Thursday, April 29, 2010
Abuse undermining Sudan election
The Sudanese electoral process was under corruptive influences even before voting began. The Human Rights Watch accused authorities in Sudan of committing abuses ahead of the general election as far back as January. Violations of civil and political rights by Sudanese security forces throughout the country are currently seriously undermining the prospects for free, fair and credible elections. The censorship of the new media through the banning of social networking sites such as the African Elections Project is one of the various ways in which the government is injuring freedom of press in such crucial time in the country's political history.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Election watch
The new media is beginning to play a role in electoral processes of various African countries. Namibian political parties made use of new media technologies and networking sites to improve their campaign repertoires during the 2009 presidential elections. The ruling party the South West African People’s Organisation ( SWAPO,) set up a channel on YouTube, a blog and an SMS service which will allow voters to keep in touch with the party. The use of new media by political party is a good sign of progress, but a more important point to investigate is how the new media are monitoring and reporting elections in Africa. The African Elections Project uses new media to do just that. The project helps monitor the Namibian elections and set up a Namibia page on its website, a blog and a twitter page to keep track of elections news and results.
Although online social media has not become as popular in Namibia as in other countries such as South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya, the use of new media to monitor important democratic processes is defiantly a step in the right direction.
Not all attempts to use online social media to monitor elections have been successful. An online plat form , Sudan Vote Monitor, which was designed to facilitate independent monitoring of the Sudanese elections is currently being blocked by the government, preventing citizens from reporting irregularities in the recent polls. The site has been monitoring the elections by allowing journalists, NGOs and citizens in Sudan to report on the voting process. Users can could also send text messages, upload video and post comments to highlight both positive and negative aspects of the poll to the site.
The Sudanese people have not been able to access the website for the past six days. Both local and international journalists believe that by blocking a website that is supposed to help monitor the elections the Sudanese government is clearly indicating its need to hide information that could potentially damage it.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
YouTube exposes Sudanese election fraud.
The Sudanese elections, the country’s first democratic elections in nine years are suspected of being marred with fraud according to international and local observers. Proof of foul play was confirmed by the circulation of a YouTube video showing election officials stuffing ballot boxes. The elections commission and the National Congress Party (NCP) have dismissed the footage as a fake. Such news is of no surprise to many Africans. What is surprising however, is the withdrawal of two of President Bashir’s main challengers from the poll so far in the game. Poll results are now being delayed, likely to be announced only next week.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
We love you Malema
Julius Malema, just typing the name out makes me want to scrub my hands. But there seems to be no way of escaping the media typhoon that he’s become. If an alien species were to visit earth this day, use our most advanced search engine to find out about this little country the tip of Africa, a news article image of Julius Malema’s irate face with an accusatory figure pointed towards the media would be the first thing they would see.
Given his totally unacceptable and frankly juvenile treatment of a journalist and the media in general, it is very disturbing to see the amount of media attention the man receives. Clearly Malema hates the media but the internet is positively swarming with Julius Maelema news articles, blogs, photos and videos. However much he may be unmpressed by the media, South African journalists have given Malema nothing but love. He has become such a huge element, that it appears journalists are divided on the grounds of who thinks Malema is new worthy and who thinks that any self respecting journalist should not give him the time of day. Given the sensationalist dimensions of this ongoing saga, many journalists will not be able to stop reporting on Malema. Even the ones who want the media to stop covering his stories, end up talking about Malema. The name, which has almost supernatural powers over the media, has spread through the new media like wild fire. I searched through various online papers trying to find out what else is going on politically in South Africa, but was instead met with articles on how the ANC plans to reprimand Malema’s public behaviour.
I am not disputing that fact that Julius Malema is a charismatic figure. He is a young politician and who like many young people doesn’t really care about what comes out of his mouth. He often says what he wants to say, one of my personal favourites is, journalists should have skins as thick as elephants and be grateful for their freedoms, “we gave it to them on a silver platter”. Statement such as these , however absurd, are bound to get a lot of media attention. And it is because of such statements that media seem to love Malema so much. The true fact is that the media, particularly the new media, need Malema. Internet media is a highly competitive industry, the normal user can ditch your article for a better one on another site with single click on one link. Online writers need compelling material more than any other journalist and Malema is as compelling as they come.
Journalists are facing the most spoilt content consumer on the internet, this consumer is intrigued by scandal and shock as well as having the attention span of an 11 year old boy with ADD. Therefore, I would like to say that online journalist should take the higher road and rather choose to take on more authoritative view of news, reporting and content of importance and relevance to our daily lives. But in actual fact, there is no space for such high brow media morality on the internet, not if you want those hits anyways. Malema gives the online journalist everything they need for a great media package. A scandalous incident to use in the article, a random outburst to use in a video package, an absurd quote to use in a headline or intro and the promise of numerous comments and debates on your story because people are interested whether they like him or not.
Given his totally unacceptable and frankly juvenile treatment of a journalist and the media in general, it is very disturbing to see the amount of media attention the man receives. Clearly Malema hates the media but the internet is positively swarming with Julius Maelema news articles, blogs, photos and videos. However much he may be unmpressed by the media, South African journalists have given Malema nothing but love. He has become such a huge element, that it appears journalists are divided on the grounds of who thinks Malema is new worthy and who thinks that any self respecting journalist should not give him the time of day. Given the sensationalist dimensions of this ongoing saga, many journalists will not be able to stop reporting on Malema. Even the ones who want the media to stop covering his stories, end up talking about Malema. The name, which has almost supernatural powers over the media, has spread through the new media like wild fire. I searched through various online papers trying to find out what else is going on politically in South Africa, but was instead met with articles on how the ANC plans to reprimand Malema’s public behaviour.
I am not disputing that fact that Julius Malema is a charismatic figure. He is a young politician and who like many young people doesn’t really care about what comes out of his mouth. He often says what he wants to say, one of my personal favourites is, journalists should have skins as thick as elephants and be grateful for their freedoms, “we gave it to them on a silver platter”. Statement such as these , however absurd, are bound to get a lot of media attention. And it is because of such statements that media seem to love Malema so much. The true fact is that the media, particularly the new media, need Malema. Internet media is a highly competitive industry, the normal user can ditch your article for a better one on another site with single click on one link. Online writers need compelling material more than any other journalist and Malema is as compelling as they come.
Journalists are facing the most spoilt content consumer on the internet, this consumer is intrigued by scandal and shock as well as having the attention span of an 11 year old boy with ADD. Therefore, I would like to say that online journalist should take the higher road and rather choose to take on more authoritative view of news, reporting and content of importance and relevance to our daily lives. But in actual fact, there is no space for such high brow media morality on the internet, not if you want those hits anyways. Malema gives the online journalist everything they need for a great media package. A scandalous incident to use in the article, a random outburst to use in a video package, an absurd quote to use in a headline or intro and the promise of numerous comments and debates on your story because people are interested whether they like him or not.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
British elections and the new media.
It seems that political parties, even in highly developed countries, such as Britain, still harbour a stigmatic attitude towards internet media, or worst, lack the creative ability to make use of new technologies and platforms for their own political benefits
New media are changing the way organisations attract supporters. The American Red Cross raised a record $8 million for Haitian relief via twitter, which according to the Nielsen Co, had become the top sources of discussion about the quake, followed by online video and blogs. There is no disputing that there is an emerging market and communication networks for nonprofits, small businesses and political parties, right? No, at least not for political parties in England anyways.
Research has shown that political parties are failing in their efforts to use the internet. Carried out by the National Endowment for Science, Technology And the Arts, the study indicates a clear problem, showing that 79% of people questioned couldn’t recall seeing any material, adverts, e-mails or websites that had been prepared for the internet by the political parties.
This should come as highly alarming information to British politicians as the younger voters from the ages of 18 to 24 who are in fact keen to their parties online are not being given the chance to. Parties are clearly not exploiting the web’s ability to talk to people to find out their thoughts and key issues.
Beyond online engagement with voters, why aren’t voters allowed to do their voting online? The study showed that of those who could vote in the last elections but did not do so, 44% said they would cast a vote if they could do so online.
Setting up online voting stations would not be a complex endeavour at all, given that parties have the technology to do so and a large portion of the population, particularly younger members have access to the internet either at home, work or through educational institutions. If political parties want to capture this sector of the population, they need to march out of the stuffy digital dark age they have grown to love so much.
It appears to this young African lass that British politicians have always had a media complex. The country’s prime ministers have never had a televised debate for the pubic. Back in her day, Thatcher shamelessly refused the Labour Party’s Neil Kinnock’s challenge to a televised debate, claiming it would turn a good campaigning system into a show business. Tony Blair too chickened out of a public debate during his elections.
This style of campaigning is truly a shame and lacking in juiciness, who can say that they don’t relish in political witty and down right dirty banter. I for one have always enjoyed a gladiator style battle between potential leaders, not only because it is hilarious but also to point out dim witted or dodgy characters.
After the long wait, the British media and public will finally get a chance to witness a mediated political debate between electoral candidates Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg this week. This historical first , will allow audience members to pose questions to the candidates.
Political parties will also have a live hotline to broadcasters to appeal against what they see as unfair camera shots or lack of balance. The British media is with good reason highly excited about the broadcasting implications of the live debate. They want to create a programme which is watchable, interesting and something that the public will take to be a real debate. Let’s hope they succeed.
New media are changing the way organisations attract supporters. The American Red Cross raised a record $8 million for Haitian relief via twitter, which according to the Nielsen Co, had become the top sources of discussion about the quake, followed by online video and blogs. There is no disputing that there is an emerging market and communication networks for nonprofits, small businesses and political parties, right? No, at least not for political parties in England anyways.
Research has shown that political parties are failing in their efforts to use the internet. Carried out by the National Endowment for Science, Technology And the Arts, the study indicates a clear problem, showing that 79% of people questioned couldn’t recall seeing any material, adverts, e-mails or websites that had been prepared for the internet by the political parties.
This should come as highly alarming information to British politicians as the younger voters from the ages of 18 to 24 who are in fact keen to their parties online are not being given the chance to. Parties are clearly not exploiting the web’s ability to talk to people to find out their thoughts and key issues.
Beyond online engagement with voters, why aren’t voters allowed to do their voting online? The study showed that of those who could vote in the last elections but did not do so, 44% said they would cast a vote if they could do so online.
Setting up online voting stations would not be a complex endeavour at all, given that parties have the technology to do so and a large portion of the population, particularly younger members have access to the internet either at home, work or through educational institutions. If political parties want to capture this sector of the population, they need to march out of the stuffy digital dark age they have grown to love so much.
It appears to this young African lass that British politicians have always had a media complex. The country’s prime ministers have never had a televised debate for the pubic. Back in her day, Thatcher shamelessly refused the Labour Party’s Neil Kinnock’s challenge to a televised debate, claiming it would turn a good campaigning system into a show business. Tony Blair too chickened out of a public debate during his elections.
This style of campaigning is truly a shame and lacking in juiciness, who can say that they don’t relish in political witty and down right dirty banter. I for one have always enjoyed a gladiator style battle between potential leaders, not only because it is hilarious but also to point out dim witted or dodgy characters.
After the long wait, the British media and public will finally get a chance to witness a mediated political debate between electoral candidates Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg this week. This historical first , will allow audience members to pose questions to the candidates.
Political parties will also have a live hotline to broadcasters to appeal against what they see as unfair camera shots or lack of balance. The British media is with good reason highly excited about the broadcasting implications of the live debate. They want to create a programme which is watchable, interesting and something that the public will take to be a real debate. Let’s hope they succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)