Hamas, NYT's Mark Thompson and Twitter

The New York Times' CEO Mark Thompson (who, incidentally, was a guest at my home in Shiloh for a long discussion) spoke at a June 12 event sponsored by New America’s Open Markets Institute and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University and addressed a new development in the media which is tech companies closely trusting algorithms to help determine which news stories are fraudulent or misleading. 

One example he provided was indicative.

As he said:

But with some examples of apparent censorship, it’s not clear if the removal or restriction of content is due to human moderators or the automated algorithms.Twitter recently blocked a user who posted harsh criticism of Hamas, the militant and political Islamist organization regarded by much of the international community as a terrorist group. The social media company told The Daily Caller News Foundation it was an “error,” but wouldn’t clarify if the mistake was directly human, or indirectly human-induced through the way of the “hateful conduct” detection algorithm.

What the real problem in this instance, I hope, is not that the person who tweeted the criticism was reinstated, or even the original blockage even though Thompson makes the false case that Hamas is rally two organizational entities, one non-terror and the other a social welfare agency.

The real problem is that, well, Hamas itself is on Twitter, openly.

Its TV station AlQuds. 

A second TV station.

Its newspaper.

A front news agency.

Izzat Risheq is on Twitter and he's a senior Hamas leader.

Mosa Abumarzook has a Twitter account and he is a senior member of Hamas.

I could on and on.  They recruit through social media outlets.  And they punish independent-thinking Gaza social media activists.

The AlQassam Brigades had their account suspended, though.

So the real problem is why does a terror group and its members get a Twitter account?

It's not a new question.

Twitter?

^

Going to the Seminar in NYC?

Israel in the Write Light – Program

9:00 AM Registration & Breakfast

9:30 AM Opening Remarks
Presenter: Gary Rosenblatt, Editor and Publisher of The Jewish Week

9:45 AM What do Israel and Zionism Mean Today?
Presenter: Julian Resnick
Brief history of Israel and Zionism
o Why is Zionism still relevant today? How to we clarify our own personal
perspectives of Zionism and articulate it productively

10:15 AM Digital Age Journalism: Is it really different than traditional journalism?
Presenter: TBD

o As A.J Leibling once said: “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.”
Internet enables everyone who owns a computer to have his or her own printing press.
Information becomes public so quickly in the digital age. How do we take this into account
when reporting on events or topics?

11:30 AM Breakout Sessions (Choose One)

1 – Writer? Blogger? Tweeter? How to Crystallize Your Point of View
Presenters: Rob Lattin/Kortney Shapiro

o Learn tips from your peers on how to create your own news agenda instead of having it
created for you by traditional media. Whether you want to be a professional journalist,
or simply strong Israel advocate, this session will help you determine what you are
passionate about and how to convey your message.

2 – Bringing (Virtual) Life to Your Message
Presenter: Ashley Scorpio

o Learn best practices and messaging techniques to convey how to develop and market
your message, create an emotional connection with your target audience, drive world of
mouth and generate maximum reach for your message.

12:30 PM Lunch

Revamping Israel’s Persona in the Media:
Presenter: David Olesker

o How do we credibly tell Israel’s story through the modern lens of journalism?

1:30 PM Internal vs. External Advocacy
Presenter: Gil Lainer, Consul for Public Diplomacy at the Consulate General of Israel in New York
o Understanding the differences and challenges of “The Israel Conversation” to Jewish communities and media vs. the rest of the world.

2:45 PM Breakout Sessions (choose one)

How to Make the Most of Limited Knowledge
Presenter: David Olesker
o Think you lack the background and knowledge base to adequately defend your opinion? Don’t worry! Learn tips on how to get your message across.

It’s Not What You Say, But What People Hear
Presenter: TBD
o Being an effective communicator: Together we will explore the art of messaging and strategic communications.

3:45 PM Closing Sessions

o What have we learned? The importance of using information effectively
o Media Resources and Contacts
o Ways to get involved
o Intro to DTWT at GA

^

Temporal Disaggregation - Harnessing Social Media

Another academic's attempt to explain what we do:

Using Social Media to Measure Conflict Dynamics: An Application to the 2008–2009 Gaza Conflict by Thomas Zeitzoff, Department of Politics, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Abstract

The lack of temporal disaggregation in conflict data has so far presented a strong obstacle to analyzing the short-term dynamics of military conflict. Using a novel data set of hourly dyadic conflict intensity scores drawn from Twitter and other social media sources during the Gaza Conflict (2008–2009), the author attempts to fill a gap in existing studies. The author employs a vector autoregression (VAR) to measure changes in Israel’s and Hamas’s military response dynamics immediately following two important junctures in the conflict: the introduction of Israeli ground troops and the UN Security Council vote. The author finds that both Hamas’s and Israel’s response to provocations by the other side increase (both by about twofold) immediately after the ground invasion, but following the UN Security Council vote, Israel’s response is cut in half, while Hamas’s slightly increases. In addition, the author provides a template for researchers to harness social media to capture the micro-dynamics of conflict.

^

That Facebook Fiasco

Seems left wing blogs and main stream media have spun off out of control in comparing the Facebook Fiasco of a discharged female soldier, supposedly Eden Aberjil, who posted pictures of herself with Arab prisoners, as if this is an Abu Ghraib-style event. Even Channel Two did that.



An official IDF response I managed to get asserts that

These pictures and the behavior of the soldier in question are disgraceful. The soldier was released last year and all of the information has been forwarded to the relevant commanders. Both the pictures and the behavior are in total violation of IDF ethics and the IDF code of conduct.

Some officers I asked confirmed that this soldier was never an officer, despite pictures in her profile that show her wearing ranks. Probably she borrowed a shirt.

This bit at AP is really outrageous though:

The comments by the woman and her friend in an exchange below one photograph suggested how casually the picture was treated, including jokes and sexual innuendos.

"You're the sexiest like that," her friend wrote.

"I wonder if he's got Facebook!" the woman in the photograph responded. "I have to tag him in the picture!"

Sorry, there is no sexual innuendo. In Hebrew, "sexy" is used as an adjective too describe being cool and great. And as the picture shows, she's just showing off and sitting near prisoners, off to the side.

Stupid, yes.

Dumb, yes.

Insensitive, yes.

Mean and evil and demeaning, not quite.


Suggesting a "cold indifference and cruelty that has come to characterize the Israeli occupation" or "she looks down her nose imperiously towards him" is far-fetched.

I would suggest the IDF deal with the "how-to-post-on-Facebook" problem that has developed.

- - -

Facebook Fiasco Update:-

'I actually took care of the detainees'

Ex-soldier from Ashdod who caused worldwide stir by posting photos of herself posing with cuffed Palestinian detainees taken during her army service says she received death threats on Facebook. 'The IDF let me down, I wish I never served in such an army,' she says...

The Challenge of the New Social Media

Taken from here (with Kippah Tip to Max Boot):

Don’t view the new real-time information realities as a threat but an opportunity. Identify those elements of the fast-growing, almost infinite multi-media language where you can compete effectively for the information high ground, then do so with self-confidence. … Not to enter the immediate post-crisis media space will often carry a higher price than entering it imperfectly. The aim must remain to act assertively and swiftly in the hope of commanding that space, however briefly or imperfectly. … Remove any entrenched institutional resistance to being force to feed the news beast. … Shed the instinct of hierarchy and the need for executive control from the highest level. … Empower the junior...officials, executives, and public servants to respond. … Devolve responsibility for handling real-time information to lower levels...

Whew.

That's some challenge.

Nik Gowing(*), the author, explains:

...new information technologies and dynamics are together driving a wave of democratisation and accountability. It shifts and redefines the nature of power in such moments. It also creates a new policy vulnerability and brittleness for institutions, who then struggle even harder to maintain public confidence.

Increasingly routinely, a cheap, "go-anywhere" camera or mobile phone challenges the credibility of the massive human and financial resources of a government or corporation in an acute crisis. The long-held conventional wisdom of a gulf in time and quality between the news that signals an event and the whole truth eventually emerging is fast being eliminated. The new lightweight technologies available to almost anyone mean a new capacity for instant scrutiny and accountability that is way beyond the narrower, assumed power and influence of the traditional media...

..."information doer": one of the hundreds of millions with an electronic eye now found anywhere...The core implications are twofold. First, this new technical reality has dramatically foreshortened the news and information cycle from a few hours to often no more than a few minutes. Second, those cellphones and digital cameras of the proliferation of new "information doers" have swiftly modified and broadened the assumed definitions of the media landscape in a crisis. The new ubiquitous transparency they create sheds light where it is often assumed officially there will be darkness.

(*) A 1996 piece he did.