Online Journalism: Foreign Policy Magazine and Syria

I've been involved in somewhat of a blog war that is taking place on FP Passport - a blog by the editors of Foreign Policy magazine. One of their editors, Blake Hounshell, recently posted two blog entries about Syria that were rather unsubstantiated. Frankly, I was really surprised to see this type of "journalism" on such a prestigious magazine's blog site.

The first article, "The Dumbest Country in the Middle East," was really quite infuriating. Here's what I posted in response to the article's headline:

****

A "Dumb" Decision

As a Syrian American who is an avid reader of FP, and who also works at a prestigious Washington, DC think tank, I am bewildered at the title and unsubstantiated nature of your blog post. Not only is your headline unacceptable by any journalistic standards, it's simply untrue. You may argue that because this is a blog, you are entitled to your opinion in both title and content. However, because you carry a prestigious name known for its journalistic excellence, you also carry the responsibility to convey accurate information to your readers, even in a blog.

***

The word "dumb" was removed from my vocabulary at a young age. It carries demeaning connotations. Besides the fact that it's simply untrue, I don't think it should be acceptable in any type of responsible reporting. And that's not to say that it's a pretty childish way to describe a country that is at a crucial diplomatic point with the United States; the U.S. is sending its first ambassador back to Syria after a five year.

A day later, Mr Hounshell posted the article, "Is Syria smart?," in response to another commentator's post. Clever title (ha!), but flawed argument. In reviewing Syria's "poor" economic growth and its refusal to "join the West's camp," I pointed out to Hounshell that he conveniently forgot to factor in the strain of 1 million+ Iraqi refugees on Syria's economy:

***

What about the refugees?

Let's also not forget the 1 million+ Iraqi refugees that Syria is so graciously housing from the mess the U.S. left in Iraq. The unbelievable amount of strain this has placed on the already fragile Syrian economy is often overlooked when "reporting" the factors that contribute to Syria's economy. A 2010 report from the International Rescue Committee (http://www.theirc.org/special-reports/iraqi-refugees) says "The U.S. has spent approximately $650 billion for military operations in Iraq and a disproportionate $29 billion for diplomacy and aid. More resources must be allocated to help the displaced in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and other host countries." How many Iraqi refugees has the United States admitted?

So rather than acknowledge the impossible strain that Syria is bearing on its economy, the U.S. has decided to continue to impose economic sanctions and provide disproportionate amounts of aid to a mess that Syria wasn't involved in to begin with. In light of this, sounds to me like the Syrians are doing pretty well.

***

I wonder what journalism has come to these days. Subjective writing, spotty reporting. While the Internet should be a facilitator of communication through blogs and discussion forums, and citizen journalism is on the rise, I still expect to see quality reporting from respected publications like Foreign Policy.

Why Engaging Audiences on Twitter Isn't Always the Right Thing...

Someone in my office proposed the idea this week of using our organization's Twitter account to host a "Tweet Contest" to see if we can better engage our audiences with our mission. I found myself quickly saying NO to an idea that normally would strike me as a good one -- after all, any type of activity encouraging interactivity and engagement with an audience on a social network should be a good thing! It's generally proven to be a recipe for success. Taco Bell and Dunkin' Donuts launched successful contests on Twitter, as did the State Department.

However, in a comparison of our Twitter feed and Mashable's 10 Twitter Best Practices for Brands, I believe that my organization is far from ready to host a Twitter contest. Here are a few of the points:

Be authentic and believable - Mashable says that you'll become believable only after you've established trust among your audience. Our Twitter feed currently is operated via an automatic RSS feed that pushes headlines from our website. There is no human behind the feed responding to followers, following people back, or talking with our audience.

Do your research before engaging customers - Mashable suggests "knowing how your customers use Twitter." This can be accomplished easily and for free using a few simple search tools, including Twitter's own search engine, search.twitter.com to see the conversations already happening around your brand and issue. Because we haven't been active on our feed, we really don't have an idea of what conversations are happening about us and around us.

Track metrics and conversation trends - Tracking metrics, also using free tools available online like www.tweetvolume.com, is an easy way to get an idea of how your popular your brand/issue is, how many people click on the links that you push out, etc. Metrics help guide your Twitter strategy going forward because they give you an overall snapshot of your presence on the social media scene. We currently do not have a strategy in place to track metrics or trends.

So, my recommendation to my organization was that we hold off on the contest until we've established the fundamentals outlined in Mashable's guide above.

Do you think I was right in my recommendation?

Google vs China: Damaging Diplomacy

The Western media continues to portray Google as somewhat of a hero for abandoning its facilities in mainland China and moving its services offshore. Washington Post op-ed columnist Richard Cohen praised the search giant in his March 30 article for walking away from China’s Internet censorship policies and its egregious human rights record. The BBC also chided China, reporting on March 23 that Google’s move “is a major blow to China’s international image.” While Google’s move might have highlighted its tough stance against censored search results, its undiplomatic handling of this event threatens to alter world affairs and U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations.

Google, a corporation that benefits from significant global popularity and enjoys widespread brand recognition, carries with it the responsibility to represent the United States and its values across the globe. Google’s worldwide reputation is among the likes of McDonald’s and Starbucks and it has become a symbol associated with Western modernism, liberalism, and capitalism. American businesses that operate on foreign soil are essentially unofficial diplomats of the United States. Google’s presence in China should help improve diplomatic and economic relations with that country, and not inflame sensitive ties.

Instead, Google has mired itself in a he-said-she-said conflict, angering and isolating both the Chinese people and the Chinese government. Google recently publicly announced its frustration with the relentless Internet security breaches and its irritation with China’s Internet censorship laws. While Google did not explicitly accuse the Chinese government of the recent hacks into journalists’ and democracy advocates’ e-mail accounts, its action clearly pointed the finger at Beijing. Such implications could potentially damage U.S.-China relations in a diplomatic arena where cooperation on key issues is crucial. After all, China is a major holder of the U.S. national debt, has the world’s third largest economy, and some scholars at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace predict that China is poised to takeover as the world’s next superpower.

China adamantly defended itself repeatedly against accusations, most recently on March 31 when the google.cn site became temporarily unavailable. Chinese government officials called Google “totally wrong,” and blamed the company for “politicizing” the event. Now, according to a Los Angeles Times report, China could potentially block the search engine permanently, which would deliver a huge economic blow to Google.

What’s interesting is that Google did not seem to have a problem with Internet censorship in 2006, when it launched its google.cn site and quietly obliged to China’s censorship restrictions. Let’s think about this. The population of China is 1.3 billion.It has 360 million Internet users. Google reports that 97% of its revenue comes from advertising. From a business standpoint, China is practically a goldmine for advertising and marketing. It’s not hard to see that Google’s executives had their eyes set on advertising and marketing dollars and were less concerned with upholding their mission to protect the free flow of information on the Internet.

Google is both an ambassador of the United States and a multi-national corporation operating with profit in mind. Reconciling both identities requires a delicate balancing act. Respecting and appreciating the laws, culture, and values of its host country should be an inherent mission in each American business abroad, and not just to be observed when it’s convenient. Google’s withdrawal from China did not have to be as abrupt, considering its history. An ambassador should always remember that diplomacy is the first option.