Why Arabs and Japanese media report about horror differently -- Time for an Arab Media Code of Ethics as winds of freedom blowing

The images of Japanese towns eradicated by the tsunami on March 18 are horrific. The ones of bloody street protests and of fighting in Libya, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and other Arab countries moving towards democracy are shocking, too.  When following events simultaneously, in disaster-struck Japan and in troubled Arab countries, one cannot but notice that both societies have different styles in reporting about calamities and human suffering.

TV reports literally beam you in front and above the waves that destroyed cities and killed thousands in Japan. The images that stick are of cars and houses being washed away and of large areas littered with all sorts of vehicles and debris. Near total destruction you see in doomsday films like “War of the Worlds” and “Armageddon” – or in black-and-white documentaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were flattened by US atomic bombs in 1945.

In none of the tsunami footage broadcasted by Japanese and foreign TV stations, and in none of the following reports by foreign teams on the ground did I see corpses, except rare scenes of rescue workers carrying victims on stretchers. These victims are covered and hardly visible, no wounds, no blood. Dramatic tsunami footage always stops the second waves eating homes and landscapes get close to people in cars trying to escape death. You just do not see people close-ups of badly wounded, dead or dying.

In contrast, images from Libya and Yemen, where dictators hang to power and order policemen and soldiers to shoot, are different. I see bullet wounds, mutilated bodies and pools of blood on streets. Hospital staffs have no problem allowing cameramen to violate the privacy of patients.

In Japan, there is respect for the dignity of victims and their grieving relatives. Why show mud-covered bodies when the devastation on the ground is horrific enough to make your heart bleed? Why zoom in on mutilated bodies? Imagine gruesome details if you wish. The images of razed cities are tragic enough. No need for maxi horror.

The Japanese media follow an ethical code not enshrined in law as this would violate the right for free expression in a democratic system. Foreign correspondents in Japan respect this code, even al-Jazeera TV. Switch to the world’s most famous TV station and to many other Arab TVs and wonder why this code is respected when it comes to Japan. But the moment they report from the Gaza-Israel frontline or from Libya “blood flows to the knees” (Arabic saying).

This trend started sometime in the 1980s when two events happened at the same time. First, private TV stations mushroomed and more camera teams were sent to troubled areas, all competing for the attention of coach potato consumers. The more gruesome, the more viewers are glued to screens, so the logic of media managers. Second, autocratic regimes allowed TV stations to show in detail how Israeli soldiers kill Palestinians and Lebanese. The aim has been to divert popular frustration and anger on Israel. I will not elaborate on tasteless advertisements between tragedies in the Gaza Strip or in southern Lebanon.

Arab newspapers were under pressure, especially after photos on websites and amateur films on YouTube crossed any remaining ethical line by showing what even Al-Jazeera TV did not. Many followed suit and printed pictures that would never find their way in Japanese or European media. Sadly, most Arab media and amateur internet journalists do not ask themselves what impact showing horror has on the sanity of viewers and readers, especially children. Is this good for the Palestinian cause? Does this encourage more violence? Does this make violence banal? Does it increase fear, and does fear lead to more violence?

University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann argues that 50 years of evidence show “that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later”. Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto claims that “the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it”. Se there is no consensus among experts on the question whether exposure to media violence increases levels of aggression and violence in youth. I believe Mr. Huesmann.

Back to the Arab media: I am against laws trying to stifle internet and conventional media. Politicians should not fiddle with the principle of freedom of expression; this is an untouchable universal human right. However, Arab associations of journalists and publishers have a responsibility to formulate and adhere to a modern media code of ethics. We do not need to show violence and pain in detail. We do not need shocking images from the occupied Palestinian territories to be convinced that Israeli troops are committing crimes against humanity.

Japan`s  “Cannon of Journalism”, adopted in 2001, reads, “Respect for Human Rights: Member newspapers should pay utmost respect to the dignity of human beings, put a high value on individuals’ honour and give serious consideration to their right to privacy”. The respect of human rights is a headline; you cannot be clearer.  In contrast, the outdated “Arab Code of Ethics”, adopted by the Federation of Arab Journalists in Baghdad in 1972, is weak on that subject when it reads, “Journalists adhere to respect the right of individuals to privacy and dignity”.

The Islamic Media Charter, adopted by the International Islamic Mass Media Conference in Jakarta in 2000, promotes “Islamic values and ethical principles”. It says, “Islamic media men should censor all material which is either broadcast or published in order to protect the Ummah from influences which are harmful to Islamic character”.

In Nazareth, the Palestinian Media Center I’lam in 2008 published “The Media Charter – Code of Ethics for Palestinians in Israel”. Under the headlines “Objectivity and human rights” it says that “in their coverage, journalists must rely on general, universal values and on human rights.” It adds, “Objectivity, as a supreme professional value, is consistent with human rights, human freedom, human dignity and other such values.” This document is quite good, but it does not explicitly elaborate on media violence.

In the light of the current pro-democracy wave in the Arab region, time has come for Arab journalists to rethink how they report about violence and natural disasters. They should formulate a new Arab Media Code of Ethics enshrining freedom of expression and respecting dignity and privacy of people. Strictly religious media outlets should have the rights to promote their beliefs as they wish. All other private and state-owned outlets should be open to all political opinions and religious beliefs in a fair way. On media violence, time has come to stop desensitizing and traumatizing Arab societies.

Fouad Hamdan is an independent Arab pro-democracy activist who established and headed Greenpeace Lebanon in 1994-1999 and was the founding executive director of the Arab Human Rights Fund in 2008-2010. He was a journalist at the German Press Agency from 1987-1992.

Strategy for Youth groups and NGOs to end sectarianism in Lebanon

A suggestion to end sectarianism in Lebanon (1st version written for a meeting held in Beirut on March 6) 

The first demo against sectarianism, in front of Parliament in Beirut, 16.3.2011

The first demonstration of about 2,000 people in Beirut on 27th Feb 2011 calling for an end of sectarianism in Lebanon was wonderful news. Lebanon seems to be awakening from a phase of political cynicism and the belief that nothing will ever change. The demo showed that the potential to unite around one essential demand can bring Lebanese from all walks of life and from all sects together. They want to build a truly democratic Lebanon. They want to end the rule of incompetent family dynasties, corrupt businessmen and criminals of war.

In leaflets, the organizers demanded a “secular, civil, democratic, socially just and equal state”. Music! More demos followed, including a large one with some 10,000 people in Beirut. Sit-ins were organized in Saida (the first tents in Lebanon), Beirut, Tyre, Tripoli and in the valley Beqaa. This shows that there is a clear potential for a radical change.

Demo in Beirut on March 6. some 10,000 people were on the streets.

We all agree that the Lebanese sectarian system fails to provide peace and stability, social justice and a bight future for our children. We know that this anachronistic system allows regional powers like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to interfere via their local cronies and degrade Lebanon to their fighting ground.

Almost all our current politicians – the above mentioned incompetent family dynasties, corrupt businessmen and criminals of war – are responsible for plundering the state, keeping institutions inefficient and corrupt, for impoverishing the people and for pushing the country into regular cycles of violence and war.

No, our problems and tragedies are not planned in Tel Aviv, Washington, Damascus, Tehran or Riyadh. They are home-made. Lebanese need to take their destiny in their hands. We need to take responsibility.

The end of the sectarian system is off course our core demand. But what is our strategy to make that edifice crumble. What main section of the foundations must be pulled down so that the rest collapses as a result?

The current election law!

Lebanon needs a modern and fair election law that gives secular parties and independent candidates a fair chance of getting into parliament. The current parliament must scrap the current elections law that monopolizes power into the hands of the current rulers and pass a law allowing proportional representation.

Secular parties and independents should be able to field candidates all over Lebanon to convince people vote for their policies to reform institutions and solve the many problems we suffer from – unfair taxation system, poor health care unless you are wealthy, weak public schools, deteriorating environment, chaotic transport system, energy cuts, anything but independent judiciary, etc.

The demand for a modern and fair election law would be the rallying point for all – even for many March 8 and 14 supporters. Yes, I truly believe that a large majority of the Lebanese would support this demand.

Intifada against sectarianism

Let more follow the example of the youth who on March 1 erected a tent in Saida’s Martyr Square and said they will not leave until the sectarian system is down.

First sit-in in Lebanon to end sectarianism. Saida, Martyr Square, 1.3.2011

Let us support and join them in Saida and other towns. Let us have sit-ins and tents in every town and vilage and ignite a non-violent intifada. So get your tents and sleeping bags and take action. Or at least spend a few hours per day with the ones on the ground. Donate food, whatever material they need, money. 

Suggested rules of the game:

_ All protests are peaceful and non-violent (the mother of all rules).

_ We are inclusive: People who support March 14 or March 8 parties, religious people, priests and sheikhs are more than welcome to participate and unite in the call to end sectarianism, separate religion from state and to demand a modern and fair election law.

_ Please, no party flags and no religious symbols.

Demo in Beirut on March 6, 2011.  

Focus on the following demands:

_ End sectarianism

_ Parliament must pass a modern and fair elections law now

_ MPs vote to hold parliamentary elections in maximum 6 months

_ Then parliament dissolves itself as it does not truly represent the people!

 Let us unite behind these demands!

Suggested broad lines for next steps:

_ Network with groups all over the country and agree on a strategy and an action plan.

_ Formulate a draft election law along the lines of the recommendations made by the Boutros Commission (see annexes 1 and 2)

_ Organize workshops and lectures to educate activists about this law

_ Mobilize, plan and prepare

_ Start the peaceful intifada to end sectarianism

To read, see and learn how to topple Arab dictators

_ From Dictatorship to democracy: A book about how to practically oust dictators though peaceful actions. Download book for free in Arabic, English and French, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations98ce.html

_ How to create a peaceful movement to topple Arab dictators:

Non-violent revolutions must be fun, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-1_-P016Ns

A personal note/flashback:

From my experience in setting up the Greenpeace office in Lebanon from 1994-1999 I formulated the following analysis: Greenpeace activists managed among other things through non-violent campaigns to shut down polluting waste incinerators, prevent new ones from being set up, return toxics waste to Europe and stop the use of water pipes with Asbestos. But we failed to change the structures that have been destroying Lebanon’s environment. See the state of our coastline and mountains. Have a look at the unchecked urbanism and the failed energy and mobility/transport policies. We and other NGOs on the ground regularly hit the walls of a sectarian system that did not allow crossing a deadly red line. Time has come to pull down these walls Check: http://www.fouadhamdan.org/cms/upload/pdf/GreenpeaceLebanon_and_democracy_Speech_FouadHamdan_ARABIC_23March1999.PDF 

ANNEX 1

The current Lebanese Election law, passed in 2008, is an amended version of a 1960 law. It

- alters the boundaries of voting districts,

- calls for elections to be held on one day, rather than over several days,

- gives expatriates the right to vote in elections in 2013,

- regulates the role of the media publicity in elections and sets a limit on some costs incurred by candidates (despite the importance of this measure, it did little to make campaign financing more transparent),

- gives candidates equal time to promote their electoral programmes, while a media "silence" will be observed between midnight on the day before polling stations open until the last votes are cast,

- bans opinion polls in the ten days leading up to elections,

- sees to it that transparent ballot boxes are used and fingers are inked

Several proposed reforms were rejected, including a lowering of the voting age to 18 from 21 and quotas for women in parliament.

The Lebanese MPs approved this law in September 2008 and discarded the most crucial reforms recommended by the Boutros Commission (see annexes 1 and 2).

They failed to adopt the commission's proposal to introduce proportional representation. Instead, the law retained the system as is, while revising the demarcation of electoral districts. The law replaced the 14 electoral districts established with 26 smaller districts that largely coincide with the existing qadas (small administrative district).

This provision was adopted to ensure that the proportion of Christian candidates elected in majority Christian districts is roughly en par with the proportions for other sects. Under the previous electoral law, 38 of 64 Christian seats were in majority Muslim districts, while only 8 of 64 Muslim seats were in majority Christians districts. Under the law, just 17 Christian seats are in Muslim districts.

This increased number of mono-confessional electoral districts has the effect of further strengthening sectarian dynamics, as is it is no longer necessary for candidates to appeal outside of their own confessional constituencies to win election.

Rather than reducing the role of sectarianism in politics, the current election law serves to strengthen it.

Annex 2:

A modern and fair Lebanese election law

In August 2005, the Lebanese government appointed a National Commission for a New Electoral Law, comprised of academics, lawyers, and civil society activists, under the chairmanship of Fouad Boutros. The Boutros Commission released in May 2006 a draft law outlining an array of electoral reforms.

Structural Reforms

The most sweeping proposal of the Boutros Commission was the introduction of a mixed system of electing the 128-member parliament. Although confessional quotas would remain the same, 51 representatives were to be chosen with a proportional system at the muhafaza (governorate) level, while the other 77 deputies would be selected according to the current majoritarian system at the qada (small administrative district) level.

The introduction of proportional representation would work to the advantage of secular groups that do not have enough support within any one confessional group to win election. Candidates would be able to appeal outside of their own confessional constituencies to win election, thus reducing the role of sectarianism in politics.

Procedural Reforms

The most important procedural reform in the Boutros draft law was the introduction of uniform official ballots. Under the current system, voters are allowed to use any piece of paper so long as the names of the candidate they select are clearly legible. This seemingly innocuous innovation is a critical enabler for rampant vote buying and intimidation of constituents.

Political coalitions distribute their own specially tailored ballots to clients and supporters, using different colors, dimensions, and fonts for different voting blocs (e.g. particular villages and families) so that their poll monitors can trace where votes are coming from when ballots are counted. This greatly compromises the secrecy of the vote, makes it easy to ensure that the money invested in buying votes does not go to waste, and strengthens the power of local political bosses by making the "services" they provide to candidates verifiable!

The introduction of a uniform official ballot is critical to the integrity of the electoral process.

The commission recommended counting votes at the qada level, rather than at individual polling stations, because this greatly impeded the ability of party poll monitors to track bought votes.

It also called for setting up an independent electoral commission.

The major weakness of the recommendations made by the Boutros Commission is that a maximum of 7-10 secular candidates would be able to make it. What is needed is at least the possibility of 60 secular candidates to enter parliament.

The new law must guarantee a true proportional representation.