I didn't really like the Araba Sey article

            Araba Sey’s article We use it different, different reminds me a lot of the topics we have covered in Levinson’s class “Communication in Social & Economic Development.’ Her thesis, that ICTs in developing nations are oftentimes used for different purposes intended by those that provide the technologies, has become a common theme in developmental communication. Those disseminating ICTs in the developing world must take into consideration not only the needs of the people, but also the culture of the people in which they are working. It was Bill Gates who said that those in the developing world need access to food and water more than they need access to a computer – providing ICTs may have showcase some developmental improvements in these regions but at the end of the day core issues need to be first resolved.

            Unfortunately this article was lacking in anything really groundbreaking:

“The surveys revealed a similar trend – when subscribers were asked to indicate their top reasons for owning a mobile phone, the most frequently selected reasons were: ‘So other people can contact me’ (74.6%), ‘So I can contact other people’ (69.5%), and for ‘Emergency situations’ (36.4%).”

…Really? So you’re telling me that subscribers in the developing nation of Ghana use their mobile phones to talk to people? Riveting. This article is basically artful rhetoric used to cover up a lack of content. Yes, it’s true, different cultures use ICTs for different reasons, but the fact that mobile telephony in the developing world has been used by its subscribers to increase connectivity is nothing ground breaking.

What’s more groundbreaking is how ICTs, such as TV dramas, are being used in Northeast and Southeast Asia to disseminate information about health related issues. This topic was discussed in Khiun’s Information-Dramatization. Levinson talks about how this tactic was used in Nepal through community radio. That those in the developed world use TV and Radio “serials” for entertainment, those in the developed world have found a way to combat talking about taboo subjects through TV programs to get HRMs (health-related messages) out to the public. That is how a culture truly used ICTs in a different way:

“Not limited to distribution and consumption, the circulation process also entails adaptation and localization of commercially successful foreign screen narratives by cautious television stations.”

            This provides a different way of diffusing information and developing low-income countries in terms of health, a way that is different from the traditional top-down approach where practitioners from the developed world come in and try to immediately introduce an institutional change. By providing ICTs and allowing a more bottom-up, participatory approach, attention is paid to the culture where ICTs are implemented. It is in this way that practitioners can be successful in increasing public awareness of a taboo topic in a developing nation, such as HIV aids or women’s health issues. 

A Western Gaze

An Alibi for a Magazine

     Images of female refugees have been used by the US and many international organizations to promote and draw attention to a specific cause. The photograph of the Afghan Girl is not unique, but the global circumstances surrounding her 1985 National Geographic cover allows communications scholars to draw connections between post 9-11 images of the plight of Afghan women and those of the Afghan Girl. Recent communications scholars have seen a connection between the justification for military intervention in Afghanistan and the use of images of Afghan women in creating the “Afghan Alibi.” The Afghan Alibi is a relatively new field of study and is founded on “Eurocentric representations of Afghan women.” [1] The Afghan Alibi is centered on post-colonial and feminist theories and how their interpretations of images depicting Afghan women, supports western justifications for intervention, colonization, and territorial occupation. For this cause, no image has had more of an impact than the groundbreaking image of the Afghan Girl in 1985. 

     National Geographic has long played a role in US history and continues to promote a distinctly pro US agenda as with its depictions of the Afghan Girl on the cover of the 1985 issue. The decision to place the image of the Afghan Girl on the cover of National Geographic in 1985 was calculated and strategic with an aim to foster public support for increased US aid to Afghanistan.

     National Geographic was founded on racist ideologies that promoted paternalistic colonialist attitudes that reinforced the existing stereotypes that Europeans were “at the pinnacle of civilization” while non-western cultures and civilizations were inherently backwards. Rae Lynn Scwartz-DuPre lays emphasis on the importance of National Geographic as an institution for promoting the US as “rational, generous, and benevolent.”  

A Western Gaze

     The Afghan Girl is seen by Western audiences as a frail, helpless girl, who has no control over her future. This simplistic representation of the plight of refugees from the conflict in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation, has allowed Western audiences to feel sympathy and promote change in the region. Schwartz-DuPre identifies race, veil, refugee status, direct eye contact and frontal posture as signifiers of inferiority.  The photo shows a girl looking directly at the audience with “sea green” eyes.  The uniquely “western” eyes allow for the audience to connect and identify with the subject and help to evoke paternalistic emotions which helped justify US intervention to aid the refugees.  These emotions are reinforced by the fact that she is twelve years old, a refugee, and is wearing a veil. The veil further exemplifies western perceptions of the plight of women in Afghanistan and the Muslim world. Although the Western perception of the Muslim woman can be linked to the colonial narratives, more recently there has been a close link with feminism The veil is seen in the West as a tool of oppression towards women and evokes emotions amongst Western audiences to intervene and “free” or “unveil” them.

Pictures Change the World

     In the article Schwartz-DuPre states, “Photographs of the victims of war are themselves species of rhetoric. They reiterate. They simplify. They Agitate. They create the illusion of consensus.”[2]  The timing of the depiction of the Afghan Girl and the scale and sophistication of the aid given to Afghanistan demonstrates the effectiveness of images as tools to convey messages. The Afghan Girl is not unlike other photographs which depict the horrors of war where images of nameless female refugees have been used by a plethora of international organizations to evoke emotions, raise awareness and gain support.  Schwartz-DuPre makes a very relevant point that after American audiences were familiar with the 1985 Afghan Girl, the US media could simply evoke the same emotional response using images of veiled Afghan women. The image of the Afghan girl and veiled women bring to light the justifications that sold the current war in Afghanistan to the American public. It is important to “recognize that history often repeats itself; fort he images that refigure our future in many cases mirrors our past.”[3]

---

[1] Rae Lynn Scwartz-DuPre (2010): Portraying the Political: National Geographic’s 1985 Afghan Girl and a US Alibi for Aid, Critical Studies in Media Communications, 27:4, 337

[2] Sontang, S. (1973). On Photography. New York: Picador. 6

[3] Rae Lynn Scwartz-DuPre (2010): Portraying the Political: National Geographic’s 1985 Afghan Girl and a US Alibi for Aid, Critical Studies in Media Communications, 27:4, 352

An Iron Fence Preventing Cultural Communication

“To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.”[1] American journalist Edward R. Murrow, made this statement about the importance of the broadcasting, both domestically and abroad. However, sixty years later, the U.S. has retained restrictions over international broadcastings being run within the U.S. since the establishment of the Smith-Mundt Act in 1948. The continued existence of the Smith-Mundt ban on domestic dissemination of organizations such as Voice of America (VOA), and U.S. government-produced international broadcasting (USIB) products, has created an "iron fence" preventing the U.S. public from accessing cultural communication networks, which broadcast inclusive coverage of world-news.  


Viewed as one of the most influential laws, the Smith-Mundt act, has raised contemporary concerns due to the dynamic change of the international environment compared to the period after WWII, when it was created. According to critiques, the Smith-Mundt act creates barriers in oversight and prevents cultural communication.  For example, possessing an educational and cultural exchange component focused on the promotion of American information abroad, the act was created as a counter-wait to the (former) USSR and signed into law under a "cold-war context". Seeing the need to foreign audiences to learn more about the U.S. by establishing programs abroad was essentially the Smith-Mundt acts main goal. Consequently, Congress did not include a two-way exchange component within this legislation due to a consensus that materials created for foreign audiences should not publicized within American borders.  


 It was not until 1972 that an amendment was added onto the act, sponsored by Senator J. William Fulbright.  However, during the same year the 1972 Foreign Relations Authorization Act that prevents domestic dissemination of “information about the United States, its policies, and its people”[2] prepared for foreign audiences was created to support the Smith-Mundt act. Why this act still remains in place today, may be closely tied to a security aspect more so than a prescribed ban on preventing cultural communication.  However, by default the Smith-Mundt act has prevented the American publics access to wide-ranging information on foreign affairs. Even now, the act hinders use of significant journalistic resources by both public and private networks in the U.S.[3] Whether or not this "iron fence" will be removed remains to be seen at this time.
__________________
[1,2, and 3] Metzgar, T. Emily.  Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt, and the American Public. (2012). Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101. Retrieved from: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publications/METZGARPDSmithMundt& theAmericanPublic.pdf. Accessed on November 28, 2012.

Strategic Communication: U.S.-China Public and Cultural Diplomacy

While not new concepts, public and cultural diplomacy have subsequently become embracing elements within the realm of international relations for not only establishing close communication, but also developing long-term relationships.  In the case of the U.S. and China, over the past few years both nations have increased the use of soft power methods to promote their respective cultures, values, and ideals by interacting with other states, and more importantly engaging with the foreign public. 


Utilizing two soft power methods of diplomacy the U.S. and China are pursuing new forms of statecraft within their engagement with one another.  One strong reason behind this statement relates to the Chinese government's Confucius Institute initiative, which first began in 2004.  This public and cultural diplomacy initiative made by China, was established to promote cultural exchanges and the learning of Chinese language and culture.  

Viewed as an instrument of soft power the Confucius Institutes,which are housed by host institutions, (majorly higher education institutions)  focus on building more peaceful relationships between China and other nations, by promoting a deeper understanding of Chinese culture, values, and ideals. Following suit, this past year, the  U.S. approved funding  new introductory American Cultural Centers in China.  These centers, similar to the Confucius Institutes, promote cultural and education exchange.  However, not focusing on English-language learning the American Cultural Centers provide a venue for Chinese citizens to engage with U.S. citizens and develop a greater understanding of the U.S. and American culture.


As major trade and investment partners, China and the U.S. have acknowledged that in creating a more collaborative partnership, both nations need to also strengthen their understanding of each other's cultures.  Using strategic communication, one of the three dimensions of public diplomacy,[1]  to develop closer bilateral relations, both countries have placed a strong emphasis on people-to-people exchanges through public and cultural diplomacy efforts. 


Pursuing these initiatives, both countries have shown that they are progressively working toward becoming more focused global partners[2], through their outreach approach toward gaining foreign audience attention; and for the U.S. specifically, an inward approach toward supporting its own citizen engagement to participate in this cultural exchange. 

 _____________________

[1] Metzgar, T. Emily.  Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt, and the American Public. (2012). Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101. Retrieved from: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publications/METZGARPDSmithMundt&th eAmericanPublic.pdf. Accessed on November 28, 2012.

* According to Joseph S. Nye, there are three dimensions to public diplomacy:daily communication, strategic communication and development of long-term relationships.  Equally important, all nations exercise some form of public diplomacy in order to create and sustain connections with foreign publics in hopes of making the world an easier place to implement their preferred foreign policies.  

[2] Hachigian, Nina. Re-thinking U.S.-China relations.19 November 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/hachigian-china-idUSL1E8MJ5TO20121119.

 

Embed With You

The embedding of journalists in times of war gives unprecedented access to media outlets, but also allows the military to manufacture a positive outlook on war.  Access to military units allows for an unprecedented viewpoint of war, but also limits media outlets into reporting the trials and tribulations of the individual military units which does not allow for impartial, objective and fair coverage.

            Embed with you

            The strategic placement of journalists in military units during the invasion of Iraq was planned by the pentagon to streamline the censoring process of war journalism.  Journalists were mandated to go through basic military training and familiarize themselves with the units they were embedded with. The conflict of interest that arises from the embedding is apparent when observing whether embedded journalists reported positively or negatively on the war. By having a journalist train, eat, sleep, and ultimately depend on the military units for their safety, it created an environment where journalists were unable to establish objectivity.

 The essence of journalism lies with the concept of being objective, fair and impartial, but the process of getting a journalist ready to embed, undergoing military training and getting to know the soldiers on a personal level, indoctrinates the journalist in military ideology and inevitably allows for the journalists to have a pro-military viewpoint.

Although the core principles of journalism lie with the ability to give an objective and unbiased viewpoint of a particular conflict, the role of media during the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 facilitated the use of media as a tool of propaganda for the Pentagon. After 9/11 being pro-war was equated to patriotism and any opposition to the war was met with harsh criticism and was labeled as being unpatriotic and un-American.  Journalists wanting to obtain firsthand information pertaining to the invasion of Iraq had little or no choice whether to embed themselves with a military unit or be “on the ground” with the civilians.Furthermore, journalists handpicked by the military based on whether previous publications were pro or antiwar.  The pro-war journalists were picked while the antiwar journalists were omitted from consideration for embedment with a military unit. The selection process conducted by the military did not allow for objective, fair and unbiased viewpoints of the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I Object

            The role of journalists during the initial invasion of Iraq was as the public affairs arm of the military. The Pentagon placed pressure on journalists to report positively on the troops and their involvement, obliging journalist to present the role of the US as positive. Journalists have played a valuable role in manufacturing public consent.  The Pentagon, aware of the power of media on public perception, easily justified the inclusion of embedded journalists in the invasion. Contractually constricting them, as well as fostering camaraderie between the soldiers and journalists, created a social dynamic that made it practically impossible to obtain objectivity, fairness or impartiality.

            The strategic use of embedded journalists during the invasion allowed for a sympathetic US audience to find commonality with the soldiers and observe them as heroes and protectors of democracy. The intellectual sacrifice which journalists had to make allowed them to justify their actions because of the almost “Stockholm syndrome” like commonality which the journalists developed in the field, making it very difficult for journalists to scrutinize and obtain an objective and fair view of the war.

            The inability and incapability of US journalists to embed themselves with Iraqi soldiers and civilians did not allow the US audience to see the social, physical, and physiological impact of the invasion on the public.  This disconnect, created and fostered by the embed program, allowed for the US public to have an idealistic and optimistic outlook on the war and the consequences of the US presence in Iraq. 

Trust me

            The dangers of embedded journalism are on both the domestic and international level.  Domestically the inability of journalists to give an impartial viewpoint of the war created an illusion that the war was not only justified, but also wanted by Iraqi civilians. This portrayal of consent allowed the US public to justify the otherwise illegal US presence in Iraq. The US media also portrayed the Iraqi’s as grateful recipients of democracy who were liberated form the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein.  Internationally, embedded journalism created a mistrust of US media outlets and was understood to be a tool of the US government in manufacturing consent for the internationally illegitimate and illegal war against Iraq.[1]

---

[1] Brandenburg, H. “Security at the Source: Embedding journalists as a superior strategy to military censorship,” Journalism Studies (Vol. 8, No. 6, 2007)