UPDATING the UPDATED: Press TV Warms up to President Obama?

'Nother UPDATE (1:24 PST Feb 11): CBS news is reporting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has officially asked for an interview with President Barack Obama as a direct response to Mr. Obama's call for opportunities to engage" via the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Turns out Press TV's coverage was an accurate and early barometer of Iran's intentions. Who knew?

UPDATE (4:30 PST Feb 10): AJE's coverage of President Ahmadinejad's call for dialogue adds an interesting layer of depth to the story. Apparently Ahmadinejad "said Iran is ready for dialogue with the US provided the talks were based on mutual respect" in front of a crowd of "thousands of Iranians chanting anti-US slogans," with "many in the crowd carrying placards reading "Death to America" and set alight US flags." Interesting that Press Tv left out the part about the crowd burning American flags, no?
-----------------


Similar to Press TV's coverage of last week's elections in Iraq (see previous post here), today's coverage of the Obama administration is, well, kind of like watching MSNBC. In response to President Obama's repeated overtures to engage in dialogue with President Ahmadinejad, Press TV reported:

The new US president had earlier told the Arabic-language television station Al Arabiya that, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." President Obama's new tone for trying to engage Tehran has drawn a sharp line between his foreign policies regarding Iran and that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

Sharp line? This is the same broadcaster that was, as of last week, proclaiming that the Obama administration's policies would be no different from those of President Bush. I can't help but think that Pres. Ahmadinejad, via Press Tv, is hedging his bets in the run up to Iran's elections in June. It is also helpful to note that Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 (published today on Press TV) reiterates that the United States is indeed "great satan," mocks the concept of "change," and suggests that dialogue can only occur "if occupation and tyranny come to an end in the world and the rights of the people of Iran including their nuclear rights are recognized, its assets are unfreezed, all sanctions are lifted and political pressure eased." Ouch. Those seem like preconditions, which, Iran has repeatedly said were bad for negotiations.

My guess is that the Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 was written mostly for domestic audiences, while the "Iran ready for talks with 'changed' US" article was written more for foreign readers. Oh, the dilemmas of controlling the flow of information in a world of the WWW and google translate!

"Online and in Jail"

The Committee to Protect Journalists is reporting that 45 percent of journalists that were put in jail in 2008 were web-based reporters or bloggers. Let's put this another way: you are more likely to be jailed for being a journalist if you publish your reporting via the World Wide Web than any other medium. Wow. So much for hoping that the Internet could provide a cover for those trying to report the news in countries that, well, don't exactly welcome a free and independent press.

The VOA's reporting of the findings highlights the most egregious violators: "Among the countries singled out for their hostile press environments were Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Zimbabwe and Cuba." This is especially interesting given the recent cuts in funding for American broadcasting to Russia, China's pledge to sink billions in creating English and Arabic-language international broadcasters to compete with CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera, Iran's recent crackdown on BBC Persian and most recently the GAO's report that found that, despite the $500 million that the US government has devoted to broadcasting radio and TV to Cuba, "Radio and TV Martí’s audience size is small, with less than 2 percent of respondents to telephone surveys since 2003 reporting that they had tuned in to Radio or TV Martí during the past week."

Thus, I'll ask again, is the Internet and its associated revolution in communication technologies actually opening up previously close societies, or is this further evidence of governments demonstrating their ability to control the flow of information despite it? 2008's crackdown on online journalism is further evidence of concern that governments are indeed winning the war over who is in control of the World Wide Web. On that note, I'm signing off!

Barack Hussein Obama uses his Muslim roots to reach out to the Muslim world

During the U.S presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s "handlers" constantly pointed out his Christian faith and stressed that he was not a Muslim. “Once elected, however, he personally insisted on his middle name being spoken at his swearing-in ceremony.” And then, when on Al Arabiya, he proudly goes on about his Muslim ties.

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."

In the same interview, when asked about Bush’s use of terms such as "war on terror" and "Islamic fascism" that demonizes Muslims, President Barack Hussein Obama replied, "I think you’re making a very important point, and that is the language we use matters …"

It seems names matter as well- Obama isn't the only one playing up his Muslim roots. PressTV refers to the US President as "Barack Hussein Obama" in just about every article that he is mentioned. Not something you see played up in US media even now. Is PressTV trying to make Obama seem more akin to the Muslim world? As Shakespeare's Juliet pondered, what's in a name?

BBC & Gaza: Win-Win?

Keach Hagey at The National (Abu Dhabi) is reporting that BBC Arabic's handling of the Gaza-charity drama "was a testament to BBC Arabic’s methodical multimedia strategy that, when its listeners, viewers and readers did choose to voice their opinions about the broadcaster’s decision not to air a charity appeal for Gaza, it was able to use every form of mobile, online and traditional media at its disposal to make its audiences feel heard." (For some background on the story line, see previous post here).

So let me get this straight: (1) the BBC decides to not air the appeal for aid to Gaza, (2) a decision that sparks widespread protests, both physical (5000 outside the Bush House in London) and virtual (check out the online discussion here). As a result of the protests, (3) the appeal for aid actually gets more media attention than it would of had it simply been aired on the BBC, and (4) because "BBC Arabic used its newly expanded television schedule and multimedia channels to host a live debate about the decision," the BBC's image is actually strengthened as well. These times, they are a changin'

Yes, we can!

I’m a sports junkie. As such, I’m delighted when I can tie up work and sports. Well, France 24 did that for me. Weekly Le Journal du Dimanche reports that France 24 asked several advertisers to rebound on the Obama inauguration with a short clip. Since it just so happens that the Football World Cup qualifiers are taking place at this very moment (we’re talking football that’s played with feet, here, and by the way the US plays Mexico this Wednesday at 4:00 PST), the French Football Federation decided to put together this video, which supposedly aired on France 24 (I say supposedly because this is what is reported by Le Journal du Dimanche – I haven’t actually seen it on France 24, and a search on the France 24 website does not retrieve the video)


Video title: Can France qualify for the 2010 World Cup?




I’m not sure what to make of it, as far as our standpoint is concerned, so I’ll just throw these few hypotheses on the table, keeping in mind that the video originally only aired on France 24, not on domestic broadcast:

- France wants to show the US that it still loves the US, despite the abuse we had to suffer from the last administration? By making an Obama reference, the country shows that it understands the previous administration was not necessarily representative of the country as a whole, and that it welcomes the new administration? (Note: like in many other countries, Obama is hugely popular in France. In fake voting polls held in France, Obama won the election in a landslide; I recall something over 75%). In this hypothesis, the message would be addressed to the Obama administration and whoever in the US watched France 24.

- White diplomacy: we read last week about how sports were used as a tool for white diplomacy. This video, however, hardly seems to promote France as a whole, or French culture. Since it aired on France 24, it is more likely that it is directed towards French expats. As in: “ we’re not forgetting you, you’re still part of the French community, don’t forget your country.” What I’m not sure is what this kind of propaganda is called, reminding expats that they are still part of the national community. Is it part of white propaganda? Is it something of its own? What purposes does it serve – getting expats to come back to the homeland? Getting expats to become ambassadors for their own country, wherever they are?

Obama marks end of policy dictation?

PressTV picks up, as one of their lead headlines, the story that US President Barack Obama says his administration will focus on "listening more" rather than "dictating" policies in the Middle East. Discussing his Al-Arabiya interview, the article focuses on President Obama's use of the word "listen."

"And so what I told [former Sen. George J. Mitchell, his envoy to the Middle East] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating ...and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen," Obama said on Monday.

PressTV explained that the envoy would be visiting "Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, London and Paris would focus on talking to 'all the parties involved' in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis." but pointed out that "Mitchell will not be traveling to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Once again delaying his response to the Israeli carnage on the Gaza Strip."

"Israel launched Operation Cast Lead on the impoverished Palestinian strip to allegedly stop Hamas rockets from reaching Israel. Officials later upgraded their objective, affirming that they attacked the slither to destroy the democratically-elected ruler of the sliver of land, namely Hamas.After failing to achieve their objectives, however, echelons in Tel Aviv backtracked on the issue, suggesting that they did not seek their previously announced goals and that they only wanted to weaken Hamas. The Israeli military operations claimed more than 1300 lives on the Palestinian side and killed at least 13 Israelis."

I have noticed that PressTV's stories lag a bit behind actual US events however, this article shows the dissatisfaction "Iran" has with Obama's response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which I am sure reflects that of others throughout the region.

Is the UK becoming too Insular?

Via Phil Harding (former director of news and English networks at the BBC World Service) at the Guardian:

In a report called The Great Global Switch-Off, commissioned by Oxfam, Polis and the International Broadcasting Trust, I come to a disturbing conclusion on the future of one of the most distinctive aspects of Public Service Broadcasting, television's coverage of international issues and stories. Unless urgent action is taken now, such programming could, in effect, have disappeared in four years' time - and this at a time when, from the credit crunch to migration to climate change, understanding the world around us has never been more important.

An amazing finding given the role that the BBC World Service has as a global leader in international news. Also interesting references to AJE. Perhaps the report fails to credit the role that the Internet (and Internet broadcasting) has on how Britons get their international news? Full report can be downloaded here. We'll revisit this when we discuss media globalization on April 9th.

Press TV on Israel, Egypt and Iraq

Few things of note. Press TV has an interesting poll on their main news page. Is asks readers: What is Egypt and Israel's main objective in closing the Rafah border-crossing? There are three answers to choose from: (1) Forcing Hamas into accepting Israel's conditions for truce; (2) Weakening the Hamas government and paving the way for its ouster; and (3) Maintaining security in the region.

It is important to note how the question is framed -- by lumping Egypt and Israel together in the fairly loaded question, Press TV is taking a de facto swipe at Mubarak and the Egyptian government. Curious what the results of the poll are? As of now (4p PST Feb 9):

• Forcing Hamas into accepting Israel's conditions for truce (27%)
• Weakening the Hamas government and paving the way for its ouster (62%)
• Maintaining security in the region (12%)

Also of note is the relatively positive of coverage (see here and here) of the successful elections in Iraq last week. Perhaps this is some more evidence in support of what a Sunday article in the NYT (America's Scorecard in Iraq) is reporting: "Iran, at least for now, appears to have scaled back its overt attempts to undermine the nascent Iraqi government by supplying insurgent groups."

BBC Persian: Just in Time?

So far, nothing but praise for BBC Persian, unless of course you ask the Iranian government. Here is a good article outlining how the strength of BBC Persian will likely be its higher level of professionalism (also, the article has an interesting take on the overly political nature of US broadcasting into Iran):

Mehrdad Khalili, a journalist and university lecturer, told state-run Radio Goftogu that the BBC Persian TV employees belong to a post-revolutionary generation of journalists who aspire to a higher level of professionalism than currently exists in the domestic media.Khalili said some of the TV journalists now working for BBC Persian were active during what he calls the "golden era" of Iranian media that followed the election of reformist president Mohammad Khatami in 1997. Others come from state radio and television. "These journalists cannot tolerate [working under] very tenuous and frustrating financial conditions and the tremendous pressures coming from inside and outside the media," he said. "Nor can they forget the media's golden era". During the Khatami years, an era of growing political freedoms, dozens of newspapers were published, employing hundreds of young journalists.

And, here is an article outlining how BBC Persian was received amongst Iranian bloggers (keep in mind the source!). Not much of a shocker here -- most of the bloggers surveyed think that BBC Persian is a breath of fresh air:

The absence of a [Persian-language] media outlet [outside Iran] which can disseminate news professionally can be felt. For the past few days I've been thinking about why the BBC can't fulfil this role. The British know exactly when to do something. The BBC Persian TV has been launched at a time that the Iranian people are tired of the Los Angeles-based [Persian-language] TV channels, the Iranian Voice and Vision, and the VOA. Have no doubt that BBC Persian TV will have a bigger impact than one can expect.

Telesur: News with an Accent

Telesur’s main news anchor, Brazilian Clarise Arduz, delivers the news with a distinct Portuguese accent. Given the network’s original choice of Ati Kiwa, a Colombian Indian woman who wore traditional tribal dress, it’s hard to believe that Arduz’ nationality wasn’t considered carefully in making her the voice of Telesur news. In public diplomacy the messenger can be as significant as the message, and the choice of Arduz, whose accent as an original Portuguese speaker is as obvious to native Spanish speakers as a British accent would be to Americans, is probably an attempt to establish a certain kind of credibility with Latin American viewers.

Brazil is a rising power in the region as both the most populous Latin American country and its largest economy with a 2 trillion dollar GDP. Significantly, Brazil’s Lula and Chavez haven’t always agreed politically, so a Brazilian anchor wouldn’t automatically be assumed to be a mouthpiece for the Chavez government, the way a Bolivian or Nicaraguan anchor might be. Having a Brazilian voice deliver news that appears to have a pro-Chavez agenda may be a way to capitalize on Brazil’s growing influence in the region. Just as Russia Today employs British and American anchors to connect with Western viewers, Telesur’s choice of Arduz seems to be part of its strategy to try to establish credibility with its Latin American audience.

Between the Headlines

Iran's PressTV program "Between the Headlines" goes through a few major headlines from around the world to give an Iranian response to the topics. Today's program singled out four major stories including the The New Statesman article All of Us Live by the Logic of Finance and the Economist's, That Curious Relationship about a British resident and Ethiopian citizen, Binyam Mohamed, who alleges that he was tortured by American agents. According to the Economist, British courts decided they could not publish a summery of these events publicly because "America would retaliate by withholding vital intelligence in future, thereby placing Britain at risk." The anchors discussed in full, America's use of torture in Guantanimo Bay and whether the media will pressure stories like this to come out so that such circumstances could never happen again. Interesting that such human rights topics comes up and the correspondents seemed so concerned about the truth coming out about the U.S.'s torture allegations when Iran itself isn't exactly a poster child for human rights. One of the guests did feel it necessary to note that this torture happened during the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, "and we all know what the Bush administration was about." I would have loved for him to elaborate.

Multilingualism on France 24

France 24 boasts itself as a truly multilingual channel. Not only does it broadcast is 3 languages (French, English and Arabic), but it creates original content in all three languages, which mirror each other at certain times. The French-German channel Arte creates original content in two languages, but only broadcasts one show at any given time: if the show is in German, it will air in German in Germany, and in German subtitled in French, in France. And the other way around. France 24, on the other hand, will produce the same type of show multiple times in multiple languages, and will air the shows at the same time.

For example, on Tuesday, February 3, between 14:30 and 15:00 PST, one who would watch the English channel of France 24 would witness an interview show called “The Debate”. The interviewer was a native English speaker. Around the interview table where two interviewees, seemingly native English speakers. The theme of the debate was “Can we avoid protectionism.” At the exact same time, on the French channel, the program was an interview show called “Le Débat”. The interviewer as a native French speaker. The interview table, and the set generally, were the exact same as those of “The Debate.” Two native French speakers served as interviewees, and were debating the topic “Le protectionnisme, un mal necessaire?”, i.e. “is protectionism a necessary evil.” The show were therefore essentially the same, but produced twice in two different original languages. At the same moment, the Arabic channel broadcasted the French show, in the original French language, without dubbing or subtitles. It is unclear why the Arabic channel did not have its own show. Maybe it is because of lack of resources. Maybe it is because France 24, as a proponent of French values, wants to maintain the influence of the French language on the Arab world.

This situation does not seem to take place at all times, however. For example, On Feburary 5 at 12:45 PST, the French and Arabic channels broadcasted a live interview of French President Sarkozy, while the British channel was broadcasting a taped talk show. This seems to indicate that France 24, in general, does not translate material.

I will keep browsing the 3 channels every time I check out a program on France 24, to establish a pattern regarding multilingualism.

Missions and Visions indicate biases

A broad reading of Lasswell’s (1927) theory of political propaganda complicates the line between what is objective information and what is propaganda. Propaganda is defined as “management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols. The word attitude is taken to mean tendency to act according to certain patterns of valuation.” On the other side is the ‘deliberative attitude’, which “[searches] for the solution of a besetting problem with no desire to prejudice a particular solution in advance.”

In the context of international broadcasting, does the ‘deliberative attitude’ exist?

Below is a list of each broadcaster’s missions and values:

Al Jazeera

BBC

NHK

Russia Today

Africa Channel

Press TV

In a quick discourse analysis, it can be seen the wording of these missions and visions direct the focus of the broadcaster's news coverage in a particular way. What are the historical and political elements that could be informing each one's goals? Do these purposes "conveniently [divide stories] according to the object toward which it is proposed to modify or crystallize an attitude", as Lasswell says propaganda does? Does the notion of objectivity in journalism automatically and blindly negate news from fitting into the definition of propaganda, even if, as seen in the missions of each IB, each is operating from a set of ideals and goals?

Telesur: Chavez vs. Local Media

Last Saturday the oldest synagogue in Venezuela was vandalized and spray-painted with anti-Semitic slurs. Telesur’s coverage of the story highlighted the government’s criticism of the major Venezuelan newspapers and media outlets for their reporting about the incident. Chavez condemned allegations in the local coverage that supporters of the government could have either provoked or in some way supported the attack.

The vandalism came after weeks of tensions between Venezuela and Israel over the Gaza conflict, and the expulsion of the Venezuelan and Israeli ambassadors respectively, from each country. Chavez’ criticism of the local media and the “oligarchy” which controls it has been an ongoing theme. The first 2 paragraphs from a Telesur story about the incident is below (translated)--

Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, roundly condemned the attack on a synagogue in the capital, carried out during the early hours of Saturday morning, while blaming radical members of his political opposition with ‘links to the nation’s oligarchy’.

The president complained that the incident was reported on the front pages of the countries’ private media (newspapers) with unsubstantiated allegations that supporters of the national government were in some way behind the attack.

Is this the future? The Redesign of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website

Recently in the Washington Note, Steve Clemmons threatened to create a facebook group entitled "One Million Strong Against Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website" (which can be viewed here).  Clemmon's threats were premature as Sen. Kerry hired Brian Young to redesign the committee's website.  Below Young describes the goals of the redesign and is soliciting feedback via comments:

Because we're not just looking to spruce up the website, drag it into the 21st century with links to press releases, video of hearings, etc, etc. We want to do more than that; we want to create a website worthy of the Committee. Of all Committees in Congress, this is the one most suited for a powerful, interactive website . . . [Senator Kerry] wants a site that creates a portal into the foreign policy deliberations this nation needs to have to meet the challenges of the 21st century.  This site will be designed to involve people in a conversation about the future of this country's foreign policy.  And, since the Internet knows no borders, it can be a worldwide conversation - a conversation across and between cultures - as we deal with the great threats and challenges facing us now: terrorism, economic upheaval, climate disruption, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace, disease, poverty -- the whole spectrum of worldwide issues.  

Is this the future of U.S. public diplomacy?  Imagine a website that broadcasts full and edited versions of hearings, has individual Senators and their staff blog, produces weekly podcasts focused on the most pressing topics, sponsors chats between the commitee and the globe.  Oh, and is available in multiple languages.  The technology exists to make this possible.  As the world becomes increasingly connected via the Internet, resources like the one described by Young may one day take on the functions of the traditional institutions of PD.   It will be interesting to see what Young does create and hopefully State will take note as they evolve beyond DipNote.

Make sure to comment at the Washington Note.  Young has said that he will be monitoring the comments for feedback.  

Israel acting to restrict Al-Jazeera. UPDATED: "Israel's frosty relationship with AJ is headed for a deep freeze"

Update (2/4): Dion Nissenbaum is reporting that Israel is considering declaring AJ a "hostile enemy." If effective, the result would be the removal of all AJ reporters from Israel. Question: would this also mean that AJ reporters would be out of Gaza, or would they be able to remain? If AJ's reporters remain in Gaza, won't this encourage one-sided coverage, given the difficulty that contacting Israeli officials will be? Seems like this move could only hurt Israel's image in the media.

The BBC is reporting that:

Israeli officials say they are taking measures to restrict the work of the Arabic television network, al-Jazeera, inside Israel. It follows a decision last month by al-Jazeera's owners, the state of Qatar, to cut trade ties with Israel. The work visas of some al-Jazeera employees based in Israel will not be renewed, according to reports. Al-Jazeera's journalists will have limited access to Israeli news conferences and briefings.

Yet another example of the line between politics and journalism being blurred. It is unclear of the restrictions will be applied only to the Arabic side of AJ, or the English branch as well.

Is Russia Today the Kremlin's Channel?

Mark Dillen's most recent post on FPA nicely introduces an international broadcaster that I will be analyzing for the next few months.  Dillen writes,

As the Kremlin’s channel, Russia Today has every right to practice its old-new style of public diplomacy as it pleases.  But it will appear more like old-fashioned propaganda than new fashioned public diplomacy if it adopts a strident anti-U.S. tone.  Particularly if the Kremlin at the same time continues to pressure Russian domestic media, such as  Novaya Gazeta and radio station “Ekho Moskvy,” whenever they fail to toe the Kremlin line.  Emphasis Added.

The 'old-new style of public diplomacy' that Dillen laments is Russia Today's (RT) eagerness to criticize the United States at every available opportunity while leaving Russia completely unscathed.   

Is Dillen's prognosis of RT accurate?  I will settle for the unsatisfactory, 'it is too early to say'.  This media monitor (a more detailed description of RT is forthcoming) will take a thorough look at RT's video broadcasts, web content and blogs to determine what biases and agendas do and do not exist.  

Beyond the propaganda question, this media monitor will discuss the quality of RT's journalism.  Check out the clip below to gain a better understanding of what I am referring to.  I'm pretty sure that my local 5 o'clock news wouldn't even produce this segment.  

Stay tuned!

150 US academics boycott Israel

This week Iran's PressTV lead with the story of the 150 US academics who "launched a national campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, as the regime began its deadly military campaign in the Gaza Strip."

The article, which was posted on presstv.com, cited that more than 1,330 Palestinians were killed and that there were no "achievements on the Israeli side."

PressTV informed its audience that "although in the past, similar campaigns have been organized in Europe, such a movement has been quite unprecedented in the United States." Which is arguable to anyone who attended a large college campus.

The story actually cites USC's student newspaper, The Daily Trojan, quoting USC's own, David Lloyd, an English professor, as one of the academics who joined the campaign.

"We are calling for the boycott because Israel has systematically denied the rights of Palestinians to get a full and proper access to education. It's not just that they have bombed several educational institutions ...," said Lloyd.

"Up until this point, it has been virtually unspeakable in public to talk about boycotting Israel, and it produces a very hostile response. In the end, what we're aiming at is a full boycott of Israel, both academic and economic ... To circulate this idea as a possibility is of major importance. It's part of a larger campaign to say Israel cannot be the exception. ... All that we are asking is that the United States treat Israel the way it treats all other countries," he added.

Who knew Iran read The Daily Trojan? Though it is a fine piece of journalism.

A laptop for 20 bones?

Foreign Policy's Passport is reporting the possible rollout of a $20 laptop in India. The little bugger is supposed to be ready to run fast on any wireless network and is loaded with 2G of memory (more memory than is on the computer I am currently typing on!).

Will the $20 laptop program be able to lessen the digital divide? As the BBC reports:

"The cheap laptop will be the centrepiece of India's National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technologies, due to be unveiled on 3 February at Triupati, Andhra Pradesh Included in the mission is spending on e-books and e-journals for students, development of translation tools, upgrades to educational networks and more PCs for high schools Much of the e-learning work will be co-ordinated via the Shaksat web portal, on which students can register and then use to monitor their progress."

"Media as Global Diplomat" Summit

Just saw information about this conference being held at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., tomorrow and thought I should share with the IB class.

Media as Global Diplomat
Moderated by Ted Koppel
Tuesday February 3, 2008
8:30 am - 3:30 pm

An event on Tuesday morning in Washington D.C. (Tuesday evening Asia time) called Media as Global Diplomat, organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace and ITVS, will explore “how the United States can best use media to reinvigorate its public diplomacy strategy and international influence in order to strengthen efforts to build a more peaceful world.

Panels include:
Public Diplomacy 2.0: Rethinking Official Media
The Global Media Marketplace
Independent Documentary and Participatory Media

Official website with agenda: http://mediaasglobaldiplomat.eventbrite.com/

Ivan Sigal of the US Institute of Peace describes more about the event and gives information about how to participate via live webcast and chat, here.

"We are in a disruptive period in media, the result of an explosion in digital distribution, social networking, and user generated content. And with disruption comes opportunity. This summit, moderated by Ted Koppel and entitled Media as Global Diplomat, is a forum to ask key public and private sector leaders how the United States can best use media to reinvigorate its public diplomacy strategy and international influence in order to strengthen efforts to build a more peaceful world."