Ignoring social media at your peril (AJF News)

JAMES M. DORSEY is part of the team organising the Asia Journalism Forum conference on Media and Political Change in Asia and the Middle East. In this article, he reflects on the lessons that governments need to learn from the Arab revolts.

If there is one event or region that has highlighted the impact of technology and social media on policymaking, social movements and protest, it is the Arab revolt that has been sweeping the Middle East and North Africa since december 2010. Many have dubbed the popular revolts in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Syria a “Facebook revolution” because of the use by middle-class activists of social media in the build-up to the mass anti-government protests that have so far toppled four Arab leaders.

Similarly, social media and mobile telephony play a key role in Syria in circumventing news blackouts and censorship to get news of the brutal crackdown by the government of President Bashar al Assad to the outside world. They also figure in exacerbating sectarian tensions between the country’s Sunni Muslims and Alawites, the minority sect to which Assad belongs.

Yet, despite the perception of many, it is not technology that sparks revolts.

No doubt, social media facilitate and accelerate the speed and breadth of communication, and impact politics, social movements, communications and the flow of news. But the answer to the question whether the Arab revolt would have erupted without Facebook is a resounding yes. To dub the Arab revolt a Facebook revolution would require revising explanations of past revolts such as the Islamic revolution in Iran and popular uprisings in the Philippines and Indonesia.

To be sure, technology plays an important role in protests and revolts. In Iran in 1979, it was the cassette tape that helped Ayatollah Khomeini to inspire millions to overthrow the Shah, at the time the most powerful symbol of US influence in the region. In Tunisia, a mobile phone video of a young man setting himself on fire in desperation, tapped into widespread discontent and brought thousands into the streets of Tunis. Cassettes and mobile telephony are technologies that autocrats understand.

Social media, however, is a game changer.

Pro-democracy activists understand social media and the opportunities they offer in ways that autocratic Arab regimes find difficult, if not impossible, to grasp. Social media change the way communications and public affairs are managed, particularly in a crisis. That requires a degree of sophistication that many but particularly autocratic governments often find difficult, if not impossible, to marshal.

In fact, employing that degree of sophistication would require a far-reaching revision of the way most Arab autocrats do business. Syria is a case in point. The government’s approach to online information warfare involved its Syrian Electronic Army hacking hundreds of opposition and international websites, to assert that it was battling terrorists.

Perhaps what is most frustrating to Arab autocrats is the fact that the combination of mobile telephony, the Internet and social media has rendered censorship futile and fundamentally rewritten the ground rules of communications policies. Social media have turned the shaping of the narrative into something much more complex, in which governments and institutions have to engage in ways they did not have to in the past.

For one, communication has become a two-way street. Shaping the narrative no longer means control, instead it means engagement. That is an approach that in the best of circumstances is a difficult one, but particularly for embattled autocrats, because it requires a mind shift that few autocrats can make.

Even the Western media had problems in adjusting to technological change. When newspapers shifted from broadsheet to tabloid formats, not only did size change, so did the content, the story. Similarly, moving the print edition of a newspaper on to the Internet proved to be an unworkable formula. It failed to recognise that technology had replaced one-way communication with interactivity and changed the way news is consumed and what an empowered public expects of news organisations.

As a result, governments and institutions, irrespective of the political environment they operate in, are being forced to rethink their approach to communications. They have to pay greater attention to the way they project themselves, their policies and the way they relate to the public in a new and increasingly complex communications landscape. 

Technological change means that governments and institutions have to be more attentive to public opinion because whether or not that opinion can be freely expressed social media enable it to become part of the public domain.

The international community looked to the Arab street in the wake of 9/11 for change that would eradicate the breeding ground of extremism. When the Arab street did not immediately revolt, government officials, analysts and journalists wrote off the Arab street. Nonetheless, the widespread discontent continued to simmer at the surface. It was palpable if one put one’s ear to the ground.

If the current Middle Eastern revolt and its embrace of technology teach anything, it is that where discontent exists but cannot be expressed openly, it will be expressed elsewhere in what constitutes a truer reflection of reality. It is a reality enhanced by technology that Middle Eastern and North African autocrats ignore at their peril.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at NTU’s  S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. He is the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer. This article was published in AJF News.

Al Jazeera acquires Egyptian soccer broadcast rights on the cheap

By James M. Dorsey

Qatar’s Al Jazeera television network has bought the broadcasting rights of Egypt’s Premiere League for a meagre $2.6 million in a deal concluded with the Egyptian Football Association.

“We have reached an agreement with Al Jazeera that will enable it to broadcast the Egyptian League this season. They will begin airing the competition’s matches in the next round until the end,” EFA Chairman Samir Zaher told Egyptian entertainment website FilFan.com.

Mr. Zaher said the EFA was negotiating broadcast rights with three more pan-Arab broadcasters.

The deal boosts Al Jazeera’s efforts to significantly boost its soccer franchise. It follows the acquisition rights for 23 countries to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups as well as its successful bid for some of rights to broadcast France’s top league. Al Jazeera joins several Egyptian satellite channels in the broadcasting of Egypt’s premier soccer competition.

Egypt boasts with crowned Cairo rivals Al Ahly SC and Al Zamalek SC some of the Arab world and Africa’s most popular clubs. Al Ahly is believed to have some 50 million supporters.

Nonetheless, critics charge that Al Jazeera had paid peanuts for the Egyptian rights. They said one reason the Qatari broadcaster got the rights on the cheap is that cable television penetration in Egypt is low and that Al Jazeera’s competitors were free-to-air channels. As a result, they said few Egyptians were likely to get cable or subscribe to Al Jazeera to see the Egyptian matches.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Arab Protesters and Social Media: Need for Engagement

RSIS presents the following commentary Arab Protesters and Social Media: Need for Engagement by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at  RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg No. 138/2011 dated 3 October 2011 Arab Protesters and Social Media: Need for Engagement By James M. Dorsey Synopsis Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East and North Africa have an edge in the battle for hearts and minds because of their understanding of the     power of social media. Engaging them on social media requires a degree     of sophistication and mind shift that Arab autocrats lack. Commentary IF THERE is one event or region that has highlighted the impact of technology and social media on  policymaking, social movements and protest, it is the Arab revolt that has been sweeping the Middle East and North Africa since December last year. Many have dubbed the popular revolts in Egypt and Tunisia a  “Facebook revolution” because of the use by middle-class activists of social media in the build-up to the mass anti-government protests that early this year toppled presidents Hosni Mubarak and Zine el Abedine Ben Ali. Activists in Libya employed social media to organise peaceful protests in February against the regime of Colonel Moammar Gaddafi before they mutated into a civil war.    Similarly, social media and mobile telephony have played a key role in Syria in circumventing news blackouts and censorship to get news of the brutal crackdown by the government of President Bashar al Assad to the outside world. They also figure in exacerbating sectarian tensions between the country’s Sunni Muslims and Alawites, the minority sect to which Assad belongs. Technology does not spark revolts Yet, despite the perception of many, it is not technology that sparks revolts. No doubt, social media facilitate and accelerate the speed and breadth of communication, and impact politics, social movements, communications and the flow of news. But the answer to the question whether the Arab revolt would have erupted without Facebook is a resounding yes. To dub the Arab revolt a Facebook revolution would require revising explanations of past revolts such as the Islamic revolution in Iran and popular uprisings in the Philippines and Indonesia. To be sure, technology plays an important role in protests and revolts. In Iran in 1979, it was the cassette tape that helped Ayatollah Khomeini to inspire millions to overthrow the Shah, at the time the most powerful symbol of US influence in the region. In Tunisia, a mobile phone video of a young man setting himself on fire in desperation,     tapped into widespread discontent and last December brought thousands into the streets of Tunis. Cassettes and mobile telephony are technologies that autocrats understand. Social media, however, is a game changer. Pro-democracy activists understand social media and the opportunities they offer in ways that autocratic Arab regimes find difficult, if not impossible, to grasp. Social media change the way communications and public affairs are managed, particularly in a crisis. That requires a degree of sophistication that many but particularly autocratic governments often     find difficult, if not impossible, to marshal. In fact, employing  that degree of sophistication would require a far-reaching revision of the way most Arab autocrats do business. Syria is a case in point. The government’s approach to online information warfare involved its Syrian Electronic Army hacking hundreds of opposition and international websites, to assert that it was battling terrorists. According to NPR (National Public Radio) the websites targeted included  those of     Newsweek, the US Treasury, and screen and television personalities. Engagement replaces control Perhaps what is most frustrating to Arab autocrats is the fact that the combination of mobile telephony, the Internet and social media has rendered censorship futile and fundamentally rewritten the ground rules of communications policies. Social media have turned the shaping of the narrative into something much more complex, in which governments and institutions have to engage in ways they did not have to in the past. For one, communication has become a two-way street. Shaping the narrative no longer means control, instead it means engagement.     That is an approach that in the best of circumstances is a difficult one,     but particularly for embattled autocrats, because it requires a mind shift that few autocrats can make. Even the Western media had problems in adjusting to technological change. When newspapers shifted from broadsheet to tabloid formats, not only did size change, so did the content, the story. Similarly, moving the print edition of a newspaper on to the Internet proved to be an unworkable formula. It failed to recognise that technology had replaced one-way communication with interactivity and changed the way news is consumed and what an empowered public expects of news organisations. As a result, governments and institutions, irrespective of the political environment they operate in, are being forced to rethink their approach to communications. They have to pay greater attention to the way they project themselves, their policies and the way they relate to the public in a new and increasingly complex communications landscape. Technological change means that governments and institutions have to be more attentive to public opinion because whether or not that opinion can be freely expressed social media enable it to become part of the public domain. Discontent will find its Outlet The international community looked to the Arab street in the wake of 9/11 for change that would eradicate the breeding ground of extremism.  When the Arab street did not immediately revolt, government officials, analysts and journalists wrote off the Arab street. Nonetheless, the widespread discontent continued to simmer at the surface. It was palpable if one put one’s ear to the ground. If the current Middle Eastern revolt and its embrace of technology teach anything, it is that where discontent exists but cannot be expressed openly, it will be expressed elsewhere in what constitutes a truer reflection of reality. It is a reality enhanced by technology that Middle Eastern and North African autocrats ignore at their peril. James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.  This commentary is based on his remarks at the 2011 Singapore Global Dialogue. Click here for past commentaries. Click here to subscribe/unsubscribe to the mailing list. Find us on Facebook.

---

Arab autocrats ignore social media at their peril

By James M. Dorsey

(Text of remarks at Singapore Global Dialogue)

If there is one event or series of events or region that has fuelled the debate about the impact on policy and policymaking as well as on social movements and protest of technology in general and social media in particular, it is the Arab revolt that has been sweeping the Middle East and North Africa since December.

Many have dubbed the popular revolts in Egypt and Tunisia the Facebook revolution. Indeed, in Syria social media and mobile telephony play a key role in circumventing news blackouts and censorship to get news of the brutal crackdown by the government of President Bashar al Assad to the outside world.

Yet, despite the perception of many, it is not technology that is sparking the revolts. No doubt technology helps, facilitates and accelerates the speed and breadth of communication. New technology and social media impact politics, social movements, communications and flow of news. But the question one has to ask oneself is whether the Arab revolt would have erupted without Facebook and I would think that the answer to that question is a resounding yes. To dub the Arab revolt a Facebook revolution would require revisiting our explanations and understanding of past revolts starting just over the last century Russia and moving on to Iran, the Philippines and for example Indonesia.

To be sure, technology plays a role and indeed a very important role in protest and revolt. In Iran in 1979, it was the cassette that helped Ayatollah Khomeini to gain and wield power and inspire millions to overthrow the Shah, at the time one of the most powerful symbols of US influence in the region In the very initial phase of Tunisia in December it was the mobile phone video of a young many whose humiliation by the regime of President Zine el Abedine Ben Ali persuaded him to set himself on fire that sparked the protests that led to the president's downfall.

Cassettes and mobile telephony are technologies that autocrats understand by and large. Social media, however, is in many ways a game changer, primarily because it involves a degree of engagement and connecting with one another that works in the favour of activists. Activists employ the medium at a time that autocrats have ignored it and failed to understand its power.

Social media constituted and constitutes a window of opportunity for activists. But even when autocrats attempt to engage, they are up against people who understand social media and its opportunities in ways autocrats have yet to grasp and structurally will find difficult if not impossible to grasp. Social media changes in ways earlier technologies did not the way one has to manage communications and public affairs, particularly in a crisis.  That requires a degree of sophistication that many but particularly inflexible, ossified autocratic governments  often find difficult, if not impossible, to marshal. In fact, marshaling that degree of sophistication would mean a far more far-reaching revision of the way most autocrats do business, a skill Arab autocrats certainly have yet to put on display.

Perhaps most frustrating and most fundamental to autocrats is the fact that the combination of mobile telephony, the Internet and social media has rendered censorship futile. It fundamentally changes the ground rules of communications policies. It turns the shaping of the narrative into something much more complex, in which governments and institutions, autocratic or not have to engage in ways they did not have to in the past. For one communication has truly become a two-way street. Shaping the narrative no longer means control, instead it means engagement. And that is an approach that in the best of circumstances is a difficult one. That is  certainly true for autocrats, particularly embattled ones. It requires a mind shift few autocrats, certainly those that are on the defensive, can easily make.

Just how difficult that process is evident in the problems the Western media have had in adjusting to technological change. It took the media years to understand that format shapes content, that when several years ago broadsheets moved to tabloid formats, the nature of the story changed. Similarly, simply moving the print edition of newspapers lock, stock and barrel on to the Internet was not a workable formula. It failed to recognise changes in terms of interactivity and the way news is consumed and the changing expectations the public empowered by new technology has of what news organisations offer.

As a result, governments and institutions irrespective of the political environment they operate in have to rethink the way they approach communications. They have to pay greater attention to the way they project themselves, their policies and the way that they relate to the public in a new and increasingly complex communications landscape. It also means that, ultimately, governments and institutions will have to become more attentive to public opinion, because whether or not that opinion is blocked from being expressed, it is still there.

The world looked to the Arab street in the wake of 9/11 for change that would eradicate the feeding ground on which extremism feeds. When the Arab street did not come through, government officials, analysts and journalists wrote the Arab street off. Fact of the matter is, widespread discontent continued to simmer at the surface. One only needed to put one's ear to the ground. If the current Middle Eastern revolt or series of revolts and its embracement of technology teaches us anything, it is that where discontent exists but cannot be expressed openly, it will be expressed elsewhere in what constitutes a truer reflection of reality. It is a reality enhanced but not sparked by technology that one ignores at one’s peril. Thank you.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He also is the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

JMD in IHT: Social media send governments an urgent and important message

Soccer papers take center stage in battle for press freedom in Sudan

By James M. Dorsey

Sports and particularly soccer is taking center stage in a battle for press freedom in Sudan.

The soccer-crazy country’s National Press Council said it was suspending six sports newspapers and has issued warnings to three others for allegedly encouraging violence between rival soccer teams. The suspensions as well as planned legal action against sports journalists are the latest move in a crackdown on a media landscape in which sports publications outstrip political media in circulation.

The council’s secretary general, El-Obeid Ahmed Morawah, said the suspensions were justified because the newspapers had failed to adhere to journalistic standards and were damaging Sudan’s reputation. Mr. Morawah insisted that the measure did not violate constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

Sensational reporting in which soccer executives and journalists of rival papers see their private lives exposed is par for the course in the fierce competition between the papers. Reporters are believed to be on the take and allegedly often seek to bribe soccer players and executives.

The crackdown on the sports media comes ten days after world soccer body FIFA forced the Sudanese Football Association to rerun its first presidential elections in a bid to avoid being banned from international soccer. FIFA charged that the government had interfered in an earlier election by preventing some candidates from standing and imposing prohibitive fees on nominees.

FIFA endorsed the election after the incumbent president, Kamal Shaddad,  who had been barred from re-election by the government in the initial vote on July 26, withdrew his nomination and did not attend the vote.

As a result, the same two candidates as in the initial vote ran in the re-run, which Mr. Shaddad’s deputy, Mutasim Jaafar won.

That apparently was good enough for FIFA. “This assembly has met FIFA’s requirements,” said Taha Ismail, one of the FIFA representatives monitoring the vote.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Qatar loses bid for FIFA media agency

Energy-rich Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund failed to win its bid to acquire the media agency that controls the broadcasting rights to the world soccer body FIFA’s World Cup.

The fund, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), lost to London-based private equity firm Bridgepoint Capital, which agreed to pay $707m for Infront Sports & Media AG, the agency that controls the rights for seven national FAs including the German Football Federation and clubs such as Italy’s AC Milan and Germany’s Schalke O4.

Infront represents more than 120 sports rights holders who deliver 2,300 event days each year. 

Infront is managed by FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s son, Philippe Blatter.

QIA, which earlier this year bought French Premier League club Paris Saint-Germain, was the last bidder alongside Bridgepoint after Dubai’s sovereign wealth fund dropped out of the buying race earlier this year.

QIA was believed to be primarily interested in the hosting rights for the World Cup to compliment Qatar’s successful bid late last year to host the tournament in 2022. Acquisition of Infront would have cemented Qatar’s efforts to expand its stake in sports broadcasting. 

The Gulf state’s global news channel Al Jazeera won the rights to broadcast French football from 2012 through to 2016 in June, but has yet to secure a mainstream European platform for to execute its rights, which also extend to the UEFA Champions League.