Archive for
June 12th, 2009

   

Stories

Bermuda, U.S.A.: Guantanamo Controversy

Bermudian bloggers are up in arms over the country's controversial decision to grant permission for four detainees of Guantanamo Bay to resettle in the tiny isle.

One bone of contention is how easily full Bermudian status was granted to the former detainees. Vexed Bermoothes says:

That’s right. All you expats who contribute for years to Bermuda’s community and economy, term limits for you and don’t let the door hit you on the ass when you leave.

But come on down you Xinjiang Uigher suspected terrorists … you’ll fit right in!

Breeezeblog echoes his sentiment:

On a purely selfish note, I’d like to know how come ‘the Uigur Four' get given Bermuda status and yet someone like myself, who has lived and worked here for more than 26 years, is denied this privilege?

This is not to say that bloggers do not have some level of empathy for the former detainees. Catch a fire notes that:

I am sympathetic to the cause of Uigur autonomy and rights. I worked and lived in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for about six months, living in Nanjing, just north of Shanghai. While there I became quite friendly with some of the Uighurs living there – they are not allowed to leave the PRC, but travel more or less freely within it.

I have also long opposed the US policy of Gitmo detainees which I see as contrary to international law and a de facto concentration camp. I have also opposed the US policy of rendition flights, and also put forward the fact that our airport has apparently been used to facilitate such renditions.

Breezeblog adds:

The four have long been declared a non-threat to the West and imprisoned unfairly by a paranoid and over-zealous US system and clearly could face torture or worse if they were sent back to China.

But they're still not sold. Catch a fire continues:

The thing is, the US government has assured Bermuda, in the form of Dr. Brown, that these four Uighurs are considered innocent. That's fine. I am not necessarily going to dispute that. But the detainee problem is a US problem. It is US made, and as a result there should be a US solution. Pawning the problem off to smaller countries is a load of bull. If these detainees are innocent, and if the US is not willing to repatriate them to the PRC for the legitimate reason of fearing their resulting persecution there, then the US should take care of them.

The blogger even dismisses the move as a humanitarian action:

There are those who will defend this action as a humanitarian action. That is false. Under international law (caveat – I am not a lawyer) as I understand it, the detainees are a US problem and they are obligated to take them in if they are not secure in repatriating them to the PRC.

In fact, many bloggers smell a rat:

But something clearly doesn’t smell right here, as it usually does around Premier Ewart Brown. The fact that the UK Government and the Governor knew nothing about this is disturbing and the Premier’s insistence that there was no quid pro quo just doesn’t ring true. The self-serving Dr. Brown doesn’t seem the type of politician to go out on a humanitarian limb without something in return. If not, why would the US ask tiny Bermuda to take them when there are bigger countries that could far more easily absorb the men? The Bermuda public have a right to know what deal, if any, was done.

Vexed Bermoothes agrees:

The key question is: What did we trade for doing this? What deals were made? How does this fit in Bermuda’s national priorities?

Catch a fire has his suspicions:

It's hard not to conclude that Bermuda was either threatened (perhaps as regards our ‘tax haven’ status) or ‘encouraged’ (which would mean bribed) to take these people. That’s not good enough.

Vexed Bermoothes also speculates:

Did we get money to fill some of the big gaps in Bermuda’s coffers? (News reports say that Palau is getting $200 million for taking 17 of the Uighers).

Are we counting them as air arrivals for Tourism?

Does he think this is cheap PR – getting Bermuda’s name in the news worldwide? Americans, come to Bermuda for some Pop and Sizzle! And Boom!

Hey maybe the US will stop hassling us about all the piddly tax stuff? In which case, you can expect Cayman to adopt a bunch of Afghans any minute.

Then he gets serious, writing a series of follow-up posts about likely repercussions on the island's tourism industry, the link between the decision to take in the detainees and the island's poor governance and the opposition party's reaction to the news, addding:

The decision still must have sign off by the UK via the Bermuda Governor. They must be scratching their heads. Perhaps this is another stab by the Premier to create a constitutional crisis should the UK overrule the move. You see, the Doc is supposed to make decisions impacting foreign policy and security in concert with Government House. Technically, he had no right to do this without consultation.

Catch a fire, who posts a second entry after he “had some time to sit and think about the situation”, has the last word:

I think its increasingly clear that there is going to be a huge negative public reaction to this move. The full extent of it at this moment is hard to make out, and whether this will lead to a no-confidence motion in the House of Assembly are just add to a growing sense of resentment and simmering anger towards Dr. Brown I cannot tell.

Public anger should be vented at Dr. Brown and the US Consul, and even at Government House in as much as it represents the UK. The Uighurs should be offerred our compassion as the pawns they are. Save your anger for those who made the decisions, not those who are victims of it.

The thumbnail image used in this post, “Guantanamo graffiti”, is by burge 5000, used under a Creative Commons license. Visit burge 5000's flickr photostream.

Denmark: #TV2Wikigate

danish-wikipedia-logoLast month, two Danish television hosts aiming to show that the participatory online encyclopedia Wikipedia is unreliable, instead ended up defending their own credibility when it was uncovered that the errors they showed off on television had been created by someone working for the program.

Wikipedia enthusiasts took up the fight [da] with TV2, and the ensuing public debate has centered on questions of journalistic integrity. On Twitter, it quickly became known as #TV2wikigate.

Stefan Bøgh-Andersen who manages the Danish RSS feed search engine Overskrift.dk has kept a thorough time line [da] on his blog of the Danish media, blog, and Twitter reactions to the scandal throughout the month of May. This post is based on his links.

Anders Breinholt and Cecilie Frøkjær

Anders Breinholt and Cecilie Frøkjær

You can see an archived video of the program (May 13) on TV2's website. The hosts of the TV2 program Go’ Morgen Danmark, Cecilie Frøkjær and Anders Breinholt demonstrate supposedly laughable errors in the Danish Wikipedia entries for themselves, and encourage viewers not to trust what they read on the internet.

Since the “history” of all Wikipedia pages show which users make what changes, it was quickly uncovered by a Wikipedia user that the IP address of the person who created an error in Frøkjær's date of birth on May 12 matched that of the production company of the morning show.

Incidentally, the history page also shows that the error was corrected only four minutes later by another Wikipedia user.

Danish blogosphere bites back

On Bootstrapping.net, Thomas Madsen-Mygdal wrote [en]:

Yesterday the main morning news show ran a story about how anyone can edit wikipedia. They make fun of a world where everyone can participate and spread fear about how dangerous it can be.

To prove the point they humorously tried to show that they had edited the hosts’ own wikipedia entries with some prank statements. Like small bullies in kindergarten doing it on national television - f*** with our collective creation Wikipedia. Arrogance is a small word for it.

On Blog.Flugge.Net [da], Matthias Flügge Hansen magnified the Wikipedia screenshot shown on television to prove that it was not the live webpage, but probably a photo-shopped image.

Claus Dahl of Notes from Classy's Kitchen said the media must be coming up with these stories to make themselves look better. He wrote [da]: “The sub-text is of course, ‘who could possibly trust stories that are not produced by journalists?'”.

Media lies or satire?

Bloggers were even more incensed [da] when a TV2 editor, Jes Schrøder, defended the fabricated story in an interview with Journalisten.dk [da] the trade publication of the Danish Union of Journalists, on May 15.

Schrøder said the hosts were merely trying to show funny examples of what one could have written if one wanted to manipulate the text on Wikipedia. When he was pressed on whether that was an excuse for lying on television, he insisted it had been an attempt at “satire”.

Here is the apology that was eventually issued by TV2 on May 18. “We apologize for imprecisions,” says Frøkjær.

The aftermath

Danish social media company, Socialsquare, (co-founded by Madsen-Mygdal) organized a meeting on May 19 for organizations to discuss how to engage productively with online communities. Andreas Lloyd offered some practical tips [en], including “Get the facts straight” and “Show respect for culture you don’t understand”.

In Mediebloggen, Lars K Jensen wrote an analysis [da] on May 24 of what the scandal had demonstrated about the Danish blogosphere.

On the one hand, said Jensen, bloggers uncovered the story and were able to grab the attention of the press. On the other hand, they did not demonstrate the ability to take matters any further themselves. Instead they merely added their opinions to the echo chamber:

Hvem førte så historien videre? Jo, det gjorde et af de “gamle medier”: Journalisten.

Hvad var fremgangsmåden? Hvordan fik man historien videre? Jo, man greb knoglen og ringede til TV 2-redaktør Jes Schrøder. Uden at kunne sige det med 100 procent sikkerhed, så tror jeg ikke, at nogen af dem, der omtalte sagen på blogs og/eller Twitter overhovedet har forsøgt at kontakte TV 2.

So who followed up on the story? Well, one of the ‘old media' did: Journalisten.

How did they do it? How did they move the story forward? Well, they picked up the horn and called TV2 editor, Jes Schrøder. I can't say it with 100 per cent certainty, but I don't think any of the people who discussed the case on blogs and/or Twitter ever attempted to contact TV2.

Det er muligt, at det er sådan blogs “skal” være, men det flytter ikke historierne nogen vegne.

Er det en konsolidering i mediebilledet, vi ser nu? At sociale medier og græsrødder finder historierne, mens medierne kører den sikkert hjem og bringer os og selve historien videre. Jeg tror det, og det er ikke nødvendigvis noget dårligt. Selve blog-mediet er rettet mod, at folk kan lufte deres egne holdninger, synspunkter og erfaringer.

Maybe this is how blogs “should” be, but it doesn't really move the stories anywhere.

Is what we are seeing a consolidation of the media? That social media and grassroots find the stories, while the media drive it home and carry us and the story further. I think so, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The blog medium is intended to let people air their own opinions, views, and experiences.

Zimbabwe: Faces of the crisis and a cry for helpVideo post

Civicus.org

Civicus.org

The CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation organization has published Time 2 Act, an online video in which people in Zimbabwe present the various ways in which the crisis the country is going through is decimating the population and the quality of life of the survivors. In the following 3 part video, citizens discuss how the mega devaluation the currency is going through affects their ability to eat and clothe themselves, speak about violence and plead for help from mediators such as the South African Development Community.

Part 1 of the video starts with a young student speaking how Zimbabweans are not free: they are not free to eat, to clothe themselves, to nourish themselves, to learn from teachers paid decent wages, or free to seek aid from hospitals in case of disease, or to purchase things due to the usage of other currency: Rands instead of Zimbabwean dollars. The situation has worsened, to such extent that people believe the system has collapsed in many levels: health, safety, economy and government. Health-wise, ill people arrive at hospitals and die there, due to lack of attention. Even then, there is no respect for the dead: families have to pay extraordinary sums just for morgues to take the bodies.

Here is the Second part of the video, on how the new economic downturn is affecting the community: salaries paid in Zimbabwean dollars have to be converted into the more stable currency, the South African Rand, and it isn't enough even to buy basic necessities. Another topic discussed are the human rights violations and the limitations on free speech the country has been facing:

The third and last part of the video is a cry out for help and support from the Mediating bodies, the South African Development Community and the South African Government. They wish for them to take the plight seriously and help out the former Bread Basket of Africa, which they now are calling Africa's basket case.