In Summary

I have posted a lot about the internet and I am truly fascinated by the ways in which this topic is covered. Despite the media source, it seems that this question of what one can and cannot do on the internet is extremely obscure. However, I noticed that this topic is mostly framed so that audiences feel like they must take a side. The dramatic structural bias is definitely utilized. I think the western media tries to paint a fair picture of what is happening on the internet, however it fails to be totally objective for two reasons: first it mainly examines stories from a human rights perspective and neglects all the other ways this topic manifests itself in our daily lives and second, it is all done from a western lens. There is very little insight or voice given to the subjects of these stories. I think this is a topic I would really like to elaborate on in my final paper.

- Chibuzo

Us Against Them

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews

There was an article yesterday posted on Foxnews.com that discussed Iran's plan for a new 'Halal' internet. According the article, Iranian officials have decided to launch a new type of internet that would "counter the influence of the western world wide web." The point would be to promote an internet that would adhere to traditional Islamic morals and customs. However, members of the National Iranian American council called this move "repressive." They said that the actions on the part of Iran to limit internet freedom are characteristic of an oppressive regime and must be stopped. Again, the media is framing this topic (the internet) in terms of rights and freedom and not only that, it is becoming an us against them situation - a liberator versus subjugator dynamic.

- Chibuzo

Some More Thoughts

Most of my posts up till this point have been article-based. I thought it would be helpful to give a few thoughts on my overall perceptions of media reporting on the subject. After following Wikileaks stories for a couple of months, it seems like most news sources I've checked have moved from focusing less on Julian Assange (although there was a period of time where his sexual escapades were made internationally known) and focusing more on the type of information that Wikileaks releases. In this sense, I've seen news sources move away from pure dramatization and more towards utilizing Wikileaks as an essential information source. Since my last post, I've researched the Guantanamo Bay leaked documents on other sites and have seen the great extent to which news sources manipulate news events to serve political goals. Fox News (unsurprisingly) posed the Guantanamo leaks as being evidence of the political benefits of the detention camp although it generally took a negative stance on Wikileaks itself. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, took a more positive stance on Wikileaks, arguing that it prevent citizens from being "duped by their governments into entering war" in the future.

- Connie

Gitmo

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/26/wikileaks-9-11-mastermind-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-says-he-killed/

I recently came across the above article from AOL on information that was released through Wikileaks from high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainees. One of the key findings from the documents was that in 2002, a senior Al-Qaida military commander had actually warned against killing Wall Street Journal Reporter, Daniel Pearl. If we rewind back to 2002, when Pearl was first kidnapped, taken hostage, and later decapitated, we could easily find evidence of the media firestorm that immediately followed which further galvanized American citizens into war. Though this atrocity was ascribed to Al Qaida as an organization, the documents reveal the complex power dynamics of Al- Quida's leaders and that his murder was not uniformly pre-meditated. The leaked documents also reveal damning evidence that officials at Guantanamo Bay had knowingly detained two innocent men as well as gave an eye-full into the government's questionable use of interrogation tactics on detainees. Though the Obama administration condemned the release of such high-security documents, it also begs the question of whether or not American citizens have a fundamental right to this information? The debate between security and transparency is one that has been given a lot of attention in the political sphere. How can we gauge the danger of too much transparency?

- Connie

The Internet and Free Speech

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380710/Student-Avery-Doninger-looses-free-speech-battle-calling-school-officials-douchebags-online-rant.html

Today I found an article in Mail Online which details the court battle between a young girl and the administration of her school over free speech. This article adds to a collection of articles which discuss freedom of speech and the internet. Avery Donniger, a high school student, called the administrators at her school "Douchebags"on her blog, and as a result, she was banned from serving as the student body secretary. The administration thought that Donniger's comments were "unbecoming of a class officer." When the case was brought to court, the judge agreed with the administration and Donniger's free speech defense was denied because her comments could have potentially " [disrupted] student government functions." The article also mentions that despite the fact that the incident occurred off-campus, the ease of communication and accessibility of the internet effectively makes it an on-campus incident. This is interesting. On the internet, the public and private discourse is blurred and virtually the same. I do not condone Donniger's actions; however, I believe there is something about the internet that makes seemingly trivial expressions of free speech far greater than they ever intended to be, and as such they incur greater consequences. What Donniger said is not unlike what late night comedians say on a daily basis or what politicians say about their opponents, and yet she is not supported by free speech. I am confused. Does the internet undermine free speech?

- Chibuzo

Framing the Internet Debate

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-google-china-idUSTRE73P2XJ20110426

Lately there has been a lot of discussions about the internet and censorship. In fact, this morning an article in Reuters addressed the developing situation between Google and China. Apparently, Google pulled out of China after refusing to adhere to it's strict censorship guidelines; as a result, Google has suffered major financial losses. China has had a long history of censoring the internet and there are many stories detailing China's problems with Google. However, this is the first time I have read this story from an economical frame. Usually, journalist will talk about this story as it relates to censorship, freedom of speech, and the free flow of ideas. However in this article, much of the emphasis is placed on the the economic ramifications of China's refusal to be open. One of the google executives said, "China's massive internet market should not be singled out and treated differently than other markets in the world." This is very interesting because the story becomes a lot more complex. Now, not only is this an issue concerning human rights, but it is also an issue concerning the global economy. Will this significant shift in how this story is framed produce a different response from audiences?

- Chibuzo

Wikileaks Reveals Media Bias

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/analysis-of-civilian-casu_b_660273.html

I included this article as a source on my last paper because it provided a very interesting perspective on the positive externalities of the Wikileak's Afghan War Diary. Before releasing over 10,000 documents related to the War in Afghanistan, Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, first gave access to the documents to The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel (a German publication). Eric Michael Johnson, a writer for the Huffington Post, compared the three stories on the Afghan War Diary on the day they were released to compare how each publication covered the event. He found that the NYT was seven times more likely to downplay civilian casualties in Afghanistan than the other publications. This was further supported by the fact that The New York Times had approached the Obama Administration regarding the news story prior to its release which reinforces the theory that news can be highly influenced by the government. I think that Wikileaks lends itself to a lot of side benefits-- like this content analysis-- that can help reveal media biases in our most trusted news publications. It goes to show how complex the media system is and how newspapers take information from a primary source like Wikileaks and reinterpret news for its own readers.

-Connie