I am a writer…
And as far as I know, no one is offering a bounty for one of my ears. Not so for Akram Aylisli, a highly regarded writer, poet and scriptwriter from Azerbaijan who once received that country’s most prestigious literary prize. However, the leader of the Modern Musavat party has announced that he would pay a bounty equivalent to $12,700 to anyone who cuts off Aylisli’s ear.
The impetus for this threat is Aylisli’s novel, Stone Dreams, which provides a sympathetic view of Armenians in Azerbaijan’s ongoing ethnic disputes. Aylisli is accused of describing only Azeri abuses against Armenians, and not addressing attacks by Armenians on Azeris. Earlier this month, Azerbaijan’s president stripped Aylisli of the title of “People’s Writer.” And although the Minister of the Interior has announced that calls for violence are unacceptable, the threat to Aylisli remains. At 75, Aylisli is contemplating seeking asylum abroad with his family.
A writer, he says, has the right to express thoughts without being a considered a traitor.
Yet, government officials in Azerbaijan have labeled Aylisli’s book as treasonous.
Is this because the events depicted in Stone Dreams are not considered accurate by some? Aylisli says the story is based on real life, but it is a novel after all. And anyone who thinks novels should stick to the facts might want to try biographies or historical fiction. (No, wait…don’t believe everything you read in, say, The Other Boleyn Girl.)
The situation, as I see it, is suppression of a perspective that does not support the nationalist stance on the Azerbaijani/Armenian conflict. And that is called censorship, even though, in Azerbaijan as in the U.S., authors ostensibly have a constitutional right to write what they want without pressure or government interference.
Book bans and book burnings notwithstanding, our constitutional rights here in the U.S. are faring better than those in Azerbaijan.
Do we in the United States have nationalist viewpoints? Yes, we do, and it’s taken much of our 200+-year history to give voice to differing perspectives about events surrounding Native Americans, slavery, immigration, child labor, internment camps, McCarthyism, Kent State, Iran Contras, waterboarding, WikiLeaks, extraordinary rendition, and others.
I write about many of these same topics.
I write in support of our troops and our nation, a nation for which both my mother and father served in World War II. And I also write about, and for, peace, and about our Constitution that guarantees our First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press.
So in our country, no matter what I write, how I write it, or who I please or offend with my writing, I’m assured of keeping both my ears. And if that should ever change, we all have a much larger problem.
I do have advice for any entity of our government that tries to censor my words.
As Edward Bulwer-Lytton famously wrote in 1839—and as systematic oppression against writers has proved since antiquity—“the pen is mightier than the sword.” Plus, if I may paraphrase Russian-based bestselling author Boris Akunin’s comments from his recent blog post about Akram Aylisli, “Don’t you know that the state cannot win in a war with a writer?”
I couldn’t agree more.
To paraphrase the young lady on the balcony…
in Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet who says, “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” — I ask today:
“Is news by any other name still news?”
Although I’ve asked this question before, it’s continues to be important, especially after the international saber-rattling over the charges, extradition requests, and asylum granted for Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
A cause célèbre, yes? But maybe not the whole story.
Not that the Assange/asylum issue isn’t news; it’s big news, with heads of governments in Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the UK jockeying for position and pointing to one another (or someone else) behind their hands.
No, I’m asking the question—“Is news by any other name still news?”—because I have maintained all along—to anyone who would listen—that if Assange had named the organization “WikiNews” instead of “WikiLeaks,” this whole story would have played out differently.
Why wouldn’t a name like “Wikileaks” get people up in arms, literally?
Why wouldn’t any government be incensed about material blatantly and globally labeled as “leaked?” Why wouldn’t agencies whose sole purpose is to prevent “leaks” then descend with a fury on those who allowed and perpetrated the “leaking?”
On the other hand, though, news outlets all over the world take great pride—and go to great lengths—to “break” news stories, some of which come from “unnamed sources close to the situation.”
Are these considered leaks? Breaking news? Both?
Let’s face it; authority and the media have been grappling for centuries.
Why? Because freedom of the press improves transparency of information, and transparency of information creates a better society for all people. It’s the different definitions of transparency that get everyone’s dander up.
For example, in its landmark decision on the Pentagon Papers in 1971, our own U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose corruption in government.” (Note, however, that the Court ruled that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required in this case, and its decision did not give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.)
But news is not just about corruption, or even just about government, for that matter.
The holidays are news. Syria is news. The cease-fire is news. Dancing with the Stars is the news. The price of gas and the weather are news.
And, to varying degrees, all of us need this news. With the advance of digital technology and the Internet, we can access all the news we want. In fact, we can gorge on the news; it’s up to us to be responsible consumers of the media. But that’s a topic for another post.
Are some of the documents on WikiLeaks explosive? Yes. Are some embarrassing, some horrifying? Yes and yes. Are some of the documents illuminating, enlightening? Of course.
I do understand that classifying some information is a valid standard. I also know that improved transparency of information in society comes from a free press.
Consider this, too:
There are people who are free today—or are becoming free, or are helping others to become free—because of uncensored news…leaked news, breaking news, or both.
I’ve worked on both side of this debate, in government and in the media, and I remain convinced that “WikiNews” would have been a more palatable portal.
With fewer struggles, WikiNews could have provided the kind of service that WikiLeaks is fighting to provide for people in free democratic societies—and for people who want to live in one.
A little more about the author:
Andrea Doray is a writer who believes that transparency is not invisible anymore. Contact her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please feel free to visit my other blogs:
New postings (almost) every day! 365 Days of Divesting — Living more, with less…one day at a time
New posting—first-ever Inspiring Blogger Award! Mirth-Marks — For people who enjoy the irony in life
Lessons from Colorado’s Poet Laureate! This Writing Life — Craft, comment, critique
- Julian Assange: I may leave embassy if US government ends standoff (guardian.co.uk)
- Vivienne Westwood declares ‘I am Julian Assange’ as she visits WikiLeaks founder in Ecuadorian embassy (telegraph.co.uk)
- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s Cambridge University talk cancelled (standard.co.uk)
- Julian Assange addresses UN (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
If you’re like me, the eight words you never want to hear again (at least until 2013) go something like this:
“I’m [first last], and I approved this message.”
There are good reasons why many of us are weary of this phrase…about 7,770 reasons in my hometown in September alone.
Between September 9 and September 30, the two presidential candidates and their supporters placed nearly 8,000 television ads in Denver, more than in any other market in the key states of Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and in the District of Columbia.
In terms of dollars spent, the Kantar Media Group/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project, reports that, from June 1 through September 30, the volume of presidential advertising across the country was already nearly double that of the 2008 campaign.
In the Denver metro market alone, the candidates spent more than $700 million for 26,000 TV ads from June through September.
Why has Denver received such concentrated attention?
The October 3 debate on the University of Denver campus is one answer, but the primary explanation is that Colorado is a swing state, a battleground state, a state that’s “too close to call.”
Such states have a number of likely voters who are undecided, or are iffy about their candidate.
Before the debate at DU, the presidential race was tighter than in Colorado than in any other swing state. And current poll results says it’s staying that way.
It’s interesting, though, because Colorado contributes only nine of the total 538 votes in the Electoral College.
By my calculations, this equates to about $77 million and 2,889 TV ads per vote…and that’s just through the end of September and just in the Denver-area market.
Also, these numbers refer only to television advertising for the presidential candidates.
But, when the race truly is too close to call, those nine votes—of the 270 votes needed to win a majority—could be the difference between winning and losing the presidency.
I shared these numbers with friends who—almost universally—wondered aloud how many people could be fed with this amount of money.
The total dollars spent by all candidates is truly staggering; yet, as much as I would like to see the same amount of money go to fight hunger and poverty, I have to stand on the side of access to information.
When I lived briefly in Turkmenistan this time two years ago, there was no question about who was or would be president.
Current president Gurbanguly Berdymuhammedov took office in February 2007 after the death of President for Life Saparmurat Niyazov and the imprisonment of Niyazov’s constitutionally appointed successor.
Although the new constitution allows the formation of multiple political parties, the former Communist Party has been the only one effectively permitted to operate.
Political gatherings are illegal unless government sanctioned.
There are no commercial or private TV stations in Turkmenistan, and articles published by the state-controlled newspapers are heavily censored.
That’s all different here, of course, as a quick spin just through television news shows and online media will confirm.
We here in the U.S. need to be conscious consumers of news and advertising.”
We need to listen and learn, seek the facts, and make decisions that are right for us.
However, this is only possible because we have access to the information.
When I tire of hearing the ads, especially the negative ones, I remind myself that free speech and freedom of the press make this knowledge available to me…and that I am able to make my own decisions and vote for the candidate of my eventual choice.
I’m Andrea Doray and I approved this posting.”
A little more about the author:
Andrea Doray is a full-time writer who, to the probable dismay of family and friends on both sides of the political aisle, is still among the truly undecided. Contact her at email@example.com.
I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Please leave a comment…Thanks!
Also, please feel free to visit my other blogs:
New postings every day! 365 Days of Divesting — Living more, with less…one day at a time
New posting! Mirth-Marks — For people who enjoy the irony in life
New publications from Quinn Press! This Writing Life — Craft, comment, critique