22.6.09

BrightBike by Mandiberg

Huh, this is a pretty cool cyclist idea, mixed with a smart and quick presentation via social media. Check it out.

19.6.09

To: Iran


To: Iran

You have the support of the Free World. We are now approaching the sixtieth anniversary of the Berlin Airlift, when the international community stood up against the forces of oppression. And we did so again in 1963 when the Soviets erected the Berlin Wall in an attempt to imprison their own population, and Kennedy famously came to the city of West Berlin and declared "Ich bin ein Berliner." Now we are all Iranians. Freedom knows no master.

From: Tristan Coolen, democrat

p.s. Be sure to check out the title link at the top, it's pretty good. Also, here's a link to the Time magazine if you want to check out what's inside.

16.6.09

In Defense of CNN

There's been a lot of talk about the failures of CNN and the mainstream media to cover the Iranian elections. I touched on this in my last blog entry, but I wanted to expand on it.

Principally the complaints are two-parted: That coverage is wholly insufficient and then that what little coverage there is seems to be hesitant to stray from the Iranian government line. Mainstream media journalists are seemingly ignoring the tidal wave of information pouring forth out of the social media networks, and instead merely saying that "President Ahmadinejad retained his position according to the official election process with 65 percent of the vote. Ayatollah Khomeini released a statement Monday inviting Mousavi and his supporters to identify ballot areas that they would like to be recounted."

Meanwhile frantic Iranian Twitterers are reporting millions of marchers and blood in the streets.

In defense of CNN, I think some might be getting a little confused by the way journalists write. "Official reports" mean that they are the reports that are coming from government officials, not that they are objectively true. The editing process is a lot more stringent than people think, but part of that means that things have to be written in a certain way or it takes inches and inches to explain.

Professional journalists try to limit themselves to attributable statements and provable facts, and that's why they are having a tough time writing about a movement that is heavily based on rumor and anonymous Internet users.

As a joe-blow citizen, I can write: "That hick Ahmadinejad rigged the election and now his goons are killing peaceful demonstrators. It's an affront to democracy everywhere and the entire world should damn him and Khomeini for it." But if I'm working as a journalist then I can't say any of that because I have no proof or attributable sources and I need to avoid editorializing.

The journalistic industry as a whole is totally averse to printing anything that is unsubstantiated, and if you want to print a quote from an anonymous source (or often just somebody's first name) then you usually have to get all sorts of people to sign off on you doing it. And for good reason. It isn't good enough to simply say, "Here's what someone might have said, we have no proof that it is at all true and we can't say who said it," because that's a just a quick trip to fictitious stories and libel suits.

That doesn't excuse mainstream media for letting stupid shit sit on their front pages and interviewing the Jonas brothers while people are dying in the streets, but you have to recognize the position they are in - either they have to find a way to report on hearsay or they have to play the same stuff over and over.

Journalists shouldn't remain mute if they know of a good story in the making, but there's a need to hold their enthusiasm somewhat. Let Twitter and YouTube have the glory of the 24-hour live coverage, and focus on getting it right. Hell, baseless journalism from overexcited journalists making assumptions is what helped get us into Iraq.

14.6.09

Twittering the Iran Election

I've been spending much of the last day or so online watching the Iran election and Twittering about it. My previous resistance to using Twitter seems to have dissipated, especially because I found a gadget that allowed me to put it onto my iGoogle homepage as well as automatically update it to my Facebook and Blog. Very easy to use on a whim, and it goes out to a wide range of people.

The Iranian elections have been carried almost entirely online, with mainstream media sources being limited by both logistics as well as Iranian government authorities prohibiting coverage. Instead of my television, people have been using Web proxies to use online services like Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and more.

It's interesting to see how each event like this seems to have these social media sources rapidly outpacing the mainstream news. Part of this is because of the limitations upon journalists to avoid publishing hearsay, but CNN and the BBC seem to be falling further behind each time.

This is particularly true for events that affect broad range of people and have significant duration. Previous examples are the attacks in Mumbai, or even the original RNC convention that put Twitter on the map. At this point the mainstream media is putting out information that is hours out of date and is therefore pretty worthless. The signal to noise ratio is definitely lower, but the sheer amount of output and self-correction is making for some incredible coverage.

For example, Iranian students like this one have been providing live coverage during brutal attacks upon the student dorms by Iranian Hezbollah. A very different, visceral kind of journalism.

Additionally, major blogs and news agencies are beginning to really incorporate this kind of social media into their reporting. Places like the Huffington Post are following trending topics like #IranElection in order to collate good information and collective it, while larger news agencies such as CNN International are contacting popular Twitter users in order to gather first-person sources.

It's a changing world. Of course, there's no money in it either.

7.6.09

Paths of Good Intentions

I was talking to some people online about national actions and good intentions. It was argued that the United States doesn't have good intentions and that it doesn't act sufficiently selflessly. It was argued that we should hold nations up to higher standards, because those nations that act in their own self-interest are immoral and evil. I disagreed, not because I support selfishness, but because I thought it was an unrealistic standard. I was asked what my definition of "good intentions" would be, and here was my reply:

I'd say that people in general have good intentions, as do nations, but there are also going to be ulterior motives at play. That's just human nature. We act in our own best interest, and indeed our democratically-elected representatives are expected to prioritize national interests.

What this means is that we do what we can, and we're trying to do better, but it is impossible to expect a nation to always act for the "global good" (whatever that may be).

The Rwandan wars and genocides are a perfect example of the complexity of national actions and ethics versus their abilities and responsibilities. The whole stems out of such a complex interaction of causes and effects that it is impossible to determine who is in the right.

The Belgians had brutally colonized the country, established a racist system of government that engendered hate on all sides, and then tried to rectify the situation by splitting the country in two. However, by doing so it led directly to war and genocide. When the Belgians saw what was happening, they evacuated all the whites and quietly took their leave.

The Belgian actions created a civil war in the name of democracy and independence, and each side of the conflict committed genocide upon the other, driving the others across the country at the point of a sword. A power-sharing agreement was put into place when the dust settled, but it still left two million Hutu refugees with many militias intermingled. The UN asks for help, but everyone recognizes that the whole thing is such a shit storm that no one wants to get involved. The U.S. didn't put troops on the ground to deliver security, but it did deliver food directly and via NGOs. Israel, France and a small contingent of European nations offered medical care and a limited amount of security.

Those resources then caused riots and deaths and were abused by the militia to exert control. Recognizing such, the U.S., the NGOs and the other Western nations left. Many more refugees died of disease, and political instability further empowered the militias. The UN called for support, and no others wanted to get involved. After asking 40 other nations, Cold War anti-communist and then-dictator of Zaire, Mobuto Seko, offered troops to instill some level of security. It worked for a limited amount of time, but when Zaire's political instability became too great it spread to Rwanda and set off the genocide and two of the deadliest wars since World War II.

Congo, Uganda, and other neighboring countries get involved. Many different militias get involved. Leaders from all backgrounds get involved. Some help, such as the now-famous Canadian general Romeo Dallaire. Some worsen the situation. Eventually the sheer amount of death and destruction seemed to bring the remaining warring parties together to create coalition government that still has huge problems. There's still so many resistant militias out in the forest that some consider the civil war to still continue. A war that started, in many ways, back in 1963, with the end of colonial rule. Between two groups whose differences are extremely arbitrary, and are really just a function of history rather than culture or race.

Who are the good guys and who are the bad ones? Belgium, France, Israel and the U.S. are the only nations in the world to contribute significantly to halt the fighting, and they all have been simultaneously lambasted for making it worse, and for not doing more. Were they in the wrong for trying to help out? Was Belgium in the wrong for granting independence in the first place? These questions don't have satisfactory answers, and they just aren't useful.

For the UN and the NGOs this was a huge crisis of conscience, and displayed the limitations inherent in institutions that operate without cooperation with military forces. They withdrew from a nation that needed them most, because they thought they were making it worse. And then, after reorganizing and reexamining their mandate, they did it again in Sudan.

So who should we assume had good intentions? I don't think it matters that much. I'm sure most did, but then again the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fundamentally the people who started the wars didn't have motivations particularly different from the ones who ended it, they just had a different perspective. No one was completely blameless in this mess, but most had motivations that were seated in ending the genocide.

If I've learned anything about politics, is that it is best to not spend a lot of time questioning the motivations, and to focus on moving forward towards solutions that people can agree on. It's nice to be able to sit down and point fingers and blame people for this and that, but it doesn't really get anywhere productive because everyone is guilty of mistakes, and things always end up turning out unexpectedly, particularly in a war. Peace is a better goal than moral victory, and in 20 years they can set up a Truth and Reconciliation commission to try and work out the ghosts.

So what is my definition of "good intentions"? It's trying to make things better for those you care about, hopefully without hurting too many people in the process. I think that's the only real standard that's worth anything. Judging people's morals by the results of their actions is a crapshoot.