From Marc Lynch, 

Tyson and Chandrasekaran were both frank about the limitations of trying to speak to Iraqis or Afghans from within a military embed (hopping out of a military vehicle and surrounded by large men with guns is not always the best way to strike up a conversation — through a translator — with locals).  The U.S. military’s decision to shift to a population-centric COIN strategy created more and better opportunities for such contacts, intriguingly. Both mentioned the great value of stringers, Iraqis who could get out into their communities, and who help constitute an effective overall team.  Such use of stringers is essential but raises its own problems, of course – including, not least, their own safety.    I pointed out my dismay at the number of books about Iraq written by even very good journalists which fail to quote or take heed of Iraqis themselves.  Anthony Shadid was brought up several times as an exception, but what makes Shadid exceptional is that he is, in fact, exceptional in this regard both in terms of his Arabic language and his access (ditto Nir Rosen and a few others).

As I mentioned earlier this month when reflecting on some work I did in Garissa, Kenya’s North Eastern Province, the use of stringers seems like an increasingly appealing option for gathering news for an international audience. As a White female foreigner and Westerner, Somali men were not interested in sharing their difficulties as honestly or as readily as they might have with a Somali reporter writing for both local and international press. In the long-run, stringers seem to a more fair and sustainable option. Building capacity of local reporters to file internationally, while cutting costs. The big clincher, of course, is how to protect stringers and give them due credit. 

Also – are there experiences where stringers have community/family allegiances that compromise their work. Thoughts?

A new dawn for tomorrow’s news. Where does success lie? In the non-profit sector:

America will never have a BBC. The government funding isn’t there. What we do have, though, is a tremendous increase in enthusiasm and initiative that, in the age of the Internet, counts for more than transmitters and printing presses. The retreat of the giant corporations and conglomerates is creating the opportunity for fresh structures to emerge. It remains to be seen whether foundations, wealthy donors, and news consumers will step forward to support them. (Nonprofit Web sites and public broadcasters, it is worth noting, are, in effect, partly subsidized by the public, through the tax deductions taken for the grants and donations made to them.)

A very interesting read on the role of “hospitality” in the practice of journalism and online media. I was first struck by the intuition of the concept: journalists will generally take a “hospitable” approach in interviewing. The idea is to present yourself as just another person – which, ultimately, you are – and to ensure that the playing field is equal. Of course, this does not apply to every situation, but it does when doing in-depth and more personal interviews.

He proposes that we move beyond objectivity as a key journalistic valye towards hospitality. Objectivity as a gold standard makes sense when information is your goal. But if what you’re hoping to do is manage an inclusive conversation, perhaps we need different standards – we need to focus on whether spaces are hospitable to conversation.

In one sense, this does replace objectivity. Producing stories based on the raw reaction between two people offers much more to the reader than does the simple delivery of news (which some say is the objective approach). As mentioned in this article, journalism is both “ritual” and “transmission.” We both absorb the information put out, but we also reflect and react. News constructs our society and the global community.

On that note, as someone who used to support objectivity all the way, it is slowly becoming clearer and clearer that objective journalism offers a blank view of the world. It often does little to engage an audience in the public sphere(s). While one doesn’t want articles that present just one side of the story, one does want an article that tackles many facets and brings up the important questions in an artful and articulate way.

Back to hospitality. I found it interesting that this was linked to Global Voices, i.e. online social media. In one sense, social media destroys Habermas’ one-public-sphere and opens up a whole new means of talking to many communities. It means many public spheres, although with diminished individual power and influence. At the same time, hospitality is also hugely not a part of online social media. The Internet in itself allows humans to approach contentious issues from afar. We are no longer required to come together – physically – and share our values.

David Weinberger wonders why hospitality used to be such a critical part of our collective culture – the Old Testament is full of stories about hospitality. Why has hospitality slipped away? Is it because we’re experiencing the false intimacy of a globalized world? Lokman suggests that we’re seeing a paradox of choice emerging online – as we’ve got more choices, we often make decisions that isolate and cocoon ourselves. Part of this may come from the biggest way in which we isolate ourselves – we restrict the flow of people across national borders to a much greater extent than we restrict financial or cultural flows. Perhaps we’ve become better at accommodating a person’s CDs or movies, but less good at accommodating the person herself.

This type of interaction has a whole different effect on the human psyche, I like to believe, and therefore should be more encouraged, within the opportunities that the Internet offers. Perhaps the Internet and online social media can be that bridge between the two. In any case, his blog entry contains a whole pile of fun journalistic theories.

Forwarded by my brother: Dan Baum tweeting about the deadly world of competitive writing (and his contract with the New Yorker and why he got fired).

An Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, was arrested and given eight years in jail in Iran. This is a direct affront to the freedom of the press: please help pressure for her release here, and here.