Media on Gaza: Not enough, not enough, not enough

Not long ago, I went to an event here in London at the Frontline Club on the media's experience 'covering' the conflict in Gaza. The event, aptly titled 'Media Talk: Gaza - Missiles and Messages', brought in a number of media experts to discuss not so much the politics of the event, but the media's experience in attempting to get 'in' the thick of things. Representatives from the Guardian, Jerusalem Post, Channel 4, and Al-Jazeera were more or less allied with or pitted against an Israeli affairs specialist.

I won't go into detail about most of the conversation as it will soon be uploaded on the Frontline website, but one thing I did notice (and, subsequently asked a question relating to), was that despite the complaints from the media about restricted access to Gaza, there seemed to be little done in terms of outreach to the respective Israeli or Palestinian communities, to the potential (or already) citizen journalists. 

Not to risk careless comparison to the respective political situations or the oversimplification of the specific nature of the conflicts themselves, but when the monks began protesting and the Junta effectively shut off all electronic or tele-communication with the rest of the world, there was what almost felt like a mass movement from major newspapers and media outlets requesting that those inside Myanmar should do whatever possible to upload photos via cell phone (as an example) so that the outside world would have some idea of what's going on. Where was this in Gaza? If the media (at least from the side attempting to enter through Israel) keeps saying: not enough access, not enough support, not enough access, not enough support--then why was there virtually no outreach to the inhabitants of Gaza? I wonder if any of our readers can speak to this.

Viewer Protection or Political Suppression?

Following the violence in Tibet the past several weeks, China has blocked access to YouTube and other websites showing videos of the riots. The Wall Street Journal ran a story last week about the inconsistencies in YouTube’s censorship policies in Asia and the Middle East:

In Thailand, in order to be accessible, [YouTube] agreed to block Thai users from seeing clips deemed insulting to the king in violation of Thai law. In Turkey, YouTube has suspended the account of the person who uploaded the Ataturk video, though the site remains banned there. In Myanmar, YouTube was banned after clips of protesting monks appeared on the site. In that case, YouTube declined to remove the clips and remains banned.

Media analysts say YouTube's string of censorship flare-ups -- and the site's sometimes inconsistent responses -- indicate it needs to develop a more transparent strategy for dealing with these issues. YouTube's community guidelines state the site encourages "free speech and defend[s] everyone's right to express unpopular points of view." But the site also reserves the right to remove content it deems inappropriate, which gives it significant discretion when it comes to politically sensitive content.

The article states that YouTube often has to choose between “bending to censorship and losing business opportunities.” But YouTube isn’t just bending to foreign governments, and censorship is more than a business development issue.

The WSJ article leaves out mention of the Egyptian political turmoil and violence which was caught on video last fall by activist and YouTube user Wael Abbas. Abbas is the first blogger to receive the Knight International Journalism Award for his work, which led to the conviction of police for torture, but YouTube suspended his account. The nearly 100 images “including clips depicting purported police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations” that Abbas had uploaded were blocked, not just in Egypt but worldwide.

According to Reuters, YouTube told Abbas that the videos generated complaints about the content of torture. Human rights activists protested, including Gamal Eid, head of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, who argued that the intent of Abbas to expose human rights violations should have been taken into account. Abbas’ access was restored in December and the majority of his clips were allowed back online.

The WSJ article discusses a similar case in Russia:

After being alerted by users last month, YouTube removed a video clip that appeared to document abuse of prisoners at a Russian prison camp that YouTube determined violated the site's graphic-violence policy. It eventually restored the video but required viewers to click to consent to watch a clip that "may contain content that is inappropriate for some users." YouTube says its staff hadn't initially been aware that the video was meant to document alleged human-rights abuses.

Where is the line between protecting viewers and censoring content of political value? Should YouTube be required to develop more consistent guidelines when it comes to political censorship, and in doing so is it YouTube's responsibility to decipher users’ motives?