My Heart's in Accra

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

02/28/2011 (7:04 pm)

links for 2011-02-28

Filed under: del.icio.us links ::

02/23/2011 (7:03 pm)

links for 2011-02-23

Filed under: del.icio.us links ::

02/19/2011 (1:35 pm)

A world roundup

Some other stories I’m trying to follow, in addition to the news from Bahrain:

There’s very little news from Libya, as protesters take to the streets, especially in the eastern city of Benghazi. Libya tightly restricts press coverage, and the New York Times observes that while Libya hasn’t been able to prevent news from Tunisia and Egypt from inspiring protesters to take to the streets, it has been pretty effective at restricting news from Libya from reaching the global press. There are reports that Libya began blocking access to social media sites, and last evening, Libya disconnected from the internet.

libyapullsplug

This graphic from Arbor Networks showing two sharp drops in Libyan internet traffic during the day, and a thorough shutoff at night. Heading forward, we’re likely to see reporting via land line phones, and perhaps some computer users dialing into modem banks in Joran and elsewhere, but the shutdown is likely to make what little reporting from the ground we’ve had even harder to get.

I argued previously that there’s great danger for protesters who are inspired to take to the streets in countries where the media isn’t paying attention – Libya is a special case of this scenario, as it’s extremely difficult for anyone to report, via traditional or social media. As Twitter user @EnoughGaddafi puts it, “For all those frustrated by reporting on #libya understand this. There is Zero indpt media on the ground. Nothing at all.” In the absence of coverage, it sounds like suppression of the protests has been quite brutal, with a death toll of at least two dozen, perhaps as high as 70.


My friend and former colleague Dewitt Clinton offers a decidedly geeky perspective on the Libyan unrest – a reminder that the bit.ly URL shortener (which I’ve been trying out the past few weeks) is located on a Libyan domain name:

In case it isn’t obvious, I’m still not a fan of URL shorteners. They’re a bug, not a feature.

And then things like this happen: http://goo.gl/fx3iA. Bye bye bit.ly? That’d be a lot of dead links.

I felt a great disturbance in the Web, as if millions of URLs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

As far as I can tell, Libya Telecom (http://goo.gl/SsMAi) runs .ly. Willing to bet that they’d shut it down plenty fast if Gaddafi said to.

He’s not the first to observe that bit.ly’s domain is connected to a country that’s not exactly amenable to free speech. is.gd advertises itself as an “ethical URL shortener“, in part because they’re not vulnerable to shutdown by the Libyan government, which has previously shut down vb.ly, a “sex-positive” URL shortener. I suspect that if bit.ly has trouble, they’ll rapidly move everyone over to j.mp, which uses a domain name from the Northern Mariana Islands, which as of yet don’t appear to be experiencing street protests.

Despite the Libyan internet shutdown, bit.ly is still working. The site’s not hosted in Libya, and according to the CEO of the company that runs bit.ly, only two of the five root servers that control .ly are in the country. So while we should worry about people being massacred outside of the eyes of the media, at least we don’t have to change URL shorteners.


Given the dramatic developments in Tunisia, Egypt and now throughout the Arab world, it can be hard to remember the extent to which Wikileaks dominated online conversation late last year. While there was an interesting conversation about whether Wikileaks could be blamed or credited for protests in Tunisia, Wikileaks appears to be releasing documents in reaction to protests these days. Today’s dump of cables includes a wealth of dispatches from the US Embassy in Manama. It’s helpful, as it gives reporters another possible angle in analyzing the situation on the ground, and an extremely media-savvy way to keep Wikileaks in the news, even if the releases in the cables are following, not moving, the news.


While Gabon and Sudan may be the first sub-Saharan African nations to hold protests inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, the implications of those successful revolts are being felt across the continent. Trevor Ncube, publisher of South Africa’s exemplary Mail and Guardian, and publisher of two opposition newspapers in his native Zimbabwe, has been reflecting on the possibility of a popular revolt against the Mugabe regime. In an interview two weeks back, Ncube argued that it was unlikely that Zimbabweans would follow in Egyptians footsteps, in part because the army was so closely identified with the ruling party, and not with the country as a whole. Today, Ncube continued along these lines, arguing that the long history of state-sanctioned violence against the general populus makes it harder for Zimbabweans to decide to take to the streets in protest. While he wasn’t directly addressing Bahrain or Libya, I can’t but help read these comments in that light – when does evidence that a government will use deadly force against dissent convince people to stay at home, rather than taking to the streets?

Committee to Protect Journalists points out that Zimbabwe’s state controlled media has been scrupulous about avoiding mention of protests in Egypt and Tunisia… except to criticize the US’s role in “interfering” with those protests…! The protests are a sensitive matter in Ethiopia as well, where a prominent government critic was taken in for questioning after writing about matters in Egypt and Tunisia.


If so much of the world weren’t on fire, Uganda’s elections would likely be a more high-profile affair. Yoweri Museveni, who came to power as a rebel leader in 1986, is seeking a fourth presidential term, challenged by his former physician, Kizza Besigye. Polling went relatively smoothly today, though controversy is possible when the results are announced this weekend. (No one expects Museveni to lose – the question is whether protests about the fairness of the elections will erupt into a serious challenge to his re-appointment.)

Again, if we weren’t all watching North Africa and the Gulf, I suspect this story about Uganda blocking certain keywords in SMS messages would have gotten more attention:

The Uganda Communications Commission Friday released 18 words and names that it has instructed mobile phone short message service (SMS) to flag if they are contained in any text message. They are then supposed to read the rest of the content of the message and if it is deemed to be “controversial or advanced to incite the public”, will be blocked.

The words are ‘Tunisia’, ‘Egypt’, ‘Ben Ali’, ‘Mubarak’, ‘dictator’, ‘teargas’, ‘kafu’ (it is dead), ‘yakabbadda’ (he/she cried long time ago), ‘emuudu/emundu’ (gun), ‘gasiya’ (rubbish), ‘army/ police/UPDF’, ‘people power’, and ‘gun/bullet’.

I got a fascinating tweet from a Ugandan friend, who reported that SMS was also being used in a viral campaign to support the President. “Another Rap. Vote Museveni. Send this 2 7 pple 2 receive 7000 worth of airtime” If the “another rap” part of that message is obscure to you, I point you to this wonderfully absurd video:

Museveni is reciting a pair of traditional Kinyankole rhymes – between the two, he announces, “You want another rap?” It’s been remixed into a catchy song that now serves as his campaign anthem. I suspect that his “re-election” will have more to do with crackdowns on the press and intimidation of the opposition than his musical skills.


And, in matters of a world on fire, let’s not forget the Ivory Coast, still locked in a battle between an elected president and one who won’t let go. Desperate to continue paying the soldiers who are keeping him in power, Laurent Gbagbo has nationalized the banks, many of which were in the process of shutting down or pulling out of the country. Not a good sign, but it might point to the beginning of the end for a standoff that’s seemed intractable up until now.

02/18/2011 (8:09 pm)

Watching Bahrain through a friend’s eyes, heartbroken

Like anyone else trying to keep track of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, the protests in Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Yemen and elsewhere, a pivotal election in Uganda, the ongoing collapse of the Ivory Coast, I’m feeling a little behind, a little lost, a little overwhelmed. In 2011, history has apparently accelerated – it feels like a decade’s events are happening in a few weeks. I’m watching friends write books in weeks – Micah Sifry on Wikileaks, my friends at Foreign Policy on the revolutions in the Middle East – rather than the years these works usually require. It’s the opposite of the end of history – everything is happening so fast that it’s hard to stop to reflect without missing the next chapter.

I’ve been trying to watch the protests in Yemen, Libya, Iran and Bahrain – as well as the stalled or subjugated protests in Gabon – with equal intensity, but I’m finding myself watching Bahrain most closely, for simple personal reasons: my dear friend Amira Al-Hussaini is there, and I’m increasingly watching these revolutions through her eyes. Amira is Middle East and North Africa editor for Global Voices, and is a fellow board member. I think it’s safe to say that there’s not a single person involved with our project who isn’t madly in love with her – she’s the den mother and fierce taskmaster for our amazing Middle East team, and she’s shattered countless stereotypes I’ve had about the Gulf, about women in the Arab world, about bloggers and journalists.

As protests began to erupt in Bahrain, Amira wrote a powerful blog post about her mixed emotions. She made it clear that, while she’s not a fan of the government in her country, she was unconvinced that protests would be the answer – she worried about sectarian strife in a country where a Sunni government and Shia majority have been in tension for years. Today, on Twitter, her reactions have been more raw and emotional:

I feel I have died over and over again since #Feb14 #Bahrain

@nour_odeh Is this how you feel covering the carnage in Palestine? Cried covering Tunisia and Egypt but this is real + here

@marwarakha Wanted celebrate in Tahrir with you guys so much – and look where I am. The same thing is happening in my country

Later today, she’s been responding to criticism from some fellow Bahrainis that her coverage of the atrocities committed by the Bahraini military against protesters is a betrayal of her identity as a Bahrani citizen. Needless to say, that’s not how she sees it:

As much as I understand why friends are making up excuses, the horror I’ve witnessed in my country cannot be excused #Feb14 #Bahrain

I too love #Bahrain. I am Bahraini. My blood is Bahraini – and I witnessed my country die in the eyes of its children today #Bahrain #Feb14

I have given up trying to understand. Nothing can explain it. Ppl can live in denial all they want. What happened is wrong #Bahrain #Feb14

Tweeting the atrocities committed is not treason: Keeping quiet about them is and hiding the truth is another low altogether #Bahrain #Feb14

Me tweeting falls within my line of work: I work in citizen media: I am the Middle East and North Africa of @globalvoices #Bahrain #Feb14

I have tweeted #bouzid and #Jan25 and cover #Yemen #Libya #Algeria and the rest of Middle East #Bahrain #Feb14

Covering protests/revolutions thru citizen media reactions means that u need to understand the scene: I started in 2004 #Bahrain #Feb14

Before that I was the news editor of the Gulf Daily News, where I worked for 14 years. I covered everything: everything #Feb14 #Bahrain

I served #Bahrain in every way I knew, never asked for anything. Today I ask it to stop the bloodshed and give us an explanation we can stomach

I am tired, shattered and broken. I saw ppls brain’s splattered and men in uniform shooting boys: Why? #Bahrain #Feb14

Amira has been sending me videos that Bahrani protesters are taking with their phones and posting to YouTube. She’s asked me to archive and mirror them – the young men taking the videos are deleting them after uploading for fear of being stopped at checkpoints, and everyone is afraid that YouTube will remove the videos as they are violent and very disturbing. For now, I’m embedding YouTube’s player – if they go down, I will post the originals on my server.

This first video makes clear that the Bahrani forces are firing live rounds from semiautomatic weapons.

The second video shows how close the tanks – and presumably, the gunmen – are to the protesters, who are peaceful and unarmed.

It’s hard to imagine how Bahrain returns to normal after innocent people are killed so brutally. Amira’s tweets gives me a sense for how disturbing it is to see a country you know and love go off the rails so tragically. I’m shocked as a human being by the videos. I’m disgusted as an American that we’ve not been able to stay the hand of our close ally. I’m sad that I’m not able to pay as close attention to Libya, where dozens are dying at the hands of government forces and out of the view of news cameras. As filled with hope as events in Tunisia and Egypt have left me, these videos leave me crushed.

02/16/2011 (7:04 pm)

links for 2011-02-16

Filed under: del.icio.us links ::

02/15/2011 (4:48 pm)

A three week old reaction to Secretary Clinton’s internet freedom 2011 speech

Filed under: Human Rights,ideas,Media ::

A colleague who works in the State Department contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I wanted to offer any suggestions for what Secretary Clinton might cover in her second address on internet freedom, the address she gave this afternoon at George Washington University. I sent him a long note in the form of a proposed speech, on January 24th, the day before protesters took to the streets in Cairo, ten days days after Ben Ali fled Tunisia.

My note was pretty angry, and I included with it a preface saying, “I don’t expect you’ll be able to use any of this, but thanks for listening anyway.” At that moment, I was very disappointed with the US government’s halting reaction to protests in Tunisia and the sparse media attention those protests received in the US. And I felt like anything Secretary Clinton said about internet freedom would sound questionable and hypocritcal in light of US government pressure on Wikileaks.

My colleague graciously acknowledged the note, vigorously disagreeing with my characterization of US government actions in response to Wikileaks. While I was grateful he’d asked for my input, I felt pretty sure I’d be disappointed by the speech Clinton delivered.

Actually there was a lot of what Secretary Clinton said today that I appreciated:

- I was glad to hear her make it clear that the movements in Tunisia and Egypt weren’t about the internet – at most, the internet helped with some of the organization and dissemination of the protest movements.

- While most of the critique over filtering/censorship featured the usual suspects – Iran, Syria, Cuba, China – it was encouraging to see Vietnam explicitly mentioned as a country that harasses and arrests bloggers. The examples used in this year’s speech felt broader than last years, and less China-focused.

- I was very pleased to hear Clinton point out that there’s no single tool that’s capable of “solving” internet censorship, and that people demanding funding for silver bullet solutions weren’t going to sway State Department policy. State has come under steady pressure from lobbyists to pour funding into one subset of the tools developers are working on to combat internet censorship. While I don’t believe circumventing censorship is ever going to be a valid strategy for the majority of internet users, I’m glad to hear support for an ecosystem of solutions – we need multiple approaches, if only because they make it harder for governments to block tools.

While I thought framing questions about the future of the internet in terms of tensions – security versus liberty, transparency versus confidentiality, expression versus civility – was wise, I didn’t find her answers regarding Wikileaks especially convincing. As friends at Berkman pointed out in reaction to her speech, Wikileaks didn’t steal those cables. They acted as a journalistic organization in publishing that leaked material. And while it’s good to know that it wasn’t official Obama administration policy to pressure companies not to do business with Wikileaks, but it doesn’t change the fact that US corporations cut vital services to Wikileaks under what they perceived to be US government pressure. I was glad she tackled the question head on instead of skirting it, even though I found the “it’s not Wikileaks, it’s theft we don’t like” explanation unpalatable.

I was particularly encouraged to see Secretary Clinton addressing the “dictator’s dilemma”, the difficulty of using the internet as a tool for economic growth and entertainment without enabling the internet for activist purposes. I wish I were as sanguine as she in offering this formulation: “Walls that divide the Internet – that block political content, ban broad categories of expression, allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas- are far easier to erect than they are to maintain. Not just because people find ways around them and through them, but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and apolitical internet – there’s just the internet.”

Those walls are hard to maintain, true, but they’re lots easier to maintain with the help of the (mostly US-based) companies that host large fractions of the Internet’s traffic. What should YouTube do when a video they host violates local law in Turkey or Thailand? If they do what these countries request – geoblock the video in question so the remainder of the service remains accessible – they’re no longer the “just the internet” Secretary Clinton is counting on.

Whether or not the US government should be advocating an internet freedom agenda – I still find Sami ben Gharbia’s arguments against advocating such an agenda convincing – any attempt to use the internet as a digital public sphere needs to consider the role of US corporations. A year ago, I asked why Clinton didn’t put pressure on US corporations to work to make their content harder to block in closed societies. At the moment, I’d ask why Secretary Clinton didn’t challenge Facebook to rethink their real name policy – or at least their bad habit of deleting activist groups for inaccurate biographical information – in the wake of the use of that platform to push for change in Egypt. Her speech touched on the responsibility and power of US companies only in passing – I wish the speech had been a call to US companies to take a lead in ensuring their platforms can be used by people all over the world to push for social change.

Here’s the suggested speech I offered on 1/24:

Events in Tunisia are evidence that we’re in a different world than ten years ago. No, Facebook didn’t cause the Tunisian revolution – the frustration of the Tunisian people with their lousy situation and their bravery in taking to the streets caused the fall of a dictatorial, repressive government. But the internet helped the Tunisian people make the decision to stand up – reports from Sidi Bouzid were rebroadcast on Al Jazeera and passed around via email and SMS, helping people throughout the country understand that people were standing up and demanding change.

The internet makes it possible for people in a dusty, largely disconnected city in a country where the government systematically suppresses dissent to be heard. And when they are heard, their defiance and bravery can be an inspiration to the people around them and people around the world.

Before Ben Ali was forced by his people to step down, he was one of the most notorious censors of the internet. Tunisia’s largest ISP was actively spying on users, seizing dissidents passwords to their Gmail and Facebook accounts. But Ben Ali understood that the internet was so powerful that he couldn’t block Facebook, which over 19% of Tunisians use, or shut the net off entirely without sparking broader revolts and protests. As he bargained with his citizens to remain in power, one of the major concessions he offered was an end to internet censorship.

Throughout the Middle East, leaders are trying to figure out what the lessons of the Tunisian revolution are. Will the internet bring rebellions throughout the region? Will their governments fall as their citizens see frustration, protest and defiance online and on satellite television? The best governments in the region will learn to listen to these expressions of anger online, to encourage the dialog and to work with their citizens for solutions. The worst will attempt to block and silence these voices.

Our goal is not for the internet to lead to a wave of revolutions throughout the Arab world. (After all, we’re propping up most of these creaky autocrats, including Ben Ali, who we were apologizing for up to the moment his people sent him packing.) Instead, our goal is to ensure that people can make their voices heard in this new space, and hope that governments will be wise enough to listen and to engage.

When I spoke a year ago, I warned that an open internet has two sides – the potential to be used to harm, as well as to help. The events of the past year have shown that even our country has an ongoing debate about whether the internet is too open, whether sites like Wikileaks have a place in our public discourse. I regret the actions taken by some members of the US government to pressure US companies not to provide services to Wikileaks. If we believe in freedom of speech, we need to accept that we’re not going to like everything people have to say. If we believe in an open internet, it needs to be open to those that criticize, not just those that praise. And I accept that the heavy-handed actions taken by some undercut and call into question our commitment to the internet as an open space for dialog.

When I last spoke, I challenged governments like that of the People’s Republic of China to take up the challenge of wrestling with an open internet and listening directly to the voices of their people. Today, I offer two new challenges. One is to my own government, to wrestle with issues of online speech in a way that exemplifies our commitment to the First amendement, especially when that speech is politically uncomfortable.

And I offer a challenge to the companies doing the innovative work in creating our new, digital public sphere. Understand that the people using your tools are not just customers, but citizens. We need to ensure their rights of freedom of expression in online media, to ensure that dissidents, whether they are Tunisian, American or Chinese, can use Facebook, Twitter or whatever media they choose to challenge what’s wrong with their governments, celebrate what’s right and work for change.

02/11/2011 (11:46 pm)

Goodbye, Mubarak: Hope, Fear and Mahir Çağrı

Filed under: Global Voices,Human Rights,Media ::

First, Mabrook to all my Egyptian friends on their success in ousting Mubarak and to my Tunisian friends for proving that peaceful protest can lead to real change.

Three brief reflections on what comes next:

- While there’s been extensive debate about whether social media helped organize or promote the protests in Egypt, I think the interesting story to watch will be whether social media can help Egypt in the transition to democracy. Power now rests with a council of military leaders, and there have been suggestions that this group could be complemented by a council of civilian “wise men”, giving a seat at the table to figures like Mohamed El-Baradei.

If this process were to work, it would need to include voices of the youth, the people who led this revolt. One likely spokesman for Egyptian youth is Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who created the We Are All Khaled Said page on Facebook, widely credited as helping rally the original protests on January 25th. After his emotional televised interview on Dream TV, hundreds of thousands have joined a Facebook page authorizing Ghonim to speak on behalf of the protesters. Speaking to CNN today, asked what’s next in revolutions in the Arab world, Ghonim said, “Ask Facebook.”

What would be wonderful is if Ghonim could channel the voices of youth through Facebook and other means and ensure they have a seat at the table as the future of the country is discussed. Ousting a dictator is not enough, as my friends in Tunisia are finding – you need to rebuild political parties, an independent media and a civil society, all of which were stunted under kleptocratic rule. Egypt’s youth will demand an active role in this transition – a challenge, and an opportunity, is to discover whether social media can be used as effectively to allow many more Egyptians to participate in this transition than can sit around a table.

This is a challenge we’ve not lived up to especially well in the US – after the Obama campaign used social media very effectively to help raise money and mobilize turnout for the 2008 elections, there’s been little real input on governing via social media. It would be exciting to see if Egypt can do better on this front than the US has.

- The bravery and persistence of Tunisians inspired subjugated people around the world to rise up. The bravery and persistence of Egyptians will inspire people to rise up, and not give up, even when dictators prove difficult to dislodge. This is an exciting and wonderful thing. It’s also potentially very dangerous.

I don’t mean dangerous in terms of “threatening regional stability”, or the other nonsense that’s dominated much of American television news regarding Egypt. I mean dangerous for the people brave enough to take to the streets.

When people take to the streets and the army is called out to stop them, at least two things can happen: Tunis, or Tiananmen. When the world is watching, a peaceful outcome is more likely. A threatened regime, when they think they’re immune to scrutiny, is a very dangerous thing.

There have been protests in Gabon, inspired by the events in Tunisia, against what’s become a hereditary kleptocracy of the Bongo clan. Yesterday, students revolted Université Omar Bongo in Libreville, and the army intervened. A rally in Sanaa, Yemen tonight celebrating the Egyptian victory turned into a protest against the government, and Global Voices reports shots fired at demonstrators. We’re also hearing reports of protests, and their violent suppression in corners of Yemen with even less media coverage.

It is unlikely that protests in Gabon and Yemen will receive the same attention as those in Egypt – these are smaller countries with a lower profile on a global scale. It’s critical, though, that the world doesn’t turn a blind eye to the protests in these countries, or it is far more likely that they will be violently put down. This is important not just for Gabon and Yemen – I’ve been getting emails and tweets all night about planned protests in Algeria, Libya and Pakistan. We can’t all become Andy Carvin, but we have a responsibility to witness and to ensure that those inspired by Egypt and Tunisia have the “air cover” that comes from the world watching how protesters are treated.

- As people around the world celebrated Mubarak’s ouster, I got a wonderful question via Twitter from Dave Coustan (@extraface):

@EthanZ Can you get try to a statement from Mahir Cagri on all this? I’m hopeful that he kisses the end of the Mubarak regime, with love.

Of course, I always do what people on Twitter ask me to. So I emailed Mahir Çağrı, international man of mystery, proprietor of ikissyou.org, and – based on my meeting with him at this year’s ROFLCon – a truly sweet guy, and asked him for his insights. He wrote me back this evening, saying, in part:

I KISS-I HUG EGYPT people with my LOVE :))CONGRATULATE

They belived, They won today first step:)) .l hope they ll win next steps too..
Tunisa-Egypt people wrote new their history.l belive this wave ll to contiune with other countries .l hope they ll live better free-happly life with peace&love:))

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

02/11/2011 (7:04 pm)

links for 2011-02-11

Filed under: del.icio.us links ::

02/10/2011 (7:03 pm)

links for 2011-02-10

Filed under: del.icio.us links ::

02/09/2011 (1:40 pm)

Tunisia, Egypt, Gabon? Our responsibility to witness

2011 has been a remarkable year for rapid political change. Spurred on by Mohamed Bouazizi’s desperate self-immolation, protests in the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid spread throughout the nation and ultimately accomplished the unthinkable: they forced the end of a 23-year dictatorship. Inspired by the actions of the Tunisian people, protesters took to the streets in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria and, most notably, Egypt where protesters currently hold Tahrir Square in the center of Cairo and are pressuring Hosni Mubarak to step down. Mubarak has already offered several concessions, and it seems clear that Egyptian politics will shift sharply in the coming months. Seeking to address protester’s concerns, Jordan’s King Abdullah II has sacked his cabinet and ordered formation of a new government, while Yemen’s president Saleh has agreed to step down in 2013.

English-language media was, for the most part, slow to cover the Tunisian protest story. (See my earlier post, “What if Tunisia Had a Revolution, But Nobody Watched?”) As it became clear that protesters were actually forcing Ben Ali from power, networks caught up rapidly and offered live video of the remarkable events in Tunis, as the army intervened to protect protesters from security forces, urging Ben Ali towards the exits. The protests in Egypt developed much more rapidly than those in Tunisia, with massive demonstrations erupting across the country on January 25 – global media were covering the story intensively by January 28, when it became clear that demonstrators wouldn’t honor the government curfew and would continue to occupy central Cairo.


Google Trends comparison of search and news attention to “Tunisia” versus “Egypt”. While the protests in Sidi Bouzid began in mid-December, a spike in media attention began only with Ben Ali’s ouster on January 14, and rapidly died out. Attention to the Egypt protests starts increasing in the days after the January 25th protest, peaking about a week later.

Al Jazeera, banned from reporting in Tunisia, was able to offer 24/7 coverage from locations throughout Egypt, and many American viewers found themselves absorbed by Al Jazeera English’s coverage of Tahrir Square, streamed over the internet to record audiences. Other news channels turned their focus to the story, sometimes focusing less on events on the ground than on issues of regional stability or implications for the US/Israel relationship. In total, however, coverage in US media was massive for an international news story. Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index saw the story occupying 76% of the cable TV newshole in the first week of February – it’s the biggest international news story they’ve tracked in their four-year project, and the fourth-largest story of any kind they’ve seen during that period.

It’s easy to understand why revolutions make for good television – they’re the most visible form of political change, and when they reshape governments previously considered unassailable, they’re a profoundly engaging and hopeful narrative. A revolution in Egypt is particularly compelling, as the nation is the most populous in the Arab world, and the cultural heart of the region.

But not all revolutions are blessed with this level of attention. The West African nation of Gabon is experiencing a popular revolt against the rule of Ali Bongo Ondimba, son of long-time strongman Omar Bongo, president since October 2009. Thousands of opposition supporters took to the streets of the nation’s capital, Libreville, on January 29th, and faced violent suppression from Ali Bongo’s troops. Protests have spread to other cities, and the crackdown against them has become increasingly fierce. Protests planned for February 5th and 8th were both suppressed with tear gas. At this point, it’s unclear whether protesters will be able to continue pressuring the government, or whether the crackdown has driven dissent underground.


Protest in Meyo-Kyé, a small city in northern Gabon, 2 February, 2011. The banner reads: “In Tunisia, Ben Ali left. In Gabon, Ali Ben out.” From Global Voices’s coverage of the Gabon protests.

The protests in Egypt and Tunisia have focused attention on autocratic governments with a history of corruption. In Egypt, the possibility of a Mubarak dynasty moving from Hosni to Gamal Mubarak helped stoke dissent. Gabonese are familiar with these types of problems. Omar Bongo is widely believed to have systematically looted the Gabonese treasury for his personal benefit. A suit brought in France by Transparency International against the governments of Gabon, Congo and Equatorial Guinea, accuses Bongo of depositing 8.5% of the national budget into a personal account at Citibank, siphoning over $100 million from the country between 1985 and 1997. When Bongo finally died in a Barcelona hospital in 2009, a controversial election ended up selecting Bongo’s son as a new leader over widespread accusations of voter fraud. And while Gabon, blessed with oil wealth, has a very high GDP per capita by sub-Saharan African standards, little of that wealth reaches the Gabonese people, one third of which live in poverty.

Little surprise, then, that Gabonese opposition supporters watched the events in Tunisia with a sense of hope and possibility.

It’s understandable that protests in Gabon haven’t captured the world’s attention. Gabon is a small nation, with a population of 1.5 million, and very few casual newspaper readers could place it accurately on a map. But this lack of attention has consequences. As protests unfolded in Libreville, opposition leader André Mba Obame – who likely won the 2009 election – and his leading advisors took sanctuary in the UNDP’s compound in the city, fearing arrest by Ali Bongo’s forces. According to recent Facebook posts, Obame and his advisors are facing steady pressure from UNDP to vacate the premises, and have already been ordered to surrender their mobile phones.

It’s unlikely the UNDP would risk expelling opposition leaders – who would likely be immediately arrested – if the world were watching. The world, however, is emphatically not watching. Search for “Gabon” on Google News, and the only recent coverage of protests you’ll find is from Global Voices, where Cameroonian author Julie Owono is following the story closely. (Google News’s French edition is marginally better, though there coverage is dominated by Gabon-focused sites like InfosGabon, not mainstream French papers or TV channels.)

While we’re always happy to be ahead of the pack on a story like this one, I’m starting to see an uncomfortable pattern in the coverage of people’s protests around the world. Some revolutions are easily understood and reported on – it was easy to predict that the Green Movement’s actions against the Ahmedinejad government in Iran would be enthusiastically received by American and European audiences. A struggle like that of the yellow shirts and red shirts in Thailand is much harder for global audiences to understand, and it’s less obvious which side will experience solidarity from interested audiences in the US and Europe. And revolutions in far-off and little-known nations like Madagascar often fail to register at all, even when profound political changes are afoot.

When Rebecca MacKinnon and I started Global Voices in 2004, we explicitly sought to broaden coverage of stories like the protests in Gabon. We believed that the rise of citizen media meant that many more voices could become part of the media dialog, and that international news outlets would look to the people directly affected by events for their accounts and perspectives. That’s proven true – for the past month, our newsroom has been flooded with requests from media outlets around the world to unpack and comment on the events in Tunisia, and especially those in Egypt.

Where Global Voices has been vastly less successful is in achieving another of our goals: shifting the global media agenda to be more globally inclusive. In other words, we’re very good at getting attention to different commentators and observers of events that major media outlets have decided to pay attention to. But we’ve had little to no luck shifting attention to stories that fail to register on the media’s radar screen, even when we’re able to provide on-the-ground commentary and eyewitness accounts.

New media technologies – not just online media, but satellite television, which has been critically important in covering (and perhaps inspiring) protests in Egypt and Tunisia – offer the promise of covering breaking events in much greater depth than in a broadcast world. I’m very grateful for Al Jazeera English’s thorough, ongoing coverage of events in Egypt, and for my friend Andy Carvin’s relentless curation of Twitter, following protests in Tunisia and Egypt. But I worry that these technologies aren’t broadening the set of stories covered internationally – in many cases, we seem to be covering a narrower range of stories than in years past, though in far greater depth.

The danger of ignoring Gabon’s revolution isn’t just that opposition forces will be arrested or worse. It’s that we fail to understand the profound shifts underway across the world that change the nature of popular revolution. The wave of protests that swelled in Tunisia may not break just in the Arab world, but across a much larger swath of the planet. The brave actions of ordinary Tunisians didn’t just capture the imagination of subjugated people in the Arab world – they were an inspiration to disempowered people everywhere. Social media gives a voice not just to protesters in Sidi Bouzid and Alexandria, but in Libreville and Port-Gentil. And as audiences around the world watch in wonder as Christian and Muslim protesters pray together in Tahrir Square, they wonder why struggles in Gabon can’t command at least a fraction of this attention.

If the inspiration for popular protest can come from anywhere in the world, and the tools to report the struggle are distributed to everyone with a mobile phone, those of us far from these upheavals face a powerful responsibility. We are challenged to witness people’s struggles, whether or not they take place in countries we already know and fear. We are challenged to ensure that authoritarian regimes don’t crush dissent because they know no one is watching. Increasingly, we have the tools to pay attention to revolutionary change anywhere in the world – now we just have to live up to our responsibilities.

Next Page »