Follow me on @evgenymorozov:

Should we also make lists of the world's ten worst places to be a vegetarian?

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 4:51pm

It's no secret that bloggers as a social group still make for fascinating media coverage -- particularly, those bloggers who are brave enough take on and oppose an authoritarian government. Very few Western newspapers would shy away from running an article on how China's (Cuba's, Iran's, Egypt's, Syria's -- fill in the blanks based on your own geographical preferences) get arrested for opposing the regime. The problem is that all too often these bloggers have other identities; some of them are prominent journalists, some are old-school activists ,and some are intellectuals. Blogs usually provide them with just another platform for engaging in traditional activist campaigns; quite often, it's not even the most effective platform at their disposal. 

So here is a provocative question: when they get arrested, is it fair for the media and NGOs to refer to such activists by their secondary identity (i.e. "bloggers")? Or should we instead treat them based on their primary identity, i.e. writers, intellectuals, activists, journalists, and forget the blogging lable?

This is not an arcane question,for it not only inflates the number of "jailed bloggers" worldwide, but helps to perpetuate the myth of "bloggers-as-renegades" narrative. Much of this recent confusions has to do with a brief report on "10 worst countries to be a blogger" released by the Committee to Protect Journalists last week. For all the right reasons, it's getting a lot of media attention this week, including this story on CNN.com that says that Burma tops the CPJ list. The story includes a reference to Maung Thura, whom CNN credits as "one Burmese blogger, Maung Thura, [who] is serving a 59-year prison term for circulating video footage after Cyclone Nargis in 2008".

One of my friends working on Burma-related issues forwarded me the CNN piece complaining that it's incorrect to lable Thura as a blogger. It would take you just a few minutes on Google to figure out that Thura (also known by his nick Zarganar) is much better known as a comedian, actor and director  than as a blogger. He was already involved in political activism during the 1988 uprising and was arrested and detained many times before anyone even heard of blogging. So what makes him a politically-repressed blogger (rather than a blogging political activist) in the eyes of the CPJ and CNN? 

Imagine that an activist blogger who also happens to be a vegetarian  gets arrested next week. Will anyone ever mention him in a report on the world's worst places to be a vegetarian? Probably not.Yet we are increasingly eager to play up the blogging identity at the expense of other affiliations. Once again, this is not an arcane question for anyone thinking of ways to protect freedom of expression; most often, this question pops up in debates on whether we should extend the same protection enjoyed by journalists to bloggers. Cases like this highlight the conceptual difficulties in making such a leap...



Advertisement

 

Curt - Committee to Protect Bloggers

It's fair to identify them as bloggers if either 1. their main mode, or one of their primary modes, of communication is via blog or 2. if their arrest was based all or in part on material they posted on their blog or 3. because their blog was identified as an amplifier that made them more dangerous to the arresting party.

Many of those, if not all, in the CPJ list, would qualify. There are plenty of examples of people who were arrested solely due to their blogs - like Omid Reza Mirsayafi or Omid Sheikhan - but more many blogging was either an important threat or the straw that broke the camel's back.

Unfortunately, I suppose, material on people arrested by the Egyptians, Iranians, Chinese, or whomever else, are not often cut and dried. Even finding out whether an American was fired because of their blog is all but impossible. The information you can get, experience, common sense all unite with an uncomfortable lack of finality when examining cases of bloggers and other users of social media.

thanks for the response

thanks for the clarification. I think these are great criteria and we need more of them. even with the current criteria, it may still be quite tough to figure out all the subtleties (e.g. I think it would be hard to make a case that a blog would be the most important platform of communication for a popular comedian in Burma). but thanks for checking in here!

Curt

Criteria can be useful. But I think it's important to remember that our topography of the world is quite fluid. Depending on the criteria of the moment, we might recognize a person as "a woman," "Hispanic," "my wife," "a driver" or "Senator (R), Delaware." Wouldn't it be hard to say this if person were more a Senator than a driver? I think it would depend on the instance of conversation or communication. As for Zarganar, perhaps the case could be made that he is much better known outside Burma as a blogger than as a comedian. I, for one, am utterly ignorant of his comedy. I mean, aside from his gut-busting pornographic nursery rhymes. Unless that's Andrew Dice Clay. *rimshot*