we going to fill them? I think we tend to forget the economics of attention. It's like, well, you know, we have that much attention span and that many people who come pay attention to the media. So the fact that we increase and multiply the offer doesnt mean that people actually going to be watching more because there's clear limit to that, and that limit to attention also affects the amount of capital that you can put into the media. It's like, we cannot have the same amount of money to develop one channel as we have to develop 10 channels. We kind of multiply the investment 10 times. And so that takes me to the question about quality journalism. I think we need towe cannot think about quality journalism in isolation. It's on newspapers, reporters, producing this wonderful investigative journalism unless we are able to understand the whole dynamic of the media production and consumption, we won't be able to understand whether we're actually improving the quality of journalism or we're actually degrading in and part of the problem is that a significant of revenue is moving away from traditional journalistic sources into other types of media, many of which are online platforms. So we cannot just ignore the context if we want to explain what happens with journalism these days. Tom Glaisyer:I got one more response to Guy Bergers comment. I mean, Guy, I suspect you may know all this because I know you're a very [???][1:14:09.3] but there's some fascinating experiments in Australia with the way the Australian national broadband plan, national broadband network is being developed, and in New Zealand basically a very different model that has massive investments around how to create connectivity in both urban and in rural areas. You contrast those models with what's going on in the US, which is actually a remarkably modest attempt at relatively low-cost, with relatively modest goals of connectivity both urban and to be frank, raw connectivity assumptions seem to premised on 4 years good enough. As you said yourself 4g isnt capable broadband, and I think it'swe may have to re-examine that in this country with the norms to be set. But there're plenty of options out there for how it can be done Behrouz Afagh:Yeah. Question there. Male:One more question to Tom. Back to the issue of quality journalism. The stunning difference you mentioned between expenditure, public media in US and Canada, is it making or could it make a defense online? Tom Glaisyer:So the way public media or publicfederal spending on public media is actually 99% allocated orapproximately at thatto both radio and television. 75% of that money goes to public television. TheI personally would be very supportive of broadening the vehicles to receive that many and I think you could make a massive difference online. There was a great article in the New York Times, a few last week or maybe so this week around topics, sort of a chat room space become popular in many small towns. It's the only place where things get discussed in this of local gossip and it's not particularly invigorating or positive picture of the future. If you just think of what a public television entity could be in this century as supposed to when public media and the [as heard] as was found in the last century, is just a tremendously exciting opportunity for two-way engagement of citizens, engaging citizen journalists but also supporting and fact-checking what's found and really contributing to the demographic process. In a way that was alwayssort of educational way with old school public broadcasting. But could really be madeit's just an opportunity that I am, you know, I'm excited about, yet, as I said with congress, you can't get too optimistic right now with how things are going. It's entirely possible that public funding could be completely zeroed out in this super congress debate going on right now. Although I think that may not happen, I would like to see much more innovation and many going into online entities. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Any otherback there. Peter:Hi. My name is Peter Canoy from Skylight Pictures, which is an independent documentary producing company, and this a question for all or any of the panelists. We're beginning an experiment in trying to help collect and develop the historic memory in Guatemala for a period of time that took place during extreme violence in Guatemala that nobody there really wants to talk about, and we're using the Internet in kind of sort of a wiki model to try to get many, many individuals to add their memories to some kind of understanding of what happened during that time period, and I'm wondering if any of you in your research have come across this type of use of Internet. Behrouz Afagh:Okay. Anyone wants to Fernando Bermejo:I'm trying to think and I dont recall any specific case. Actually, Colombia maybe has some case of websites in which people can tell their experiences of violence and the problems of violence that a country has gone through in recent years. I think that will be the closest thing to what youve mentioned. But let me ask you, is thisyou're recording peoples memories on camera or is it just like opening a space for people to come and join and express themselves and tell their stories or Peter:We're using a trigger of a documentary. We're using a trigger of a documentary film that we're about to release in Guatemala, which in test screenings really gets people to speak a lot about their experiences andso some of it going to be, you know, hand-collected from younger generation collecting the stories from the older generation with a cellphone application. And some of it, you know, will be like a story core booth in certain places where people come to add their memories and then have these curated on to a site thats a public site that can be accessed by the general public. Behrouz Afagh:I wonderdo you sort of know in thebecause with your overview of the various media Female:I actually don't know much of similar experiences but I think it would be very interesting to debate the possible use of media in similar experiments around a country that were offline that could be now put online and we wouldI would be willing to talk to you after that. Behrouz Afagh:There's a point here. Jessica:There are a lot ofhi. Jessica Clark [???][1:21:15.4] There are a lot of different variations on this theme like the It gets better campaign. People are collecting stories of being bullied because they're gay and lesbian is used and how it got better. The holocaust museum in phili has a story booth where they havethey prompt people to talk about values related to tolerance. So it's definitely a model thats been tried in a lot of different. By news, there were several experiments just around this anniversary of 9/11. You could look at futurepublicmedia.net if you want to find some. Behrouz Afagh:Can we getyou have the point now. Male:Something you could look at is [???][1:22:00.0] he had a documentary called Impunity and he has 700 hours of recording of victims of violence on camera, which he is planning to put online on a virtual museum of memory. So Impunity. It was shown in New York and Female:Yeah. One of the granddaddies of these kinds of sites. So Susan [as heard] website, a.k.a. Curtis Anne, which interactive with it, Curtis de Asper. Behrouz Afagh:Good. Okay. I think we're coming to the end of our time. It's been a fascinating discussion. I thought I was going toI was very tempted to try and reduce the discussion to a simple single question. Anyway, I'll have a go at it. Because of the discussion that we have towards the end of the debate about whether or not digital media has helped, if you like journalism or not, is it a notion that new media is a dangerous thing or is it a good thing orI mean, how many people here think that it has really helped journalism and it has helped democracy. Hand up those who think it has. Very good. Hands up those who think it hasnt. Tom Glaisyer:I went for both. Behrouz Afagh:We've better conclude. Thank you very much indeed and you could watch the whole thing again. I'm thinking a few days or a few weeks, in a couple of days I think and if you want, here are thewww.soros.org or www.mediapolicy.org or fora.tv. These are the three sites. If you want them to make notice them, media can help you afterwards. Thank you all very much indeed.