Google and “Chinese norms”

Reporting on Google’s response to a Chinese government attack on Gmail-using democracy activists, the New York Times reported:

It is also likely to enrage the Chinese authorities, who deny that they censor the Internet and are accustomed to having major foreign companies adapt their practices to Chinese norms.

Sorry, but censorship is not a “Chinese norm.” It is a strategy that authoritarian regimes deliberately use to impede collective action for political change. The slippery use of “norm” smacks of a common problem in sloppy cultural argumentation. Sure, culture matters. Culture is useful, for example, when categorizing actors’ exogenous preferences without time to probe them more deeply. Sometimes culture manifests as a norm, or an ‘informal’ rule of interaction (i.e. an institution). Used in this way, “norm” implies that the rule is highly particular – that it has characteristics identifying it with one or another society. But, in China, we are dealing with neither culture nor norm. Plenty of actors in plenty of societies have used censorship and control: President Tandja in Niger, Stalin in Russia, and Woodrow Wilson in our own country.

Hats off to Google for dumping its search query censorship, which the company began in 2006 to curry business favor with the regime. (H/T to the UN Wire.)

Lindsay’s Ghana blog

Democracy and Governance student Lindsay Robinson is in Ghana this summer interning with the country’s most widely circulated independent daily newspaper. Here is her blog.

April 24: Muzzled Media: Coverage of the Financial Crisis in Russia

Panelists from Russian and US pro-democracy media outlets will discuss the state of free information in Russia next week:

In September 2008, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told Le Figaro that the economic crisis was a European and American phenomenon, adding, “We do not have it and I hope won’t have it.” Events soon proved him wrong. But with most of the country’s media outlets tightly controlled, Russians had few sources of independent information about a crisis that soon began to affect their daily lives. What have the people of Russia been told by their media about the financial crisis? What does the lack of a free press mean for Russians as they confront declining living standards after years of relative prosperity? Will the Kremlin’s model of muzzled media and managed democracy survive the crisis?

Dmitry Sidorov (Kommersant), Daniel Kimmage, Andrei Sitov (ITAR-TASS) and Brian Whitmore (RFE/RL) will discuss these questions at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Washington headquarters, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, 4th Floor from 9:30-11:00 AM on Thursday, April 30. Moderated by David Satter (Hudson Institute and SAIS). Co-sponsored by Georgetown’s Democracy and Governance program.

It should be an interesting event for anyone intrigued by Russia Today’s US-directed propaganda and “Russia Now,” RT’s periodic paid insert in the Washington Post.

Is a “Free” Press Bad for Democracy?

The bad news is…

An interesting story in Time magazine this week lists ten major American newspapers that are in dire financial straits.  As it turns out, it’s just too hard to make money when you give away your content for free on the Internet.  (Surprise, surprise.)  Love them or hate them, one is forced to wonder what the American political landscape would be like without them.  Is a “free” (that is, no cost) press bad for democracy?

With the economy in decline, consumers are more tight-fisted.  With less money being spent, it makes less sense to put advertisements in the paper.  Also, the tech-biz boom means that at the same time that there are fewer advertisements being placed, there are more venues competing for dwindling ad revenue.  Take, for instance, cars.com or craigslist.  All of those second-hand cars and other assorted items used to be sold by putting an ad in the paper.  How soon we forget.

As a result, many newspapers face a hard road ahead.  Some will choose to become web-only enterprises, cutting their staffs dramatically.  Perhaps some will return to charging for their content (as pled for by David Carr in Sunday’s New York Times).  This could be a viable model: The Wall Street Journal is in no danger of extinction, and it is pay-to-read, even online.

The bottom line is: there may just be less (or lower quality) news to be had at no charge, and this could lead to a less well-informed electorate. 

On the other hand…

But it might not be all gloom and doom.  There could be a silver lining to this situation.  It is frequently decried that profit motives have added bells and whistles to television news broadcasts, while sapping them of substance.  (What “news” program has less substance than when Rick Sanchez hosts the Twitter-driven CNN Newsroom?  Does anyone really care what Ch33ringDitz16 has to say about anything?  Like, totally whatever, ya know?)

But with pay-to-read newspapers, this might not be the case.  To appeal to the widest possible audience, they might actually have to drop the distractions and editorializing, and write about…news.  This would be a good thing for two reasons.  First, it would begin to restore trust in the media as a profession.  And consequently, it might also serve to depolarize our political climate by giving both the Left and the Right someone they can jointly appreciate.

Or like, you know, whatever.

Live stream event: Media as Global Diplomat

The Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Independent Television Service (ITVS) invite you to view a LIVE ONLINE STREAM of a leadership summit, moderated by Ted Koppel, on the changing role of media in public diplomacy.

Find the stream here: http://www.usip.org/media/global_diplomat/index.html
Watch the event LIVE and weigh in on our chat conversation.

Find complete details of the event here:

http://mediaasglobaldiplomat.eventbrite.com/

Follow Joel Whitaker’s twitter on the event at twitter.com/joelwhitaker

** Please note that invitation to the actual event in Washington, DC is closed to the public. Entry by invite only.

Russia Election Watch

Russia is gearing up for its election season this winter. The Duma, Russia’s legislature, will stand for election in December and Russia is set to elect a new president in March. As I’ve noted on the DP before, democracy in Russia is on life support. Regional governors are no longer elected, the activity of civil society organizations have been curtailed by new laws and registration requirements, long-standing parties have been denied registration, and the independent media has slowly been consumed by the Russian state or Kremlin allies.

While there is little doubt that the upcoming elections will fail to meet international standards and the results will strengthen the Kremlin’s hand, much can be gleaned from the process. The manner in which these elections are carried out will tell outsiders to what extent the Kremlin will go to solidify its hold on power.

Furthermore, the Putin-succession process adds to the drama of the election season. While some observers think that Putin’s recent announcement that he would agree to head the party list for United Russia may indicate Putin’s intention to redirect power to the prime minister’s office, I doubt that is likely to occur. I still believe that Vladimir has a few more twists and turns up his sleeves in the coming months.

I’m going to try and post some interesting stories related to this process during the next few months. While I can’t promise daily commentary, I’ll try to at least link to interesting stories in the press and posts from other blogs.

There are a few interesting stories today that are worth pointing out:

• Carnegie’s Morning Brief links to a NYTimes story detailing the Kremlin’s attempt to further extend government control over the Internet. The take away from this article, besides increased state control, is the extent that the Kremlin is using “pro-Putin” youth group to counter opposition groups, even in blog coverage of protest events.
• In the lead up to the parliamentary elections, the Russian government has reached an “agreement” with food producers and retailers to institute a freeze on prices. Inflation and price increases in basic foodstuffs in recent weeks has made the Kremlin uneasy. After all, when your legitimacy is tenuous when basing your legitimacy on circuses and bread, and the bread is too expensive.
• Pro-Putin demonstrations have recently taken place across the country. The events, allegedly organized by state officials, are urging Putin to stay on as president after his second term ends in March. The take-away: the extent of the cult of personality around Putin is strong. Don’t be surprised to see a “grass-roots” movement seek to change the constitution or pressure Putin’s successor to step down.
• Eleven parties have been approved by the Election Commission to contest in the December elections. Three parties were barred because of problems with the membership signatures turned into the Election Commission for registration. The take-away: eleven parties is a significant amount. Given Russia’s new PR electoral system with a 7% threshold to enter the Duma, this could lead to an utter sweep by United Russia, the pro-Putin party of power. A recent opinion poll stated that approximately 66% of voters plan to vote for United Russia in December.
• Lastly, the Russian Election Commission announced that Russia will invite international observers for the December 2 parliamentary elections. The invitations will be sent out this week and the delegation is expected to reach 400 people. The take-away: While it is good that Russia is finally inviting the monitors, it is too late for any meaningful oversight to be implemented. Obersvation missions typically have a smaller group that observes and analyzes the pre-election evironment and election process months in advance of election day. Additionally, this mission will be signiciantly smaller than previous missions. For the 2003 parliamentary elections the OSCE sent 400 observers alone. The 400 this time will include observers from the OSCE and the Nordic Council, along with the shame election monitoring organizations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Commonwealth of Independent States.