Posted 2 years, 10 months ago in the early morning by oso
Nick Moraitis works for Amnesty International, is a concentrate bomb of do-gooding energy, and has lived in all of the West’s great multicultural, metropolitan bubbles of tolerance and metrosexuality. He could easily fit in as the keyboardist of any Brooklyn indie rock band when not busy saving the world from 9-5.
Kevin Anderson is a tall and lanky American reporter working for the BBC. His goatee is finely trimmed. He listens attentively with quiet gestures of affirmation. After the second session break he was explaining to Nick and I that mainstream journalists around the world really do feel threatened by the ever-rising prominence of citizen media (a sentiment which was needlessly repeated over and over again throughout the day), Nick, with all his likable enthusiasm, made an interesting point: columnists, editors, and reporters are not the only ones fearful of losing their privileged positions as gatekeepers of information. Groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International also depend on a structured flow of information, which allows them to speak for the unspoken. For decades now, newspapers and weeklies have approached both organizations to find out “what is really going on” in, say, Somalia, Bosnia, or China. Now, thanks to blogging, these papers are depending less on Amnesty’s official reports and spokespeople and instead speaking with - and referencing - the actual citizens.
Hearing this filled me with joy. I will admit, I have long been pet-peeved by those who claim to be the official representatives of truth for any said group. I will also admit that my own discriminations play a part: When I here some wealthy activist describe him/herself as a “voice for the voiceless” or “someone who speaks for the poor” I become far more irritated than I have any right to. Part of it stems from the fact that I personally can’t stand it when I am spoken for, but also because of how it is so easy to force your own assumptions into the mouths of others. It’s not just class. To this day I still hear self-appointed ambassadors of say, “all Latinos” or “all Blacks” or “everyone from the hood” claim their subjective observations as objective truth. And then, when they find someone from the same group with different ideas, an identity war breaks out over whether X person is really Latino or really Black or if their “house in the hood” actually bordered the suburbs. Such bickering does nothing more than lead to feuds. But if everyone is free to voice their own opinions, then the badgering of identity politics will lose much of its punch.
I’ll be the first to say that we are extremely far from hearing from everyone, or even all sides. Two nights ago, unable to sleep from jetlag, I started listening to Radio Open Source’s show on Venezuelan Politics. Historically, an NPR show on the political situation of a particular country would have on one or two professors, an ambassador or foreign service bureaucrat, and a regional specialist from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and/or the press. In a nod to Nick’s observation, this show’s guests were the Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez Professor Daniel Hellinger, and two Venezuelan bloggers, Miguel Octavio and Daniel Duquenal. At one point in the show Hellinger commented that both Miguel and Daniel were educated in the U.S. and come very much from the “managerial revolution” school of thought, which seeks stability in markets rather than regulations. His point was that they both were upper-class and spoke for a relatively small portion of Venezuelan society. Also implied though, was that he did, in fact, speak objectively for the “average Venezuelan out on the street.”
Even though it’s exactly the kind of statement which I hate to hear, it was also an important one to make. Because he’s probably right. In 90% of the world blogging is still inherently elitist. It requires technical know-how, a computer, an internet connection, the ability and confidence to express oneself. And to get onto Global Voices, it still mostly requires that you write in English. We’re on the right track, but unfortunately, today’s Global Voices is really much more “Global Upper-Class Multilingual Elitists from Capitol Cities.” Doesn’t quite roll of the tongue.
The greatest obstacle so far has been language. Regional conversations take place in regional languages. Machine translation, as we all have experienced, is exceedingly half-ass. Human translation is time consuming. And translating just the language is not enough; cultural and historical context is equally important. Next post I’ll try to cover all of this.
Footnote: In a way, writers are constantly forcing their own assumptions and voices into their “voiceless” characters, which - whether intended or not - always represent some aspect of society. Unlike the real world, this doesn’t bother me one bit. In fact, I remember how angered I was when I read a critic say that white writers, screenwriters, etc. should not be allowed to create narrative or dialogue with a colored character because it is a form of oppressive colonialism by forcing white ideas into colored realities. Thing is, fictional literature is nothing more than experimentation with the potential and should never be seen as an undistorted reflection of reality.
Hey Oso, we are having a debate on the Mexican presidential elections, and since you chat about LA politics, I’d love to hear what you have to say about it…
http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com
After the second session break he was explaining to Nick and I that mainstream journalists around the world really do feel threatened by the ever-rising prominence of citizen media
They have a very valid worry, IMHO. If you look at market changes related to the media lately, especially with the explosion of blogs and online services, I do think that ‘main stream media’ as we know it, especially newspapers, are a thing of the past. ‘Creative destruction’ has the media in its sight, and it is only a matter of time before it changes it completely.
Many in the media seem to realize this too, ever since Judge Posner had that long article in the New York Times describing the end of the media as we know it newspapers and other media organizations have been responding to the threat. Most recently with the change in the New York Times editorials, now charging a fee where they have not charged before. I am sure that is not going to be the last of changes either.
As far as giving more people of different backgrounds a say, I couldn’t agree more. For example, regarding the Iraq war, I think more people like her should get their voices heard, but given our media’s bias, I highly doubt that would ever happen.
Much as I’d preffer to have a community leader come up and speak for the people, sometimes it is the same “wealthy activist” who has the cash, means and connections to get inside these communities and raise awareness on how they can make the system work for them and tries to figure out how to give them a “better” way of life. Some may do it the grassroots way, others prefer to be the hand of god sent to deliver them. Nevertheless, they manage to give (excuse the cliché) the voiceless a voice and give ownership to the dispossessed.
Is it necessarily bad that these self proclaimed embassadors for the “opressed” are part of the “elite”? With their connections, political knowhow and technological knowledge they can have the message reach the highest bidders for social projects and speak in the same language to the “Global Upper-Class Multilingual Elitists from Capitol Cities.” who coincidentially also happen to hold the largest checkbooks.
Great points there, Oso. Glad to hear the BBC writer feels threatened by “us”, meaning bloggers and independent media folks. I liked your thoughts on the way media is depending less on institution like HRW for info. and how because of blogging/indymedia pubs they can go straight to the horse’s mouth. Though your thoughts on to what extent blogging is democratizing are well-put: you need an internet connection etc, plus the language factor is complicating and limiting for indy pubs, a hurdle we need to get over. there’s a new book called “we are iran” from soft skull press, (http://softskull.com/) it’s a collection of blog entries from Iran, translated from Farsi. It’s well worth checking out, I just got a copy. anyway, suerte con todo, eh-Ben
Clicked on that Global Teen link. It was a Fox News video. Looks like mainstream news to me. And picking out an “Iraqi voice” (um, Iraqi voting in America) because that’s the one they want to represent. Meanwhile, I think people like her who actually live in Iraq should get their voices heard. But given our media’s bias, that doesn’t happen either.
Media bias isn’t about left or right, though: it’s about the preservation of their own authority and status as informational gatekeepers. Same thing with pressure groups, both right and left. oso’s right on the ball.
Taylor,
I´m very glad to see a little debate has followed the post. And even more so that it is a bi-lingual one. I´ve written my own thoughts about the upcoming Mexican elections on so many comment threads that I just can´t do it anymore. I´m more aligned with AMLO than any of the others. This conversation gave me a good laugh. I should also mention - before HP goes on about me being a communist - that before he dropped out, I was for Jorge Castañeda.
HP,
I won´t repeat what Joel already pointed out, but Betty on Fox News was definitely not the example I personally would have chosen.
Medea,
Yes, absolutely. Much better to have them than not. One of the big concepts at Global Voices is that of “Bridge Blogger” - a blogger who acts as a sort of ambassador between two groups that don´t communicate as much as they should. Ambassadors between classes - those few who can help the rich and poor better understand each other - are often taken for granted. Other bridge blogging categories I can think of:
1.) Countries
2.) Cultures
3.) Gendger
4.) Religion
5.) Sexuality
6.) Class
7.) Technology (techies and non-techies now also represent classes)
8.) Age/Generations
Ben,
Thanks for the comment. Though, I have to admit, I was one of the few at the summit who really couldn´t understand what serious reporters are worried about. These past few days I´ve been reading the IHT, which is published by the NY Times and targets a global Davos-type elitist class. In a way it´s like Global Voices but for big media sampling a bit of this and a bit of that from many of the best reporters around the world. I agree with critics who say the IHT focuses too much on the Northern Hemisphere, but otherwise I think it´s a wonderful source. Put frankly, it´s way more informative than Global Voices. IHT offers global reporting, Global Voices offers global conversation and in my opinion that´s an important difference. Up until now newspapers have had a monopoly on both the news and commentary, but now newspapers should stick to what they´re most competitive at - solid investigative reporting - and leave the commentary and conversation (anyone who writes letters to the editor should have a blog) to the decentralized masses. Columnists are a thing of the past - those are the select few who should be worried about their jobs. Which is why it is so incredibly ass-backwards that they New York Times started charging for dime a dozen opinion pieces by faux-pundit-celebrities instead of charging for quality reporting.
Anyway, just some thoughts from someone who currently feels torn between wanting to be part of the global conversation as well as becoming a competent journalist.
Joel,
Riverbend rocks my socks.
You left-wingers just don’t like fair and balanced.
I wonder if the blogging world elitism is not partially an artifact of reading the world in English. Obviously, the very poor cannot have a blog, but I now several Venezuelan bloggers who are not “Upper-Class Multilingual Elitists from Capitol Cities” (Myself, for instance, although I’m now learning a second language). Venezuelan bloggers may fit such stereotype if you only read those who write in English, but you get a wider spectrum if you read in Spanish. It may be the same for other countries and languages.
Yes, there is a need for more diverse “voices” in the global conversation, but it is not by excluding those who are wealthy and well-educated that we are going to reach diversity. It’s by expanding access to technology, improving education, and outreaching toward the poor that we are going to make it works.
One other important thing that we need to recognize is that nobody “speaks objectively”, and only those elected to do so may be accountable for representing the “average Venezuelan out on the street” (or any other country citizen, for that matter). Thus, we may have right to point out that Venezuelan Ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez, comes from a wealthy family and got his graduate education in Europe, and he has never lived in a “rancho” (maybe, he never has visited one), so he does not represent well Venezuelan’ poor point of view, but saying the same about Duquenal or Octavio is just bigotry, and does not help to get the conversation going. (No to mention how annoying it is to hear an upper class, U.S, educated, U.S. citizen, who does not live in Venezuela, to say he knows better how Venezuelan poor think about our country political situation).
HP,
Though he probably hates labels as much as I do, I think I have heard Joel describe himself as a conservative.
Iria,
Good points. “Elitist” is one of those very difficult to define words. In fact, dictionary.com has a definition very much different from what I was meaning:
But they do mention three “qualifiers” that make sense: perceived intellect, social status, and class. By perceived intellect alone, you could definitely fit in with your recent posts about Twelfth Night, Derek Walcott, and Faust. Not only that, but you are finishing your graduate studies at one of the world’s most prestigious universities. I personally wouldn’t call you an elitist (I hate the term), but the fact that neither of us can stand MSN Spaces and usually prefer not to Instant Message does emit a certain image that some would describe as “elitist.”
As far as contextualizing Alvarez, Duquenal, and Octavio: it’s another difficult topic. One reason I love the anonymous internet is because it focuses on ideas and interactions rather than the personal details of who lies behind behind the idea. But context - or at least experience - does matter. And I hope that whatever road digital identity ends up taking, it steers us in the direction of honesty and openness about who we are and where we came from. Then we will probably all realize how much we can benefit from both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective of every situation.
Oso, this is a good strategy to get me to break out of my holiday hiatus. Write a comment referring to something I said.
On that day, I think I had to break away before I was able to elaborate on my assertion that journalists do feel threatened by bloggers.
But I want to make it clear that I am not one of those journalists who feels threatened by bloggers and other forms of participatory or citizens’ media. I’m very much of the ‘the more the merrier’ crowd.
Let me expand on what I said. Certainly some journalists are threatened by bloggers. I talk to a lot of journalists who feel that bloggers threaten their control over the news agenda. And I use that construction of it very purposefully.
Certainly both bloggers and journalists filter information. We highlight what we feel is important. Yes, there are all kinds of choices that we make. And that is a valid point for debate, those choices.
But that is not what I’m talking about. I am talking about control or maybe authority. I have heard a lot of journalists sputter on: “Who are these bloggers?” Implicit in their question: “Who are they to challenge me?”
I dunno. I’m not threatened by questions. I’m also not that overly precious about my position, my authority or what I do. And I’m very much of the opinion that any person who reads my stuff or hears me on the radio can ask me a question. I welcome it. It keeps me relevant and engaged, and at least it lets me know that someone is reading/listening/watching.
But there are journalists who do get caught up in bubbles (Washington, Westminster, the elites people have referred to), and they don’t take kindly to having those bubbles burst.
Also though, Dan Gillmor (author of the book We Media) made an important point that day during Global Voices and that is a lot of journalists feel economically threatened right now. He is very right to point that out. That’s not about authority. That’s about being able to feed yourself and your family in a world that is rapidly changing. I can’t argue with those concerns.
But that issue isn’t about bloggers, or at least bloggers alone. But, it does highlight why some journalists respond to what they perceive as a threat like a cornered animal. Bloggers just give them some folks to growl at.
I’ll leave it at that. Thanks Oso. Good discussion.
cheers,
k
ps I’ll only add that I’m writing this as a journalist and not a representative of the company that currently helps me pay my bills.
[...] Obviously, I’m not trying to say that I - mister white boy himself - am in any better position to comment about the realities and trends of Mexican-Americans in this country. Which is why I never do. But neither does it seem right to me that Navarrette qualifies himself as “in touch” solely because he happens to be Mexican-American himself. I do feel bad for professionals whose livlihoods are threatened, but I excitedly await the day when individuals speak and are not spoken for. [...]