The scene of new media in Jordan is chaotic. There is no law governing this new emerging business, nor are there regulations or a code of ethics among the owners of electronic websites. Reasons for this disarray have to do with a collective mindset that governs and conditions the way we see things. It is my conviction that the failure of the modernisation process in much of the Arab world has to do with the fact that the Arabs have approached modernisation selectively: they import every possible technology, minus the values associated with such inventions. This has never been clearer than now as this new wave of electronic journalism takes root in Jordan. Perhaps the most salient feature of electronic journalism is that it allows for interaction. It creates an unprecedented space that enables readers to post their comments and to have their say. This form of interaction is what makes electronic journalism flourish. The new space provided by this new medium is meant to provide more freedom and immediacy. Readers can post their comments instantly. The problem is censorship. A majority of those who run news websites are old-fashioned. They do not seem to understand the cultural dimension of this new innovation. Therefore, much of what they do is a replication of the distrusted yellow weekly papers that focus more on sensational coverage and blackmail than on content and quality. Much troubling is that any criticism of the new media in Jordan is readily confronted by an organised campaign by this industry that often have nothing to do with journalism and more to do with the business of blackmail. By and large, they are not motivated by the need to provide a better and faster media space, they are interested in making money by blackmailing advertisers. One example: one of the finest columnists in Jordan wrote an article arguing that the new media in Jordan have yet to improve the quality of their coverage and need to become more professional should they wish to survive in the future. His comments are 100 per cent correct. The sad news is that his well-articulated and balanced article was attacked by owners of news websites who failed to present a model of tolerance, proving the accuracy of the columnist’s statements. Articles were written against him in an attempt to assassinate his character. These people simply seek to silence any voice that criticises their conduct. It is true that new media are the wave of the future, but they should not be divorced from values that are necessary to prevent them from drifting and degenerating into chaos. This is what should be fully understood by those who run new media in Jordan. Journalists working in the business of new media have yet to internalise that electronic journalism, if allowed to continue the way it does today, will be discredited by the wider audience. One understands that news websites are also a means of generating income by attracting advertisers, but this should not be at the expense of ethics that the new media should take into account. Apparently, this field cannot be fixed from within. There is need for state intervention to regulate the conduct of these news websites and make sure that they adhere to a code of ethics while not having freedom of expression compromised.
| Bookmark this post: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Add a Comment
from Jordan
said:I think the problem has to do with the attitude of society towards the media, especially those in power.
To put it very simply, a politician in a democratic & free country is concerned about public image. Whatever the media's perspective, you accept it as is. You have right, left & centre newspapers & media groups, you accept what is said & only challenge false allegations.
For example, the head of Jordan's IAF (Islamic Action Front) had a nasty view towards Fact International because it mentioned that the IAF's ratings from polls had dropped; especially after its morbid response (did I say morbid?) towards the Amman bombings.
Instead of going after the editor, the head of the IAF should have agreed/disagreed with the poll, figures, methodology employed etc, but in the end, he interpreted it as a direct attack on the party (as if society votes for what they 'think' or 'believe' is the most popular party). Surely printing it is not wrong, but the IAF's chief & the Brotherhood elders took it as negative publishing.
Quite how is astonishing for if my party's polls are down then I need to know what's wrong; & conversely if somebody publishes that my party's polls are low then I'd say, "Whatever" if I know better. Yet I wouldn't react angrily to allegations of corruption; quite to the contrary, I'm ready to open my bank account records for all to see. At end of it, transparency (or a culture of transparency) is required for effective media.
from Jordan
said:Another serious issue is 'what' the media is 'allowed' to report. When I was at the Jordan Times in 2004; I was keen to report on a story of rampant syphoning of petrol (gasoline) from automobiles in Irbid. As they say; one thing leads to another.
Most people had not reported to the police; citing lack of confidence in the police at what they believed (right or wrong) was a lack of interest. The Police department chief gave me a more favourable impression & took the case seriously; but did cite that there were not sufficient reports.
I could have written a new story on 'lack of confidence between citizens & police' alas this was not allowed, nor was my original story due to its portrayal of the police.
At least one editor said it wasn't 'newsworthy' enough to be published. The rest disagreed, citing that this would rouse interest if properly done. Whatever the case, I had to be 'aware' so as not to vilify the police.
Interestingly enough I had contradictory responses. The police chief cited that 'the boys' in the force wanted some excitement in an otherwise boring job. Others (privately) admitted that police were not particularly interested in such cases. Indeed, those who I had interviewed even suggested that they would call the police had their homes been robbed!
So, what's a journalist got to do?
Looking back; I think that the lack of confidence in police, & lack of reporting was perhaps the most serious item; aside from the syphoning itself, but it seemed that Jordan lives on:
- If it's not officially sanctioned; it doesn't exist,
- If it is officially sanctioned; it exists
Add a Comment
<<Home
from Jordan
How transparent, ethical, and balanced this body you are calling to create in order to regulate and oversee the new media? Is it going to the government, again!?
Please elaborate on how this will be created, who does repoert to? Are the new media reps going to have a say in it? How will you select the people who will run it?