My Heart's in Accra

Ethan Zuckerman's musings on Africa, international development
and hacking the media.

December 28, 2007

2007 - best of a tough year

Filed under: Personal — Ethan @ 1:44 pm

It’s a quiet day here in Lanesboro, as we prepare for our annual New Year’s party, where friends from all over the world come visit us for a few days, and we recharge our batteries and renew our ties to people we don’t get to see often enough. It’s one of my favorite times of the year, and a very good time to spend offline. I’ll likely disappear from the net later today and hope not to re-emerge until January 3rd at the earliest.

At this time of year, a lot of bloggers - including my lovely wife - are publishing lists of their best posts for the year. I wanted to do the same, but have been a bit stuck on my sense that this has been a difficult - and often lousy - year that I haven’t wanted to look at very closely. It’s a year that has been dominated by non-intellectual issues - Rachel’s stroke, and the endless - and ultimately unsuccessful - struggle to find a diagonsis; problems with my vision; health issues my father is currently facing. For much of the year, I’ve felt like the best I could do was simply to keep up with my travel and speaking engagements, get all the email answered and keep the non-online parts of my life from descending into crisis. Not the best environment in which to get thinking done.

But reading through a year’s posts is a good way to remind yourself that a year is never just one thing or another. A year that I remember mostly including endless waits in doctor’s offices and airport lounges included some beautiful travel, both far from home and much closer by, some very silly projects, a wealth of wonderful talks, both at conferences like TED, TED Africa and Pop!Tech and at Berkman, and a couple of posts I’m proud of writing. Here are some of my favorites of 2007:

- Conference blogging gets me invited to conferences I couldn’t otherwise afford to go to, and which I enjoy being present at.
- Other bloggers link to my conference posts, which raises my Technorati profile, my google juice, etc., and makes it more likely people will read my original writing.
- People expect me to. (This is a good and bad thing.)

From “The 5-4-3 double play, or ‘The art of conference blogging’”

The dreams articulated by pioneers like Barlow, Rheingold and others are a proud legacy of the Internet. But we need to ask whether they saw the Internet bringing people together into a single, unitary net culture, or whether they saw that the Internet could be a space that allowed people from all different cultures to meet on common ground. The former is a fun club to belong to, where we can trade All Your Base jokes and cat macros. But the latter is powerful, political, and potentially transformative. It’s something worth fighting for.

From “What I Think We’re Trying to Do

Concluding that the fanfic authors who submit stories to Pornish Pixies are trying to recruit children for predatory purposes is a radical misunderstanding of the rules of this closed community. When LiveJournal reviewed the content of the Pornish Pixies group, they quickly concluded that these folks were writing fiction, not harming children, and restored the group. They had misread the metadata because they didn’t speak the language

From “Six Apart casts ‘evanesco’. Fanfic authors cast ‘expelliarmus’.”

while Web 1.0 was invented so that theoretical physicists could publish research online, Web 2.0 was created so that people could publish cute photos of their cats. But this same cat dissemination technology has proved extremely helpful for activists, who’ve turned these tools to their own purposes.

from “The connection between cute cats and web censorship” (aka, the Cute Cat Theory). See also “Cute Cat Theory: The China Corrolary” and “Generative Filtering”

For-profit companies, many founded by expatriate Africans with a few million dollars, would provide the sorts of resources we’ve traditionally expected governments and parastatals to provide. Ideally, governments would work with these providers to bring services to areas of their countries not able to pay for them; given the mixed record of African governments in creating infrastructure, perhaps we’re better off hoping that most governments stay out of the way of innovative infrastructure providers.

from “Incremental Infrastructure, or how mobile phones might wire Africa”

…I’m restraining myself from responding with another question: “Why the heck do you want to know this person’s name?”

I don’t know about you, but knowing that a blogpost was written by someone named “Mohammed Hassan”, rather than by “Muslimpundit” tells me approximately nothing.

From “What’s in a name?

In a world where nearly everything is free due to ad support, it’s quite likely that a casual user may not know that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are supported almost exclusively by user donation, and a banner on top of pages may not be sufficient to challenge the paradigm that everything on the internet is free.

In fact, charitable giving is now free as well. Sort of.

from “Penny for your thoughts

One of the utopian hopes for the Internet is that it would help bring users into contact with people from other nations simply because we’re all connected to one another. But parochialism is a powerful force, and it’s pretty easy to spend years online without encountering content outside your own language and culture (especially if you’re an English speaker.) Shared joint projects that cross cultural lines are an exception rather than a rule, but they’re an intriguing hint that shared practice can create bonds that are difficult to create otherwise.

from “Pokémon and International Politics?”

I’m not accusing De Vellis of ripping off Astrubal’s work. It’s quite likely that he’s never seen the Tunisian remix and that he had the idea of remixing the ad independently. Nor am I criticizing the press for failing to credit the Tunisians for remixing the video before the pro-Obama camp did - I wouldn’t have seen this remix had I not been hanging out with Tunisian human rights activists. But it’s an interesting reminder that US activists aren’t the only ones using the tools of the read/write web, and that they’re not always the first to use these tools.

from “Democrats invent the remix, only three years after the Tunisians

There are half a dozen photos pinned up over my desk. Half are pictures of people I used to work with in offices we used to share. What photos will I pin up from Global Voices? Bloggers squeezing into a group shot in Delhi after the 2006 summit? Or my computer monitor, next to a window overlooking birch trees and Onota Lake?

From “Where I work these days

Thanks for reading, everyone, and see you in 2008.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 27, 2007

links for 2007-12-27

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:17 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 24, 2007

links for 2007-12-24

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:17 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 22, 2007

links for 2007-12-22

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:17 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 20, 2007

Underreported: an odd kind of top ten list

Filed under: Developing world, Geekery, Media, syndicate — Ethan @ 5:20 pm

As we near the shortest day of the year and the Christmas/New Year’s hibernation that spreads across much of the world, we’re entering list season. Newspapers, websites and other media release their top lists of best books, best films, best music, and I’m sure, duct tape, automotive lubricant and vegan bacon substitute. Time Magazine offers fifty top ten lists, including fashion must-haves and “t-shirt worthy slogans”.

I mention this not as a complaint - these lists are occasionally useful, and Global Voices authors are, in some cases, putting together lists of the best posts from their regions for 2007.

The lists I’ve been perusing today are the “underreported” lists - lists of stories that media critics or media outlets don’t feel were covered closely enough in 2007. Lots of organizations put them out. Project Censored’s leans to the left, while World Net Daily leans right. Medicine Sans Frontieres offers an extremely valuable list of “top ten most underreported humanitarian stories of 2007“, a list which includes conflicts in Somalia, DRC, Sri Lanka, Colombia and CAR, as well as drug resistant tuberculosis and nutrient-rich supplements to assist with child malnutrition.

It’s not too hard to understand why media critics - or groups like MSF, who rely on media coverage to help them raise funds - would publish lists of undercovered stories. But the term “undercovered” has an interesting implication bound up in it - the idea that there’s an optimal level of news coverage for each topic and that these topics aren’t getting their fair share. (I looked at this topic in some detail in 2003, building “models” for media attention that tried to predict how many stories a nation should feature in based on its population or its wealth. I received a lot of good critique, arguing that there’s no guarantee that just because two nations have the same population that they have the same amount of news - Nigeria may just be less interesting and less newsworthy than Japan.)

But it’s a little stranger to see a mainstream media outlet declare stories undercovered. When Time offers a list of the top 10 undercovered stories of 2007, should we read this as self criticism? Or as criticism of the broader media world? Or perhaps of the readership, for not expressing enough interest in stories the outlet was trying to tell and sell?

The top story on Time’s list this year is about Somalia, and is titled, “The Other Darfur“, looking at the more than 1 million refugees who’ve left Mogadishu. Intriguingly enough, Somalia topped last year’s list with an article titled “Islamist Takeover in Somalia“. And the situation in Somalia is one that Time has covered admirably - thought I disagree with some of the characterizations in Alex Perry’s stories, I’m impressed that Time is giving him so much space and leeway to report from Somalia. (Perry likely had some influence in this year’s list, as story #10 is about Ethiopian/Eritrean tensions, a story closely tied to the Somalia story.)

Somalia is the #1 story on MSF’s list as well. In their announcement of the list, MSF observes that all ten stories they list received a total of 18 minutes coverage on the US’s three major television networks from January through November of 2007. (The lists have another overlap, with both Time and MSF listing drug-resistant TB as one of the top undercovered stories of the year.)

So what do these undercovered lists do? Does Newsweek read Time’s list and check to see if they’ve got the correct Somalia:Darfur ratio? Or the right Somalia:Britney ratio, for that matter? (Oddly enough, Newsweek’s search engine shows proportionately more stories on Somalia than Darfur - 180:124 - while Time shows 747:1248. But Newsweek’s got a way higher Britney:Somalia ratio - 257:180, versus 351:747… Just imagine the coverage we could get by sending Britney to Somalia.) Do they challenge readers to find stories that they might otherwise ignore?

At the very least, these stories offer some advice on what we might put in the serendipity box. If Somalia didn’t receive enough attention in 2007, perhaps the answer is to ensure that readers trip over it in 2008.

What worries me is that these lists, by neccessity, can’t feature the stories we know nothing about, only the ones we think aren’t getting enough attention. My GAP scripts suggest that Somalia is getting fairly good media attention by African standards, certainly far more attention than the Central African Republic, for instance. (Which is to say, less attention than comparably sized wealthy nations, but more attention than most poor nations.) How do we construct warning systems that tell us not just the stories we’ve missed, but whole parts of the world we might be missing? Underreported stories seem like an example of the demand problem - we know there are stories in these countries, but readers/advertisers/publishers aren’t asking for them, so we’re not telling them enough. Is there another set of stories where our constraint in supply - we simply don’t know the story to tell?


Special bonus - the Underreported weekly feature on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC. Excellent 10-minute radio pieces on stories you likely would have missed otherwise. Great stuff!

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

links for 2007-12-20

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:17 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 19, 2007

Social software, serendipity and salad bars. (Mmm. Sybillance…)

Filed under: Geekery, Media, syndicate, xenophilia — Ethan @ 8:29 pm

My friend Evgeny Morozov’s bookmarks on del.icio.us are one of the places I look for inspiration when I’m feeling burned out on blogging, writing or thinking… which is more or less how I’m feeling near the tail end of a very long year. Evgeny linked to a story from Nat Torkington on O’Reilly Radar about the ways in which social software can reinforce homophily - the tendency of individuals to associate with people who are alike in age, gender, class, value terms - and how users or designers of tools might fight these effects.

Nat points out, “Designers first need to decide whether homophily is a a feature or a bug. Life is easy when you’re unchallenged: this is why people read the New York Times or watch Fox News…” This is, in essence, what Cass Sunstein worries about in Republic.com - in a world where one can choose media that matches one’s preconceptions and prejudices, what prevents us from choosing to live in an echo chamber of supportive voices?

There’s an odd paradox at work in the world of the pervasive web. On the one hand, it’s easier than ever before for an individual to share her ideas with the entire world. On the other hand, the mechanisms we use to discover ideas may make it harder for us to discover different ideas from different people. Assume that our social networks contain a lot of people who’ve got similar interests and backgrounds to our own, as homophily implies. There’s a good chance those folks are going to recommend similar stories for us to read. If our social networks become a major source of new ideas for us, there’s a real danger that homophily traps us in a conceptual echo chamber.

(At this point, if you’re like most readers, you’re ready to fight the premise of homophily with a list of all the people you spend time with/link to/have friended on Facebook, etc. who don’t share your nationality, language, socioeconomic status or race. That’s okay. danah’s here for you: “Sociological fact: most white people hang out with mostly other white people. Individually, everyone immediately screams not me! and starts listing off all of the people of color that they know. Individuals never want to see themselves as non-diverse, but the desire to be seen in a positive light does not make someone diverse.”

You may also be asking the “what’s so bad about homophily?” question. Here Sunstein can offer some help, suggesting that people who hear only similar voices end up polarized, less likely to compromise with people of different political viewpoints, less likely to find the sort of common ground and experience neccesary for a democratic society. I’d go further and argue that too much homophily can make you a) dumb and b) boring, ignorant of news and ideas that aren’t already interesting to people around you, and incapable of bringing ideas to your friends that they haven’t already heard.)

Examining ways around the homophily trap, Torkington looks closely as collaborative filtering, the technology that underlies most online recommendation systems. Rate a couple dozen movies, and the system looks for other users who liked the same movies you did (and, sometimes, disliked the same movies you did) and recommends to you the movies they like that you haven’t yet rated. That’s all well and good, but if you happen to like the same movies that other white computer geeks from rural America like, you’re very unlikely to be recommended a movie that’s the favorite of urban latino fashionistas.

Torkington suggests that social software should consider ways to make these serendipitious recommendations. It would be trivial, for instance, for Netflix to offer a feature titled “People different from you love these movies”. They’ve already calculated your nearest neighbor - in the process, they calculate your furthest neighbor. The question is whether these recommendations would be at all interesting to you - it’s not a recommendation of bad movies, or even movies that might be a bad fit for you, but movies that are loved by those different from you…

While Torkington takes a swing at the New York Times in framing homophily, newspapers like the Times have a terrific mechanism to encourage serendipity. In many major newspapers, the lower right-hand side of the front page is reserved for a story that readers would otherwise likely miss. (Friday’s paper is a good example. On a day where leading stories were about steroids in baseball, Al Qaeda and the US presidential race, the serendipity box featured a fascinating story about a Liberian mother in Staten Island sending her son back to Liberia rather than lose him to gang violence in the US.) These stories aren’t selected by algorithms - they’re chosen by editors who want to feature content in the paper that might otherwise be ignored, which frequently includes stories on topics other than Iraq, US elections or terror. Dan Gillmor describes this feature as “institutionalized serendipity“.

It’s less clear where the institutionalized serendipity lives on the New York Times’s website. The NYTimes homepage features several times as many stories on its webpage than on the front page of the paper edition, but it’s much less clear which ones you’re encouraged to read. There’s more choice and less guidance… which isn’t a bad description for the information universe opened by the Internet. And the guidance that’s offered may be a homophilic form of guidance - in the bottom right of the homepage is a box that offers a list of the ten most popular stories, as measured by email traffic, blog links and searches. In other words, these are the stories that fellow websurfers found most interesting, not the stories the editors felt you should read, even if you didn’t know you were interested in them.

The serendipity box in the paper New York Times is a form of persuasive technology - it convinces us to pay attention to information we’d otherwise ignore. As BJ Fogg notes on the homepage on Stanford University’s Persuasive Technology Lab, the idea that technologies are persuading us, not just people’s arguments, can be an uncomfortable topic. But it’s also a very powerful tool.

By way of example: I visit the Googleplex in Mountain View a couple of times a year. Being a cheapskate, I usually try to arrange to be there for lunch to take advantage of Google’s amazing cafeterias. My favorite of the lunchrooms offers a huge salad bar, complete with chefs who dress your salad on your behalf. This is an odd phenomenon. At first glance, I assumed that this was Google’s way of saying, “We’re so wealthy and successful, we can afford to save our geeks the hassle of dressing their own salads.”

But that’s not the reason why. Dressing is where many of the calories in a salad come from, and most people over-dress their salads, turning a healthy meal into a more fattening one. Google’s salad chefs put a modest amount of dressing on your salad and toss it in steel bowls, so that your salad is thoroughly dressed, but not unheathily so. Look closer at the salad bar and it becomes clear that the entire experience is engineered to encourage you to assemble a healthy salad. Vegetables like peppers and carrots are closest to you; cheese and olives are as far away as possible, forcing you to make an uncomfortable reach to add that tasty fat to your innocent greens. The salad bar is a persuasive technology designed to change your eating habits.

I find this amusing, and vaguely sinister, but end up conceding that it’s probably a good thing, or would be if I ate at Google every day. In the same sense, I wish more websites would take institutionalized serendipity more seriously. Like green peppers, information you didn’t know you needed is good for you, and should be periodically put onto your plate, even if you didn’t request it.

Encountering new ideas isn’t a supply problem in today’s internet - it’s a demand problem. There’s a near infinity of people unlike you creating content and putting it online for you to encounter. But it’s entirely possible that you’ll never encounter it if you don’t actively look for it… or unless the systems you use to find ideas start forcing you outside your usual orbits into new territories. Don’t fear the serendipity.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

links for 2007-12-19

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:18 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 15, 2007

links for 2007-12-15

Filed under: del.icio.us links — Ethan @ 12:17 am
[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

December 14, 2007

Somalia spirals out of control. Or it’s completely peaceful. Depends who you ask.

Filed under: Africa, Africa News, Media, syndicate — Ethan @ 4:03 pm

The situation in Somalia is spiraling out of control, and, as always, it requires some serious digging to understand what’s actually going on. Sheikh Qasim Ibrahim Nur, the national security director of the Ethiopian- and US-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) noted that “About 80 per cent of Somalia is not safe and is not under control of the government.”

His statement was almost immediately undercut by the Ethiopian government, whose troops have made it possible for the TFG to have any presence in Mogadishu. Bereket Simon, an advisor to Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi, dismissed talk of the resurgence of the Union of Islamic Courts, saying, “The facts on the ground tell you that [the UIC] are in bad shape and having serious difficulties.”

Maybe Simon and Sheik Nur should get together and coordinate their stories, as the Sheik told reporters, “Foreign Islamist elements from Afghanistan, Chechnya and some Arab nations have arrived (in October and November). There are around 4,500 foreign terrorists in the country.” One would assume those alleged terrorists are supporting the Union of Islamic Courts, which briefly managed to achieve some peace and calm in Mogadishu, before the Ethiopian army (with US support) chased them underground. But perhaps they’re just in town on holiday, since the UIC is “having serious difficulties.”

Nur’s statement fits with the narrative that Ethiopia and TFG have been feeding their supporters - Somalia is a hotbed for international terror, and international intervention is neccesary to stabilize the region. Other of his statements seem custom-designed for the Bush administration: “We have evidence that a large amount of weapons were shipped to Somalia from Iran… These sophisticated weapons were intended to annihilate the Somali people.” Reuters noted that this statement “could not immediately be independently verified.” It certainly would be fascinating if it were true - Shia Iran supporting Sunni insurgents (and, allegedly, Sunni al-Qaeda) in a Sunni nation against Christian troops?

The occasion for this linguistic battle between allies was a mortar strike on Bakara Market, a busy center in Mogadishu. Ethiopia denies shelling the market, with Simon arguing that Ethiopian forces have the UIC under control, and therefore have no need to shell civilians. Indeed, Ethiopian Information Minister Berhan Hailu (safely in Addis Ababa) told reporters, “As far as we know, Mogadishu remained peaceful during the week.” He might want to pass that on to the 19 dead and 40 injured in the blasts. Somali analysts say that Ethopian forces are the only ones in the region with the capability to fire the sorts of shells that caused the carnage in the market. (Wanna bet that someone blames Iranian weaponry for this attack in the next couple of days?)

It’s hard to follow this story for a lot of reasons, not just because virtually every source is unreliable. Increasingly, it’s difficult for any reporters to operate in Mogadishu, or Somalia as a whole. According to David Axe, who wrote an excellent series of posts from Mogadishu, “Pretty much every one of Mogadishu’s roughly 100 independent media workers has been arrested for reporting on the fighting – some for days, some for weeks.” In a longer piece for the Columbia Journalism Review, he reports that the TFG is systematically harrassing journalists, attempting to quash any reports of fighting in the city or refugees fleeing.

In the process, they’ve created a much more repressive media environment than existed under the UIC, and have cut off essential information services. Think of the importance of a morning traffic report in a city where gunfire and extortive roadblocks are routine. Shabelle Radio provided one, with a dozen journalists contributing stories from around the city on the “Today in Mogadishu” program. The show has been off the air since the TFG shot up Shabelle’s offices at the end of Ramadan.

Axe’s reporting is extremely helpful for people trying to follow the Somalia story closely. He offers a useful history of Bakara Market, including the rise of a private militia to protect businesses and shoppers. That militia was chased out by the TFG earlier this year, and they turned over 1700 weapons to the TFG. (When TFG soliders get sick of not getting paid by their dysfunctional government, they sell their AK47s to local toughs, who use them to man barricades and rob passers-by of their mobile phones.) I’m slightly put off by Axe’s narrative of self-sacrifice and machismo - his first few entries focus on the dire warnings he ignored in going to Somalia, and his decision to quit his employ with McGraw Hill to make the trip - but I can’t argue with his bravery or with his reporting on the ground. (After all, Yahoo’s resident war correspondent, Kevin Sites hasn’t been there since a five-day trip in 2005, before the Ethiopian invasion…)

And I appreciate his efforts to clarify US involvement in the situation. He argues, “The United States is playing both sides, supporting the army inciting much of the fighting AND the army with the best chance of bringing peace.” That latter army is the fledgling AU force, which currently includes 1,800 Ugandan troops. Uganda and Ethiopia have been competing to be the US’s best friend in the Horn, and Axe notes that the Ugandan troops and trained and supported with US money and US-backed mercenaries, including DynCorp.

Axe only got a partial picture in his two weeks in Somalia, but it’s a vital and important one. Only a few media sources are shining a light on the situation in Somalia. The LA Times has an excellent article today about aid convoys shipping grain to the country with an escort from the French navy to protect ships from piracy - I would love to have the backstory on how Edmund Sanders got this story from Marka, 45 miles south of Somalia. Most media sources are relying just on wire stories… and those wire stories are getting harder to get as the TFG cracks down on all independent journalists, not just those reporting locally.

Closing his Somalia series, Axe notes, “…it’s about how the U.S. aims to fight wars in Africa — by proxy — and how these proxy wars might have the same result as our misguided invasion of Iraq. Instead of destroying Islamic extremists, pre-emptive wars often breed them.” He’s absolutely right. That’s the insanity of US and Ethiopian involvement in Somalia: we took a stabilizing security situation in Somalia and turned it into a humanitarian disaster. And we did it with almost no one in the US noticing.

Don’t say the Bush administration doesn’t learn from its mistakes - the government reaction to the quagmire in Iraq was to keep our next foray in the “war on terror” as quiet as possible, hoping no one would notice. For the most part, no one has.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
Next Page »