Burma VJ: Reporting From a Closed Country

The Saffron Stand

A Burmese man, stood in front of a government building in the capital Rangoon, unfolds and holds a white sheet of paper above his head. The paper is scrawled with writing.

As the protestor stands defiantly, we are given a point of view shot from a car across the street. A man unzips a small, basic handycam and begins to film the solitary protestor. The image shifts and shakes as the cameraman’s hands tremble.

“When I first start filming,” the narrator says, “I cannot help but be scared, but soon I begin to feel calm, and then it is only the subject.”

Barely a minute passes before two plain clothed men descend on the protestor. They take the paper from his hands, grab him at the elbows and roughly bundle him into a waiting car, where he is driven away to God knows where. If the cameraman was spotted, he would also have been escorted away.

So is the state of Burmese democracy, revealed by the acclaimed documentary Burma VJ which premiered in Britain last night. The premiere was sponsored by the Co-Operative, who deserve credit for their involvement in such a project.

The scene left a bittersweet taste for me personally. I own the same camera as that of the video journalist, and in comparison I hardly use it. The scene, and the camera itself, seemed to embody the difference between an aspiring journalist and film-maker in the liberated West and his equivalent in the oppressed East, that of someone willing to risk prison and torture in order to express reality, and someone who regards the right to expression as such an absolute given it almost serves as a discourager.


Burma VJ is an exemplary piece of documentary film-making, collating hours of footage from the 30 or so video journalists who operate illegally for the Democratic Voice of Burma, an exiled media organisation based in Norway and Thailand. The footage the VJs manage to secretly shoot is smuggled out of the country, digitalised in Thailand, sent to Norway and beamed by satellite back into Burma.

Burma VJ focuses on the extraordinary six week period in August/September 2007 when the Burmese people, supported by the country’s 400,000 monks, stood in peaceful protest against the military junta, only to be met with an iron fist of violence. The sight of Saffron monks being shot at by the country’s military must surely be one of the most iconic images of modern times. You can’t get a lot more fascist than that.

The film aligns itself with the perspective of ‘Joshua,’ a 27 year-old member of the DVB who is suddenly thrown into the role as tactical leader of the group of reporters. From his position in Thailand, he and we vicariously experience the footage sent to him from those operating in the field. The sense of occasion is palpable as he recieves increasingly revelatory pictures expressing the strength of the Burmese people and the brutality of the regime they oppose.

The images captured by the VJs, and first viewed by Joshua, were picked up by virtually every major news network in the world, and were viewed by millions upon millions of people. For a brief period of time there existed a profound sense of hope that the rusted manacles of the junta could and would be broken, allied with the pernicious fear of how it would respond to such an overt challenge to the status quo.

What director Anders Østergaard has done so well here is to collate and express the footage in a single, coherent form. Six weeks of disparate developments in an ongoing news cycle is captured in a two-hour cinematic experience which is, at times, breathtaking in its authenticity and intimacy.

From the first, solitary protests, to talk of politics and revolution on the streets of Rangoon, to small groups of demonstrators unifying and clapping each others presence. The moment when the Saffron monks emerged from their temples to take to the streets in support of the people, the first time they had done so for over a millenia, moving gracefully past the road blocks and towards Aung San Suu Kyi’s fortified house. The ever-presence of a nervous military as they await orders on how, or when, to retaliate.

“Let us pray, to reduce our fear of death,” cries one protestor as the Junta begin to advance.

This mosaic of images became a tangible and immediate reality to anyone with access to a television, and is now chrysalised in filmic form.


The thing that most upsets regimes like that of Burma, or for that matter autocracies, intolerant theocracies and organised terrorists all over the world, is the acceptance of more than one idea and the expression of autonomous right. For this to happen, as they are very much aware, an ongoing exchange of information is a categorical imperative.

What digitalisation has provided is a cheap, accessible and universal ability to engage in this ongoing dialectic and communicate to a potentially mass audience, as the Burma VJs so dramatically and courageously articulated.

We are seeing it on a more and more regular basis; the elections in Zimbabwe and Kenya, Georgia, India, the Gaza crisis, the recent sham elections in Iran (the modernism of which is characterised by Martin Amis). We are experiencing what David Miliband terms the “civilian surge,” and it shows little sign of abating.

Yet it is true that a third of the world’s population live under oppressive regimes, it is true that Aung San Suu Kyi is still under perpetual house arrest, and that almost every architect of Burma VJ is incarcerated somewhere in Burma without hope of trial.

But it is imperative to retain the hope that the pen (or maybe the camera) is mightier than the sword, and to do that films like Burma VJ must be seen, acknowledged, and acted upon.

Burma VJ goes on general release on July 14th. To sign the petition to free the VJs,  visit http://burmavjmovie.com.

The Revolution and Yellow Journalism.

Wrap Yourself in My Web


“Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.”  Picasso

The digital revolution is the catch-phrase for one of the most, if not the most fundamental developments in the history of the media industry. In its simplest form, the digital revolution can be characterised as two new technologies working in tandem. The first is digitalisation, which is the ability to store large amounts of information such as video, text or audio in computerised form. The second is the internet, which is primarily a distribution system that allows such information to be communicated over vast distances and between people whom are incapable of trading physically.

The ontology of the digital revolution is already a fascinating one. Twenty years ago, when it was little more than an embryo, the word that most succinctly defined the world’s interrelations was ‘wall.’ Ten years ago, the revolution was beginning to take hold and the defining word was ‘net.’ Today the word is ‘web,’ a complex and intricate framework that gains its power from its ability to link one strand to another.

Nevertheless, digitalisation is still a very new revolution in the throes of one of a series of metamorphoses. As journalists begin to grapple with the concepts of convergence, multimedia and user-generated content as they attempt to harness its far-reaching potential, it is a near-certainty that the media industry of today will be almost unrecogniable in ten years time.

Perspective, however, is always helpful. Throughout the twentieth century the only other technological invention of comparable significance to the media was that of the camera. One of the first acts of the Lumiere Brothers, the founding-fathers of the camera, was to film a train drawing in to their local station. When the sequence was first screened to an auditorium, the audience fled for the exit screaming. They thought the encroaching train would perforate the cinema screen and trample them underfoot.

In comparison, The New York Times recently published an article indicating that nine-year-old children are now using You-Tube as their primary search engine rather than Google. The emerging generation are perceiving news and events primarily in images and sound, using words as an auxiliary reference-point.

In his lecture, Simon Lewis talked about Barack Obama’s harnessing of social media sites like You-Tube throughout the American Presidential elections in 2008. He cited the influential online-journalist Arianna Huffington, who said:

“Were it not for the internet, Obama would not even have been able to stand for the Democratic nomination.”

Obama’s adoption of the digital revolution, when it was barely considered as a campaigning tool by Kerry and Bush in 2004, illustrates the sheer pace at which the political and media worlds are changing.

We are going through a process of creative disruption, and within this period of relentless and impatient change there are inevitable casualties. It appears to be those journalists who have spent their careers working in print, and who have grown overly accustomed to a certain template, that are looking nervously over their shoulders.

The regional newspaper industry has seen a drop in circulation of 51% since 1989 (the birth year of the internet) and the number of national papers have reduced dramatically. As older generations die out and their children grow to be progressively more I.T and media-literate, it seems likely that the trend will continue. This has resulted in the well documented cutbacks and enforced redundancies as many titles struggle to make a turnover.

Is it fair, therefore, to draw a direct correlation between the birth of the internet and the death of printed news?

The short answer to this question is no, good journalism is not the first casualty of the digital revolution. As I have mentioned, we are going through a process of creative disruption, not destruction. Each time a new technological format is phased in, including photojournalism, radio and television, someone has confidently anticipated the end of journalism as we know it. So far, this has not happened.

Journalism, or at least good journalism, is at heart a process of disseminating and reforming facts to tell a story that others will find interesting and informative. Storytelling has been around for as long as human beings have possessed the ability to communicate verbally and, from that day onwards, technology advancements have provided us with different, broader and more varied ways of telling that story. The digital revolution should then in theory be wholly welcomed by the industry.

The unfortunate truth is that journalism, at the current time, has slid into a state of apathy, dogmatism, arrogance and complacency. It has cut too many corners, taken too many things for granted and accepted half too often. Because of the ability of the digital revolution to empower individuals through information-finding sites like Google, self-publishing sites like WordPress, and social-media sites like Twitter, many of the tricks that have become commonplace in the media industry have been exposed to the clear light of day. Journalism, deservedly so, is experiencing a profound sense of impotence, and its response appears to be to go on the defensive. This is the wrong reaction.

Journalists, as Charles Reiss reminded his audience during his recent lecture with the phrase “the trust remedy and the trust deficit,” are less trusted and less respected than any other profession in Britain, with the exception of politicians and estate agents.

This damning fact can only be blamed on one thing; journalists themselves. As always, the conduct of the few have impacted on the many. Numerous complacent, lazy journalists (whom, it has to be said, are generally connected to tabloid newspapers) have been guilty of taking advantage of the unregulated press system afforded them and have indulged in bias, inaccuracy, sensationalism, trivialisation, repeated invasion of privacy and cheque-book journalism. This unabashed form of yellow journalism, coined as ‘churnalism’ in Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News, has severely corroded the public’s perception of press standards. As Andrew Marr writes in My Trade:

“Journalism includes people who think of themselves as part of a noble elite of truth-seekers and secular-priests. It also includes drunks, dyslexics and some of the least trustworthy and wickedest people in the land.”

There are, however, far more consequential and far-reaching cases of bad journalistic practice. Richard Tait, in his lecture British Journalism after Hutton, highlighted that it was Andrew Gilligan’s lack of comprehensive notes, a fundamental aspect of good journalistic practice, that was the route-cause to the way his source’s revelations were taken out of context.

Similarly, Justin Lewis in his lecture Research and Good Journalism, talked of “the fetishisation of the image,” highlighting how the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s statue by American soldiers after they had ‘liberated’ Baghdad was a contrived and staged image.

The world's media depicted this as the moment of the liberation.

The world's media depicted this as the moment of the liberation.

Kurds had been shipped down to condemn the statue. The square was virtually empty as Iraqi's struggled to come to terms with the occupation.

Kurds had been shipped down to condemn the statue. The square was virtually empty as Iraqi's struggled to come to terms with the occupation.

The final paragraph of Ian Hargreaves’ A Very Short Introduction to Journalism reads:

“There is a Chinese Proverb about the dangers of failed leadership: that the fish rots from the head. In complex modern democracies, this is not so. We are living in the age of the network and the age of the virus, which can strike anywhere and spread in any direction…Against such viruses, reliable, accurate, truthful journalism is the only known antidote.”

The identity of the journalist may be changing, and the traditional newspaper will have to become something more akin to a viewspaper- an aggregator of both professional and public opinion on a range of subjects and issues.

Journalism should remain as the fourth estate in a pluralist democracy but a new era of market regulation is needed, preferably with a stronger Press Complaints Commission. Forcing the industry to climb down from its high horse may be a positive step. The reality is we have lost our monopoly of comment, and a bigger part of our job is now to listen to and collate the collective conscience of the consumer. Those who understand and embrace this will be at the forefront of the next step in the revolution.

The lexicon of a modern journalist would sound like the dialogue from a bad sci-fi film to his counterpart in the pre-revolution 1980s. Terms such as ashtray, carbon paper, evening deadlines and spikes have been replaced by vodcasting, podcasting, surfing, downloading, tweeting, blogging, YouTubing and Googling.

But it is worth remembering that these words remain on the periphery of a journalist’s language. The essential language- the words that our vocation revolves around- are still very much the same as they were 20 years ago or, for that matter, 100 years ago. Truth, accuracy, honesty, integrity, objectivity, curiosity, creativity, audience and innovation are all very old words in journalism. More than any technological advancement, they have helped to make the globalised media industry, for all its imperfections, what it is today. The industry needs to reabsorb these first principles and place them again at the forefront of our trade. Only then can the digital revolution help journalism to rediscover its place in the modern web of society.

The End of Paper and Ink

Hangover Revelations

Wet Book and Razor Blade. Flickr Creative Commons

A Saturday morning in November, the Cardiff sky an opaque grey, phone lines swaying with the wind as I forged my away across town. Head bent against the cold, my mind excavating and reforming dross in a poor apology for thought, chewing gum to avoid the acrid, ashtray taste of last night’s small hours, stopping only to avoid the pools of dirty water already perforating my broken shoes. One motivation alone, to take solace in the small comforts of a warm pub, live football, weekend paper, dirty food, idle banter and probably, finally, more beer.

At this moment, as I stalked down Woodville Road with my eyes fixed to the pavement, I experienced a moment that alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.

Lying beneath my feet was the page of a book ripped from its spine, the jag of the tear intersecting the carefully fonted words. A few steps later lay another, and then another. And then a record, the ringed disc slightly jutting out of its sleeve, the psychedelic, tie-dye cover standing against the mercury of the paving slabs.

I looked up and saw the front garden of a terraced house piled high with what seemed to be hundreds of books and records that had been tossed out of the front door and now lay discarded and useless. I stopped amongst those that had fallen over the wall and now lay on the pavement, and surveyed this small apocalypse. Paper and print and audio-media you can touch lay redundant, casually dismissed. Yesterday’s technology, ink running, pages turning in the wind, beginning to rot in the falling rain.

As I stood absorbing this, the opening horns of Otis Redding’s A Change is Gonna Come began to play on my iPod. I’d compiled the content of my iPod randomly and was playing it on the shuffle setting, so the way this piece of serendipity came together seemed to be almost filmic in its creation, as if someone was watching me.

Originally written by Sam Cooke in 1963 and covered by any number of black artists, A Change is Gonna Come is regarded as synonymous with the civil rights movement. Indeed, it’s arguably a direct influence on Obama’s celebrated rhetoric. But, transcending the song’s socio-political significance, it is a statement about the belief in the reliability of change.

Last week’s lecture from Antony Mayfield, Head of Content and Media at iCrossings, succinctly communicated that we are in the throes of a fundamental revolution, a re-calibration that can be talked of in the same breath as the advent of the printing press and the camera. Mayfield, unlike some of his compatriots, was genuinely optimistic about the future and therefore offered a much broader perspective. A history graduate, he described how senior monks opposed the invention of printing, instead continuing to advocate the laborious process of writing out a book word for word because it provided more time for thought, recollection and investment with the subject.

When I first started this blog I sympathized with those who repelled the new technologies of the day. Now I’m reformed, a true believer. As Michael Rosenblum illustrates, the digitalisation, continued fragmentation and democratisation of our media is so inevitable, so inexorable that to try and suggest or rationalise against it is akin to trying to argue the Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun or the BNP are a credible vote at the next election.

Regardless, we still have our fair share of illusionists and deniers and sentimentalists trying to tell us we’re on the cusp of a journalistic apocalypse. We’re not. People will still write, still be curious, still care about hard facts and the trade of information as they have done for centuries. We’re now just at the end of one format and the start of a new, wholly different frontier.

Rob Alderson’s blog make the great point that this is a process of creative disruption and within all this uncertainty there is one guiding force; Google. As Mayfield said:

“When Google first appeared, it changed everything. It made the internet work because its basic premise is to always put the user first.”

Therefore, there’s one thing we do know for definite about this new frontier; it will be completely and utterly defined by the collective conscience of the consumer. It has no choice but to be, because that’s what makes Google what it is. Bluddy ‘ell, at this rate we might be able to talk about the media as a genuine public service.

There is another side. The media industry still hasn’t worked out how to make money out of the net and, until this is resolved, this is a problem because unfortunately nothing comes for free.

For all the convenience of Web 2.0, for all its rich potential for journalism, communication and as a tool for information in a democratic hyper-reality, is it giving rise to a something-for-nothing-culture? If so, we could end up with an indiscriminate, sourceless media, obsessed with the next new platform and 24/7, up-to-the-minute breaking news whilst failing to give due notice and attention to credible voices saying significant things. The tabloidisation of our media, revolving around a blogosphere based on inference, agenda and an axe to grind cannot compare to carefully considered analysis, indisputable information and a statutory obligation to objectivity.

The sight of those books so brutally exposed to the elements was both anarchic and forlorn, a sobering illustration of the cold reality of the modern day. Print is now no more than an exercise in nostalgia, a casualty of human innovation.

We are now collectively precipitating on an uncertain, undefined path. If we’re not careful, if we fail to keep in mind the principles that journalism is built on, then this remorseless period of change could be regressive. I, for one, want to prove the illusionists and deniers and sentimentalists wrong.

The Demise of Old News

A Cheap Massage

 picture-41

Whilst feebly attempting to ingratiate myself to journalists on various regional papers in the North of England, I have had to field the question on numerous occasions of why I want to be a journalist at a time when the entire industry is going to hell. It is tempting to sit here and characterise this view as the doom-prophesying of a few small-time, washed-out, pint-gripping, sermonising, brow-beating no-hopers clinging on for their retirement before the sea of change can sweep them away.

It seems, however, that these concerns are shared by widely respected and internationally renowned journalists. Guardian News and Media Executive Emily Bell used the phrases “systematic collapse” and “unprecedented carnage” in a recent speech to the think-tank Polis.  In a similar vein, the current assistant-editor of the Guardian, Dr David Leigh articulated an impending dystopia for good old fashioned reporting in his Inaugural lecture. He talks nostalgically of cutting his teeth on The Scotsman in the 1960s before concluding:

“This primitive process of heavy engineering was romantic and dirty. None of us realised at the time just how absolutely doomed it was, from top to bottom. What remains is now produced in a glass rabbit-hutch with a bank of computer screens, by two men and a dog. It is dying quietly.”

The uncouth Marxist that exists within me wants to suggest those at the top are more concerned about the loss of a media unconfined to a liberal elite rather than a general decay of journalistic standards. Maybe this across-board horror at the prospect of a digital revolution is indicative of a liberal elite out of touch with and therefore resisting the tools of the next generation. But, if Leigh and Bell are right and the page is turning on the world of the newspaper, it is worth acknowledging that the current debate about Web 2.0’s significance for modern journalism is framed by a very simple physical hinderance.  The internet and particularly the gleaming screen of internet news is still a very new thing. I was born before it was, and my generation are really the first to be versed in its uses and workings.

My Mum had to learn how to use a computer and it was quite literally a blood, sweat and tears job. Hilarious to watch. My Dad still employs the classic pose of index finger poised over keyboard, tongue sticking out at a peculiar angle, forehead like a Klingon. Watching him write an email is a bit like watching a guy with a broken arm eat a boiled egg.

As I am inherently far more media savvy than my parents, so my kids will be receptive to new media in ways that will render my technological ability as roughly equivalent to the chimps at the start of 2001. Around the same time I’m sure will be probably be heralding the death of journalism due to the erosion of values and standards by the usurping generation.

Therefore, it’s probably worth listening to people like David Leigh, and to reject the notion of an indiscriminate, sourceless media, obsessed with the next new ‘platform’ and 24/7, up-the-minute breaking news whilst failing to give due notice and attention to a credible voice saying significant things.

The mass media can shine a light,” he says. “Or they can reflect back light. The Daily Mail, for example, deliberately make a highly-profitable business out of telling people what they think they know already. They reflect back their existing beliefs. They reassure their target audience by hammering the world into a shape that suits their prejudices.  This is less an information service than a form of cheap massage.”

For all the convenience of Web 2.0, for all its rich potential for journalism, communication and as a tool for information in a democratic hyper-reality, it seems to be giving rise to a something-for-nothing-culture. Then what will be left with? The inexorable tabloidisation of our media, a blogosphere based on inference, agenda and an axe to grind over carefully considered analysis, indisputable information and a statutory obligation to objectivity. An unmediated media acting as a cheap massage – convenient and soothing, but fleeting and ultimately (sometimes hopefully) inconsequential.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,140 other followers