The Committee to Protect Journalists has released a report identifying what it calls the “10 Worst Countries to be a Blogger.” CPJ puts Burma in first place because it has “a military government that severely restricts Internet access and imprisons people for years for posting critical material.”
CPJ goes on to call Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Egypt the leading online oppressors in the Middle East and North Africa, while it pegs China and Vietnam as Asia’s worst blogging nations. Cuba and Turkmenistan round out the CPJ list.
The CPJ report coincides with World Press Freedom Day, May 3rd. Last year CPJ reported that bloggers and other online journalists were the single largest professional group in prison, overtaking print and broadcast journalists for the first time.
CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon says: “The governments on the list are trying to roll back the information revolution, and, for now, they are having success. Freedom of expression groups, concerned governments, the online community, and technology companies need to come together to defend the rights of bloggers around the world.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists report comes as the New York Times carries a fascinating report about how unusual alliances have been forged to help people worldwide use technology to try to defeat government efforts to censor what they can read online.
The report by John Markoff notes, for example, that Iranian Internet users last year began circumventing government censorship by using a freely-downloaded computer program created by Chinese computer experts with the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which has been suppressed by the Chinese government.
As Markoff reports: “a disparate alliance of political and religious activists, civil libertarians, Internet entrepreneurs, diplomats and even military officers and intelligence agents are now challenging growing Internet censorship.”
The article notes the Voice of America has financed some circumvention technology efforts. With a growing audience online, especially in countries where authorities try to censor the news, it is in VOA’s interests to support what is, after all, considered a fundamental human right: that everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
04 May 2009
20 April 2009
A Debate Over A Story About Dress Codes
We recently received an email about a report by Abuja-based correspondent Gilbert da Costa headlined “Nigerian Muslim Nurse Sacked for Violating Dress Code.”
The report earlier this month said the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, one of the largest health facilities in northern Nigeria, had fired a nurse named Safiya Ahmed for allegedly persistently violating the dress code for nurses at the hospital by wearing an unapproved hijab or head covering. The report went on to say Muslim groups were calling the woman’s dismissal unfair and a violation of her constitutional rights.
Our email writer, a faculty member at Ahmadu Bello University, said that she had a daughter who was a nursing student at the school and that she and her daughter were both “aware of what is the dress code requirement for both students and staff nurses.” She notes the dress criteria were set by the Nursing Council of Nigeria and established mainly “for the purpose protecting the health interests of both patients and the medical personnel.”
She complains the VOA report was incomplete “because you only report about one side and did not bother to hear what the other side (teaching hospital) has as a reason for the action. This kind of act is what initiates and precipitates misunderstandings and because religious sentiments are involved, some serious problems may arise.”
We forwarded the faculty member’s comments to correspondent da Costa, who responded that he believes his piece “highlighted the position of the hospital authorities on the matter.”
Correspondent da Costa concedes that it might have been better to have a recorded interview with a hospital official. But he feels, “having anchored the story on the stated position of the medical facility, I sincerely think that all sides had their views amply conveyed in my reporting.”
If you have questions or comments about any of the stories on VOANews.com, please send them to us here at the NewsBlog and we will try to get a response for you.
The report earlier this month said the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, one of the largest health facilities in northern Nigeria, had fired a nurse named Safiya Ahmed for allegedly persistently violating the dress code for nurses at the hospital by wearing an unapproved hijab or head covering. The report went on to say Muslim groups were calling the woman’s dismissal unfair and a violation of her constitutional rights.
Our email writer, a faculty member at Ahmadu Bello University, said that she had a daughter who was a nursing student at the school and that she and her daughter were both “aware of what is the dress code requirement for both students and staff nurses.” She notes the dress criteria were set by the Nursing Council of Nigeria and established mainly “for the purpose protecting the health interests of both patients and the medical personnel.”
She complains the VOA report was incomplete “because you only report about one side and did not bother to hear what the other side (teaching hospital) has as a reason for the action. This kind of act is what initiates and precipitates misunderstandings and because religious sentiments are involved, some serious problems may arise.”
We forwarded the faculty member’s comments to correspondent da Costa, who responded that he believes his piece “highlighted the position of the hospital authorities on the matter.”
Correspondent da Costa concedes that it might have been better to have a recorded interview with a hospital official. But he feels, “having anchored the story on the stated position of the medical facility, I sincerely think that all sides had their views amply conveyed in my reporting.”
If you have questions or comments about any of the stories on VOANews.com, please send them to us here at the NewsBlog and we will try to get a response for you.
08 April 2009
VOA Cares
Last month we received and wrote about an email from a garment worker who was upset about a VOA story in which two prominent world figures, during a visit to Haiti, said that what the people of that poor Caribbean country needed most of all were jobs.
The garment worker, who lives in the United States (our audiences are outside the United States, but our website can be accessed from almost any location in the world), said she appreciated the need for jobs in Haiti.
But she said she was about to lose her own job and said, “what about the need here? There are about 250 of us and no one seems to care that we are losing our jobs.”
We passed her email on to VOA’s Central News Division --- and they dispatched one of VOA’s videojournalists to York, Pennsylvania where he linked up with the woman.
Jeff Swicord’s report is up on our website under the headline, “Laid Off Workers in Pennsylvania City Try to Retool.” It’s definitely worth a read. And it demonstrates how interaction via the web can produce results.
The garment worker, who lives in the United States (our audiences are outside the United States, but our website can be accessed from almost any location in the world), said she appreciated the need for jobs in Haiti.
But she said she was about to lose her own job and said, “what about the need here? There are about 250 of us and no one seems to care that we are losing our jobs.”
We passed her email on to VOA’s Central News Division --- and they dispatched one of VOA’s videojournalists to York, Pennsylvania where he linked up with the woman.
Jeff Swicord’s report is up on our website under the headline, “Laid Off Workers in Pennsylvania City Try to Retool.” It’s definitely worth a read. And it demonstrates how interaction via the web can produce results.
25 March 2009
Internet Enemies
Reporters Without Borders recently issued a report on what it calls “Internet Enemies.” It named 12 countries: Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
The press freedom group says: “All of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users.”
Of all these countries, Reporters Without Borders casts China as Internet Enemy Number One:
“The Chinese government has the sorry distinction of leading the world in repression of the Internet. With the world’s largest number of Internet users, its censorship mechanisms are among the world’s most blatant. However, the authorities are rarely caught napping on the content of articles posted online.”
This past week, Chinese authorities showed how quickly they can move. After they denounced as a fake a video posted on YouTube that appeared to show police beating Tibetan prisoners, the owners of the popular video-sharing site reported it was being blocked inside China.
The press freedom group says: “All of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users.”
Of all these countries, Reporters Without Borders casts China as Internet Enemy Number One:
“The Chinese government has the sorry distinction of leading the world in repression of the Internet. With the world’s largest number of Internet users, its censorship mechanisms are among the world’s most blatant. However, the authorities are rarely caught napping on the content of articles posted online.”
This past week, Chinese authorities showed how quickly they can move. After they denounced as a fake a video posted on YouTube that appeared to show police beating Tibetan prisoners, the owners of the popular video-sharing site reported it was being blocked inside China.
17 March 2009
Declining Trust in the News Media?
Here at VOA, we’re pleased when we see independent research that suggests our audiences around the world consider our news products highly credible. For example, a recent survey in Albania found 82% of those polled considered VOA’s “Ditari” news program “very trustworthy.” In Indonesia, a similar survey of VOA radio listeners there found 60% considered our broadcasts “very trustworthy.”
But here in the United States, people seem to be much more skeptical about the news they see, hear and read.
“The State of the News Media 2009”, an annual report on the health and status of American journalism, has just been released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center, a nonpolitical, nonpartisan research institute.
It says on the issue of credibility:
“No major [U.S.] news outlet – broadcast or cable, print or online – stood out as particularly credible. There was no indication that Americans altered their fundamental judgment that the news media are politically biased, that stories are often inaccurate and that journalists do not care about the people they report on.”
In a bizarre twist, the survey found more and more Americans are relying on the Internet for their news. But at the same time the study found they “gave it [Internet] particularly low marks for credibility.”
The Pew report recalls that 10 years ago, more than 40% of Americans said they believed most or all of the reporting carried by major newspapers and television news operations. That figure has been dropping since then.
The most believable newspaper now is considered the Wall Street Journal, but only 25% “believe all or most” of what they read. Only 18% “believe all or most” of what they see in the New York Times.
Among broadcasters and cable news outlets, CNN gets a 30% rating for “believe all or most” with National Public Radio (NPR) at 27%.
Although Internet usage is up among people seeking news, the credibility ratings for on-line news outlets are lower than those for newspapers and broadcast and cable outlets. Just 13% give Google News the highest rating for believability, with Yahoo News second with 11%.
We wonder why there is such a discrepancy between the views of our audiences on media credibility and those of audiences looking at big name news organizations in the U.S. Is it that many people outside the United States, especially in countries where the independent media are less developed or press freedom is repressed, hunger for the kind of information that is available here and, as a result, give high marks to VOA? On the other hand, have U.S. news media somehow let their American audiences down or are American audiences simply too jaded?
If you have any thoughts on this, please share them with us by sending your comments to the News Blog: VOANewsBlog@gmail.com
But here in the United States, people seem to be much more skeptical about the news they see, hear and read.
“The State of the News Media 2009”, an annual report on the health and status of American journalism, has just been released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center, a nonpolitical, nonpartisan research institute.
It says on the issue of credibility:
“No major [U.S.] news outlet – broadcast or cable, print or online – stood out as particularly credible. There was no indication that Americans altered their fundamental judgment that the news media are politically biased, that stories are often inaccurate and that journalists do not care about the people they report on.”
In a bizarre twist, the survey found more and more Americans are relying on the Internet for their news. But at the same time the study found they “gave it [Internet] particularly low marks for credibility.”
The Pew report recalls that 10 years ago, more than 40% of Americans said they believed most or all of the reporting carried by major newspapers and television news operations. That figure has been dropping since then.
The most believable newspaper now is considered the Wall Street Journal, but only 25% “believe all or most” of what they read. Only 18% “believe all or most” of what they see in the New York Times.
Among broadcasters and cable news outlets, CNN gets a 30% rating for “believe all or most” with National Public Radio (NPR) at 27%.
Although Internet usage is up among people seeking news, the credibility ratings for on-line news outlets are lower than those for newspapers and broadcast and cable outlets. Just 13% give Google News the highest rating for believability, with Yahoo News second with 11%.
We wonder why there is such a discrepancy between the views of our audiences on media credibility and those of audiences looking at big name news organizations in the U.S. Is it that many people outside the United States, especially in countries where the independent media are less developed or press freedom is repressed, hunger for the kind of information that is available here and, as a result, give high marks to VOA? On the other hand, have U.S. news media somehow let their American audiences down or are American audiences simply too jaded?
If you have any thoughts on this, please share them with us by sending your comments to the News Blog: VOANewsBlog@gmail.com
13 March 2009
Whose Jobs Are More Important? And What Is Our Role In Reporting?
The News Blog received an email this week about a report filed by VOA’s UN correspondent Margaret Besheer from Port-au-Prince, Haiti where she accompanied UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former US President Bill Clinton on brief visit.
Unemployment is rampant in Haiti, the 14th poorest country in the world, and Mr. Ban said what the impoverished Caribbean nation needs most is jobs. Ms. Besheer reported the two men visited a T-shirt factory where Mr. Clinton said the owner told him he employs 3,000 workers, but, if his operating costs were lower, he could increase that to 10,000.
Our email writer said she was a garment worker in York, Pennsylvania. (Our audiences are outside the United States, but our website can be accessed from almost any location in the world.) She said she was about to lose her job. She told the News Blog that “an investor is interested in buying into the company but guess what he wants to do? Take our jobs to Haiti.”
She went on: “While I realize the need in Haiti, what about the need here? There are about 250 of us and no one seems to care that we are losing our jobs.” The emailer also said she had heard garment workers in Haiti experienced what she described as “horrific working conditions.”
She then asked, “Is this what you are condoning? To me, your [report] is further encouraging companies to leave the US for Haiti.”
First of all, we’d like to say that by reporting on something, we are not condoning anything. Nor do we consider that by reporting on any topic, we are encouraging anyone to do anything. We don’t approve of genocide nor would we ever encourage bloodshed, but that doesn’t mean, for example, that we as journalists can ignore stories about Darfur.
The purpose of reporting is to inform, so those receiving information -- like our email writer -- can make their own judgments and, if they choose, voice their own opinions. That is why we believe a free press is essential to democracy.
One thing we can do is report on the problems facing people like the garment worker in Pennsylvania. We have passed her email on to our Central News Division for a possible story for our global audience on the economic challenges she is dealing with.
Unemployment is rampant in Haiti, the 14th poorest country in the world, and Mr. Ban said what the impoverished Caribbean nation needs most is jobs. Ms. Besheer reported the two men visited a T-shirt factory where Mr. Clinton said the owner told him he employs 3,000 workers, but, if his operating costs were lower, he could increase that to 10,000.
Our email writer said she was a garment worker in York, Pennsylvania. (Our audiences are outside the United States, but our website can be accessed from almost any location in the world.) She said she was about to lose her job. She told the News Blog that “an investor is interested in buying into the company but guess what he wants to do? Take our jobs to Haiti.”
She went on: “While I realize the need in Haiti, what about the need here? There are about 250 of us and no one seems to care that we are losing our jobs.” The emailer also said she had heard garment workers in Haiti experienced what she described as “horrific working conditions.”
She then asked, “Is this what you are condoning? To me, your [report] is further encouraging companies to leave the US for Haiti.”
First of all, we’d like to say that by reporting on something, we are not condoning anything. Nor do we consider that by reporting on any topic, we are encouraging anyone to do anything. We don’t approve of genocide nor would we ever encourage bloodshed, but that doesn’t mean, for example, that we as journalists can ignore stories about Darfur.
The purpose of reporting is to inform, so those receiving information -- like our email writer -- can make their own judgments and, if they choose, voice their own opinions. That is why we believe a free press is essential to democracy.
One thing we can do is report on the problems facing people like the garment worker in Pennsylvania. We have passed her email on to our Central News Division for a possible story for our global audience on the economic challenges she is dealing with.
10 March 2009
Terrorists, Fundamentalists and Extremists
Is it journalistically-sound to avoid the use of certain phrases, like Islamic terrorist and Muslim Fundamentalist?
We think it is sometimes, and here is why: a terrorist is a terrorist. The terrorist may belong to a particular religion, but if in a news report, one adds Islamic/Christian/Hindu/Jewish, it creates the perception of a bias.
As for avoiding the phrase Muslim fundamentalist, every religion is based on some ‘fundamentals’, be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam. The use of such an expression in the case of Muslims adds to existing misgivings in the Islamic world of an anti-Muslim sentiment in the Western media. Similarly, the use of the phrase Christian fundamentalist adds to similar misgivings among many Christians of an anti-Christian bias in that same media. Stereotyping in this way, without context, is at best lazy journalism.
Think about it. How often do you actually see references in news reports to Buddhist radicals or Hindu terrorists or Jewish extremists? We suspect the answer is rarely if ever.
The VOA Stylebook says this about the use of the phrase Islamic fundamentalists: “Except in direct quotation avoid this term, which suggests that violence is somehow a fundamental part of Islam… It is important to remember that most Muslims are neither radical nor militant.”
To go one step further, identifying anyone by religion, race or gender in a news story should only be done when religion, race or gender is relevant to what’s being reported.
We can’t guarantee that everyone will like this policy just as we don’t expect everyone to approve of the way we write our news reports.
But we’re not out to please, just inform.
Our job, as our Charter says, is to serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news and to represent America, not any single segment of American society, while at the same time presenting the policies of the United States clearly and effectively along with responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.
And that’s just what we will continue to do.
We think it is sometimes, and here is why: a terrorist is a terrorist. The terrorist may belong to a particular religion, but if in a news report, one adds Islamic/Christian/Hindu/Jewish, it creates the perception of a bias.
As for avoiding the phrase Muslim fundamentalist, every religion is based on some ‘fundamentals’, be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam. The use of such an expression in the case of Muslims adds to existing misgivings in the Islamic world of an anti-Muslim sentiment in the Western media. Similarly, the use of the phrase Christian fundamentalist adds to similar misgivings among many Christians of an anti-Christian bias in that same media. Stereotyping in this way, without context, is at best lazy journalism.
Think about it. How often do you actually see references in news reports to Buddhist radicals or Hindu terrorists or Jewish extremists? We suspect the answer is rarely if ever.
The VOA Stylebook says this about the use of the phrase Islamic fundamentalists: “Except in direct quotation avoid this term, which suggests that violence is somehow a fundamental part of Islam… It is important to remember that most Muslims are neither radical nor militant.”
To go one step further, identifying anyone by religion, race or gender in a news story should only be done when religion, race or gender is relevant to what’s being reported.
We can’t guarantee that everyone will like this policy just as we don’t expect everyone to approve of the way we write our news reports.
But we’re not out to please, just inform.
Our job, as our Charter says, is to serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news and to represent America, not any single segment of American society, while at the same time presenting the policies of the United States clearly and effectively along with responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.
And that’s just what we will continue to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)