I’m writing this on a flight home from NY after a three-day retreat of the Media Development Loan Fund board. For the past 15 years, this impressive organization has helped finance the rise of independent media in transitional societies. Founded in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it first seeded pioneering media enterprises in the former Soviet Union and the post-conflict Balkans and went on to help fuel the growth of independent media in places like Indonesia, Malaysia and Zimbabwe in the knowledge that free media is the foundation of a free and just society.

Dramatic change in other parts of the world, epitomized by the Arab Spring and the sudden signs of political liberalization in Burma, coupled with the departure of MDLF’s founder and the digital transformation of the global media landscape, has the organization re-evaluating its mission, priorities and capabilities.

I was among several outsiders asked to take part in the retreat to bring other perspectives and throw rhetorical bombs. I’m not sure whether MDLF benefited from my presence, but I certainly benefited from the luxury of three days focused exclusively on the future of the global media industry, with a particular focus on the developing world.

That ‘meditation’ was greatly aided by the fact that we went digital “cold Turkey” – no cell phones, no IPads, no computers from the time we left our rooms in early morning to when we adjourned in late evening. Equally importantly, it was brilliantly facilitated. I tend to be pretty cynical about conference facilitators – the whole teamwork through beach balls thing – but Maurizio Travaglini, who heads a firm called Architects of Group Genius, deftly led the group through a process that involved tackling bite-sized aspects of MDLF’s real world challenges.

As Travaglini told us, “Most meetings are designed to reach an outcome that is pre-determined with PowerPoint.” As his website explains, “For every mission, for every organization we work with, we design a whole new process that enables participants to learn about the problem at hand, explore possibilities, understand the thinking of others, and engage in a non-linear process of designing a new powerful solution together.”

Without beach balls.

For MDLF, that process ultimately produced a new mission statement and a detailed strategy concept for the coming years.

Tumultuous political change, coupled with the digital revolution, is creating new opportunities for the emergence of independent media and new forms of information providers. But MDLF is a small organization, so part of this re-evaluation of the mission involved the question of what opportunities should MDLF explore and which could be toxic to its future. Coupled with that is the much-debated question, Who is a journalist?

The “news industry” has always been the MDLF’s patch, where does “citizen journalism,” crowd-sourcing aggregators and packagers of raw information, such as Wikileaks, fit into the organization’s future?

It is not for me to reveal the tentative decisions that were made. But the process of evaluating and discussing all this with an elite group of journalists and media investors drawn from every corner of the global allowed me to spend time parsing some of the ideas about the changing media landscape and the evolution of journalism that have been long rattling around in my head, but often get shoved aside by the daily cacophony of a dean’s office.

No revelations here; no final conclusions. Nothing quite ready for a NYT op-ed. Just some observations/ideas/theories that continue to stew in my brain:

1) The new “journalism” landscape includes “information providers” who operate in the public interest – e.g. provide the raw materials that journalists mine.
2) The catch-all phrase “citizen journalist” actually involves three very different groups (none of whom are professionally-trained journalists) –

– Citizen Journalists (CJs): Citizens who write fact-based articles about news events and issues (e.g. “commit acts of journalism”);
– Media Activists (MAs): Political activists who use journalism as a political tool;
– Citizen Witnesses (CWs): Citizens who happen to capture a news event on video; this could be a CJ, an MA or someone with no aspirations to either.

This distinction exists around the world, but the line is particularly blurred in the Arab world and other places experiencing dramatic political change and media oppression. In such places, Media Activists “commit acts of journalism” as we say in the business, reporting stories beyond the “red lines” of traditional journalists. But ultimately, their motive is different from that of a classic journalist. In this world of shrinking “legacy” media organizations news-style blogs and “hyper-local journalism” sites are filling the void, many manned by non-journalists.

The question to ask when evaluating whether someone is a citizen journalist or a media activist comes down to motive: Are they a journalist first or an activist first?

Those who aspire to be journalists first are united by a certain aspirational set of journalism ethics or values. The heart of this is the aspiration to fairness or objectivity. Journalists – whether professional or citizen – aspire to be objective; media activists do not. But even then, that journalistic aspiration is frequently sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In most other ways, journalistic culture (nation-based or terrestrial vs. digital) varies wildly.

3) Independent Arab media organizations (not those financed by the region’s feudal media lords or tied to political parties) emerging in the wake of the Arab Spring are likely to:
a. Involve journalistic refugees from politically-bent media orgs and bloggers/media activists
b. Be religiously-secular and politically-liberal (and by definition serve as an opposition voice in the face of what is shaping up to be Islamist-influenced governments)
c. Have a “digital first” strategy
d. Seek to avoid Western funding
e. Be suspicious of all investors
f. Be start-ups rather than existing media reinventing themselves
g. Be high risk financially
h. Operate on an uncertain political landscape with a lack of legal protection

Other thoughts:
Evolution of media (in U.S. and abroad): We are mid-way through a process that will send us full circle; from the age of a handful of media conglomerates dominating the national landscape (the three networks, NYT Company, Knight-Ridder, etc) and independent local newspapers to a period when a few media conglomerates will dominate the national landscape (e.g. Comcast, Google, NPR) and independent “hyper-local” websites will cover local news.

Comments from the retreat:
 “Will a media middle class exist in the future?” Once a news org hits about 10 people, the economics make continued growth untenable.
 The future will involve “Rich news for rich people, poor news for poor people.”
 “People are not consumers (of news), they are citizens.”

Much to continue to mull…

(Dubai) The so-called Arab Spring was never about a season. It was about a state of mind. Arabs – it was commonly said – had lost their fear of the entrenched regimes.

But as the seasons drag on, the Arab Spring is being transformed into the Winter of Arab discontent. The papers here in Dubai are full of news that Moammar Qadaffi’s son Saif has been captured. Good news. But Libya’s future is now in the hands of tribal militias and kids with guns.

Egypt’s Tahrir Square is once more a battleground. The clashes involve protestors – led by the Muslim Brotherhood – and the Egyptian army – the very institution that forced Mubarak from office.

Egypt holds parliamentary elections on Nov. 28, but there is no sign the generals who replaced Mubarak plan to hand over real power anytime soon. And in the background, the old Mubarak system remains entrenched.

In Syria, where 35-hundred people have died so far – the bloodshed just continues. President Assad says he won’t – as he put it – bow down even though the Arab League has threatened sanctions. But it’s a pretty empty threat. The organization is basically the League of Dishonorable Gentlemen – the very autocrats targeted in the region’s uprisings.

A key problem is that Assad is being given no exit strategy. What’s his incentive? He has seen Mubarak behind bars, a bloody and terrified Qaddafi in his last moments before being killed, and now Qaddafi’s son Saif held under the guns of the victorious rebels. Saif’s choices are bad and worse: War crimes trial in the Hague or an executioner’s bullet in Tripoli. Assad’s options aren’t much better. He says he’ll battle to the death. Yemen’s President Saleh seems to be thinking the same.

The one ray of sunshine is Tunisia, which has successfully completed its first elections. But it remains a work-in-progress; so far the key parties can’t agree on a president.

In Tunisia, as in Egypt, and Libya, part of the issue involves jockeying between Islamists and secularists, young activists and old politicos. In the wake of revolution, agendas don’t always coincide.

The enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but when the enemy is gone all bets are off.

As one Egyptian friend put it, “it used to be simple; we knew who the good guys were. Now the lines are blurred.”

It’s going to be a long, cold – and bloody – Arab winter.

(Commentary aired on NWPR 11/22/11)

(Islamabad) – Mitt Romney said it’s close to being a failed state. Rick Perry argued that it’s not our friend and shouldn’t get American aid.

I happened to be in Pakistan as the Republican presidential hopefuls debated relations with this troubled ally. The sound-bite culture of American politics tends to reduce the world to black & white. It’s rarely so simple on the receiving end of US foreign policy.

There is no doubt Pakistan is a nation in turmoil. On one level, it’s a no-holds-barred democracy. But it’s also a country at war with itself.
A few hundred yards from my hotel, a governor was assassinated by his own bodyguards back in January. The hotel itself has been hit by car bombs three times. And that’s inside this heavily-fortified capital. The real violence plays out in cities and villages across the country.

It’s the most dangerous place in the world for a journalist and it’s not too healthy for anyone else. University professors are kidnapped, politicians are murdered and the average folk fall victim to sectarian violence every day.

Anti-Americanism and radicalization are both are on the rise. That is directly tied to anger over U.S. drones strikes. One think tank here estimates there have been more than 60 drone attacks this year, killing some 500 people; dozens in just the last few days. Meanwhile, the Pakistani air force has dropped more than 10-thousand bombs on tribal areas inside its own borders.

Then there’s Pakistani politics. Tumultuous, theatrical and high stakes. “He will be humiliated in this world and the hereafter,” said the information minister, criticizing a former foreign minister who quit the ruling party. Pakistanis take their political seriously.

Conspiracies run rife. The latest involves Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. Hussein Haqqani, who was ousted this week amid allegations that he tried to get the Pentagon to support Pakistan’s political leadership in a power struggle with the military.

The other big news these days is Imran Khan. You can’t open a newspaper or watch a TV newscast without seeing the charismatic former cricket star-turned politician. One hundred thousand people turned out recently for a rally supporting his demand for change. Good looks and a simple message work as well in the Punjab as Peoria.

Khan is a contradiction in terms. He says he’ll clean up Pakistan’s notoriously corrupt government, but he’s courting corrupt politicians. He says he’ll stop Islamist violence, but he’s playing footsie with the Tailiban. He says he’ll curb the power of the Army, but no politician here holds a rally of 100-thousand – without the Army’s say-so.

Pakistan may be a democracy, but it’s a Praetorian democracy; the military pulls the strings, as Haqqani’s firing underlined. That has many here speculating that Khan is the Army’s new Chosen One.

Khan’s party could take power in the spring election. He wants the US to take its drones and go home. American can keep its aid. He agrees with those GOP candidates: Pakistan is a mess. But he says, it’s a mess created by two Republican presidents – Reagan who armed the militants to fight the Soviets and Bush, who invaded Afghanistan to wipe out those same groups – and a Democrat, Obama, who has presided over a dramatic escalation of the drone war.

As I said, things are rarely black & white.

(Published in The Seattle Times 11/24/11