Sowar Magazine 22nd August 2:22 Project

Sowar Magazine launched a project where they had everyone in Lebanon and the Arab World take a picture at the exact same time on 22 Aug @2:22pm, the results are frozen in time slices of life, which tell stories or egocentric versions of reality, where staged photo ops meet with impromptu clicks, where the moving image collides with the still life. In terms of archiving and memory, Sowar is able to tell where you were at that exact time.

Barometern - Kalmar 20 November 2008

Bakgrund, torsdag; Lotte Lundgren
Passionerat samtal om när livet lever nära döden
Ledare 2008-11-19 | Uppdaterad 2008-11-20

Om jag skriver ordet passion. Vilket land tänker du på då? Om jag
skriver om människors iver att leva som är så stark att drivkraften
till och med kan bli destruktiv. Vilka människor kan det vara?

Foto: Lotte Lundgren

Tarek Joseph Chemaly, på kurs på Fojo
LÄNKAR
Länk till Tarek Chemalys blogg

Om jag skriver om ett land som uppfunnit sitt eget krig, ett krig som
pågår till landet funnit sin identitet. Vad kan det vara för land som
avses?

Om jag skriver om bomber och granater, om flyktingläger, kristna och
muslimer i en mängd av religionsinriktningar, om Mellanöstern, om
bomber. Då far tankarna kanske mot Beirut och Libanon.

I ett möte med den fria skribenten, universitetsläraren och
jordbruksingenjören Tarek Joseph Chemaly får vi känna doften av ett
land som sargats svårt av krig. Han har en mycket spännande
personlighet och en blogg som går på tvärs och bråkar med alla
politiskt stenhårt styrda medier i hans hemland. Han är en frifräsare
helt enkelt.

När han var nyfödd fick han det arabiska namnet Tarek, melllannamnet
var faderns kristna namn Joseph. Hans pappa såg det komma: Kriget som
ett varsel. Med sitt neutrala tilltalsnamn passar han in både hos
muslimer och hos kristna. Och det har kommit att forma hans liv. Han
är gäst hos verkligheten var han än kommer. "Jag är min egen
minoritet. Jag hör inte hemma någonstans." Han rör sig crossover, bor
i östra Beirut i Achrafieh och är kristen maronit, en befolkningsgrupp
med stort ekonomiskt och politiskt inflytande.

Idag är han 34 år. Sex månader gammal bröt kriget ut och han levde
sina första 17 år i ett land i krig. Människor brukar fråga honom hur
det känns att ha förlorat 17 år. Men nej, han levde bara i en annan
kontext. Han var kär första gången, gick på fester, blev full,
pluggade i skolan som alla andra ungdomar i ett mycket fredligare
Norden.

Men det är klart att våldet format honom och alla hans landsmän. Det
är här och nu som gäller, intensitet, omedelbarhet. Han uttrycker vad
han känner här och nu och räds inte att ta en konflikt. Glädjen är
omedelbar, synd att missa chansen för det kanske inte kommer flera.
Och så för han minnet vidare, dokumenterar mycket i både ord och bild.
För han lever i ett land som ständigt förändras. En söderförort kanske
inte finns kvar om en månad. Och han känner sig manad att göra vad han
kan för att bevara nutidshistorien. Beirut har totalförstörts sju
gånger, jämnats med marken.

Tarek Joseph Chemaly är på kurs i demokrati och journalistik vid Fojo,
fortutbildning för journalister vid Högskolan i Kalmar. Frågan är om
inte vi kan lära mer av honom, än tvärtom. När han kommer tillbaka kan
landmärkena helt ha förändrats, restauranger stängt, fått nytt namn
och bytt ägare.

I en sådan tillvaro finns det en ständig dubbelhet. En kvinna kan ta
sig hem mycket berusad mitt i natten och vara helt säker. Samma kvinna
kan nästa dag omkomma i en explosion. Då ringer Tarek Joseph Chemaly
sina vänner och de stämmer träff på restaurang kvällstid, orädda trots
dagens dödsoffer, för att diskutera det hemska som hänt. Han kallar
beteendet för krigsreflex. Det går inte att gå omkring och vara rädd
för döden som hägrar dygnet runt. Istället blir han klarsynt och
iskall. Själv har han blivit en person som bekänner sig till den
teoretiska anarkin i en ideal värld.

Beirut är fantastiskt. Ledarskribenten Per Dahl hyser en dröm om att
få bosätta sig på en bergssluttning i Beiruts närhet lagom till
pensionen. Tarek Joseph Chemaly ser överlycklig ut när han hör om
Dahls drömmar om Mellanöstern. Och han lovar Per Dahl att han kan få
alla världar om han bosätter sig i Libanon. Det behövs ingen
kalshnikov i garderoben. Han kan känna sig lika trygg som i Lindsdal.
Skillnaden är att här finns passionen som hör hans folk och land till,
eldiga fester som nordborna bara kan drömma om.

Du kommer att få känna på mer liv än du någonsin mött om du kommer
till Beirut, landet med dubbelheten, där döden är allestädes
närvarande liksom passionen.

Lotte Lundgren
lotte.lundgren@barometern.se

Freemuse's Ole Reitov: The day the music lived!

Kalmar - Sweden. Ole Reitov is nothing short of a force of nature. A quiet force, but an efficient one at that. His towering presence – which has nothing to do with his comfortable height – is imposing by its sheer calmness. The zen and simple attitude he confronts with makes one, not only listen, but want to listen. His humor is sarcastic and biting, but too good-natured to offend. Reitov was the co-editor of 'Smashed Hits – the Book of Banned Music'. He took the initiative to the 1st World Conference on Music and Censorship, and Has lectured worldwide on music censorship, cultural policies and cultural diversity. Reitov has worked as media and music consultant in Mali, India, Gabon, Botswana and Bhutan and as journalist in more than 40 countries for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. Reitov was also the former chairman of the EBU World Music Workshop as well as having been the advisor to the Danish Center for Culture and Development. He is now a programme officer at Freemuse. Freemuse – The World Forum On Music And Censorpship is an independent international organisation which advocates freedom of expression for musicians and composers worldwide. 

Freemuse is a membership organisation with its secretariat based in Copenhagen, Denmark. Freemuse receives core funding from SIDA, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

 Freemuse was born of the 1st World Conference on Music and Censorship held in Copenhagen in November 1998. 
The conference joined together professionals from diverse fields and countries – musicians, journalists, researchers, record industry professionals and human rights activists – to examine, discuss and document a wide variety of abuses from the apparently benign to the overtly extreme. 

The alarmingly widespread nature of censorship in music prompted the conference attendees to initiate the creation of a new organisation, Freemuse. Its guidelines are the principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as they apply specifically to musicians and composers. The Freemuse objectives are to:
Document violations and discuss their effects on music life; Inform media, human rights organisations and the public; Support musicians in need and observe at their trials; Develop a global network in support of threatened musicians and composers. Reitov starts by pointing out the negatives as some sort of ”preemptive strike” – pardon the pun – ”It is true that music can excite people. 
It is true that certain types of music events have attracted drug-abusers, drunkards and sex maniacs .
It is true that some people even experience a sort of ecstasy under the influence of music and that certain types of music are created to influence the human mind in such a way that the devotion to God , Allah or more traditional gods may look totally obscene to outsiders.” Having said that and disarmed the oppnents he continues, ”but is that a reason for censoring records , concerts, discos and dance.
 Doesn´t football stadiums, boarding schools and the army attract drunkards and sex maniacs? And do we stop music or boarding schools for that matter?” What is music censorship? Reitov answers that ”there are different kinds of music censorship, it can be imposed by the state or the the powers that be, and in that case it has to do with doing it prior to the publication or perhromance. It is sad to say, but at least this method does not incur any financial burdens on the musicians which makes it relatively safer that the supression of expression which happens when the work is already published or banning a performance at the time when all the production investments have been done.” Het hen goes on describing other forms; ”Another form is when the censorship is done by the artist himself such as in the case of David Byrne and Brian Eno who banned the recitation of Koranic verses from the CD version of their masterpiece ”My life in the bush of ghosts” – even for the newly remastered version to commemorate its 25th anniversary, the track is still nowhere to be found. Byrne had received a letter from the Muslmi Council of London whereby they expressed the view that the recitation was offending to their sensitivites. Naturally, if Byrne and Eno did it out of personal belief many other people do it from external pressure and even fear of their lives.” Other reasons according to Reitov have to do with the corporate world. ”With the increased corporate aspect of today’s world, with CDs holding stickers such as ”paental advisory, explicit lyrics” major selling places like Wal Mart do not lett hese CDs in their premises, what is so ironic is that one can get guns freely at Wal Mart but not these recorndings. Also, record companies force artists to record two virsions of their output, one which would be more palatable by the softcore public and one for the hardcore audiences and fans.” According to Damon Albarn from 90s pop sensation group Blur, the big business of the record industry exerts a covert censorship, which makes it incredibly difficult for musicians across the world to express themselves freely”. ”The omission of airplay is also a major factor, such as the case of the ban on the Dixie Chicks music due to what singer Nathalie Maines said in 2003 in a London concert. Maines has articulated the thought: "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." The results including also public bonfires of the Dixie Chicks CDs reminiscent of the Taliban music burning of records.” The reasons behind censoring music, according to Reitov, ”could be due to the remote control effect, or the blatant control in itself… Maverick singer Johnny Clegg from South Africa whose hits include ”Scaterlings of Africa” defied the apartheid regime, and said that for him ”censorship is based on fear.” Sometimes it takes the form of linguistics and national chauvinism, or musical and cultural hierarchy, or gender issues.” He reiterates about the South African case and asks ”how did censorship during apartheid affect the South African musical creativity? How did it affect the people of South Africa in their understanding of their own culture? We know it affected musicians heavily - not only those that had to leave their country for decades. But we don´t know exactly how it changed their creativity, their self esteem, their role in society.” Butt then in a glimmer of hope he reveals, ”what we do know, however, is that when Paul Simon had the guts to break the politically correct, cultural boycott in his ”Graceland” album for a start, it made the whole world realise that not only did the South Africans suffer from the lack of access to the world - we the rest of the world had been neglected a great contemporary and traditional culture.” Censorship, although cruel is most of the time however smart and pragmatic even though it originates from the dark corners. Reitov asserts, ”but the rules of these censorship are often elaborate and pragmatic. Take the case of nazism. Goebbels used the Reichmusikkamer to label anything he did not like as Entratete Music or degenerate. This affected the Jewish composers and musicians, the modernists such as Hindemith, Schonberg, Eisler, Stravinsky and Weil. The Roma or gypsies were also affected. The immediate effects were of exile, prison, unemployment and homogeity of the output and the culture. ” Reitov however, continues on the downhill point that ”it is easy to justify things rationally in such regimes, the Nazis said that the Jewish and the Roma are undersirable, that jazz ha dimmoral and racial elements which were foreign the Aryan race. That the modernists played atonal music against the blood and soul of the German people. Communism or social realism through the key figures of Stalin and Andrei Zhdanov gave also the same ”rational” justifications describing certain music as antidemocratic, perverted, as being alien to the Soviet people, and that it was atonal and even neurotic. The princpal victims were Shostkovitch, Prokoviev and Khatchadurian.” To justify the deeds, the powers use classic arguments. ”Some of the arguments used to censor music is that it is a useless activity, that it is ”haram”, that it is a tool of the devil, and that it is seductive. This applies to certain classical figures opposing music such as Islamic extremists, or even early Swedish missionaries, or other classical figures such as the Taliban or even the early Khomeini. Problem is, even when Khomeini reversed his ban on music, some of the clerics still thought it ought to be banned. As a matter of fact, even Plato, in accordance with his Good City which he described in his Republic, wanted ”bad music” banned.” According to Stephen Moss from The Guardian, ”In music, as in most things, it is safer to follow John Stuart Mill's messy liberalism than Plato's dangerous perfectionism: we may dislike Britney's burblings but we have to uphold her right to hit us one more time.” With Ole Reitov, one can be sure that music will keep on living, and that the muse will forever be free to inspire – and the musicians free to express.

Naser Khader speaking the voice of reason

Kalmar - Sweden. Few people have been close to the controversy surrounding the Danish caricature crisis as Naser Khader has been, in terms of voicing rational opinions rather than ones filled with hatred and hormonal behavior. But to know the man one must listen to his own words as to who he is: “I was born in Damascus, Syria. My father is Palestinian and my mother Syrian. The first six years of my life we moved from place to place. We lived in Palestine for a couple of years, another couple of years in Jordan and when I started school we moved to Syria, where we lived with my grandparents in a village six kilometers from Damascus.” Khader continues that “at the end of the 1950s my father had for political reasons sought refuge in Syria where he met my mother through her brother. At the end of the 1960s, and unable to settle in Syria, he read in the papers that labour was needed in Europe, and he went to West Germany to try his luck. There he met other Palestinians who lived in Denmark and he went with them to Denmark.” The trip is far more than over, because the Khader family continued their nomadic routes and “in August 1974 my mother and my four siblings (three brothers and one sister) and I arrived in Denmark. My father had rented an apartment in Istedgade on Vesterbro in Copenhagen ╨ a very ╘interesting╒ part of town in the 1970╒s. Two days after his arrival in Denmark my father had a job but after working for 8 hours in a factory, he was too tired to go to school and learn Danish.” But these hurdles did not stop Naser Khader from pursuing his studies and even going to university and earning a master’s degree in political sciences. He got active in the Danish political life and he is now on his third term in the national parliament. He was a member of the Folketing (Parliament) for The Center Party in Copenhagen grether constituency from November 2007, and in Eastern Copenhagen constituency, from July 10th 2007 to November 13th 2007. He eventually became part of the outside parliamentary groups (independent), from May 9th to July 10th 2007. His third term was as being member for the Social Liberal Party in Eastern Copenhagen constituency, from November 20th 2001 till May 9th 2007. Khader is very familiar with the many entangled agendas that were part of the Danish cartoon crisis, everyone from the newspaper that first published them, to Danish imams, to ex-Egpytian embassador Mona Samir, had their own schedule surrounding the issue. But to go back to the words of Flemming Rose, of Jyllandposten, in an essay he published in the Washington Post on February 19th, 2006, he says that “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.” Rose continues by saying: “We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.” Rose touches the heart of the issue by saying: “One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.” Khader himself says that he found the cartoons “funny” and his devout Moslem mother “who will go to Mecca on a pilgrimage in December 2008” found them of bad taste but dismissed them with a shrug. “I knew that one with the turban was going to stir reactions, but I thought they were going to be of the same kind that happened when Martin Scorsese did the Last Temptation of Christ. Whereby people belonging to offended Christian religion simply sat outside movie theatres and actually advised people not to watch the movie.” Khader continues, “little did I foresee what was going to happen and that 410 people were going to be killed worldwide because of this and when the Danish embassy in Syria was attacked this is when I drew the line and thought that I had to do something.” When Khader does “something”, he does not do it by halves. In the meantime he had presented his resignation from his party whereby the leader of the party condemned the cartoons and Khader even knew she was meeting secretly with the Imams to gain their political support. “Enough was enough.” After quitting the party, Khader decided to establish some sort of moderate Moslem front, “I called an Egyptian scientist and told him about the project and the guy told me that he was too far from politics to be do it, but I told him that now was the time to act, to prove that Moslems are not homogeneous, that there are different voices inside the community.” The declaration of the newly founded “Moderate Moslem” Network passed on February 4th 2006 is nothing short of inspiring: “We declare, today, that now is the time for dialogue, rather than digging trenches. We call on the Moslem countries, the Danish imams and the government to enter into dialogue, to settle this conflict, so that we may again meet on a friendly footing, and ensure that exchange of views and experiences across cultural, religious and geographic boundaries can continue. As Moslems, we are the proof that Islam and democracy are not incompatible. It is our hope that our example here in Denmark will make Moslems around the world react and follow our lead. Only by uniting, can we change the fundamentalist picture of Islam that the many extremists have drawn with violence.” The network grew to accommodate 2,000 people and 18,000 Danish supporters in a matter of two months. Khader later managed the almost impossible task of creating a new party in Denmark. Just for the record since 1970, only three new parties were created due to the complex process of obtaining not just the signatures, but the full records of 20,000 individuals. For Khader to have been able to do so is nothing short of heroic or even miraculous, but this is how driven he was. According to the Copenhagen Post Online Khader says that: “Many people would like to have a centrist government but they don't want a red cabinet, just as little as they want to see the Danish People's Party have so much influence on Danish politics.” He said the party would be a centrist party with an aim toward undermining the influence the nationalist Danish People's Party - who shook Danish politics with its arrival 10 years ago - has on the Liberal-Conservative government. Khader said the party will also seek to improve the integration of immigrants, strengthen Denmark's position within the EU and support a fixed income tax rate of 40 percent in an effort to move people from the welfare system into the job market.” Khader through his Liberal Alliance party gathered 5 seats in the parliamentary elections in Denmark, and even issued “The ten commandments of Democracy” which were first voiced in 2002: “We must all separate politics and religion, and we must never place religion above the laws of democracy. We must all respect that all people have equal rights regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. No person must ever incite to hatred, and we must never allow hatred to enter our hearts. No person must ever use or encourage violence no matter how frustrated or wronged we feel, or how just our cause. We must all make use of dialogue - always. We must all show respect for the freedom of expression, also of those with whom we disagree the most. No person can claim for themselves or assign to others a place apart, neither as superior persons, as inferior persons or as eternal victims. We must all treat other people’s national and religious symbols as we wish them to treat ours flag-burning and graffiti on churches, mosques and synagogues are insults that hinder dialogue and increase the repression of the other party. We must all mind our manners in public. Public space is not a stage on which to vent one’s aggressions or to spread fear and hate, but should be a forum for visions and arguments, where the best must win support. We must all stand up for our opponent if he or she is subjected to spiteful treatment.” Khader’s fight with extremism is far from over, at the “Religion and Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Council” which was held in Geneva on Sept. 17th 2008, Khader said in his speech: “World War 3 is here. It is not the war on terror I am referring to, all though that war has the qualifications to be called a World War with terror acts crossing boarders around the world. That war is only a fragment on the real World War. As terrorism the war I am talking about has no physical frontiers? It is a global war on values and it as been going on for quite some time. It is a war between Islamism, the ideology and democratic values? The war has been going on mainly because it is still surprising to the democratic leaders and politicians around the world that it is a war. He then goes on explicitly to say. “What the Islamist do is to lobby their view not just throughout the Islamic world, but now we also se them pushing in the doors in forums that should only allow admission for those with a democratic passport so to speak. Islamist on the march is being met with tolerance and invitations into forums and agendas where they have nothing - and I mean nothing - to contribute with. They will say that their agenda is only pointed at the Islamic world. But that is a lie. Islamist sole goal is to conquer the whole world, not just a bit of it.” Before dramatically emphasizing: “Everything.” He then deadpans: “They are prepared to the teeth to let this fight go on and on, to take bit by bit. And we are making it very easy for them.” Khader goes on to develop the concept that “we act like we got caught in the headlights. Just because an organization like the Organization of the Islamic Conference says that they - and they alone - speak for all the Muslims. Okay we think - that is a lot of Muslims. ╘We cannot ignore a voice like that. Let them speak, we say because we are democrats and think that everybody should have their say. Only in this case we are naive democrats (Naivocrats as I like to call them). We believe them. We do think that OIC (Organization of the Islamic conference) speaks for every Muslim. But they don’t. They don’t speak for me.” What puts Khader out of himself, were the blatant lies that were marketed by the extremists to surround the Danish cartoons. The claimed that there were no schools or mosques were Moslems in Denmark, and instead of the 12 cartoons, they showed people in power 100 derogative photos taken out of context and claimed they were all Danish ridiculing of the Moslem religion. Khader explains that “there are 200,000 people who are part of the Moslem population in Denmark, including 40,000 Turks and 25,000 Palestinians, with 120 mosques with therefore 120 Imams that earn a living from the state, however only 7 of them active during the crisis.” One of the positive outcomes of this crisis was that Danish people discovered that “Muslims are not homogeneous, after the affair more people were hiring Muslims. They realized they were not people to be afraid of, and that many of them had their own stands on the matters. And refusing to sheepishly follow some general guideline.” Khader even boasts that “Islamists’ influence has severely decreased since the crisis. Because now politicians instead of consulting them and seeking their approval on new laws, they tend to talk to open-minded moderate Moslems.” One of the things that got Khader infuriated was that he wanted “to be a full equal in the Danish society. With my rights but also obligations.” He reiterates by saying “I refuse the patronizing attitude whereby we should be nice to the Muslims because they are more delicate and therefore more fragile and emotionally and socially less mature. It is out of this principle that I defend the publications of these cartoons.” Khader also emphasizes that ╥there is no such thing as seeing “the other side” (i.e. the attitude of the Moslem people who were offended by the cartoons) simply because there is “no other side.” “Some people told me that they fled from their countries of origin to be able to express their opinions, so having this censored is worse than in their own countries because this is supposed to be Denmark!” Khader admits however that the workings of the democratic system allow people to boycott the newspaper as a fair retaliation to the disapproval of the publishing of the cartoons. “But why does Arla has to pay the price of that? It is not state owned or anything. Why did people to punish all Danish goods without discrimination?” On the lighter side, Khader says “If this was a game of football, then the score would be 1 for democracy and 0 for extremism.” An Arab proverb says “If it does not get too big, it will never get smaller again.” Which means that sometimes problems have to grow out of proportion to regain their normal size. And speaking of size, Naser Khader is certainly a presence and a voice that is larger than life.

Kristina Riegert on the domestication of international news

Kalmar - Sweden. Kristina Riegert got her PhD in political science in 1998 from Political Science Department, Stockholm University. The title of her thesis, "'Nationalising Foreign Conflict': Foreign Policy Orientation at a Factor in Television News Reporting". She was a visiting scholar at the Institute of Communications Studies at Leeds University, and at Department of Culture and Communication, New York University 1999-2000, where she also taught. She has published two reports on the NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia: one on Information warfare and news management and the other on the British media coverage. Her research interests are globalisation, comparative television news, war coverage and propaganda, television's role in national culture and identity and national journalist cultures. She is now Assistant Professor, Södertörn University, Stockholm Sweden. Currently on a two-year fellowship with Swedish National Defence Academy. Riegert was very, very cheerful as she showed up. She was wearing her Barack Obama shirt “which I got on the 27th and I am so happy he got elected. Actually, I told my little daughter I was in love with him, and she told me not to say this because would be jealous. So I soothed her and reassured her that he won’t and that besides – he was in love with him too.” But Riegert goes back quickly to reality and says “we will have to wait and see what he can do.” Riegert was not here to talk about the intricacies of the American politics but rather about the domestication of foreign news in today’s media landscape. She starts out describing the earlier phases. “In the 70s there was the media imperialist theory, which was anglo-saxon dominant, and which defined newsworthiness according to certain criteria, such as drama, immediacy, simplicity, and balance. Actually, most of these values were promoting conflict narratives rather than being conductive to peace effort.” She reiterates with the decades that followed, “in the 80s and 90s, conglomerates stepped and therefore the need to make profit and financial sense. There was serious downsizing of the foreign news desk, and instead of reporters living in countries, they were simply parachuted upon need.” To Riegert, “this added more dependence of the local element as the reporters were clueless about the situation they were up against. And there was also therefore a heavier dependence on international news bureaus, with the end result leading to more international channels but with less diversification in content. Nowadays, blogs and alternative media are an interesting development but they still do not reveal breaking news to mainstream audiences.” The economical element comes back in her discussion and she assures that “economic pressures for cheap foreign news made it more difficult to deliver in-depth quality information. Instead of editorial content, the trend has become about budgeting and accounting and restrictions in financing now determine what correspondents will be able to cover. The amount of organizations expected to be on air has increased with the competition of news in “real time.”” Riegert speaks of other predominant trends going on currently, such as “the commercialization of conflicts which includes live tit-for-tat or he said/she said formats, and certainly the thrill of sexy bang-bang. Wars become like sanitized neat made-for-TV versions, something that resembles the movie “wag the dog.” Even the roots and consequences of the conflicts are being glossed over. Another way of achieving this is to personalize conflicts: Bush vs Saddam, or Milosovic vs Albright. Or giving them catchy funky titles such as “showdown in Bagdad.” The end result would be that all wars start to look alike and the public loses interest.” But since we live in very visual and picture-dependent world Riegert thinks that “news bureau sources and pictures are used to tell stories that local/national audiences can identify with. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark can have different stories on the same international news. Naturally, if a country is involved in a war, then the reporting is different and if the country is not involved then the international relations factor comes into play.” Other elements are also part of the visual equation, she continues that “the closer geographically the conflict is, the more resources are allocated for its coverage. Foreign policy also dictates the tone of voice in addition to the general identification of the “oppressor” and “victim.” Actually, pictures do not say a thousand words, the only say what you say they show.” The main purpose for any news channel being to disseminate a message to the largest possible audience, Riegert thinks that “media coverage doesn’t follow the elite view of the world otherwise there would be no need for propaganda.” “Warfare is a confusing environment in which the chances of rumors becoming true are high. Governments are losing control over the media and today anyone can have access to cheap digital media and can put anything on the net. This also challenges the traditional journalistic hegemony and analysis.” On the topic of how immediate news have become Riegert thinks that “real time news creates pressure on governments to respond before they agreed on a policy and got all the information. New media are used to create smoke-screens, test new policies, and to build support nationally as in the case of Al Horra.” Naturally, official information is as biased as it can come and so it is not unusual for information to be altered, manipulated, or edited to suit the end purposes, to this end Riegert refers to “spin-doctoring or what General Wesley Clark referred to as “bits of the truth” which suits smart and sophisticated strategies, whereas authoritarian regimes tend to rely on intimidation and threats.” “I will also refer to Jamie Shea, NATO’s head of information, who suggested to “occupy the space.” You know, be present there, everywhere, blocking it from someone else. If something is not going right, try to burry it in the middle of something more positive. In addition, you have to interpret information in the best possible light that would suit you. It is known that statistics have a “factual” aura around them, so use them to your advantage as they emphasize credibility. Do not stop rumors if they are to your advantage.” Riegert continues with me more rules such as “demonize the enemy, use emotions, give analogies to previous tragedies as frames of references, use a heroic language which always impresses.” Naturally, as the market for global market for international news is broadened to include the internet, certain consequences become inevitable. In addition when the broadening includes the advent of new satellite channels from the Arab world the equation gets even muddier. The third Gulf War, or the invasion of Iraq, certainly demonstrated some of those. “There was a battle for news credibility. Previously the flow of information was north to south, suddenly there was a counterflow of information to the Anglo-Saxon international news.” Interestingly, since the BBC is the reason behind Al Jazeera in terms of recruitment and previous training, Riegert argues that “Al Jazeera claims to have use the Western ideals of journalism such as balance, transparency, immediacy and independence from government. Al Jazeera saw the horrible human costs of the war while Anglo-Saxon channels saw a little sanitized war where a cute little blonde by the name of Jessica Lynch was “rescued” by US soldiers.” Riegert goes on in her rhetoric to expose the point that “even suffering is also political. Martyrs need a stage otherwise they are just victims. In the end there is no such thing as “just the facts” because they can only be judged within their context. Now there is a serious danger of the development of – not a common world stage – but rather of micro-public spheres whose realities never meet.” Naturally, the Western ideals of journalism have dominated the scene for such a long time and they were never put to doubt, but today Riegert puts them to the test and asks if “they are really necessary. Is immediacy so important that one ends up with a cumulative series of wrong facts? What about balance? What is the presence of two versions of the same event is not enough to explain it? What if there are more than two sides? Independence from governments does not mean much if one’s routine is only to report the official statements that are being released. And truly, in terms of newsworthiness, it is easier to show the conflict and drama rather than peace negotiations.” And whereas ideals, no matter how flawed, are interesting, it is also crucial to go back to the ground to look for answers, therefore Riegert reiterates, “we can access different transnational public spheres to find different versions of reality, however there are very few of us who have the time, the money and the logistics to choose.” In terms of consequences, the domestication of international events, has lead – according to Riegert – to “scanty news coverage of those parts of the world that the political, economic and cultural elites are not interested in. Not only is the coverage scanty, but it is generic since not provided with enough logistic resources. In addition, there is now one-sided self-perpetuating news coverage of a certain country when the country is at war.” Living in such globalised contexts has also led to a new transnational visibility, whereby Riegert asserts that “CNN has called the French unrests in the suburbs in 2005 the “French intifada” which paved the way for the suburban voices to be heard on television. Something that would not have happened has the problem not been globalized.” As a matter of fact, the scenario of events has become so important that “governments and other actors are starting to formulate strategies according to “how will this look in the media.” Naturally, there is a difference of the reality of an event and its portrayal in the media.” “News do not tell about everyday life” she reiterates, “they tell about the exceptions to everyday life that include drama. As journalists, we should develop our own codes of ethics in response to the consequences we are seeing, we will always fall short but we should have such ideals.” But Riegert concludes on a positive note and says “but today Obama has won. So there is hope. I am now in my “hope” phase. So good things are bound to happen.”

Ulf Johansson gets wolf-like about freedom of speech

Kalmar - Sweden. On August 19, 2007, the Nerikes Allehanda newspaper printed a drawing by Swedish artist Lars Vilks depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a roundabout dog. According to editor-in-chief Ulf Johansson, the publishing of the image was done by the newspaper in order to protest the refusal of several Swedish art galleries to show a series of Mohammed paintings by Vilks. In tan editorial in the same newspaper, editorial-writer Lars Stroman writes: “A liberal society must be able to do two things at the same time. On the one hand, it must be able to defend Muslims╒ right to freedom of religion and their right to build mosques. However, on the other hand, it is also permissible to ridicule Islam’s most foremost symbols - just like all other religions - symbols. There is no opposition between these two goals. In fact, it is even the case that they presuppose each other.” Stroman continues: “What happens if a fundamentalist Muslim wants to express his faith through pictorial art? Quite clearly, it will be easy to persuade art galleries that the pictures are unsuitable, that they may lead to conflict. So the restriction of Lars Vilks’ possibilities to express himself may also negatively affect Muslims╒ right to express themselves.” WAN, the global association of the world’s press, expressed support for the Swedish publishing community, which has rallied behind artist Lars Vilke and Editor Ulf Johansson of the Nerikes Allehanda newspaper, which published the cartoon to draw attention to threats to freedom of expression in Sweden. The cartoon sparked angry reactions in the Arab world, culminating in a bounty being offered by Al Qaeda in Iraq for the murders of Vilke and Johansson. "While appreciating that the publication of the drawing may have caused offence to many Muslims, WAN emphasizes that the Nerikes Allehanda enjoys full freedom of expression and that a choice to publish the drawing falls within that right and should be duly respected," the Paris-based WAN said. However, in a taped message said that extremist militants belonging to Al Qaeda in Iraq were announcing a "call to shed the blood of the Lars who dared to insult our Prophet." "During this generous month we announce an award worth $100,000 to the person who kills this infidel criminal," referring to Viks, the speaker said. He also announced a $50,000 reward for the killing of the editor of the newspaper - Mr. Johansson.” The tape said that the Swedish government ought to apologize - otherwise al-Qaeda in Iraq would target "their economy and giant companies such as Ericsson, Volvo, Ikea, Scania". The cartoon's creator, Lars Vilks, told Reuters news agency he was not worried by a threat from people representing "a very small branch of our Muslims". But he could not disregard it, either, and was in contact with the police. "It is fundamental for Western thinking to be able to express one's artistry without making exceptions for holiness," he said. As part of the escalation the Swedish prime minister held a meeting with 22 Moslem ambassadors. Egyptian ambassador Mohamed Sotouhi told news agency TT that he and a group of fellow ambassadors had agreed on a list of measures Sweden needed to take if it was to secure a long-term solution to the Muhammad cartoon controversy. According to Sotouhi, "comprehensive measures" were required if Sweden was to prevent some "amateur artist" from reawakening tensions every other month. "We want to see action, not just nice words. We have to push for a change in the law," he said. "Muslims need legal protection against the desecration of the Prophet Muhammad, maybe something similar to the protection enjoyed by Jews and homosexuals." While praising the "very constructive steps" taken by Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Egyptian ambassador said that Sweden had much work left to do. "In the long term the school curriculum has to convince pupils that if they want to express their opinion they should do so in such a way that it doesn't cause offence or hurt. This should also be part of journalism training," said Sotouhi. "A permanent parliamentary committee also needs to be established to tackle islamophobia," he added. As part of the protests, about 300 people rallied outside the newspaper's offices, demanding an apology and saying the cartoon, a rough sketch showing Muhammad's head on a dog's body, was insulting to Muslims. "We want to show Nerike's Allehanda that Muslims in this city are upset over what happened," Jamal Lamhamdi, chairman of the Islamic cultural center in Orebro, told Swedish public radio. Orebro is a city of about 100,000 residents, 125 miles west of Stockholm. Nerikes Allehanda editor-in-chief Ulf Johansson met with Lamhamdi but refused to apologize for the cartoon, which was part of an Aug. 19 editorial criticizing several Swedish art galleries for refusing to display a series of prophet drawings by Vilks. "They say they are offended and I regret that, because our purpose was not to offend anyone," Johansson told The Associated Press. "But they are asking for an apology and a promise that I never again publish a similar image ... and that I cannot do." For the sake of clarification, the drawing was only published in the print edition not in the online one where other people can see it. The paper has a limited local circulation of 65,0000 copies. “But someone told me that in today’s world, there is no such thing as local any longer. Anything can be spread the world over,” admits Johansson. He also says that he was not able “to move without police protection for some time afterward” and that “It was not too comfortable to be surrounded by police.” But Johansson remains adamant about his decision, and says: “It is worse for Muslims not to print this picture because it means we are treating them differently than the rest of the population whereas they should be equal. We all live under the same rules and values.” He even confesses “I don’t even like the picture.” But the artistic merit of the photo and his own esthetic sensibilities are far from the original topic of freedom of expression. “I have had Swedish mothers claiming I am endangering their sons╒ lives in Afghanistan. Because due to that kind of publicity, they will more likely to be targets to extremists. And I cannot work ever again if I have such a thing on my conscience.” Looking at the vibrant and outgoing Johansson - whose first name means “wolf” in Swedish - one realizes that he is totally serious and that the character has nothing to do with being a wolf, but rather with a combatant who truly believes in certain values and tries to apply them to real life. Johansson says “I have a Persian brother in law, I have discussed with him the difference between the Swedish bible and the Koran, I am very open to other religions and cultures to understand them better. But it is always more preferable to say things to argue against them, rather than ignore them. Otherwise they will fester and rot.” When asked the pressing question of the repetition of such an act, Johansson reflects and says: “Would I do this again? Depends on the context but I take responsibility for my readers. People in outside countries do not know what happened, they know something has happened and that it has to do with some editor in Sweden.” “I do not care if the president of Iran is upset. He denied the existence of Iranian homosexuals, which means that anywhere between 5 and 10% of the population did not exist for him. I am here to acknowledge the existence of everyone. Even those - especially those - who disagree with me.” “People in other countries do not know what happened, they only know that something happened. So their reaction is not justified because they do not know the context.” What is so amazing is that Johansson’s paper was the 7th or 8th paper to publish the drawing, “they were published before in Malmo and Stockholm were not offended even though there is a large Moslem population there.” When confronted with the classical accusation of doing it to attract attention Johansson simply dismisses the theory and says: “I did not publish it to become famous besides what kind of a fame is that? One where I have to be careful of my movements! I’d rather live without such a fame!” Recently, Johansson cancelled a trip to Beirut because of security reasons. The reason was that “one reporter from Spain recognized me in a social event after he saw the leader of an organization that some countries classify as terrorist toying around with my photos.” Another classical accusation is that his newspaper did the stunt to increase its circulation and get more notoriety, “but you do not understand, it is just a small newspaper in a regional country. Actually, 2 or 3 people cancelled their subscription in protest and 2 or 3 added theirs out of support so it evened out eventually.” However, not deterred from his main point, he confirms that “the only way to democracy and conflict-resolution does not go through censorship.” If he is so open-minded about such a publication, then what would he his “red line.” “Child pornography is a red line for me, there are many things I see in newspapers that I would not publish myself. Such as photos of injured people after a car crash and that person might not make it. Or photos of his parents in the waiting room of the hospital.” Ulf Johansson is fighting the fight on behalf of all people, be they his immediate readers of those of who never heard of his newspaper, he concludes by referring to what Evelyn Beatrice Hall said to summarize French philosopher Voltaire's ideas: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Gunilla Carlsson on the importance of journalism in a democratic society

Kalmar - Sweden. Gunilla Carlsson does not fit the mould of the politician as we know it. Indeed to begin with, she is a female, which for the participants of the course of Journalism and Democracy for the Middle East and North Africa, is something they might witness at home, more in the form of a woman “inheriting” the power from a male relative or through a political genetic mutation rather than in the form of a woman breaking steadily through the rank of her party. According to wikipedia: Anna Gunilla Carlsson (born 11 May 1963) is a Swedish Moderate Party politician, currently Minister for Development Cooperation and a member of the Riksdag and deputy chairman of her party. After working as an auditor, she joined the Moderate Party office in 1994. In 1995 she was elected to the European Parliament and served until 2002, when she was elected to the Riksdag for Stockholm. In 1999, she was elected vice chairman of the Moderate Party.” Carlsson, is certainly not your typical minister either. Whereas she is supposed to be part of the right wing party in Sweden, her language is more center and what is completely amazing is that she “wasted” 45 minutes on journalists from the MENA region and from Belarus when we don’t even vote for her. She bothered to listen to inputs and take notes even, and avoided the prepackaged answers normally associated with politicians of high political ranks. Carlsson kept going back in her discussion to two basic points “patience and understanding”, she recognizes she does not have a magical wand whereby she can change things from one day to the next in other countries. But naturally, armed with such stunning personality (and beauty) in addition to 1% of the Swedish GDP per year – the equivalent of 3,4 Billion SEK or 450 Million Dollars – she is naturally in a position of influence. Carlsson said that what got her into politics in the 70s was knowing that people of her age, in Estonia for example, were being sent to jail due to them fighting for freedom and that was only some “400 kms away from me.” But what is truly surprising about here is this ability for be “grateful” to the journalists who were attending the courses at Fojo – the Institute for Further Education of Journalists – and admits that she “does not have all the answers.” She also recognizes three major axis for development her ministry is working on, the first deals with eradicating poverty, the second the empowering of women, and the third has to do with fighting global warming. She also realizes how interconnected these issues are. “But instead of having someone from foreign country preaching you how to do things, I prefer to have local agents of change. Voices from within the country that try to make a difference and raise issues that concerns them.” Carlsson is definitely no fool, she realizes that when she visits Mali for example, where Sweden is a major donor, and she meets with government officials, the all “assure me that the projects are going tremendously well. But I always insist on meeting other people, people who are not in power to listen to the other side of the story. Unfortunately, in some countries, opposition parties tell us they have reform agendas and as soon as they get to power, it is disappointing for us to know that it was simply power they wanted and noting else.” Which is why Carlsson goes back to “patience,” because she knows it is a long process.Fojo’s director Annelie Ewers describes her as “focused, passionate, and very dedicated to what she does.” Nowhere is this focus, dedication and passion is more apparent than in the speech she gave in the Press Faculty of the University of Social Science and Humanity, in Hanoi – Vietnam on the 23rd of April 2007. In the fabled speech, she minced no words in front of the minister present and said “I am currently working to ensure that Swedish development cooperation becomes more clearly focused on creating preconditions for democratization, peace and reconciliation. Intimately linked to this is emphasis on good governance and, for example, efforts to strengthen the civil society in our partner countries. Another focus area is the environment and climate change.” She continues to say “democracy and poverty reduction can never be guaranteed by politicians alone, whether they are elected or self-nominated. In the end, it is a question of people’s opportunities to influence their situation, claim their rights and being able to voice their concerns. But to exercise their rights presupposes that citizens have access to information that has not been filtered, censored or distorted. How can I claim my rights if I do not know what they are? How an I voice my concerns if I risk being prosecuted for doing so?” But Carlsson admits that “promoting free media in other countries is also in our own self-interest. If journalists in other countries are silenced we will ultimately pay the price ourselves. Le me give you an example. We are all aware of the immense challenge that mankind faces in the form of ongoing climate change. Let’s say that information about an environmental disaster in a country far away is not allowed to reach the public. Eventually it might very well be that the people in other parts of the world suffer the consequences of information being withheld.” Carlsson makes her point more clear saying “Sweden supports interventions in the area of the media that seek to empower people living in poverty. Fundamental points of departure are the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, the right to exercise cultural and creative activities, the right to access to information, the right to participation and the right to knowledge.” With such firm beliefs, clear goals and consistent objectives, with an ability to give tailor-made answers to specific questions, Gunilla Carlsson is made of the stuff true leaders are made of. Material, that sadly is not transposable to our countries of origin.