fixtheworld

Response to The Financial Times

Posted from the U.S.

The Financial Times had a article today regarding blogging and the World Economic Forum. The article, written by Emiliya Mychasuk of the FT, reflects on the Forum's choice this year to encourage all attendees this year to post at least one blog themselves.

A few points of clarification and response:

• The World Economic Forum did invite me back to the 2006 meeting - which was a nice response from them. I was not able to attend because I am immersed in a new startup (MAKO Surgical) which is about to put its first products into clinical use in the next few months. I would have loved to go - and may go to future meetings (if invited again).
• I am very impressed by the Forum's response to blogging this year by moving to enable all attendees to blog - and by pushing a very open form of media. This is a very healthy response to all of the issues that streamed out of last year's meeting - and in my view a good response.
• Thoughts on the whole Eason Jordan issue - this thing did turn into a Boston Tea party of sorts - a blog heard 'round the world. Mainstream media is still alive and well but I'm sure many editors and their ilk heard a bell tolling for their industry as it is today - but they are starting to adapt and will continue to do so. As for Eason, I think that it would be interesting to write a book where half of the chapters come from my perspective, while the other half come from his. I did not anticipate the storm that would come from some late night postings - and I'm sure he did not as well.
• On interacting with the mainstream media - I had a pretty warm reception from many people - including some media personalities who are usually very tough. I guess that they did not want to incite a blogstorm on themselves?
• Blogstorms in general - I wish that the force of such things could be controlled and used positively. For example, could one massive blogstorm end poverty? Save a hostage? End a regional conflict?
• The Forum's blog policy remains in force - but so does my original blog posting on their site. The fact that the Forum allowed the posting to remain up is a small victory for freedom of speech.
• Am I in favor of rules for bloggers? - hard to do without killing the blogging spirit, but ethical standards of some sort need to be developed - possibly enforced by rating systems. Wikipedia has a kind of "self-correcting" mechanism which may be adopted by bloggers one day.
• The Chatham House Rule - I think with the Forum's idea of opening the door to all of their attendees to blog, these kinds of notions will just become quaint artifacts.
• Fixing the world - a very ambitious notion - but I was greatly encouraged by reading about what Bono and Bill & Melinda Gates are doing - yes it helps to be the most famous rock star in the world and the richest man....but there is no reason why massive networks of like-minded people could not equal or exceed the leverage of a few people like this who get the ball rolling. More on this thought later....

-R

BBC on Easongate

Posted from the U.S

I was just interviewed by Eddie Mair of the BBC for tonight's Radio 4's 'PM
Programme' on BBC radio in London.

The worldwide broadcast should be on the web.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/)

-R

NPR later tonight...

Thoughts On Being On O'Reilly - Power To The People

Posted from the U.S

Being on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor tonight was an odd experience. So what the heck was I doing in the bowels of mainstream media? Where is this river flowing? It was a bit like going into the Death Star, looking around, and understanding how it all works. The machinery of Fox, CNN, NBC - much of mainstream media, is the same. Going on O'Reilly is like going to visit an iron factory, or a paper mill. They produce news. It's a product. Tonight, I was a product. A one-time use, disposable product, like tissue paper. Not an unwilling participant, but a pretty curious observer. The mainstream media can also be like a drug - news, radio, tv calling - what do you do? It's easy to fall into the dark side. Very, very easy.

Bill was actually pleasent to speak with - I thought that when he figured out that I am not a right wing conservative, but an independant thinker with a pretty liberal outlook, that he would chew me up. He didn't, and it seemed to go well. In his preamble there was some respect given to CNN as a network, but NBC got a kick in the pants. Having been on MSNBC a few nights before, they seemed to be decent people, but there is obviously a rivalry. Seemingly decent people, building news as a product. Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, it is all sugar water to a degree. Pulling the curtain away from the Wizard is an experience in and of itself.

The blogs. What to make of all of it? It's not a product. I stated in an earlier post that it simply is. I am not sure that O'Reilly understood this, but he did seem aware of a new force making its presence known. What of this force? What is it?

It is the people. The formerly passive people, watching, digesting, being fed what a powerful few want to feed them. People being manipulated into believing what a powerful few want us to believe, and people being influenced to buy what powerful corporations want us to buy. The blog world is the people screaming back, maybe even vomiting back, with a veangence.

This is not a left or right wing phenomenom. The story is much, much bigger than Eason Jordan. This is John Lennon's Power To The People, but turbocharged and amplified. The people are sick and tired of being used, manipulated, bought, and sold. Sick of being a number, a metric, and a marketing statistic. The people want a voice, and now they really have it. Their own voice, unedited, and unfiltered. It is not pretty. The people are quite irritated, mad, and upset. A great quote I saw today (if someone knows who wrote this, please write me):

Mr. Jordan, meet the Internet. He never forgets, and he is a big blabbermouth.

What does the future hold for us? The technology of the internet, the massive, parallel connectedness of it all, means a widespread, global redistribution of the control of information, and with that, power. The 21st century may mean the end of centralized control, of a powerful few having a tight hold on the masses. This is not my philosophy, but rather a simple observation. It is happening in front of our eyes, in real time. Like the greenhouse effect, it may build up over time, showing itself here and there. It could also just precipitate in one massive shift, like an Ice Age. I have no idea how society will cope with such a change, and what it means for all of us. Not just the end of mainstream media as we know it, but the end of society as we know it.

This is not a social revolutionary idea, like Communism or Socialism. I think that it is bigger. This is an organic, technological revolution. It simply is a byproduct of empowering most of the world, linking the world, and doing it all at very high speeds. No one can stop it, and I doubt that it can be controlled. Eason Jordan is an early bump in a major systemic shift, like the first wave of a giant tsunami. Is it good to empower the masses in such a way? Good or bad, here it comes. On the one hand you have the shiny happy people in the Linux world, all working together is some Utopian harmony. But in Easongate we saw a mixture of that idealism with the angry mob, the mob wanting nothing less than a hangin'. Good people, but still a mob. Many good people participated in and watched lynchings in the early to mid twentieth century in the U.S. We see the same thing happening in the Middle East today, with bodies burned and dragged in the open street while bystanders cheer and throw rocks and bottles at the ragged corpse. We are all being connected, good and bad, and we need to deal with it.

I've been credited with a "clean kill" on Eason Jordan. Clean kill? Who asked for that? He is paying dearly for his words - does that mean that for everyone else it is a free-for-all? Many of us asked for simple honesty, evidence, and clarity. In the end we got a head on a platter. Is that what we ordered? Revolutions are messy, sloppy things. Where is this one going? This one is not a regional event, it will be global. It will be huge - and no one understands it. This is revolution without real leaders, another concept hard to understand. It is just happening, and there is high level system behavior at work. The uncontrolled integration of most of humanity is at our door. The old way, the powers that be, will fight hard to stop it, but I doubt that they can, or should. Dinosaurs being overrun by nimble, dinosaur-egg-eating mammals. Who can stop this hurricane? There is no idealogy here - it is a giant, biological, interconnected system. Well beyond partisan politics, but ready to consume anything in its path.

Hugh Hewitt is an early leader in showing the right and center how to use the blog world as new tool to amplify political views and drive change. He is an innovator in this regard, ahead of many people. You have to admire that, regardless of liking or disliking his politics. The left has no equivalent at this point, but give it a bit of time and they will. In the early days this is all fine and good, but I am taking the position that everything will change and that it will be well beyond anyone's control. You can surf the first waves, but the when the big ones come you need to get to the high ground.

Some advice to politicians & media leaders: go hire some teenage hackers and a few twentysomething new media grads - they have some clue as to what is going on. CNN had no concept as to how to handle the bloggers, and the effect of their feeble attempts was just chumming the water. Don't wait - the blogging world has tasted flesh and it wants more. Right now, despite the noble attempts of many, I see no real ethical mechanisms, only the very primitive outlines of a global morality. Things are just happening. Be prepared. If you try and stop it, it will only react badly. This is more of a Zen thing - understand its flow, become one with it. Relax, and float downstream. Struggle, and it will only tighten its grip. This is a new world.

No answers tonight, who knows if ever. But a discussion worth having (I think).

Being on O'Reilly? A last ride on a horse and buggy. Fun, interesting, hopefully enlightening. But a much bigger wave approaches, and this is a good time to understand what it all means.

-R

Some Quick Thoughts

Posted from the U.S

Over the last few days I have been interviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, and now Fox (on the O'Reilly Factor tonight). The speed, fury, and impact of blogging is hard to understand.

I would like to reprint pieces of what I posted prior to Eason Jordan resigning:

• Eason Jordan should personally lobby for, and release the videotape of the session where Easongate began.
• CNN should play the video in its unedited format, for all to see, as well as give copies to any other media outlet who wants it.
• Eason, in a way unobstructed by spin, can face his own words and deal with the consequences head on.
• There will be fury about what he said, but the speculation will end. For those of us who were there, we know that what is on the tape does not bode well for him but it should not stop him from releasing it.
• Admit fully any mistakes.

and

I would take no joy in Eason Jordan losing his job, even if it is the right and just thing to do. None of us should. We all can, have, and probably will make major mistakes in our lifetime. Perhaps not as large and visible as this one, but it will happen. The decision if he should maintain his role as the head of one of the world's largest news organizations is not mine to make, but it likely is in question. Whatever happens to him, imagine if this were happening to a friend. It may be deserved, it may be the right thing, but the outcome would leave you hollow. There should be no joy in seeing a fellow human being fall down. As the drive for accountability builds, it needs to be tempered with a sense of humility.

What has happened here is an amazing display of the power of blogging technology affecting the media, but there is a sense of frontier justice. I never claimed to be the judge and jury - I just asked some hard questions, many of which remained unanswered. I have also called for a higher level of blogger ethics and standards, an area which needs a lot of work.

I could also detect a tangible fear and sense of anxiety with many members of the mainstream media I have spoken with since he resigned. Some are excited to see a competitor go down, but for many they hear the bell tolling for them, not just for Eason. A few almost seem afraid to speak with me, lest I point the unwashed blog hordes in their direction.

This is not the point at all. Blogging should be a true democratization of the media, writings, and free speech. I hope bloggers can adopt and scale the free, open, and cooperative spirit that has built Linux and many open source software projects. Blogging should not be about right or left wing witch hunts. I started by asking for accountability, fairness, objectivity - some real evidence. The last few weeks have been just one example of how many problems we have in the political media fabric, and what a tangled mess it has become (from all sides).

The net result: Eason Jordan resigns, but many questions and problems remain open.

-R

A Day In The Life: Eason Jordan Resigns From CNN

Posted from the U.S

I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph.
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the House of Lords.
I saw a film today oh boy
The English Army had just won the war
A crowd of people turned away
but I just had to look
Having read the book.
I'd love to turn you on
Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my hat
Made the bus in seconds flat
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke,
Somebody spoke and I went into a dream
I read the news today oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
I'd love to turn you on

(from "A Day In The Life", Lennon/McCartney)

I am not sure what to say, and it will probably take a few days for better words to emerge. It is one thing to be around ground zero, and quite another to be ground zero, to have been the other half of a what has become a global chain reaction. Eason Jordan, of course, has been the yin to my yang (or is it the other way around)? The last few weeks have felt like an epic, widescreen, pitched battle, with the uncontrollable blog swarm Huns overrunning the decaying Rome which is the mainstream media. Having breached the gates, one of the Ceasers is toppled. Inside the temples, the great works, the Huns set about to pillage. The priests quake, shout. There is great confusion. The world is a new, different place. There is a frightening speed to which this occurred, and a revolutionary tone colors it all.

My role? I can not claim to have been on the sideline of the avalanche, having accidentally set it off with the toss of a snowball. I rode in the with the blogger Huns, pointing out weaknesses in the gates of Rome, breaching it with all of them. My voice is not loud enough. I am wielding a sword, but it is not the sword which I hope prevails. It is the book which I am wielding in my other hand, the book of Rome restored, of its ideals which have far decayed. Has this Rome ever existed, this Rome of truth, ethics, morality, fairness, and justice? Or has this Rome always been corrupt, amoral, a fourth estate as rotten as the others?

Is there a revolution underway? There is no doubt. It is fueled by the internet, blogs, open source software, and free thinking technology. It is a revolution whose face appears in many ways. The music industry has been rocked by it, the film industry soon will be, and the media has just felt a significant tremor. This will touch politics, governance, practically every aspect of our lives. There will soon be over 2 billion people on the planet with mobile phones capable of interacting on the web, sending and receiving text, images, video, and voice - anywhere, anytime, almost instantly. This is just the beginning.

I am unnerved by what has happened, at the ferocity of the blog swarm, of Eason's fumbled retreats, evasive maneuvers, and an inexplicable refusal to have his own words played back to the world on a videotape (which does exist). The head of the largest news organization in the world, afraid of himself. There is a Shakespearean sense of tragedy and drama in this story. Eason, prince of CNN, committs a last act of valor and attempts to restore grace to himself and his overlords. His actions are classic Bushido, the way of the Samurai warrior, sacrificing himself to protect his Masters from harm. Give him at least this.

Why Eason retreated and evaded and hid behind a web of spin is a mystery to me. This outcome is not what I had believed was ideal. I truly believed that Eason, a classic Davos man, would answer my challenge with his army of reporters and produce something to defend what he so strongly and passionately originally asserted. The man had access to a vast network of reporters all over the Middle East and Iraq. The cry for evidence, data, support, remained practically silent (save a few random bloggers researching on their own and the movie WMD:Weapons of Mass Deception, whose creator is possibly not the greatest spokesman for Eason's defense). Where was the Left? Where was Michael Moore, riding in on his horse? What happened here? The defense was spin, chaff, doublespeak, and Orwellian invocations of obscure early 20th century policies designed to protect the powerful. The Left that Eason represented is dying, and its carcass already stinks. The ideals of social liberty, freedom, humanity - need new voices, new leaders. These are serious matters currently promoted by people deep in corruption, self-promotion, and disarray. Where is our Bob Dylan, our John Lennon, our prophets of outrage? Eason Jordan? John Kerry? Hilary Clinton? Where is our Woody Guthrie, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln? But the Right should not rest easy - the same forces that have taken down Eason will one day point that way - there is no doubt. This is no victory for the Right, because this is not a victory. The blog swarm simply is. It is a force, like nature, with no real political morality or scalable control at this point. It will give as easily as it will take.

This is a hollow outcome in many ways, and one must ask if justice was served. Will this form of justice be applied with an even hand to all, no matter what political persuasion or leaning? What leader of the Right will go down in a similar manner, because no one on the Right or Left is infallible. None of us are. Media leaders must be terrified at what has happened here - will they limit the speech of their organizations now, and retreat even further? That would be a terrible wrong. Freedom of speech, of information, must be protected, even widened. Will professors cease speaking their views out of fear that a random student will topple them and their department?

The lesson to be learned here is not that speech or expression should be limited. The lesson is one of conviction and the power of words. If Eason Jordan held to his original assertions, even without data, but called out that he was in the midst of a deep news investigation which would soon yield ripe fruit, he would still have his job. But that is not what happened. He had no hard facts, no substance. He was caught, in some sense, doing his job. Not his job delivering objective news, but his job as a corporate executive, feeding his target audience what they want to believe, and maybe what he truly felt. He was in his element, his home turf, in an environment of palpable anti-American feelings and sentiment. He was building his brand, and never expected to be called hard on his own words, challenged intensely and publicly when among elite friends. That is not the Davos way. In the old Rome, he would have been safe, nestled in its walls. But in this decaying Rome, the Huns have entered Rome. What is Google, whose founders were the toast of Davos, if not a gateway to a vast new world? Civilized Huns, but Huns nonetheless. The persistence, speed, exponential growth, and unanticipated power of free information is beyond comprehension for most people. The speed of revolution is now linked to Moore's Law, in some way we do not understand. No corrupt leader, politician, dictator, or despot can rest easy anymore. Eason Jordan was not really any of these - he was an executive doing his job, catering to his market, caught in what is becoming a massive change in the way the world functions. Caught in a grass roots demand for more honesty, more truth, more equity - and much less B.S. Caught in change itself.

A caution: technology is no replacement for ethics, morality, compassion, and humanity. Technology will not save us, make us free, or transform us to become better humans. Technology will not make the world a better place. The Nazi application of technology had nightmarish consequences. In the 21st century far worse things can occur. The blogging world, as one example, could be harnessed for great harm. We must work very hard to establish moral, ethical, and human principles into the mindset of bloggers, especially those influential leaders of the packs. It is very easy to become drunk with one's own sudden power, to become the dragon one hopes to slay. We are at that moral line now, at a key inflection point, and now is the time to collectively build a conscience to a very powerful, disruptive technology.

Eason Jordan has resigned. I find no joy in it. I regret nothing that I have said, but one should not celebrate. There is much work ahead, and the time is short. I remain disturbed, with many questions, few answers, and observing a quickening pace of change that at this point has no soul. The Huns have breached the gates. Are we founding fathers, or simply a force of destruction? Who will be Jefferson in the time of Attila?

-R

Easongate: Is There Any Good Coming Out Of All Of This?

Posted from the U.S

I am reflecting tonight on the current output of Easongate, and if any of this matters. Is any good coming out of this, and what could be a positive outcome that has the result of fixing the world?

So far it has generated a lot of blogging and internet activity, newspaper articles, radio show bits, and even television appearences. Eason Jordan is in some hot water, as is CNN. There is a lot of mudslinging, angry words, and calls for various forms of justice. There is also a lot of media spin going on, with lots of people getting caught in the muck.

A host of people have it out for Eason Jordan, and I wanted to comment on this aspect of Easongate. It is easy to abstract Eason Jordan as an evil media figure, especially for people who only know him as a face on the screen, or a name in the paper. But I actually met the guy, and all of this works a bit different for me.

When you meet someone in the flesh, and can look them in the eye and see that they are human, it is harder to simply call out for their head, as many are doing. I am pushing very hard for accountability, transparency, a sense of fairness and ethics, and continue to challenge him, CNN, and others involved in his protective spin to simply get the unedited videotape out there asap and have him face his own words.

When you meet someone and see them as a fellow human being, you want to believe that they can rise up to their full potential and become something extraordinary. If CNN fires him, and makes an example of him, is the problem really solved? Did Eason invent the concepts of corporate media, shaping the news, pandering to regional audiences, and half-baking stories so that your target markets are primed to hear? There is a deeper problem here, and I am not sure that it all goes away if Eason does.

To me, a successful outcome of Easongate could be a transformation of Eason Jordan himself, of CNN, and perhaps the media in general (a lot to ask for). The words expressed in Davos about accountability, transparency, ethics, being fair, improving the state of the world - are these just words or can they be translated into actions?

"Taking Responsibility For Tough Choices" was the theme of the meeting - it surely applies here. I am holding out a bit longer on what may be an unpopular position, but it is one based on the following:

• Eason Jordan should personally lobby for, and release the videotape of the session where Easongate began.
• CNN should play the video in its unedited format, for all to see, as well as give copies to any other media outlet who wants it.
• Eason, in a way unobstructed by spin, can face his own words and deal with the consequences head on.
• There will be fury about what he said, but the speculation will end. For those of us who were there, we know that what is on the tape does not bode well for him but it should not stop him from releasing it.
• Admit fully any mistakes.

The challenge for Eason is how to both have real integrity on this issue and keep his job. The more spinning and denials, the harder this becomes. Many will say its beyond repair at this point. It would take a fairly radical transformation and reformation to do both, but I believe that it could be possible - very hard, but possible. He could, if he wanted to, lead CNN, and possibly the rest of the mainstream media (by example), into a new era. The globally connected packs of bloggers are an underground force for change, but mainstream media needs to respond to this new pressure. It is possible to only report news that has verifiable facts and data, and it is possible to stop treating the news as a corporate product designed for regional target markets. It is possible for mainstream media to accept and work from a much stricter and honest set of ethical and moral standards. It is possible for CNN to examine the fact that the U.S. has troops on the ground in Iraq - American citizens who are human beings, and that maybe this matters a bit more than their ratings in the Arab world. It is also possible for Eason and CNN to explore the issues in Iraq between combatants and journalists in a very fair, factual, and objective manner.

All of this is possible, but it does sound terribly idealistic and Utopian. Someone like Hugh Hewitt would be much more practical and call for Eason to be fired as soon as the videotape is aired and the final facts are on the table. Eason also has a long trail of issues that is haunting him, so this is not the first problem, but one of many. Soundbites have no time to explore the problems of the human condition - "off with his head" works well in a 10 second clip on TV. Practical reality also has no time and patience to deal with such things. At this point, I have no real answer, only a struggle with what is the right thing that should happen here.

I would take no joy in Eason Jordan losing his job, even if it is the right and just thing to do. None of us should. We all can, have, and probably will make major mistakes in our lifetime. Perhaps not as large and visible as this one, but it will happen. The decision if he should maintain his role as the head of one of the world's largest news organizations is not mine to make, but it likely is in question. Whatever happens to him, imagine if this were happening to a friend. It may be deserved, it may be the right thing, but the outcome would leave you hollow. There should be no joy in seeing a fellow human being fall down. As the drive for accountability builds, it needs to be tempered with a sense of humility.

There should be no free ride here, and no easy way out for him. A complete and wholehearted admission of a mistake is also no guarantee. But it does rebuild a sense of respect.

My final point for now: as we charge forward, we should also tread carefully, especially Eason's counterparts in the media. This discussion, this debate brings no joy, and its outcome is uncertain. I hope that it can be for the good, for all sides, if that is somehow possible.

-R

Easongate: A few key sites to visit

Posted from the U.S

Here is a short and incomplete listing of some key sites to visit in order to explore what has become Easongate. If you believe that you should be listed here, please e-mail me or leave a comment.

World Economic Forum Weblog

RConversation - another WEF blogger and important figure in Easongate

Larry Kudlow's Blog (of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer)

Hugh Hewitt

Slate - Mickey Kaus

CNN (notable for not really reporting on Easongate)

Michelle Malkin

Easongate.com

LaShawn Barber

Sisyphean Musings

PressThink - Jay Rosen

National Review Online

Danny Schechter - Weapons of Mass Deception

Danny Scechter blog

Buzzmachine

Powerline

Instapundit

Captain's Quarters

Little Green Footballs

Release The Tape! (Please): Will Eason Jordan & CNN Lobby For Transparency?

Posted from the U.S

Reprinted from the original posting on www.forumblog.org on February 10, 2005)

Original Link at World Economic Forum Blog

The World Economic Forum has been a model of free speech in terms of its weblog since the Easongate controversy began. However, not releasing the videotape has become a story and a twisted problem all of its own. Citing a combination of off-the record policies and Chatham House Rules, it looks like Easongate is entering an Orwellian world of doublespeak.

Here is what I found regarding the origins and meanings of the Chatham House Rules (from riia.org, The Royal Institute of International Affairs).

BACKGROUND
Founded in 1920, Chatham House, formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs, is based in the heart of London. As a measure of its importance in the world of international relations, the name 'Chatham House' - the building - is now commonly used to refer to the organization.

The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:

"WHEN A MEETING, OR PART THEREOF, IS HELD UNDER THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE, PARTICIPANTS ARE FREE TO USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, BUT NEITHER THE IDENTITY NOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE SPEAKER(S), NOR THAT OF ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, MAY BE REVEALED".

Members should note that general meetings are almost invariably held ‘on the record’ rather than under the Rule and this is unlikely to change with the new amendment. In those cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, meetings can be held ‘off the record’ and participants are not free to make public use of the information received.

EXPLANATION of the Rule

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.

Meetings of Chatham House may be held 'on the record' or under the Chatham House Rule. In the latter case, it may be agreed with the speaker(s) that it would be conductive to free discussion that a given meeting, or part thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

Q. When was the Rule devised?
A. In 1927, then refined in 1992.

Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?
A. There is only one Rule.

Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House can take disciplinary action against one of its members who breaks the Rule. Not all organisations that use the Rule have sanctions. The Rule then depends for its success on being seen as morally binding.

Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for the larger meetings (so called General Meetings); more frequently for smaller ones, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive.

Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used in the English-speaking world - by local government and commercial organisations as well as research organisations.

The concept of the rule is easy to understand, but does it apply here? The World Economic Forum says it does, and to a degree one has to respect the World Economic Forum's sticking to its rules (although there are some critics already challenging when and how this rule is being invoked in this case, and if it even applied to the room where the discussion was had, and why was it all videotaped).

But there is a person and an organization who can make an ethical stand here: Eason Jordan and CNN. Let me describe what they could say, if the noble concepts of transparency and accountability mattered to them (because the rest of the world reads this invocation of the Chatham House Rules as the "old boy" network protecting its own):

(Note: The following is a satirical letter which I do hope that Eason & CNN would send to the WEF):

Dear Powers That Be At The World Economic Forum:

Thank you so very much for trying to save my hide with the most valuable Chatham House Rules policy. I really, truly appreciate it. However, last night the ghost of George Orwell visited me, and after a long and frightening discussion about Big Brother, media manipulation, and other things I can not even dare mention, I have decided to change my mind. I have nothing to hide. I fully believe in, and accept the concept of transparency at face value. More importantly, I would like to show Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the foreign minister of Afghanistan, an important and fragile new democracy in the Middle East, how we do it in the democractic and free Western World. I would like for him to understand that in the United States we do things differently, and that invoking obscure policies to protect oneself from accountability from what one said is not anything that I, or my network, stand for or believe in. In fact, I would agree to play the videotape, in its entirety, on CNN for all the world to see. It is time for me to standup and be a real leader, and to show the rest of my news friends how a media figure should act. If, when the tape comes out, it does not look so good for me, I will be accountable for what I said, perhaps instituting widespread reform across CNN to become a model of what mainstream media should be. Perhaps I will lose my job - but I do not care. I want to address this issue head-on, with courage and a stout heart, and not hide from it. I appreciate that you stand by your rules, but I believe that in this case, if none of the other panel members object: please, for the good of democracy and transparency, release the tape!

Is that really ever going to happen? In my view, Eason Jordan and CNN have a major opportunity here to redeem themselves and lead a true reform in the quality and verifiability of the news. We all know that they have the power to obtain the release of the complete, unedited videotape, if they wanted to. You can stop the Kabuki dance. Please do so. It would be a real start in a needed change across the board for mainstream media. It would be good for your soul. The truth here would set you free. It would be unexpected, wonderful, even transcendant. It would be a unique show of leadership if Eason himself led the charge for the tape's release. Would it be the business thing to do? Maybe not. But it would be the correct human thing to do, and even your enemies, naysayers, and detractors would have to have some respect for that level of courage to face your own words. Why are you afraid to face the reality of your own words, you who shoot words at others for so long?

-R

Easongate: The End of MSM As We Know It?

(Reprinted from the original posting on www.forumblog.org on February 8, 2005)

Original Link at World Economic Forum Blog

Posted from the U.S

Richard Sambrook of the BBC, David Gergen of Harvard, and Senator Christopher Dodd have all weighed in their initial measures on Easongate. Much of this can be followed at Michelle Malkin's site, Hugh Hewitt, and Rebecca MacKinnon. We now understand that the WEF is mulling over the release of the videotape of the session with Jordan, and that there is a small debate brewing regarding the "on" or "off" the record nature of the session. I have also heard from the WEF's Head of Media, Mark Adams, just a few hours ago. Mark was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I sent him recently. Mark explained to me that the session was held under 'Chatham House Rules', which means that the general tenor of the debate can be reported but specific quotes are not attributable, which was done to encourage a full and frank exchange of views. Others have received a similar communication from Mark. I suppose this means that the public will not get to view a copy of the videotape, unless something changes. Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context.

Senator Dodd's statement, "Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel." is perhaps the clearest statement from a major figure present at the meeting. Thank you, Senator Dodd for at least expressing what I felt as well, and for adding some real weight to this issue. If the WEF suppresses the video, the chaff thrown out by CNN and Eason supporters may obscure and cloud all of this to a lack of contextual understanding by audience members. Let's be clear: that is a load of bull. What was said was clearly understood, and no amount of reverse engineering can undo that. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre and then try to say that what you really meant was for someone to just turn down the air conditioning, it just does not fly. There are a multitude of related issues that stem from what happened, but as I watch Easongate unfold, a line in the sand issue has emerged for me. Over dinner with a friend tonight a thought crystallized: the media is either for the right or for the left, and the lying, the twisting, and the skewing of the truth - these aberrations are just ok with us. We the public, the audience, have been accustomed to this way of living, and we are supposedly fine with it. Reporters can throw out half-baked ideas, partial truths, anything they want, as long as this plays into the political mindset of their core audience. We want to hear what they say, true or not, so long as it fits our particular system of thought. The American right is up in arms about Eason Jordan, but will a single Arabic, or European, or even Asian voice sing anything but his praise, or nod in quiet approval?

In Gergen's statement he says "Jordan realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far and walked himself back." I have the greatest respect for David Gergen, but he is being too kind. Jordan walked himself back because he was pushed back, and pushed back hard. It was an outrage to watch in the flesh the process of big media at work, this massaging of facts and distortion of reality to meet the needs of a specific group of news consumers. It was an outrage because these distortions fuel the minds of entire regions of the world, which propagates hatred, bias, and war. The unrestricted influence the media has on world and regional opinions and views is without parallel. I am a very strong proponent of free speech, but when will we achieve speech that is not only free, but factual and trustworthy? The concept of trust is a big one on the web in terms of data communication, password authentications, and machine to machine communication. Can this concept, or standard of trust be applied to the MSM (mainstream media)? What if MSM had to live up to standards of verification, authenticity, and the production of assertions supported by facts? What if viewers could know and understand that a member of the MSM was part of a chain of trusted information, or that he or she was outside the fold? The scientific community works in this very way: there are respected, peer reviewed journals, and there are rags of speculative nonsense. The consumer of the news, vital information that shapes all of our lives, has no such obvious choice.

Rebecca MacKinnon in a previous article writes: "Before we leap to moral judgments or condemnations, we must be realistic. In truth, it is unrealistic to expect commercially-driven TV news companies to do anything other than to seek profit maximization -- while at the same time selling a product that can still be defined as "news" in some way. The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience. Citizens of democracies who want to be well informed must understand this. They cannot expect to be passive consumers of whatever news comes their way from a name-brand news source. They must question, contrast, and compare. They must demand better quality information".

Her observations define an entrenched reality, but Easongate is a challenge to that reality. It is a challenge which says "Enough!". Many people recently said "Enough!" to the tobacco companies, another amoral corporate institution driven by "profit maximization" and "lucrative potential audiences". The product of tobacco companies poisons the body and brings forth cancers and a host of disease and ailments. What of the product of commercially-driven TV news companies, where only profits matter? What does this "product" do to the minds of viewers? "The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience". This is exactly what Eason was doing. Eason gave me his CNN business card after the talk. The back of his card is in Arabic, even though he is based in Atlanta. There is nothing wrong with Arabic - it is a beautiful, expressive language with a rich, wonderful, deep culture. But it is not hard to understand, or guess at, Eason's most lucrative potential audience. The news is being shaped, and it is time to say, "Enough!". Here is a crazy idea: The U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Asia - why can't we all see the same news, the same data, the same reality, and the same truth? Is the truth regional, or is a fact a fact, anywhere in the world? Science is universal - why is the news, merely a reporting of physical events, a distorted, biased mess? Is that too boring? Must we keep stirring the pot of regional conflicts? What Rebecca describes as the cold facts of commercial media, having worked for them, makes me sick. Yes, I am an outsider to this industry, but so are billions of us on this earth. We need a change. Start with Eason, but don't stop. Much of the house is rotten.

A lone blogger named Zed has posted his collected findings on the journalists killed in Iraq. The quality of Zed's work, in its very limited scope (put together with what looks like a hacker's ethic of just finding things out), overshadows the quality of anything that CNN, or most anyone for that matter, has done to defend CNN's chief, in over a week. This is not a comment on the accuracy of what Zed has found, but at least he has tried to pull together some semblance of data, given the lack of verified facts. A random, stray blogger seems to care more about the truth than the MSM. It does not matter if he is coming at this issue from the right or the left - at least he is trying. Zed and I are specks in the scheme of things compared to MSM - where are they on any of this? Easongate is not a good topic for MSM's audience, because it is pointing out the darker underbelly inside of MSM - not a great move for building profits. What we are seeing here is the blogging world practically dragging and forcing MSM to deal with this issue, perhaps even against their will.

The outrage of Senator Dodd is well taken, but will Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying "Enough!"?

Responding to Hugh and Others

Posted from the U.S.

(Reprinted from the original posting on www.forumblog.org on February 6, 2005)

Original Link at World Economic Forum Blog

In the plainest language possible:

* "Don't try and raise the issue to one of "blogosphere ethics" ? Hmmm. Ethics regarding responsible speech is why we are discussing Eason at all. Eason made some serious accusations, backpedaled quickly, and is in some very hot water. Ethics and a responsibility to the verifiable truth is why the water is boiling. I agree with Hugh Hewitt that MSM (mainstream media) ethics are being put to a real test here, but I also firmly believe that blogger ethics matter equally, if not more. We should not simply oust the old king and put in a new one just as corrupt. The bloggers should be a model of journalistic ethics and shame the MSM into a new model of behavior and standards.

* Of course both sides (left and right) should be held to the same standards. Ignoring Eason and attacking General Mattis alone is unfair and biased.

* The comparison to Bush or other leaders is about influencing or swaying a mass audience to achieve a goal that you or your interests desire. However, the Bush analogy will go nowhere here. Fine. How about a softball: Michael Moore's Farenheit 911. Freedom of speech? Journalism? Art? Satire? He sure makes a whole bunch of damning remarks and insinuations about many people, clearly feeding his audience. Eason is on track to losing his job, while Moore wins awards at Cannes. Eason is heading to the stake because he is perceived as having a cloak of objectivity, while Moore is already seen as being "out there". Both however, influence the thoughts and behaviors of a mass audience, as do their analogues on the right and in the center. What if Eason claimed that CNN is audience driven "infotainment", and not objective news? My point: if Eason becomes an example, will the same standards be applied by those asking for Eason's head now, regardless if the person is from the left, center, or right? Why does this matter? Because the blog swarm that rips into Eason's hide now will remember these changing times and rip into any side, regardless of left, center, or right persuasion. Be prepared to hand over the heads of beloved partisan leaders in the future. This relatively new blog driven process of accountability, personified here as Easongate, merits some introspection, lest it only be the 21st century equivalent of a hangin' party.

* "It is about whether a senior American news executive can slander the people who are fighting --and dying or being wounded-- and do so without consequence". This is a big component (I agree with Hugh here), but not the only.

It was a sad day when an unknown outsider (myself) had to first intervene and challenge Eason to defend America from such a slander, when plenty of big media and major American political leaders were in the room. I can easily imagine Eason getting away with all of it. But there are some voices in the blogosphere, independant of Eason, who are saying that something has happened to journalists on both sides in Iraq and the issue is not so clean. Amy Goodman interviews media critic and filmaker Danny Schechter about "fishy deaths of unembedded reporters", and a movie about this topic is coming out now. Schechter says: "What's also outrageous is that the American media companies did not demand an investigation of this, did not join Reuters in demanding an investigation. So it just wasn't just complicity and collusion in the coverage of the war but a refusal to get involved in an effort to try to find out what really happened, what the facts were. To try to get at the truth of what happened to their own people. That to me compounds the shock of the way in which the media played the role it did."

There are more datapoints than Eason. While he has lost credibility in his role (where's the objective data?), are these people also liars? Is Schechter fabricating everything? The question goes beyond Eason and his own blunders.

I'll give credit to Hugh Hewitt and others for staying focused on the near term story (Eason Jordan) that will likely soon have a satisfying outcome for some. Hugh is leading a credible, direct charge and is rallying the right and center and will soon become a media folk hero (he may be to some already). As for me, I'm fishing in deeper waters, taking a longer term view. This is a difficult position to understand: Eason has not been able to (to date) verify with objective data what he said, and that does not bode well for him, in his role. But the ghost of what he said lingers out there, and others are asking some hard questions. In the way that the right is damning MSM for not following up on Eason, Schechter damns them as well, for not having the courage to investigate the facts about what has happened to "their own people".

-R

Journalists Killed in Iraq - The Core Issues

Posted from the U.S.

(Reprinted from the original posting on www.forumblog.org on February 3, 2005)

Original Link at World Economic Forum Blog

Since I first posted the story, "Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?" last week from the WEF 2005 in Davos, there has been a fast growing interest in what really is a bundle of interconnected, complex issues.

I was very glad to see the post "Eason Jordan clarifies comments" by Rebecca MacKinnon. Eason's voice in this discussion is a very important one, and it should be heard. But I would like to point out that the substance of the issues raised here, as well as the posts by readers in response to the original article, go well beyond Eason. I am still disturbed. I understand the tough position Eason is in. He is the head of a major news organization and he has corporate and managerial responsibilities. But I felt that he was pushing at broader ethical and moral issues that perhaps go well beyond the scope of his current job. One reader, Ken Hechtman, posted a response with some data from the Reporters Without Borders website (http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3). Other readers, including some soldiers, provide a voice from the field which is chilling. I am finding it harder and harder to understand the truth on this subject. I have, and likely only can, scratch at the surface here, but there appears to be some depth and complexity to what really is a tangled web of issues that may be even more frightening when the light of day shines upon it.

I would like to point out Rebecca's courage on this issue. My views and posts are unexpected by the mainstream media, and I have been unknown in that world. The free voices coming from the blog world are a new, uncontrolled force of change in the news world. I am already getting a flood of e-mails, requests to be on various media outlets, and pressure from certain powers that be. Clearly a nerve has been hit. However, Rebecca comes from this world. Eason was a former colleague and superior. But she heard what I heard - all of us in the room did. But few have had the courage to stand up and say something. It would be nice to hear from some of the major world leaders who were in the room with us.

This topic is of significant U.S. and global importance. It digs into the heart of the freedom of the press, corporate influence, and the fabric of democracy. There is not a real solid middle ground here. Do our media and political leaders really want the us to see the truth on a subject like this? Has a veil of influence been pierced?

Here are the issues as I see them:

(1) What really did happen in Iraq to both the U.S. and foreign journalists killed while trying to cover the war? The posts by the readers, in particular a few from soldiers themselves, make this question even more compelling. And what is going to happen to journalists covering Iraq going forward? How does the truth ever become fully revealed and made public? Does the U.N. need to investigate what happened? Is there a major media organization reputable enough to present accurate information on a question which by definition here involves the major media?

(2) What is the responsibility of the media, and of media chiefs in particular (such as Eason) when it comes to how the news is shaped (or not shaped) to meet the needs of their audience?  Is the news a business that needs to market to their customers what they want to hear and see, or is there a higher set of ethical and moral responsibilities that come along with the business of news? What is interesting in this case is that I do believe that the exact, objective facts are available with respect to what was said. This particular discussion at the WEF 2005 was videotaped (hopefully it is in a complete and unedited form). The debate about exactly what was said is easily resolved if an accurate transcript of the tape, or the tape itself, can be produced and made public. This kind of transparency lends itself well to global issues where subjectivity can taint any side of a topic like this. It is possible in this case that the subjectivity on one part of this issue can be removed entirely (with the complete videotape and transcript of the discussion).

(3) What is the responsibility of those in major leadership positions when confronted with such issues? In the room with us were powerful men and women, including high ranking politicians, who could follow up in a serious and meaningful way. Where are those voices and where is the followup? This topic should not be buried away in the closet. Is what Eason said the problem, or should we be more frightened at the prospect of journalists being targeted and killed by U.S. soldiers. "I see no problem if the US snipers take them out" was a comment from one reader, as well as "If they chose to take the part of the Baathists and Al kayda (sic), and say, 'embed' themselves among them, they will be killed." At a minimum the data and confusion calls for at least someone of the stature of a U.S. Senator or Congressman to step in now and lead a robust investigation.

(4) The role of the individual in society. In this debate and discussion I made the decision to say something - to speak out. That decision has sparked a lot of things, including some intense pressures coming from a lot of sides. But I now feel an obligation myself to not give in to any side, but to ask for, in fact to demand, an accounting of the truth.

The ability of blogs such as this one to influence and reach the mainstream media is a relatively new mode of the expression of free speech - truly free speech. The balance of power is being disrupted because the corporate media can no longer strongly control what a wide audience sees or hears. We need to continue this reclaiming of the freedom of speech away from corporate media, where revenues and market share will always balance with objectivity - a business is a business and has its own internal logic of building shareholder value. Voices who care primarily about the ethical and moral considerations of an issue are needed if the world is to become transparent and accountable.

Is this the Boston Tea Party of major media? Maybe in a small way. Yes, I am asking some seriously difficult questions, but they do need answers. Is it wrong to ask for the accountability of major news media and their leadership? Aren't we also all disturbed at the prospect of Eason being correct about the targeting of journalists, including those journalists now in Iraq, or on their way there? If I were going to cover the news in Iraq, I would have no idea what to think or expect at this point.

As a techie, I like to see problems solved. Here are some specific actions that should happen:

* Independant, objective, and respected investigation into this topic in a timely way (now, not years from now).

* Disclosure of what is found to the global public.

* Better protections and neutrality status for journalists, subject to harsh, Geneva style accountability if violated.

* More voices should come forward now. The voices of the soldiers in Iraq, as well as of journalists on the ground, need to come out. Let us know in your own words, unfiltered, what has happened, and what is happening. Have courage.

Note: All of the views that I have, and will be expressing in these blogs are my own personal views, and not those of any organizations that I am affiliated with.

-R

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?

Davos, Switzerland from the WEF 2005

(Reprinted from the original posting on www.forumblog.org on January 28, 2005)

Original link at World Economic Forum Blog

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

At a discussion moderated by David R. Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the concept of truth, fairness, and balance in the news was weighed against corporate profit interest, the need for ratings, and how the media can affect democracy. The panel included Richard Sambrook, the worldwide director of BBC radio, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. The audience was a mix of journalists, WEF attendees (many from Arab countries), and a US Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd.

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a "very brave man" for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong?  Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

The cherry on the whipped cream of this cowpie sundae was poor Abdullah Abdullah, a shining new, fresh scrubbed member of America's grand experiment to export democracy to the Middle East. Here is someone who seemed to be idealistic, full of hope and vigor. What is he thinking about all of this? What kind of role model are we presenting to the fragile new democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq? What we can do, what we must do, is show them how democracy works, and how in an open and free country the truth will get out, and those responsible will be held accountable. The U.S. makes no claims about being perfect - we only make claims that we are open enough to correct our problems, and to admit freely to ourselves and the world if we are wrong.

As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.

-R