Comparative Journalism: An interesting fact

The home page of Fars News Agency (A semi-official Iranian press agency) offers a number of tabs for the reader to open. Some examples? It's pretty standard: international, politics, economy, sports... But the special tab for nuclear news is quite interesting. I have done extensive research, but found no other press agency or newspaper that had a special 'nuclear' tab. Or a 'defence' one, for that matter.

But when opened, it is unsurprising that they keep a tab on their nuclear and defence news. Almost every day, sometimes twice a day, there seems to be the need to discuss the nuclear programme. Whereas sports news can take more than three weeks to generate anything of interest. The same holds for the arts, a field in which there seems to be very little interest, as it can take over a month to update this part of the website. Culture (art is not culture, of course. Maybe this reveals some of the backdrop to the paucity?) is a little bit better off than arts and sports, as a lot of cooperation pacts with other states can be made in this respect. Because Iran is not an international pariah, of course. Just not so very interested in arts or sports.

Comparative Journalism: A Message for everyone

Kofi Annan is on a visit to Syria, to hold talks with the Syrian president Bashar Al Assad. His statement after the first round of these, offers us a beautiful insight into how international diplomats can make statements that allure to everyone, for the myriad of possible interpretations they offer. This is standard policy especially at the UN. They have to represent every opinion at the same time (which is altogether different from making true statements).

The official UN statement is bland and we learn not much beyond the epithets 'candid' and 'comprehensive'. Remarkably, mr. Annan urged Assad to take 'concrete steps' to end the current crisis. From his point of view, it should not have been hard for mr. Assad to reply that the 'concrete steps' taken by Syrian armed forces are exactly what everyone is complaining about.

It must be said, however, that the UN statement also mentions a less diplomatic statement by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs (which, by the way, offers us another insightful purview upon the Byzantine structure of the UN) that she was 'horrified' by some of the destruction she had seen. Luckily, she managed to wrest a concession from the Syrian government. A 'joint preliminary assessment mission to areas where people urgently need assistance'. These are a lot of words, that can mean a lot of things to a lot of peopl. Let's play the devils' advocate for a second: it means Syrian officials will plan a guided tours for UN officials. This will result in a report which will recommend what everyone already knows but will never happened, in carefully worded terms, while the Syrian armed forces get more time to wreak havoc.

Now let's have a look at the reporting on Annan's visit by some international news sources:

SANA: Syrian Arab News Agency:

'President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday said Syria is ready to make successful any sincere effort to find a solution to the events taking place in the country, adding that the success of any effort requires first studying what is happening on the ground instead of relying on the virtual space that is promoted by some regional and international countries to distort the facts and give a picture contrary to what Syria is undergoing.'

'Annan expressed hope to work with the Syrian government to launch diplomatic dialogue in the framework of a political process to restore stability to Syria and realize the aspirations of the Syrian people.

President al-Assad said that any political dialogue or political process can not succeed as long as there are armed terrorist groups that are working to spread chaos and destabilize the country through targeting citizens, both civilian and military, and vandalizing private and public properties.'

We can basically read the following: Annan agrees with our great leader! We should first shoot all the evil villains. Afterwards, a 'political process' to restore stability will take place, according to the 'aspirations of the Syrian people'. Let's not mention any specifice, please.
Will this herald change? If you ask Assad, or Sana, or any government represetative in Syria, I think 'serving the aspirations of the Syrian people' is what they have been doing all along, anyway; when they shelled Hama in the '80s, too. Why change?


Aljazeera cites comments of Annan to reporters afterwards: Annan is 'optimistic for several reasons'. The reasons are never mentioned, but when one reads further into the news report, mr. Annan's hope become quite elusive, when compated to the rest of is own statements.

'Annan, who also met religious leaders in Damascus on Sunday, said the situation was "so bad and so dangerous" that all Syrians bore a responsibility to "help heal and reconcile this nation".'

So does that mean the situation is so bad, that it can only get better? Thanks for getting our hopes up, mr. Annan.

He also states: 'It's going to be tough. It's going to be difficult but we have to have hope'. That last sentence almost makes it sounds like there are little reasons to harbor any hope at all. 'But losing hope will only make things worse.' We can almost read between the lines. Or: 'At least, if we try, we won't have to blame ourselves afterwards.' Mr. Annan is not cast in a very lucky role here. But that can be said for almost for the whole organization he represents.

The report continues to mention more violence, the intransigent Russian opposition to any diplomatic pressure on Syria and the unwillingness of the armed opposition forces to negotiate with the regime.

I guess Aljazeera disagrees with mr. Annan as far as hope is concerned. Which is exactly why his 'optimism' is put in between brackets throughout the article.


Xinhua, however, choses to highlight a very different Annan:

'Kofi Annan, joint special envoy for Syria of the United Nations and Arab League (AL), expressed hopes Sunday that Syria would remain secure and said he hopes to be conducive in achieving everything that might lead to democratic reforms and maintain the respect of human rights in Syria, state- run SANA news agency reported.'

'He said he met Syrian President Bashar Assad, some opposition activists and businessmen, and found that all of them want a " solution and to heal wounds," stressing that the Syrians alone are capable of solving their problems.'

It seems the Chinese hold some of that elusive hope Annan is praying for. The world must be a very comforting place from behind a screen in a small apartment in a mega-city somewhere in China. Unless you try to move beyond the government-condoned version of facts, which will result in both moral and official discomfort.



The New York Times was more critical of the results of the negotiations:

'High-level diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting in Syria yielded mixed results on Saturday as President Bashar al-Assad shut the door on any immediate negotiations with the opposition and escalated a new military assault on the city of Idlib.'

However, it does also note other initiatives which may be more fruitful. In direct negotiations between the Arab League and Russia, some progress has been made to weaken the demands on Syria, in exchange for Russian cooperation. Perhaps. Yet, this only goes to show just how useless Annan's visit to Syria really was. A photo-op that the regime can abuse, that makes the whole UN feel less useless at solving these conflicts, while the real powerbrokers can negotiated on the side.


The Guardian, finally, seems not even remotely interested in any seemliness and calls Annan 'rebuffed':

'Kofi Annan's ceasefire mission falters as the tanks roll in to besiege the city of Idlib'

So, depending on what you read where, Annan's mission was either a succes or a failure, supportive of the Syrian regime or a bland UN formality.

This can only leave us behind thrilled to hear what the second day of talks will bring. They are certain to provice everyone with exactly what they want to hear. Again.

Comparative Journalism: Elections all around

Let's focus on the post-election news cycle about Russia.

So Putin was re-elected and nobody is surprised. Because Russia is Russia, there was, however, plenty of surprise about the fact that there were people who showed their doubts about a future built up around Putin. Whether that would be as prime minister, president, or the icon of a patron saint, guarding Russia in all eternity, amen. But after the dust settled, everyone moved on. Election fraud in Russia is not interesting in itself.

European, American and other Western quickly turned to the page, to different subjects. The front pages of their websites show absolutely no trace of elections in Russia. Neither Agence France Presse, Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times (or its international version), Le Monde (or Le Monde Diplomatique). If you zoom in on the 'European' subsections, you will find news about... planned protest. Particularly on how the opposition leaders seek to sustain them.

But when we take a look at, say ITAR-TASS, the Russian agency, the main article is about the election commission that unanimously declared the elections a success and fair. A picture is included to show us just how dear this journalism is to them. This is not because of ITAR TASS's concern for Russian news. This can also be derived from the 'failure' of protests by the opposition movement, according to it. It is clear that the news agency represents the view of the Russian leaders. Thus, when they elaborate on the legitimacy of the elections, as sanctioned by the election commission, this is unrelated to a more elaborate treatment of Russian news by a Russian press agency. It is more likely due to a discrepancy in views between legitimate democracies and 'arguably less legitimate democracies'. Some regimes have to administer much more concern to issues of legitimacy because they feel a strong need to do so. The Russian will vehemently deny such a thing. However, one can see Western elections usually not paying any attention to legitimacy, at all. Usually this issue does not arise and no election commission is invoked.

Another beautiful indicator of this urgent need to stress legitimacy, long after the facts, is to be found on the Xinhua website. And when we give a closer look to Xinhua, it does not even mention a protest movement in Russia. The urgency of the need to stress legitimacy and remain quiet about protests, may very well be inversely proportional to the presence of the actual thing. Using this model offers us a very interesting way to analyze election cycles the world over.

It is with the greatest interest that I would like to use this approach in the future. One interesting event to try it on, is the 'election' of a new president, prime minister and central committee in China. Because of the highly original nature of this 'election', that may prove to be a long shot, however.

Comparative Journalism

Something I have always enjoyed doing, is comparing the press releases of different news agencies and institutions regarding well... this is already where things get tough. While one party can claim something happening, the others can claim exactly the opposite (be it non-event or another event). And all that springing forth from the same physical reality. But that is only when we get lucky enough for either one of the parties to presume we still live in a world that allows us no access to information apart from the parties directly involved. Nowadays, it is all about terminology and a selective scope.

Terrorists are attacking the Syrian government now, too. Whereas the Fars News Agency from Iran claims the World March on Jerusalem to be world news, this world-shocking occurrence seems to be ignored by all other news outlets.

As interesting as some of the often contradictory reporting on these events could be, I will try to focus mainly on major press agencies and news outlets, to compare their onesided or lopsided views on events, which betray different world-views and quite frankly, at times different worlds.

Immediately however, a number of problems arise. Due to the canalization of news that takes places in these countries, Itar Tass, Xinhua, Fars, Sana and other 'national' news agencies can be seen as mirroring official views in those countries. Regarding Western countries, this becomes a lot more difficult, given the enigma of 'free press'. The New York Times hardly reflects official American government policy. Neither does Reuters, AP, ... It could be possible to instead analyse the news media in Russia, China and others. However, the translations are very limited and can therefore be harder to analyse.

Stealthy Tunisia

When the Tunisian Revolution unfurled, it was the spark that ignited the Middle East. But before the follow-up revolutions that no-one believed in, Egypt especially, but also Bahrain and Syria today. Before the less farfetched overthrow of regimes such as that of the universally recognized madman in Lybia and Saleh (much more cunning, yet much shakier). Before all that and right after Ben Ali ran, there was Tunisia: the epicenter. Tunisia the unstable, where prisoners set free roamed the street and where bunrt-out cars marred highway entrances (also used as exits, because of the standardized corruption that was involved in every government contract) and Tunisia the unruly. Where 'islamists', aligned with no religion but the desire for money distributed by Ben Ali's cronies, were bussed into demonstrations to force upon the West and the Tunisians visions of the escalation soon-to-be. From Lybia infiltrations were taking place aimed at destabilizing the country, while police officers that had fired at the crowds were extracted by boats or over especially the Lybian border. There was little question of Khadafi's alignment against the revolution. I learned of many shady dealings that were taking place in the country, where the ruling elite was still much entrenched, when I visited in early February 2011.

And the whole world was looking at this tiny desert nation, putting immense pressure on it. Conservative forces all over the Middle East knew not what to make of it. But then Mubarak was ousted. And Bahrain was set ablaze. And Lybia followed suit. And now Syria and the tension with Iran, the realignment of Hamas, all this is demanding the attention of countries that are looking for a status quo. Countries that would not have accepted change in Tunisia. If Egypt fails, if Bahrain will only engage in cosmetic changes, if Lybia becomes anything at all, apart from a new Somalia (it will not, there is too much oil), if Syria becomes subdued by the self-proclaimed 'lion' family (Asad means lion. Bashar, father of, specifically changed his name for that reason). If all else fails, I often think: grant Tunisia its stealthy transition into a stable democracy. Into a place where Islam and modern values can align and mutually benefit each other. Let the Tunisian youth that I have met: educated, progressive and eager to embrace modernity and technology, let them foster an Arab success story. Let them work in silence, as the world looks at more dramatic scenery. Not like Turkey, that has always been an outsider. Not like the Gulf States, every one a hopelessly outdated society propped up by artificial wealth. Not like Lebanon, always on the verge of collapse. A stable, democratic, open and prosperous crowbar for every Arab to look at and admire. An example of what things could be like.

The Good Life in Jeopardy

When the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission, when newspaper pundits and economists worldwide hammer on Greece to deregulate its economy to nurture growth, or laud Portugal for doing so, there are a number of things they forget. Yes, the organization of the Greek economy in an almost guild-like fashion curbs growth. Entrenched castes as varied as truck-drivers and notaries shield their inefficiently harvested 'turfs' from the public benefit. Opening everything up to exploitation by corporations may entail growth. It also opens the door for more low-wage labor to trickle in, and lowering standards of service. And very importantly, deregulation attack certain distinct and traditional features of the societies they seek to open up for trade. Of course, with the benefits of an advanced society come its burdens. And 'business as usual' is obviously not sustainable. There is a dire need for change in many European countries. But some things are uncountables. Not every country wants Sunday to be a shopping day. And Southern Europe enjoys its siesta, in whichever national form it takes place. Moreover, a fair society with advanced and efficient social security is not something Europeans are about to give up. Europe does not feel much like turning into the United States.

Some traditional aspects of European society need not be changed to enter into the global era. And the most obvious example of this is one of the countries that is vaunted about by economists for its efficiency: Germany. Germany has one of the most elaborate welfare systems in Europe. Moreover, its retail sector and domestic consumption economy are 'underdeveloped' by any benchmark. But Germany works very hard and Germany works very well. Which goes to show that margins for efficiency can be sought in a lot of places, and that it is up for Europeans themselves to decide where to find them. A pan-European dialogue on these issues has to be launched and it has to be launched now. Unless we want to chase after the hollow rhetoric of the 'American Dream'. If US citizens don't appreciate vacation and consumer protection they can work around the clock for all I care. If they do not care for universal education of any standards, affordable medical care, job security or social mobility that is their choice. They can be inefficient, throw money at wars, insurance companies, lawyers, financial institutions, have their two-tier society and be as rich and as poor as they want. But let's not impose that vision on Europe. Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and so many European countries show where economics and a good life can co-exist. Let's make it work for all of Europe.

Top Dollar

It is about time some of the argumentation behind the lower taxation rates for rich Americans get questioned. The reason capital interest gains on investments are taxed lower, is that this spurs economic growth. The extra return on investment allows our captains of industry and entrepreneurs to create more jobs and increase general welfare. But it also allows people like mr. Lauder to increase inherited capital having it invested for him by others. This has nothing to do with American enterpreneurship being boosted.

Then consider the extra money flowing into these people's pockets. Where do you think these dollars are invested? Many of them on foreign stock exchanges and in foreign companies, surely. And if invested in American companies, I am certain these companies use them increasingly to fund outsourced production units abroad. It would be very interesting to see how many of the dollars extended to the top layer of the income bracket actually flow back into America.

For venture capital companies in Silicon Valley or Massachusets, capital gains might make a lot of sense. But enriching Americans that don't know where to put there money, in order to increase the welfare of marauder companies, that will set up shop wherever they make most bang for the buck hardly seems hardly worth the lurching gap between federal income and expenditure.

Imagine what these billions of dollars could do in education, infrastructure or deficit reduction instead and the long-term gains seem a lot more evident, than those of bankrolling corporations and billionaires awash in cash.