The Free Amina Hoax, discovered to be Thomas (Tom) J MacMaster.

Thanks in large part to the work of Ali Abunimah and Benjamin Doherty, Andy Carvin, Liz Henry, and Jillian York, the Gay Girl in Damascus is no more.  But how do we move on?

In a brilliant and comprehensive post, Ethan Zuckerman rightly suggests that trust in citizen sources will be damaged, particularly those bloggers who hide their identities because they live in repressive regimes.  Those fighting hardest to get media out of countries like Syria will be badly hit. Regimes are able to once again portray citizen media as fabricated lies peddled by foreigners.  And activists promoting campaigns online will have to work doubly hard to win support.

But perhaps skepticism is a healthy thing. Perhaps we have needed a good dose of it for a while now.  What would be a positive outcome of increased skepticism about citizen media?

One thing that big media could do almost immediately is publish a nutritional guide to any article that relies substantially on citizen or unverified sources.  This could be published at the top of the article, and should contain two things: a statement of how confident the media outlet is of the source’s authenticity and the efforts that have been taken so far to establish that level of confidence.

This could take the form of a checklist that over time could evolve into a easily recognisable nutritional guide to news content, replete with little emblems or colour coding.

I imagine two checklists. First, the level of confidence:

1. We are working to verify this source but cannot assume it is authentic at this time
2. We have some reason to believe this source is authentic
3. We have strong reasons to believe this source is authentic
4. We have independently verified this source

Any source that is junk should be called out, but more importantly articles based on its output should be retracted or updated to remove the source.

Second, you need a checklist for steps taken to verify the citizen source:

1. Content Cross-referenced with other citizen media from same location and date
2. Email contact established with the source
3. Internet phone contact established with the source
4. Mobile phone contact established with the source
5. Video contact established with the source
6. Partner media outlet has met this source face-to-face
7. We have met this source face-to-face

Perhaps email contact or cross-referencing produces ‘We are working to verify this source but cannot assume it is authentic at this time’; perhaps a combination of email and internet phone contact produces ‘We have some reason to believe this source is authentic’; perhaps mobile or video contact produces ‘We have strong reasons to believe this source is authentic’; and face-to-face contact produces ‘We have independently verified this source’.

Often other news organisations provide some cover of credibility for a source. So when A Gay Girl in Damascus was covered by big media, it took off.   That’s why this nutritional check list should really evolve into a Media Sources Database, which the big media share (hence item 6. in the list above).

Imagine if all citizen sources appearing in articles published online by the top media outlets presented a link to a media sources database with all the key information regarding the authenticity of the source. For example, any description of communications sustained with that source by any of the big media.  This information could be made readily accessible in a javascript popup on the dynamic link to the source.

Taking steps to authenticate sources is as important as ever – perhaps more so now that sources can self-publish under so many different guises.  Big media could do more to represent to their audiences the level of confidence they have in that source and the steps taken to establish that level of confidence. Better still, they could share that information and make it readily available across multiple international audiences for the betterment of digital journalism.

Egyptian blogger Eman AbdelRahman aka LastoAdri. Courtesy of Oso on Flickr.

Why did the Mubarak regime turn the internet off?

That was the question I asked the attendees of a gathering recently at the Oxford Internet Institute looking at the role of the internet in the revolutions sweeping the Middle East. The question gives us, I suggested, a route into understanding the other side of the equation, ie. How authoritarian regimes maintain their power. It therefore connects us to a long standing debate that has encompassed media studies, cultural anthropology, political science and more.

My provisional response was to suggest that turning the internet off was more than anything a gesture of power that shed light on how an authoritarian regime perceived its ability to exercise control. Yes, turning off the internet was an attempt to stop activists using free publishing tools online to organise protests and share information. Yes, turning off the internet worked to prevent information reaching the outside world and so perhaps preserved for one more day alliances with powers who were not going to like the violence and repression that had to be meted out to protect regime interests. But perhaps more importantly, turning off the internet was a gesture of a power relation. We can do this. You cannot stop us. We are in power, you are not. Targeting the internet as a way of stating the existence of a relationship of power just goes to show how embedded the internet had become in Egyptian society, and that its long term role had been to help render the tools of authoritarianism far less effective. In a paradoxical way then, the Egyptian government’s decision was a statement of its powerlessness in the face of the long term impact of the internet.

A number of caveats are necessary. A revolution depends on many factors coming together at the same time: the fuel of long term economic grievances and repression, a cadre of young people willing to die, the fuse of a revolutionary setting – in this case that incredible moment broadcast on Al Jazeera and other satellite networks when President Ben Ali fled Tunisia in the face of the unstoppable force of public protests. Perhaps more importantly for this debate is the caveat that illiteracy and poverty exclude many millions of people from social media in Egypt. Despite these caveats, and without wanting to be trapped in the eddies of the causality debate, social media was influential enough for it to be worth discussing. According to statistics shared by the impressive Noha Atef – founder of a blog documenting torture and Twitter user extraordinaire – there are perhaps as many as 21 million internet subscriptions in Egypt, a figure that demonstrates how the internet has come to play an important role in the country. A middle class phenomenon perhaps, but powerful in its reach.

In taking the longer term view, rather than focusing on the immediate examples of how social media were used in the protests, we can look at the role of social media in helping to undermine the tools of authoritarianism. Three areas are of particular interest: 1) the ways in which authoritarian states obstruct the Freedom of to assemble, 2) the way in which authoritarian regimes control public space with propaganda, objects of fear and the cult of personality, and 3) the ways in which repressive regimes attempt to block critical thinking and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Assembly

Many of the protest movements sweeping the Middle East have gathered pace in towns outside the capital. Sidi Bouzid, Suez, Daraa, Benghazi. But in each case, the protest movement needs to also take hold in the capital, and more specifically in a symbolic location and central gathering place. Only that way could the protest take on the regime in a national sense – a blow to the heart. The best example of this was Tahrir Square which became effectively proto-liberated space for the protesters. It represented what you might describe as ‘sacred national space’ where peace and fraternity reigned amongst those committed to the revolution and both Muslims and Christians could pray alongside one another. A junction at the heart of the capital city, Tahrir became the beating heart of the revolution, so much so that Al Jazeera and other news networks had to broadcast the scene there almost continuously to all corners of the country and beyond. By reclaiming Tahrir Square and fighting every regime attempt to clear it, the Egyptian protesters reclaimed the heart of Egypt for themselves.

Facebook pages and Twitter hashtags provided similar gathering places. These were assembly points that attracted the focus of the many (in the case of Twitter the focus of the most active activists and international networks). On Facebook Kulina Khaled Said and the April 6 Youth Movement were prominent throughout. So too was the January Revolution Day against Torture Poverty Corruption and Unemployment. On Twitter, the hashtag that gathered most attention was #jan25. To be prominent, hashtags and Facebook pages necessarily required wide community participation – just as holding Tahrir required a big number of dedicated protesters in it for the long haul. The impact and attention of these gathering places forced the regime to acknowledge the protesters. Unlike regime media that could largely ignore the protests at the start, to interrupt these gathering points either required using them – thereby acknowledging them – to spread the regime line, or removing access to them altogether (by blocking the service or turning the internet off).

The focus here on date and time is particularly interesting. Why use a date for a revolutionary hashtag? Many other protest movements have used a date on Twitter too – Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Syria. So the trend is deeply rooted. A date is important because it suggests rupture. Although – as Noha Atef pointed out – the revolution began many years before in the gradual activism of a new cohort of web-savvy young people, the symbolic date of rupture was January 25 in Egypt. Before this date, Mubarak reigned supreme. After this date he was effectively ruined. The date announced the rebirth of the nation, the narrative moment in which Egyptians took history into their own hands, purging themselves of the past ills imposed on them by a corrupt regime. This date of rebirth was in many ways more significant than the date on which Hosni Mubarak stepped down – as the continued use of the hashtag attests.

Dates, landmarks and national narratives are deeply interrelated in Egypt, inscribed as they are into the history books and the geography of Cairo. Many of the bridges and major thoroughfares are named after important historical dates (October 6, May 15, July 26). The hashtag had a similar connection to Tahrir. It was both a space, a landmark and a new national narrative, written by the community outside of the control of the regime. In using it, Egyptians broke through the atomization enforced on them through years of Emergency Law preventing them from freely assembling to demand their rights and influence policy. Just as the community collectively broke through the barrier of fear by taking to the streets in such numbers on 25 January, numbers so large that individually the Egyptian protesters faced a greatly reduced risk of reprisal from the regime, so Egyptians took courage in collectively joining Facebook pages and contributing to the #jan25 hashtag on mass.

Propaganda and the Cult of Personality

Authoritarian regimes flourished in the days of old media in large part because the one-to-many paradigm of radio, television and print favoured central control on the distribution of information and ideas. Just as public space could be cluttered with the paraphernalia of the ruler (statues, portraits, banners, insignia on cars), so public media could be cluttered with the propaganda of the regime. This helped to spread fear and furnish the idea that everyone else was wildly supportive of the ruling regime (a process in sharp focus in Bashar Al-Assad’s speech to parliament on 30 March 2011). Some scholars have suggested that the effectiveness of this propaganda quickly wears thin with the people; it is not so much then that Egyptians believed everything Mubarak said or Al Ahram told them, rather they had no power to prevent this propaganda intermediating between their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Rather, propaganda acted as a code for describing acceptable behaviour and denied the viability of alternatives to regime rule. As political parties, syndicates and other public bodies are quickly co-opted by the regime, so ‘independent’ mass media are co-opted to distribute regime messages and sideline challenges. Public debate largely ceases to exist or is marginalised, so there is little opportunity to take part in public debate. The regime flourishes in this environment.

But what happens when you have publishing tools that provide for dense inter-connected networks? Egyptian use of Twitter is the perfect example of this. Twitter is the fruition of trends in the web that emphasize networked inter-linked information where everything is social. Everything is linked: users are hyperlinks, topics (hashtags) are hyperlinks, tweets are hyperlinks, replies are connected hyperlinks. Moreover, Twitter is a gateway to other content through traded links. So tools like Discus allow you to see all the users gathering around a particular url on Twitter. Retweets and suggested links broaden and enrich the connections users are willing to take part in between one another. Egyptian activists took this opportunity to build their own web of people and information which was integrated over time into the global link economy.

The point here is not to eulogize the brilliance of Twitter, but to show that its functions – which are the result of evolving trends in the social web – and the breadth of its global community provide for a dense network of people and information which is a direct threat to the stability of regime propaganda through old media. In their own way, Wordpress, Facebook, YouTube and all the other popular web services do a similar thing. In a multi-polar networked paradigm that crosses barriers of location, culture and ideology it is much harder for any one set of interests to take full control. The atomizing effect of regime propaganda is sorely undermined. Simply put, social tools escape the authoritarian suppression of sociability (unless you turn the internet off).

Governments can’t be ‘social’ – only people in communities can. The US Defence Department is surely learning this. So the Mubarak regime’s efforts to insert itself into the evolving online network was doomed to failure. Just as it could not stir enough people onto the streets to counter the revolutionary demonstrations, so it could not tackle the weight of community action online when the floodgates truly opened (#jan25). The regime’s decision to send threatening text messages through the Vodafone network are a case in point. They did not stem the tide of the Egyptian Revolution. Similarly, Mubarak’s televised addresses had the feeling of watching history, literally. This is how the regime treated Egyptians for so long. It was captivating for western audiences to see a dictator in the act of dictating. The content of those speeches could never have met protester expectations precisely because protesters called for Mubarak to go, and in the absence of any meaningful progressive political platform from the regime (was there ever one?), the televised addresses were surely designed simply to show who was in power. But they actually worked the other way. They provided fuel for the community to enervate its critiques and lampoon a dictator. The addresses enhanced the sense of the clumsy powerlessness of the regime, its crass ineptitude, its emptiness. The display demonstrated that the regime’s power had long since evaporated. Suddenly the idea of ruling a country for 30 years looked something incredible and unlikely.

Freedom of Speech

When I was living in Egypt in 2006, I came to know two middle class female bloggers (muhagabat) in their early twenties who blogged anonymously. My interest in their blog stemmed from the fact that they were not tackling overtly ‘political’ topics, but nevertheless their blog was deeply political. They used the blog as a critique of their family life, and particularly to vent against their parents and wider social norms. Why can’t we live in a place of our own outside the family home? Why are we expected to get married and have children? Why won’t my dad let me come back to the house when I want? Around this agenda gathered a community of peer bloggers who offered support and self-affirmation. This small community worked to take on bloggers with opposing world views who stumbled across the blog from the wider public.

The interesting point here was that by blogging and gathering anonymously in this way, the group began to formulate and disseminate a social critique that previously could not have been propagated in public space. So the blog acted for them as a node of critique. This kind of interaction was being repeated among the young educated Egyptian middle class right across Egypt, creating new avenues for free expression and debate, though largely ignored by the media pundits interested more in activists fighting torture. The long term repercussions of this evolution in the Egyptian public sphere cannot be underestimated. Though gradual in terms of the life span of social media, this change is rapid and profound in the broader social history of the Middle East, and surely its impacts will be felt for a long time to come.

Conclusion

We cannot boil revolutions down to a simple equation such as [social media + young people + grievances = revolution]. But then nor can we ignore social media use as an important and growing trend that has direct implications for the way in which authoritarian regimes exercise power. We should be cautious about many aspects of social media – linguistic hegemony, increased status competition, the erosion of privacy protections. Nevertheless, we should celebrate the long term impact of social media use that has created a more networked, community-led, editable public sphere.

On Wednesday 8 September, with the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks still three days away, Kabul police went on high alert for violent protests in the Afghan capital. The move was triggered not by the repercussions of a local conflict, but the actions of a little-known American church pastor thousands of miles away in Florida who was planning to burn copies of the Qur’an in a protest against what he called ‘radical Islam’.

The crisis, which elicited stark warnings from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, followed weeks of intense debate in the United States about the viability of establishing a mosque and inter-faith center in the Manhattan district adjacent to Groud Zero. Detractors of the plan spoke in apocalyptic terms, referring variously to the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ as a plan to establish a ‘Muslim Caliphate on the ashes of Ground Zero’ and a ‘center for training terrorists’.

Just a week before Pastor Terry Jones’ controversial move, bottles, cans, stones and three smoke bombs were thrown in the northern English town of Bradford at a protest by the English Defence League (EDL), a far right group that aims to counter the ‘Jihad movement based in England’. The group has rallied in many British cities, each time bringing wide media attention to its actions. The reason broadcasters make sure to cover EDL events, even though protests are often small, is that they are almost guaranteed to result in pictures of violence. The EDL’s founder, Tommy Robinson, in turn admitted that his movement in part grew up in response to a tiny vociferous protest by some very extreme Muslims who greeted the homecoming of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment with banners reading “Butchers of Basra” and “Anglian soldiers go to hell”.

Picture courtesy Yannig Van de Wouwer under creative commons license.

In an interconnected world, mass media can lose sight of the boundaries between the local and obscure on the one hand, and the global on the other. A pastor’s tiny and inane protest becomes an issue of global significance. But really it shouldn’t be.

The BBC experiment connected web users across languages

The BBC appears to be thinking seriously about using translation to connect its global audience online.

On Thursday the World Service hosted a cross-language discussion between English, Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, Persian, Indonesian and Spanish speakers with Google’s Machine Translation service providing translations.

What ensued was a bizarre disjointed discussion about nothing much in particular, resembling a collection of spam attacks.

‘I would l like to use this opportunity to introduce you about Somaliland’ … ‘May we be healthy, live calm and help those who need us most’ … ‘Someone knows Bournemouth, UK? Is an interesting city to visit?’ … ‘I want to tell to the world that Jesus is coming. read Jhon 3:16 please look for in on the BIBLE’.

Full marks for the effort and the vision to think about using translation. But perhaps the BBC should be talking to some of the players in the field who could help them build a more useful cross-language debate with better translation.

They could have used the translation community from Global Voices Lingua for example, with the translation tools developed by Worldwide Lexicon which enable humans to edit and improve MT translations right there on the page, supplying data that is housed on an open source translation memory (WWL has just released a brilliant translation plugin for Wordpress I’ll be blogging about shortly).

It’s also worth comparing what the BBC did with Meedan. Our cross-language Arabic-English interface – which clearly shows the status of a comment translation, the original language it was posted in, the direction of translation, who is author of the comment and who translated it, and whether it is a human or automatic translation – is leaps and bounds ahead of this early BBC experiment.

Still, it’s great to see a major publisher on the internet thinking creatively about crossing languages, which does benefit to everyone in the space working to build the polyglot web.

George discussing Meedan's approach to collaborative translation at the Centre for Translation Studies

There was a great turn out, particularly from Arabic students, and I was absolutely amazed be the quality of the feedback.

We discussed Meedan’s approach and how to get started using the tools, and I tried to demonstrate how getting involved would increase translators’ opportunities by boosting their profile, increasing their technology awareness and honing their translation skills with a live audience.

I used a delicious tag to organize pages for discussion and then used the new beta Delicious browsebar to scroll through them (with one or two minor slip-ups). You can see my notes on this google doc.

The students were really interested in ensuring quality and resolving disputes.

Students get to see Meedan's cross-language news sharing site for the first time

One suggested we should have a translation discussion page alongside the translation history of any comment – a great idea. Another suggested a feed of human translated content – a feature we’ve had in the pipeline for some time at Meedan.

There was also a suggestion that you should be able to receive updates for any piece of content you create on Meedan. Perhaps you’ve written a comment or posted a link and want to know when someone translates it. Or maybe you’re a translator and you’d like to be informed if someone modifies your edits.

These seem like such brilliant ideas – and it is always refreshing to hear them live from an audience.

So I hope we can take this presentation to other universities and translation studies centres in the coming months because it has proved to be a great way for us to learn, and get the Meedan message out at the same time.

We’ve so far spoken in the UK at London Metropolitan, Westminster, and SOAS in addition to Leeds – let us know if you’d like to hear from us at your university.

We are @meedan on Twitter or I am gweyman [at] meedan.net.

Syrian school students tussle to be in shot. Picture by Itab Azzam.

A BBC Open University series is providing a UK audience with a rare view of life inside Syria’s schools.

The Syrian Schools series gives UK viewers an unprecedented opportunity to learn what ‘Syrians are really like and what hopes and aspirations they have’, according to the series’ associate producer Itab Azzam.

The first hour-long episode, broadcast last night on BBC 4 and available on the BBC iPlayer, shows students debating with teachers about the importance of the hijab, examines the role of the ruling Ba’ath party in schools and considers the taboo topic of Iraqis Christians living in Damascus.

Azzam says the film can bring an important new perspective on the Arab republic.

“The aim of series is to look at education and show life as it is lived in syria, from the perspective of ordinary school pupils, their families and teachers,” she said in a Skype interview.

“In Britain people rarely see the human face of Syria.”

According to Azzam, the film benefited from the involvement of the British Syrian Society which helped gain official access so that producers could film students and teachers in their daily lives.

The Ministry of Education was given the opportunity to review the films before broadcast but an access agreement prevented censorship beyond factual inaccuracies.

“The Syrian Government didn’t have any editorial rights, only factual, as we signed an access agreement that clearly stated that,” she said.

With an appearance from Syria’s glamorous first lady – who was born and brought up in the UK – the film gives a sense of young Syrians working to reconcile tradition with a modern education.

Asma Al-Assad asks the students of an all-girls school what they would do if a husband urged them to drop their careers and ambitions before marriage.

“We could get married and continue working,” says one.

“If he loves me he has to understand what makes me happy,” says another.

Soon after, Mrs. Al-Assad is talking to the girls about the need for critical skills when the Muslim Call to Prayer begins.

A wry smile crosses her face.

In another scene, a devout Muslim student who memorized the Qu’ran by the age of 14 explains why she believes education is important.

“Maybe people in the west think that Arabs only fast and pray and stuff but we have knowledge,” Dua’a says.

“God urged us to seek knowledge.”

But despite a thirst for knowledge in Syria, teaching could be better, Azzam suggests.

“The education in Syria still suffers. It needs more interaction between teachers and students.

“The education system does not allow students to think for themselves because there is a lot of memorization that exhausts students. It is merely lecturing.

“This year the Ministry of Education is starting to change the curricula to be more interactive, but the key issue is that they don’t have trained teachers who can adapt to the change.

“If a teacher studied history in university for example then they are eligible to teach history in schools. And that applies to all subjects,” she adds.

Read more:

Review in the Scotsman by Paul Whitelaw

Review in the New Statesman by Rachel Cooke

*Disclaimer: Itab Azzam is a friend who I met in Syria 2005/6.

Al Arabiya television channel has been fined for deciding not to broadcast an interview. Courtesy Mr T. in DC.

It’s the daily trade of the television output editor, chopping what doesn’t meet the grade to maintain the daily news agenda in a time sensitive schedule.

But now an Arabic language channel in the Gulf might have to rethink its editorial chain of command after a court in Dubai slapped down a $27,000 fine for not broadcasting an interview it recorded with a Saud royal.

The decision inflicted ‘emotional, moral and social damage on the prince’s status as a royal,’ according to his lawyer.

Judge Ahmad Eisa of Dubai’s appeal court agreed, ruling that Al Arabiya had ‘breached the nobility and morality of journalism’ in refusing to air the interview with Prince Dr Saif Al Islam Bin Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

The Prince, who sought five times the level of compensation ordered by the court, was upset that Al Arabiya failed to broadcast the interview despite having advertised it on air, according to Gulf News.

The channel had flown Prince Dr Saif Al Islam to Dubai especially to record the piece.

Al Arabiya countered that it had full rights to the interview and so could choose when to air it.

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA. Picture by Marc Darchinger, Berlin

When Egypt’s  President Hosni Mubarak came to power 28 years ago, the Berlin Wall still had another eight years to stand, AIDS was only just being recognized as a disease, and the Ford Cortina had another year to run on the automaker’s production lines.

Little wonder then that some people in Egypt would like to see a fresh-faced successor to take the reins in elections slated for 2011.

But not, by any means, everyone.

“Respecting the current constitution ensures that the  high post [of president] is occupied by the one who is worthy of it and qualified for it,” the leading state newspaper Al Ahram said in an editorial.  ”The candidate should be aware of all the internal as well as the external affairs. It is not good enough to be an expert on nuclear disarmament. ”

This widely publicized editorial was designed as a thinly veiled attack at the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, following a statement he made early December that he would consider running for Egyptian president if the elections were guaranteed to be fair.

The Egyptian state media see ElBaradei as a threat, and so have taken the attack to his view that the country needs a new constitution – which they say is a sign he’s out of touch with Egypt:

“If the aim was, as he claims, for us all to work on establishing a society that serves humanity and ensures everyone the right of a prosperous secure life, then our decisions should draw largely on this status quo and not on some readings or analysis made by enemy forces that seek to stir chaos and instability. Those forces open the door for interference in the Egyptian internal affairs.

“We learned by experience that a society cannot be built except by its own people. Enough of the interference and enough of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the disasters that befell their peoples. Several intrusive policies had caused enough difficulties to our  country and opened the door for the “creative chaos” that George Bush Junior told us about before he was gone, leaving behind his political errors and disasters. Dr. ElBaradei now wants to repeat those mistakes, thinking he could cause embarrassment to Egypt and its political system.”

The fear of ElBaradei is shared by democracy activists who have labored against what they perceive as regime injustices.

At the front of the pack is Ayman Nour – Hosni Mubarak’s only rival in the first ‘open’ elections of 2005. He was arrested nine months ahead of the 2005 poll, and only released four years later.

According to the Egyptian press, he sees ElBaradei as a rival to his own presidential ambitions.

In  a headline, leading independent news outlet Al Masry Al Youm (The Egyptian Today) paraphrased Nour’s position:

“Nour: Elbaradei’s position is “vague” and his statement is a “diplomatic no” to presidential candidacy”

«نور»: موقف البرادعى «غامض».. وبيانه «اعتذار دبلوماسى» عن عدم الترشح للرئاسة

The paper itself was doubtful as to ElBaradei’s chances:

“The bitter reality always gives some people the tendency to dream. This is the case with the next presidential elections in Egypt. The names of the candidates legally expected makes people dream of those who are not, according to the constitution, eligible for candidacy. The people have the right to dream about Egypt’s presidency, which is by the way one of the advantages of the amendment to Article 76 of the constitution. It is not yet anyone’s right to sell this dream to the Egyptians as reality.”

لواقع المرير دائماً يجعل بعض الناس تتجه إلى الأحلام.. هذا هو حال الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة فى مصر.. فواقع أسماء المرشحين المتوقعين قانونياً يجعل الناس تحلم بأسماء لن تتمكن ـ وفقاً للدستور ـ من الترشح، ومن حق الناس أن تحلم برئاسة مصر، وهذه بالمناسبة إحدى مزايا تعديل المادة ٧٦ من الدستور، لكن ليس من حق أحد أن يبيع هذا الحلم أو الوهم للمصريين على أساس أنه حقيقة

At the same time, state ministers have been working the rounds, making sure the Egyptian people know that ElBaradei is not an ‘appropriate’ candidate for President – as Youm7 (The Seventh Day) reported:

“Dr. Mufid Shehab, Minister of State for Legal and parliamentary Affairs, denounced the talks circulating these days about ELBaradei’s candidacy for the presidency of Egypt. He ruled out such possibility justifying that ElBaradei has little to do with political matters, the Arab World relations, and the Palestinian cause. He added that he was a prominent Egyptian scientist who had no political experience and did not know much about parliamentary life.”

استنكر الدكتور مفيد شهاب وزير الدولة للشئون القانونية والمجالس النيابية، ما يتم ترويجه هذه الأيام عن ترشيح البرادعى نفسه لانتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية، مستبعداً حدوث ذلك لكون البرادعى، على حد وصفه، لم يتوغل فى العالم السياسى ولا العلاقات العربية ولا القضية الفلسطينية، فهو عالم مصرى جليل ليس له خبرة سياسية ولا يعلم عن الحياة البرلمانية والحزبية كثيراً

In Al Ahram, columnist Mohammad  Al-Saadani put the state position more succinctly still:

“It seems as if ElBaradei has strayed into an area where he doesn’t belong!”

يبدو ان البرادعي قد انزلقت قدماه الي ملعب ليس ملعبه

Passionate in support of ElBaradei, however, stands El Shorouk – another of Egypt’s leading independent newspapers.

In an opinion piece in the paper, veteran Egyptian columnist Salama Ahmed Salama suggested that ElBaradei’s minimum conditions to stand for the presidency in 2011 (ie. that the elections be fair) are unachievable – but worthy nonetheless:

“Does this mean that ElBaraedi is asking for unrealistic terms that are even not present in any democratic system worldwide? Isn’t he really aware of the fact that the implementation of the said terms necessitates the full belief of the governing regime in democracy and its outcomes. Not only that, their implementation also hinges upon the consensus among the political powers about the necessity to face both implicit and explicit imbalances and irregularities in the political arena. Moreover, they will not be implemented save for giving full reign to the people to practice their political rights without dictation, suppression or rigging. Undoubtedly, ElBaradei knows this quite well. Hence he is suggesting such terms that everyone knows cannot be realized overnight. They need effort in addition to a change in opinions and mentality ( of those in power). What makes the matter worse is that ElBaradei looks as if he is crying in wilderness.”

هل معنى ذلك فعلا أن البرادعى يطالب بشروط مستحيلة، لا مثيل لها فى النظم الديمقراطية الأخرى فى العالم.. وهل يغيب فعلا عن إدراكه أن مثل هذه الشروط يتطلب لتحقيقها إيمان جماعة الحكم بالديمقراطية وتبعاتها، وتوافق القوى السياسية على ضرورة تصحيح العوار الكامن والظاهر فى الحياة السياسية، وتمكين الشعب من ممارسة حرياته وحقوقه السياسية دون وصاية أو إملاء، ودون تزوير أو قمع! لا يوجد أدنى شك فى أن البرادعى يدرك ذلك تماما. ولذلك فهو يطرح هذه الشروط التى يعرف كل عاقل أنها لن تتحقق بين يوم وليلة، وأنها تحتاج إلى وقت وجهد لتنفيذها وإلى تغيير فى الآراء والعقلية ويضاعف من صعوبة الموقف أن البرادعى يبدو كمن يصرخ فى البرية

Commenters to the site responded in kind:

“I extend my regards to every honorable citizen concerned about the interest of our homeland and people,” said one called Magda.

“I believe that God has bestowed His blessings upon Egypt by sending us Dr. ElBaradei. We have to cling to this chance, for he is the only hope and solution for our country’s problems. His own traits testify to the fact that he would be able to resolve all our problems: He is an honorable, righteous, honest man who would eliminate corruption, bribery and favoritism.”

تحياتى لكل مواطن شريف يهمه مصلحة هذا الوطن وهذا الشعب وأرى أن الله أراد بمصر خيراً أن أرسل لها د البرادعى وعلينا أن نتمسك بهذه الفرصه ولا نضيعها فهو الأمل والحل الوحيد لكل مشاكل هذا البلد فهو يحمل صفات تحل مشاكل هذا البلد جميعاً وهى : فهو رجل شريف ونزيه وصادق ليقضى على الفساد والرشوه والمحسوبيه والمنافقين والطفيليين الذين نهبوا ثرو

Writing on Meedan, one of the Egyptian users commenting on the story struck a more balanced tone, criticizing the state media attacks on ElBaradei’s personality but also questioning ElBaradei’s fitness to govern:

“As an Egyptian man, Mohammad ElBaradei has all the right to imply or to talk frankly about nominating himself, that I can understand. The attacks and distortion of the man’s image in the state run newspapers are also fathomable because he simply represents the opposite of what they stand for. However, what I just cannot get is the blind support for the man from those who’d like him to run for president. They support him unconditionally without considering his program or how he views Egypt’s problems and their solutions.”

محمد البردعى كرجل مصرى من حقه أن يتكلم عن ترشيح نفسه مباشرهً أو تلميحا فهذا مفهوم .. وما حدث بالجرائد الحكوميه من هجوم وتشويه لصوره الرجل أيضا مفهوم لأنه يمثل الصوت النقيض لقناعتهم .. لكن الغير مفهوم من مؤيدى الترشيح أن تتخطى مؤازرتهم للرجل حد موافقتهم على الترشيح إلى التسليم والدعم بلا سقف دون النظر لبرنامجه وكيف يرى المشكلات فى مصر وكيف يرى الحل

– Thanks to Tom El Rumi, Nouran, Rania, Deena and Malika for help with these translations.–

You can add your voice on ElBaradei’s possible presidential bid on www.Meedan.net.

A typical front page of the Daily Mail with shrill anti-immigrant headline. Image by Malias.

One of Britain’s leading right wing newspapers, The Daily Mail, appears to have lost touch with its readers over its criticism of the fascist Islamophobic British National Party and its leader Nick Griffin.

In recent days, Mail readers have overwhelmingly voiced support for Griffin and the BNP on the paper’s website, despite trenchant attacks on the party by the outlet’s leading commentators.

The clash comes on the back of Griffin’s first ever appearance on the BBC’s flagship political debate programme, Question Time, on Thursday night in which the extremist defended his description of Islam as ‘vile and wicked’, repeated his view that homosexuals were ‘creepy’, and failed to refute that he had a record of Holocaust denial.

The Daily Mail, which is renowned for its ability to provide what its right-leaning readers want to hear, will undoubtedly be concerned by the comments, some of which cite Mail reporting as part of an establishment conspiracy against Griffin and his party.

“Most of the idiots writing pieces such as this live in large houses , miles away from towns that no longer look British but more like third world slums,” wrote one reader called Sammy.

“Shops, market stalls,and language are all foreign,” she continues.  ”That is why the BNP are popular and these so called writers have no real concept of what is happening in the UK , rather like the thieving , too busy filling in my fraudulent expense claims to worry about what the voters want , politicians.”

Writing in today’s Mail Online, Edward Heathcoat Amory attempts to debunk Nick Griffin’s ‘empty rhetoric’ casting  a critical eye on the BNP leader’s claims on Question Time.

Amory says: ‘The BNP’s immigration policy is voluntary repatriation of ‘immigrants’ (ie non-whites) regardless of whether they were born here. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people support such a plan.”

Greg from Coalville in Leicestershire responds: “Well mr amory i dont know where you get this “tiny minority” you mention who want repatriation, i suggest you get out and about a bit more to where the real people live and you will find that ii is a lot lot more than a tiny minority.”

Cedric from Hickinbottom says: “I am totally fed up with this “witch-hunt”.”

“In the past you have stood up for nearly all the points Nick Griffin as said his party would do if elected, all but in a less extreme way.

“You should be criticising the Libs,Labs& Cons. for not pursuing the things that matter most to the British people!”

A Richards in London says: “Mr Heathcoat Amory, where have you been, on holiday? We’ve heard all this before – the usual lies, smears and innuendos wearing thinner every time they’re wheeled out. ”

John Gray in Stamford says: “Reality. Their policies are representative of the mainstream which apparently does not include the author of this skewed dross.”

Earlier, star commentator Max Hastings described Griffin as an ‘empty vessel’ who had nothing to say, and was easily made to seem ’slippery and repugnant’ when asked about his attitude to the Holocaust.

But, in a difficult balance to strike with angry readers, Hastings tried to address their concerns on immigration.

On Tory Baroness Warsi’s suggestion of a cap in immigration numbers, Hastings said: “At last almost everybody in the studio could address what they know is the real issue. ”

“Nobody except Nick Griffin wants to send every immigrant in Britain home. But almost everybody outside the current government knows that the current policy of allowing unrestricted entry has been a catastrophe.”

He also attacked the Labour representative, Jack Straw.

” It was a very bad night for Straw, and for the Government on an issue of vital concern to millions of people.”

But it wasn’t enough for readers.

A reader from Glasgow commented: “Well, I won’t be tuning for Max Hastings worthless opinions on anything in future. Ever”

B Brodie said: “Max Hastings I thought journalists were supposed to report facts! This is a biased and inaccurate piece of writing.”

“Griffin was hounded last night by the so called ‘acceptable’ political parties and a ‘historian’ who came across as an idiot.

“The BNP will continue to do well until people are alowed to state what they really think, NO MORE IMMIGRATION of any colour.”

“I think the Daily Mail should employ Nick Griffin as a columnist,” said Ivor Wynard from Nantwich, Cheshire.

“How about listening to what the man actually said, he was brilliant and represents a growing number of people,” said Hugo in London.

The criticism of Hastings focused on the fact that – in the minds of readers – the Question Time panel and audience was set up to be biased against the BNP by the BBC and that the words ‘repugnant’ and ’slippery’ should be applied to Jack Straw instead.

John Salkfield in Sheffield said: “Last night, as expected, was a concerted effort to shout down Griffin. The establishment will not allow the people a voice.”

Mike in Alicante said: “Sorry Max, all that was exposed yesterday was the levels to which the liberal left stoop.”

“And tonight we abandon the normal Question Time and present the ‘Nick Griffin is a very bad man show’”,” said Patrick Harrington in Edinburgh.

“Mr Hastings – firstly a man of your intelligence should have seen that last nights Question Time, was nothing more then a political show trial, aimed at one man to knock him back from where he came,” said Michael West in Yeovil.

Others described the BBC programme as an ‘asbsolute stitch up’, ‘biased’ and ‘in breach of charter’.

One went as far as to say: “Griffin was clearly set up, hundreds of people onto one man, the room was full of foreigners masquerading as Brits who showed their true colours with their lack of the British sense of fair play, a principle any true Brits would of shown without hesitation.”

The comments suggest the Daily Mail is struggling to keep up with the increasingly right wing, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant readership that it has long tried to stir with articles like ‘Muslim student, 18, banned from college because she refuses to remove her burkha’ which appears on the front page today.

Muslims in particular feature as a source of agitation for the Daily Mail, which seeks to present Muslims as foreign, monolithically determined to undermine Britain’s culture, and incapable of integrating.

But it appears the position has stirred a readership more right wing than the Daily Mail is prepared to go.

One reader, Mike Slaw from Manchester, summed up the growing chasm between readers and the paper’s editorial line: “The Daily mail columnists, almost to a man (and woman) bleat on about immigration, Islamism and Europe and how these are the key issues of the day. But..they never provide any credible course of action.”

The Daily Mail responded to the fracture today by publishing an article turning the focus of its ire away from Nick Griffin to the BBC, stoking MPs’ concerns that the public service broadcaster was  ’playing into Nick Griffin’s hands by stage-managing the Question Time onslaught.’

It is not clear, however, how many commenting readers over the past three days have been BNP supporters defending their man.  The challenge the comments present to Mail coverage would suggest its columnists should engage with readers in a style in keeping with bloggers, rather than remaining aloof.

On an article reporting Griffin’s claim he had been unfairly treated on the show, Simon from Oxford said: “ I was happy that he was going to appear, because it would reveal how his policies are either repellant or non-existent (I’d love it if they’d asked him how his party would handle national debt, or the environment, or anything other than their single-policy of immigration).

“And, having watched it, I felt sure that nobody could come away thinking the BNP viable or anything other than morally reprehensible.”

“And then I come here, and see that the most popular comments are those supporting the BNP, whereas the least popular is a completely innocuous one in support of (the rather wonderful) Bonnie Greer!”

“How incredibly worrying. It just goes to show that people will see what they want to see – did you really see a future prime minister on that programme last night?? Oh, I hope not.”

The comment was one of the most negatively ranked in the thread.

DISCLAIMER: I used to work as a Mail Online producer.  The staff were from different backgrounds, friendly and supportive.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Question Time slot gives BNP “legitimacy they don’t deserve” (netnewsdaily.com)
• Dear Britain, please stop helping the fascists (boingboing.net)
• ‘Disgusting’ Griffin Defends Ku Klux Klan (news.sky.com)
• Lone voice freezes Griffin’s grin (guardian.co.uk)
• MPs warn of poll boost for BNP after Question Time (guardian.co.uk)

Picture by respres.

I read a great post today on Global Voices Advocacy presenting the incredible power of Twitter as a mechanism for enabling communication and better networking despite state repression.

So much is said about Twitter, but not a huge amount about its emerging role in the Middle East.  So it’s great to see this conversation emerge.  It will no doubt enrich and forward the ‘what have bloggers done for the Middle East’ discussion – which has started to feel stale.

But two important caveats need to be made about Twitter in the Middle East before we simply assume that it already plays a critical social role.

First, the user base. In a post published last month, Spot on PR estimated there are only just over 14,000 Twitter users in the region.  Forty percent of these users are in the UAE, and well over half are in the Gulf. Just 11 percent are in the Levant – reminding us that this tool is largely used by web users in rich countries and geeks + activists in poorer ones.

Plus when you compare these stats to Facebook – you start to realise that in fact the tool has some way to go.  According to O’Reilly Research, Facebook boasts 1.8 million users in Egypt alone.  Egyptians love the internet, they love social networking, but to date they are not mad about Twitter or don’t know about it.

Second, Twitter crucially lacks social translation and markup tools.  Social translation is key to enabling Middle East users reach wider audiences – Google MT API is just not enough when you think that ICANN predicts the next 20 million Arab users of the web will not be speaking English.

Markup is important for enabling users to better share provenance information about important Twitter voices – crucial in the Middle East where trust and credibility are key.

Nevertheless an important article this one – well worth a read.