Eynulla Fatullayev is not freed by international honor

Students foretell the future of the media. It's not rosy.

Today I discussed with my class the ethical obligations of journalists. I was left unsatisfied by our last conversation, which ended with an incomplete link between actions of the media as a whole and the maintenance of a democracy. I have my own beliefs about the importance of the media in democratic processes, but I don't want to just dictate my conclusions to my students. I do want to explain my beliefs, to make the connections between "x" & "y."

By the end of the discussion, some students were ready to admit that journalists possess some ethical responsibility to tell the truth. But this was an ethical responsibility that had to be balanced with the need to get a paycheck. So, really it came down to situational ethics. If a journalist felt that he or she could quit the job after being pressured by the advertiser, then that journalist should quit the job. But - that would be a choice that few would make.

I guess that's par for the course. In fact, most journalists don't make that choice. I did once, but I was young at the time.

Overall, I found a high level of cynicism in my students. One summed it up well. The young man didn't feel much ethical responsibility to be honest, he said, because no one believed the media anyway.

I was at a loss for words. He had a point, albeit a grim one.

Before they left, I conducted an impromptu poll. How many people don't consume any news, get no news at all except second-hand, through conversations? One young woman raised her hand. She the news was depressing. Can't argue with that either, I guess.

How many get news from the TV?

About eight raised their hands.

How many get news mainly from the Internet?

The remainder raised their hands.

So - this is the future of the media apparently. The information that serves as "news" for these students might be a mixture of Facebook info, Drudge Reports, New York Times articles or posts by Perez Hilton. The students as a whole have little regard for ethical responsibilities of journalists and nearly no trust in any information they consume. What does this mean for our democracy?

Award winner Eynulla Fatullayev still serving his 8-year term

What are ethical duties when confronted by injustice?

Teaching has its moments when you lead students to a certain point, and you may have made your conclusion, you might think that the conclusion is quite clear, obvious even, but your students just don't want to make that leap. When it comes down to it, they don't agree with you. They don't see it your way. Perhaps they are from a different generation or just have not seen the world your way. Perhaps they never will.

I was thinking about that today as we discussed Out of the Picture, a report by Freepress on the ownership of television stations by minorities and women. The report, not surprisingly, paints a pretty bleak picture of the situation in the United States, where the vast majority of stations are owned by white men. Even areas that are quite heavily populated by minorities are not served by stations owned by minorities.

We discussed the issue, and discussed the implication - and then I asked the critical question: Does this have to do with ethics? I can make the connection, because to me it concerns issues of social justice. But the students didn't see it that way. The white men own what they own because they are well connected. Sure. But this is legal, right? Nothing wrong with being rich.

I pointed out that the broadcast spectrum is really a public good, to be allocated so that the public benefits. But these children of Reagan Era have a different perspective. Anything hinting of affirmative action is bad. And having a policy that gives some sort of preferential treatment to minorities is bad.

I did not ask my students this question, but it intrigues me. How is this situation ever going to change, unless the government takes some action to remedy the imbalance?

I'm not out to convince them of anything - per se. But I want them to really see the reality of the media world around them, and ask themselves if it is really a just situation. And if it is not just, what is the ethical response? What is the ethical response to injustice?

Imprisoned Azerbaijani journalist receives prestigious award

Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor of Realny Azerbaijan, is one of three journalists being awarded with a 2009 Press Freedom Award by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Also receiving awards are journalists from Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Of course, Eynulla's joy at receiving the award may be mitigated by the fact that he is sitting in jail. This is not that unusual. Being a good and courageous journalist is quite dangerous in Azerbaijan. The main threat comes from the government. Currently, two bloggers are on trial on outrageous charges. Eynulla's offenses also were purely fictional, a case constructed by the government to put him behind bars.

The real offense was that in trying to find out who killed his colleague and friend, he uncovered facts that were uncomfortable for certain powerful people. Imprisonment was his reward for seeking justice.

Here is a synopsis of his story.

Not such a crazy idea

In an article on the RFE/RL website, Dmitry Sidorov presents an interesting hypothesis that I don't think is as whacky as some of his initial commentators think it is. He points out that it could be in the short-term interest of the Kremlin (i.e. Gazprom) for a war to erupt in Iran. Such a conflict would surely boost gas and oil revenues dramatically. These revenues are central to the operations of the Kremlin. Therefore, war is in the interests of those who rule Russia. (The Russian version of his article is found here.)

As the article points out, war might be in the short-term interest of the Russian government, but it does not mean that a war in Iran would benefit Russia in the long term. In the long-run, it could easily further degrade Russian power.

Of course, we have to understand the distinctions between the interests of the Kremlin and the interests of Russia. By implication, if not strictly by definition, the less democratic the country, the more the interests of its leadership and its people diverge. This is not a phenomenon limited to Russia. I remain convinced that it was no in the interests of the citizens of the United States to start a war with Iraq. It was, however, in the short-term political interest of the Bush Administration. It was in the interest of the military contractors who are so generous with their campaign contributions.

Likewise, a war in Iran could help the profits of Gazprom and Lukoil, the extractive industries linked with the Kremlin through interlocking directorships. What would be beneficial for Russia as a whole would be to reduce its dependence on these industries and to become truly democratic.

Unfortunately, I think a war in Iran is more likely than the democratization of Russia.

Football with a German soundtrack

For those of you who wonder what American Football is like, here's a taste. Football on a September afternoon at a medium-size US university.