anders deutsch

The topic of our summit are the Arab revolutions and the social media. This is a sensitive issues, since not all revolutions have been finally victorious yet and the revolutionaries could be persecuted by the old (or new?) regimes. Thus I raised the question, whether one could restrict social media (twitter, youtube, etc.) coverage of the summit. To this there was the clear answer (as far as I understood it): We are at a social media conference and thus cannot restrict social media! I do not get the point. Social media coverage does not have to be unlimited. One should be able to discuss, which coverage is suitable for a topic or not. One definitely needs to consider security issues. And even if it is impossible to restrict all coverage, one can tell everybody present that one asks not do certain things. Then at least unintended leakages can be controlled.

I want to be able to say things (also at public events), which will not be published. It is something different if somebody publishes an audio or video recording or a direct transcript of what I said and if people say that I said. In the latter case I can always claim that I was misquoted, in the first cases there is proof I said something. But if there is a danger of everything being quoted and published, then there is a restriction to what can be said in (semi) public and I would consider that a loss to debate culture.

I would like to have a discussion about the ethical limits of social media coverage.

The other day we were talking about how difficult it is to get a Schengen visa. And I told some Arab participants how in Germany there is the image, that everyone wants to live in Germany. This met quiet some disbelieve from my colleagues. One said wonderingly "I have never thought about going to Germany". The other was very vocal and gave a list of things why she would never move to Germany (where she has already been on visits):

Never move to a place where there are no elevators.
Never move to a place where there is no air conditioning.
Never move to a place where you have to use public transport.
Never move to a place where you get only sandwiches for lunch.

The Young Media Summit is a meeting of journalists, organised by journalists and reported on by journalists. So there is much opportunity to think about journalism, how it works, what representations are made, etc.

Yesterday I overheard a conversation between two journalists. The first told the second that s/he wanted to interview him/her, but that actually s/he did not need to really interview him/her, because s/he had already written the interview from things s/he had heard him/her saying in different conversations during the summit. So the second journalist only needed to read the interview and see what corrections were needed. And thus the interview was concluded.

But if it is an authorised text, not a transcript of an interview, why frame it as an interview? As a reader I have certain images, what an interview should be. And this production process does not fit with it. I would feel cheated, if I was presented by such an interview. It very much reminded me of the discussions around this years Kisch-Preis in Germany.

When we were working together on our blog post one German representative of the organisators of the summit came to us and asked us, where we are from. So we answered: Palestine, Lebanon, Berlin. Hearing my reply she seemed to be a bit confused and then said that this was not visible, since we three worked together so well (which we did). Up till then I had thought it was an innocent question. We are all from different places and it is interesting to know where we are from. But her reaction made me rethink. Why did she have to tell us, that it was not visible that I am from Berlin? Is it so unusual that Germans and Arabs work together? If it is, then what is the point of the summit? Or was it rather the case that she did not think I do not look German and she somehow tried to hide that she had not recognised me as German?

Yesterday at our panel discussion asked me where I am from. As far as I remember we were talking German. And I was wearing my Salwar Kamiz from Agra. So I told him first Germany and then "One can see that I am from Germany, can't one?" And he took it quiet well.

PS 28.05.11:The woman at the reception (in the new hotel) asked me where I am from, my name sounded interesting to her. She did not expect me answering Germany, but then without ado shifted to talk German with me, since she is German as well.

The cafe we went to yesterday was Cilantro. It could have been anywhere in the world (maybe except for Germany - there these cafe shops are not yet that common). Some years back at a conference in Seoul we went to a similar place. Last weekend in Frankfurt we had breakfast in a similar place. The places where the globalised elites go to. Here with a menu only in English (in Germany I do not think it was solely in English, in Korea I do not remember).

I am still sitting in my posh hotel room, taking advantage of the internet, the air conditioning and the safety. Today major protest are planed at Tahrir Square. Everybody is going there. I do not, because I am too illiterate. I know to little about the protest, Cairo and the language. I would hardly understand the things happening. And if it becomes dangerous, I would understand even less and be a burden on anybody taking care of me.

At the moment sitting in my hotel room, I hear a male voice outside. Most probably it is a praying voice, because at the moment it seems to be a religious chant. But it could also be something revolutionary (or something else). I just know too little. And that is why I will stay in a safe place, catering for illiterate people like me.

During research trip we took refuge from the heat in one of the upmarket coffee shops. It provides internet access and one of my colleagues stubornly tried to connect to it, fully absorbed in the process.



So drinking a cold drink, not having a smart phone and nothing to read with me, I had much time thinking about the new social media. Why is it that is so important to be always online? Why do you seem to forget the people around you? Don't you talk with each other anymore? Do I need a smart phone to be able to communicate with people?

Once the internet connection was established, my colleague got new information about what happens around us, told us about a blocked road close by. So yes, it makes sense to check the internet, especially in revolutionary times.

And he said he had needed a quiet time. I very much understand that.

Thus (non-)communication is much more complex than it seemed to me on the first glance.

Deutsche Welle TV produced a talk show including participants from the summit. The moderator told the participants should come early, because there are five "girls" on the show and they will take much time doing the make up. When I asked why the "girls", one of the participants said "because he is a sexist" and he jokingly confirmed this, explaining further how for "girls" with their hair make up takes longer than for men like him. (One of the participants was Helga, whose hair is definitely shorter than his, but I have to admit she got much more make up than him.) See the making of video for another of his casual, supposedly innocent sexist remarks (the short haired "girl", the "girl" with the scarf and the male participant are not featured during the make up session).

PS: On the last day we have to fill in evaluation sheets. We comment on them not really being anonymous and my neighbour says, one can distinguish male and female handwritting. Looking at my evaluation sheet, he, however, has to admit that mine is not clearly female. Joining in the biologistic argument I argue that my handwritting is not so female because I have a small beard and my hormones are not ok. He seems confused.