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.

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.

Blogging @ PBS's Idea Lab

I found an awesome blog hosted by PBS called MediaShift Idea Lab.

"Idea Lab is a group blog by innovators who are reinventing community news for the Digital Age. Each Idea Lab blogger is a winner of the Knight News Challenge grant to reshape community news."

Awesome. They have a best practices section, reports from high-level conferences like Gov 2.0 (Check out: "Report from Gov 2.0: A Nerd, Suit, Spook, and Database Smoothie"), and the best part is, you can TALK to the writers and engage in a conversation about any of these topics. I can read Idea Lab's live Twitter feed directly from the page (I love embedded Twitter widgets) and users can declare which articles are their "favorites", and the site pulls out "featured comments" from users. Pretty interactive and comprehensive. Although too bad it appears that their Twitter feed is not actually updated by a human, but rather by an RSS feed directly from their site via twitterfeed.

This, as we've learned in Dr. Rosenblatt's class, is a no-no ---- It's what we're doing here at USIP and something that's on my list of things to change. I've only been here about 4 weeks and one of my top priorities is to revamp the way we do all of our social networking -- which appears to me to h ave been put together rather quickly and without much strategy. Probably from some pressure from the powers that be.

Twitter Strategy for Gov Departments

Found an awesome template outlining a strategy for governments using Twitter:

http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digitalengagement/post/2009/07/21/Template-Twitter-strategy-for-Government-Departments.aspx

These points seem especially critical to me:

• To set clear objectives and metrics to make sure there's a return on the investment of staff time (and if there isn’t, we’ll stop doing it)
• To make sure the channel is used consistently and carefully, to protect corporate reputation from silly mistakes or inappropriate use
• To plan varied and interesting content, and enthuse those who will provide it into actively wanting to do so.