Media development organization Internews has released a new report on the state of Libyan Media. Authored by Jamal Dajani and Jacobo Quintanilla, the report explores the recent history of media in Libya, speculates on the future, and provides a comprehensive “Media Map” of all the news outlets, independent or otherwise, operating in Libya today.
From Internews:
This is a monumental  indeed revolutionary shift in Libyan politics and society, and is one of the key channels for the extraordinary level of energy released by the uprising, the report states. New initiatives include print and satellite TV; terrestrial TV and radio; multiple online collaborations; as well as cartoons, music, graffiti, theatre, and other forms. Free speech and free media are central rebel demands, which makes these new media efforts core to the uprising’s very image and identity, key to its mobilisation, and an early embodiment of some of the its main goals.
The report even contains a section on Small World News’ project Alive in Libya:
From the Ushahidi blog:
The Ushahidi community consists of a diverse group of people who have helped extend, translate and deploy the platform around the world. The Beta version in 2009 was translated into Spanish, even before Swahili. That early adoption and use lay the groundwork for even more adoption in Latin America, and with other deployment partners, we saw uses from India, Kenya, Afghanistan and many others. It is with gratitude that we recognize the organizations that help Ushahidi deploy projects by awarding the�Deployment Partner 2011�designation. What this means is that these organizations have shown that they are well versed in customizing the platform, engaging the community and deploying with a strategy that shows potential and informs others. We will be awarding these designations periodically as organizations continue to work with us.
We appreciate being named as one of their official partners, especially alongside some of the most impactful – and frankly coolest – crowdmapping projects out there (Citivox, Emoksha, Digital Democracy, just to name a few).
The impact of mapping reports is easy to recognize, and Ushahidi was one of those innovations in new media technology that really made us sit up and take notice. Our first exposure to it was Sharek961, in Lebanon, and we knew immediately that this was a powerful tool with the potential for huge impact.
For one deployment, we partnered with the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) to map their observation reports for the 2010 Wolesi Jurga elections. Observers around the country sent in their reports via SMS, which were then matched with the gps coordinates of their specific polling station. This alone gave us a startling new look at the same data they’ve been gathering in previous elections, but the real eye-opening moment came when they presented their findings at a press conference the day after the election.
For this press conference, FEFA displayed its Ushahidi map on a projector screen behind them as they announced their preliminary findings. Rather than enduring an all-too-familiar press event filled with statistics and obtuse data, the entire press contingent was transfixed with the maps. As the representatives spoke, the map onscreen changed to correspond with their reports – violence, tampering, intimidation. The journalists were constantly swiveling their heads to snap pictures and follow along with the map.
We appreciate all the support we’ve received along the way from the Ushahidi developers and their amazing community, and we’re glad to see such a great group of people continuing to succeed. We think their work is an important and indispensable tool to help journalists, as well as citizens themselves, to document and report news.
Alive in Libya Team
We’re very much in the news business but on a very small scale. We wanted to get away from deadlines and pressures that cause papers and news bulletins to churn out the same press releases across the day.
Some big stories we can’t avoid covering along with the local paper or radio station, but we always try to find a different angle. There’s little point covering the same stories that people can find elsewhere.
As we become more established, it becomes easier to set our own agenda. We aim to delve a little deeper into stories which matter to people locally which other news outlets might not be able to do in such detail.
At the same time, Knight Foundation unveiled the winners of their 2011 Knight News Challenge. While many of the prize recipients focused on the solving some of the complications with online mass media, a few of them were geared more toward smaller, more local journalism projects. This one in particular caught our eye:
Project: OpenBlock Rural
Winner: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Award: $275,000
Project lead: Ryan Thornburg
Website: jomc.unc.edu
Twitter: @rtburg
Rural news organizations often struggle to move into the digital age because they lack the staff to make public data digestible. OpenBlock Rural will work with local governments and community newspapers in North Carolina to collect, aggregate and publish government data, including crime and real estate reports, restaurant inspections and school ratings. In addition, the project aims to improve small local papers’ technical expertise and provide a new way to generate revenue.
Small World News is especially interested in localized content, as one of the issues we’ve consistently grappled with throughout our many projects is getting content not only out of the country, but also to distribute content within the country itself. We’re currently investing and exploring different options for offline digital distribution, such as bluetooth, USB drives, and CD/DVD’s.
Alive in Libya has been quite successful at bringing the stories of Libyans to the outside world, especially Westerners, but it is still not reaching its full potential when it comes to providing news for citizens living in Libya.
This morning I sat down with Seraj ElAlem, Alive in Libya’s Bureau Chief in Benghazi, to find out what he had to say about getting local content to the locals themselves.
First of all, why is it that more Libyans aren’t watching Alive in Libya right now?
We’ve been getting a lot of positive feedback from Libyans abroad as well as Libyans here who have managed to get online and watch some videos, or got their hands on our material one way or another. Mainly now most Libyans can’t watch because of the lack of internet access.
What kind of news are Libyans most interested in? Local stories or news from outside Libya?
I think there’s an audience for each. Libyans have been deprived of active local media for years, they don’t know how to feel when they see a report on Alive in Libya that’s discussing some issue they’re personally dealing with. TV has always been a Gaddafi glorifying instrument, not a way to report about Libyans’ day-to-day problems and issues.
Are there ways for the content to reach Libyans without internet access?
As for now we have printed 100 CDs [pre-loaded with Alive in Libya content] to distribute. The more efficient way to get our material to a Libyan audience is to get them on the new Libya TV channels that have been appearing on satellite. We’re currently in the process of discussing this matter with a few of these channels.
Are there any issues with these new TV outlets? Are they adequately serving the needs of Libyans?
The channels are very pro-revolution obviously, which sometimes diminishes their value as a news source. I personally do not trust the news I hear on them, they’re usually modified to be pro-revolution.
One of the things that the new Libyan channels are suffering from is a common problem among all Arab channels: they just love “analysts” – people who generally tell you how you should view something or how you should feel or react towards it. The people on the streets don’t get enough air time. And if they do, the interviewer’s questions are usually loaded and end up guiding the person towards a specific answer.
Given an unlimited budget, how would you shape Alive in Libya to better serve citizens inside Libya?
I would put Alive in Libya bureaus in all the major cities [There is only one bureau currently in Benghazi, with one planned in Misrata]. I’d start a TV channel where the time slots are divided among these offices. They’d broadcast what’s happening in their region, and their time slot would rotate so no one office gets prime time all the time.
Would you do anything with mobile phones or the internet? Or just bypass those for now until Libya has more access to the internet?
Sadly, Libya is a bit behind when it comes to telecommunication. So if I had unlimited funding, for the time being, I’d focus more on TV.
Of course the bureaus around Libya would still be producing for the Alive in Libya website. And the way mobile phones are changing now, soon you won’t have “internet & mobiles” you’ll just have internet.
I appreciate Seraj being able to take time away from his duties to speak with me. This is a conversation that I’ve had with folks at the Small World News headquarters many times before, and will continue to have into the future.
Figuring out how to make and adequately distribute content relevant to locals will continue to be one of the issues that concerns us, in Libya or any of the other host countries for Alive.In projects. Whether hyperlocal is an adequate model for this kind of journalism remains to be sorted out, but some solution must be devised in order to reach the local citizen themselves, beyond the foreign and western audience.
For more information on the Alive.In projects, visit Alive in Libya, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Mark Rendeiro is in Georgia this week training locals to use new media tools for public campaigns, specifically related to advocacy. He’s blogging about his trip on his website Citizen Reporter.
While some nations in the EU curse their governments for not representing them in what is financially a very troubled union, here we find those outside wishing to get in. With what seems like very different goals, at least when it comes to the symbolic desire to be EU¦ maybe Georgians would find more happiness in being a member state, even if the economy looks pretty bad.
In the coming days here in Tbilisi, I’ll of course hear more about this bid to be part of the EU and the primary reasons for it. I’ll report back with what I learn.
Check out his website, follow him on Twitter, and stay tuned for more updates. When he returns, we’ll have a full report on what he experienced and what we were able to accomplish.
Last weekend, the Small World News team attended Digital Journalism Camp 2011 in downtown Portland.
Digital Journalism Camp is about spending the day with the people who are actively changing journalism. You’re going to learn from ” and share with ” the people who have found solutions to the challenges you face, whether you’re a beat reporter, a blogger or a publisher.
We were lucky enough to be invited onto a panel called “Unheard Voices: Can digital tools give marginalized communities a voice?” From what we heard from the panelists, the short answer to that question is a resounding “yes!”
While Small World News focuses exclusively on overseas journalism, panelists Lisa Loving, Israel Bayer, and Craig Fondren showed us that the challenges of bringing unheard voices to the fore, be they training, funding, or building relationships, are the same no matter where you are.
Andrew Spittle blogged about the conference, and he had this to say about the panel:
Israel Bayer, direcÂtor of StreetÂroots, talked about their efforts to bring the homeÂless into all aspects of jourÂnalÂism. He also noted that, while some think a web presÂence would underÂcut street sales, their sisÂter paper in SeatÂtle launched a webÂsite and saw their sales increase 40%. He pointed out that it’s the techÂniÂcal parts of a project that are the easy. It’s the relaÂtionÂships and buildÂing of a comÂmuÂnity that are difficult.
Craig FonÂdren of Sabin ComÂmuÂnity DevelÂopÂment CorÂpoÂraÂtion talked a lot about how they eduÂcate their comÂmuÂnity in the tools of jourÂnalÂism. They focus heavÂily on bringÂing many genÂerÂaÂtions into their workÂshops. As he put it, If you can get online we have a class for you. If I have your kid in one of our classes then I’m going to get you in a class and I’m going to get grandma too. They put a lot of work into senior instruction.
Lisa Loving also hit on a very important point, which is the impact this reporting can have on policy makers. Referring to Bayer’s project Streetroots, she noted that even a seemingly small project (say, distributing media-enabled cellphones to the homeless) will “percolate to the top.” As Small World News has noted in the past, the stories of local citizens on the ground add much needed context for journalists, analysts, and decision makers, as well as the general news consuming audience.
Special thanks to moderator Cornelius Swart for inviting us onto the panel, and to Jeff Bunch and Eitan Tsur who recorded the panels.
For more videos from Digital Journalism Camp 2011, head over to Doc Normal’s blog.
Photo by White House 2011
David Kenner wrote this week about President Obama’s news sources for Foreign Policy‘s Passportblog:
With one sentence, the New York Times raised dozens of Middle East pundits’ hopes that their words were reaching the most powerful man in the world. “At night in the family residence…Mr. Obama often surfs the blogs of experts on Arab affairs or regional news sites to get a local flavor for events,” read Mark Landler’s account of how the Obama administration will attempt to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to recast the U.S. relationship with the Arab world.
Well, Mr. President, we have some late-night reading suggestions for you.
Mr. Kenner generously suggested that the president read Small World News’ Alive in Libya as one of his late night sources, putting us in esteemed company alongside blogs like Joshua Landis’ Syria Comment and Reidar Visser’s Iraq & Gulf Analysis.
But counting decision makers in Washington among your readers is worth much more than flattery and bragging rights. Mr. Kenner has highlighted one of the most important functions of citizen media, that of providing the premiere source of context for the issues that affect us most.
Citizen media empowers and enables local citizens to tell their own story, report their own news, and communicate their own perspective to the outside world. Locals Alive In a country understand the context, the history, and the details of important news stories more thoroughly than reporters alive from the country. Local citizens are able to understand the news for what it is, and how it directly affects them. It is these voices that are under-represented, or not represented at all, in traditional, mainstream media.
Small World News in particular is concerned with allowing the viewer access to the daily lives, feelings, and opinions of citizens on the ground, the so-called “human element” of journalism. It is these seemingly ordinary experiences that truly allow the viewer to experience the extraordinary, the events that move and shape the world we all live in.
Combining both the understanding of and empathy with local citizens provides the viewer with the ultimate context for any news story. The importance of this context, for viewers, policy makers, and officials, cannot be overstated.
For more citizen media from Small World News, see some of the other projects in our Alive.In series:
[this was originally posted at Brian's personal blog, From Baghdad to Baga]
I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about content recently. In my latest project I’m working with Video Volunteers to establish a network of community producers (or community journalists) all over India. These Community Producers will be generating at least 1-2 videos per month, as well as a variety of other social content, ranging from SMS updates via Twitter or a local gateway running something like FrontlineSMS, to blogging and recording audio via phone.
My current goal is to start the network with 40 Community Producers, this is a number based on everything I’ve discussed with colleague here, regarding available candidates, capable candidates, and our own limitations, for example to qualify a candidate must speak Hindi and/or English. If we are successful at launching the project with such a broad and diverse network, we very quickly start dealing with some really large numbers. In the first month we will produce between 40 and 80 *different* videos per month.
The first question anyone might ask at this point is, will anyone watch that many videos online from one network or news agency? Although the answer may be no, I’m hoping its a clarified no, I’m hoping there is a body of viewers who will be interested to watch at least half or two-thirds of the content being produced each month. Unfortunately, the number of viewers who will be ultimately interested in the content if they can see it is something somewhat outside of our control.
My attempt to determine what elements I can control has led me to conceive of the term “watchability.”
The greater the “watchability” of the content, the more likely the video will be watched. Of course this risks being a self-fulfilling paradigm, where we might say that if a video is watched, of course it has watchability and if it isn’t then it doesn’t.
I’m endeavoring toward a theory of watchability that is not so irrelevant to the rest of us as such a frivolous take might be.
So let’s start from the most basic element, in order to be watchable a video must have a certain quality level to the content. That means the image should not be too shaky, and the audio must hit at least a modicum of tolerability regarding the ratio of signal to noise.
In order to be watchable a video must be compelling, which is to say it should show us something new and interesting, it should provide us a new take on an old story. This new and intriguing perspective should be shown, not told. It doesn’t have to be funny, but being funny, or entertaining, or exciting are all elements that can greatly increase a videos watchability. It can be easier to succeed at thrilling or entertaining an audience than to be compelling in another more dramatic fashion.
Keep in mind we are looking toward a definition of extreme or complete watchability, what elements should a video contain for the greatest watchability.
To make a video that is compelling is easiest if it also reflects a dominant paradigm in the audience’s worldview. This is why we are so willing to accept images or stories as fact that later prove to be false. Videos have perhaps the greatest viral watchability, and can even become exponentially more compelling when they contain content that directly reflects the expectations of the audience they reach in a new and shocking way. It can also be compelling by virtue of being extremely personal or communicating something intimate about the individuals pictured or the individual producing the content.
For example the video of Neda during the Iran election protests was extremely watchable. So too was LonelyGirl15 and even before YouTube was likely a spark in Chad Hurley’s imagination, a young Kuwaiti named Nayirah convinced the world that Iraqi soldiers had taken Kuwaiti children from incubators and “left the babies on the cold floor to die.” Her story was “watchable” because Americans wanted to believe it, and the press did little to question the elements, exactly because they reflected the dominant paradigm.
So watchability isn’t always necessarily a good thing. However reflecting one’s worldview can also be a matter of tenor, ie negative or anti-government videos for some, positive uplifting images of heroic justice for others. This may also be why humor is such a connecting element across boundaries of culture and differing perspective.
Keeping that in mind, is there anything else that provides a video watchability? I would suggest that perhaps the single most important element of watchability, even after reflecting the audience’s dominant perception of an event, is audience accessibility.
Videos must reach the audience where the audience is willing to consume the videos. Thus YouTube videos might have a higher base-level watchability than other video-sharing sites, purely as an element of market share. Another interesting element is that videos from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have greater watchability if they are published at Liveleak.com purely by virtue of the fact that consumers of such videos tend to spend much of their time looking at Liveleak to find the latest and “greatest” gore from the War on Terror.
The onus is now on the producer/publisher to push videos out as far and wide as possible. The very watchability of a video depends on it. Accessibility and paradigm reflection can improve the watchability of a video that might otherwise be consigned to the dustbin of internet video waste. The most beautiful and telling story of corruption or suffering or pain of an oppressed people might also lack watchability if it is not made accessible to a willing audience.
In order to have watchability videos now must be accessible via RSS, iTunes, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a host of others, the level of importance of any one networking tool being directly related to the audience a producer/publisher is targeting.
I hope you’ll comment with your own ideas and theories of “watchability.” Even with 10 years experience producing and consuming online video, one individual cannot hope to come to a solid and complete definition of such an elusive topic.
But at the risk of extreme hubris, I’ll postulate this; to succeed at creating a video with the greatest watchability, a video must:
* contain content with a marginal level of quality, a steady image and not too much noise in the audio
* be compelling, showing us something new, or something personal
* despite showing us something new, it should reflect the existing worldview of the audience
* it must be accessible. all television content possesses watchability purely by being on television, our audience is more dispersed, so our content must be as well.
What else makes a video watchable?
How many of these elements will we have to achieve to succeed at building a vast audience and keeping them? As I said at the beginning, to some degree that is really unknowable, but pursuing a theory of watchability may be the best chance at creating a benchmark for measuring success and how to alter our planning and execution to potentially increase our watchability.
Some thoughts so far from Twitter:
JoeyNiebrugge
@BaghdadBrian compelling, human angle, educate viewer (culture, people, lifestyle), entertain, quality* visuals (*often lacking)
NickySides
@BaghdadBrian “watchability” grabbing hook for initial attention. personalize it so that ppl not normally interested in the topic relate
Dimitrijevic_66
@BaghdadBrian Re what makes a video watchable? : Brevity. Under 90 secs is best and state running time up front
Post your own response here or on Twitter!
© 2011 Small World News | 833 SE Main St. Portland, OR 97214 | (646) 875-8047 | 
Send us an email