Connect with us


Taliban Ramp Up on Social Media, Defying Bans by the Platforms – The New York Times



More than 100 new official or pro-Taliban accounts and pages have surfaced on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, despite a ban on the group by the sites.

As the Taliban took control of the Afghan capital of Kabul on Sunday, a spokesman for the group uploaded five videos to his official YouTube page. The videos, each between two and three minutes long, showed Taliban leaders congratulating fighters on their victories.

“Now is the time to serve the nation and to give them peace and security,” Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban, said in one video in Pashtun as he sat in front of senior officials in a curtained office.


Dozens of pro-Taliban accounts that had sprung up on Twitter in recent days then shared the five videos. Within 24 hours, they had together racked up more than half a million views.

The videos were part of an effort by the Taliban to establish their authority and legitimize their rule across Afghanistan through the use of social media, researchers said. But by publishing on Facebook and YouTube, the Taliban defied longtime bans by the platforms. The social media companies, following government guidelines, have largely designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization and don’t allow Taliban content on their sites.

The group’s renewed presence on social media has put Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in a tricky position. With governments around the world trying to figure out whether to officially recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s rulers, the companies have no easy answers as to whether to continue barring the group online.

That has drawn criticism as the tech companies have in recent months suspended the accounts of some Republican lawmakers and others, seemingly with more ease. Facebook and YouTube removed the accounts of a Taliban spokesman, Mohammad Naeem, on Tuesday only after The New York Times requested comment on the accounts. The companies did not address why the accounts, which were formed in September, had been on their platforms even with the ban on the group.

“So far, the approach of the tech companies is not very effective,” said Ayman Aziz, an independent researcher who has studied Afghanistan and Pakistan for over a decade. “The Taliban is establishing a new presence, with their new regime, online.”

Pool photo by Alexander Zemlianichenko

Representatives for YouTube and Facebook said they forbade Taliban accounts and removed them when they were found. Twitter, which said this week that it prohibits glorification of violence on its platform, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The question of what to allow online with the Taliban is only likely to grow for the social media companies. More than 100 new accounts and pages, either claiming to belong to the Taliban or supporting their mission, have been introduced since Aug. 9 on Twitter and Facebook, according to an analysis by The Times. The Times also found dozens of pro-Taliban accounts, including from senior Taliban officials, that had existed for months or years on the sites and lain dormant before becoming more active in the past week.

Many of the accounts are now working in concert to post videos, images and slogans about Taliban rule. Often, they copy one another’s messaging, spreading discussion about the administration of local townships and amplifying assurances that the Taliban brought peace to Afghans. The common thread in all of the activity: praising the Taliban as Afghanistan’s rightful rulers.

“The Taliban’s use of social media is intentional,” said Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which studies the online spread of information. “They know that on the world stage, they need to present a responsible public face in order to gain more legitimacy.”

The Taliban’s tactics on social media increasingly resemble those of other terror groups that have tried to revamp their reputation, researchers said. Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, and Hezbollah, in Lebanon, have used social media to show their softer side, with videos showing them celebrating popular holidays or giving to the poor.

The Taliban’s posts have quickly found a growing audience. Followers of their official Facebook pages jumped 120 percent to more than 49,000 users as of Wednesday. On YouTube, the group’s videos have started getting tens of thousands of views, up from an average of fewer than 1,000 views previously.

Mr. Brookie said the optics were likely to be difficult for Facebook, YouTube and Twitter no matter what they did because of the Taliban’s reputation of extremist ideology.

“There is a very real debate to be had about the values of allowing the Taliban to remain on social media as they move to close down the rights of the groups they govern,” he said.

Inside the companies, Facebook has in recent days activated an emergency response team to follow the situation in Afghanistan and assess the Taliban’s use of its products, including its messaging app WhatsApp, according to employees at the social network. Twitter and YouTube have tried to read between the lines of diplomatic cables from world leaders on whether the U.S. government would form a de facto relationship with the Taliban, employees participating in discussions at the companies said.

Yet even when the companies have removed Taliban accounts, the bans have been porous. When Facebook this week blocked the WhatsApp account of Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, he distributed a new, still active WhatsApp account of another Taliban leader to journalists.

The Taliban were also easily evading being found by changing the spellings within their hashtags or key terms, and using encrypted apps, such as Telegram and WhatsApp, to seed their messaging and ask for volunteers to translate social media posts into multiple languages, said Ms. Aziz, the independent researcher.

Any dragnet also appears to be mistakenly entangling others who have posted content pushing back against the Taliban. After the news site HumSub published an article this month to counter a local newspaper column praising another Taliban founder, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Facebook removed the article, said Adnan Kakar, an editor at HumSub.

“Immediately, we got a message that ‘your article is removed because of standards on dangerous individuals and organizations,’” he said. Mr. Kakar said his personal account and HumSub’s Facebook page were also suspended for 24 hours and blocked from livestreaming and advertising for 60 days. When he challenged Facebook, he said, he got no response.

Compounding the difficulties facing the platforms, many of the new pro-Taliban accounts have been careful to post content that does not openly espouse violence or hate speech, which would violate the companies’ rules.

On Twitter, a new account named for the Taliban’s unrecognized state, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, surfaced on Aug. 8. The account, with more than 400 followers, has posted two videos showing military maneuvers by the Taliban. But neither video featured violent or graphic images or directly called for violence.

Similarly, a Facebook page that was created six days ago, and that listed itself as a grocery store but has exclusively posted content about the Taliban, has largely praised Mr. Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman.

“He is honest. God Bless the Taliban,” read one post on the page. “We will hear their voices here, too.”

In a news conference in Kabul on Tuesday, Mr. Mujahid was asked about freedom of speech. He accused Facebook of hypocrisy for promoting freedom of speech while censoring the group by removing the accounts of Taliban members.

“This question should be asked of those who claim to be promoters of freedom of speech who do not allow publication of foreign information,” Mr. Mujahid said.

Paul Mozur contributed reporting.

Adblock test (Why?)


Source link

Continue Reading


Why the mainstream media is struggling to stay relevant in Pakistan



Something Jon Stewart said during an episode he did on the trouble with mainstream media in the US, last year, stuck with me: The narcissism of Donald Trump was matched by the narcissism of the media. The progressive and/or liberal media took his victory personally. They saw themselves — he had a wicked grin when he referenced The New York Times tagline “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — as the upholders and pillars of democracy. They saw themselves as the immune system that filters out toxins to get the audience the news.

“But they’re not,” said Stewart. “They’re adding to the noise.” He added that they’d created a model that almost cements divisions rather than views context.

Does the ego get in the way of the media going outside the status quo, instead of becoming part of it, he asked guest and media critic for the Washington Post Margaret Sullivan — whose book Newsroom Confidential I highly recommend to journalists and students interested in the news. Sullivan replied by defending journalists, saying she knows many got into the profession to do a good job, and inform, but then “you’re in the reality of it, and then you know there’s a demand for audiences…”

Trump understood audience demands and knew he was a “ratings machine”. And that’s kind of how it resulted in the incessant coverage of all things Trump, which is evident even today.

It’s not dissimilar to Imran Khan, who is an attention magnet, irrespective of the screen being TV or digital. He’s mastered the art of getting the eyeballs. Some outlets thrive on calling him out for his lies, while others thrive on amplifying his narrative.


What happens then to the stories/issues that are not Trump/Khan-centric? And even when the news is personality driven (for example focusing on corrupt leaders vs corrupt system), is the audience better informed with accurate information or have media outlets decided that narrative guised as news is the only way to survive?

What the audience wants

I’ve spent a good portion of last year consuming the news professionally — because I had to, as editor of a legacy media outlet’s online properties and then, as a self-proclaimed media critic, researcher and now as a co-producer and co-host of a podcast on the news landscape in Pakistan.

And I have been attempting to answer many, many questions, including one that Stewart asked: “Is the media the architect of its own demise?”

He knows the media would rather blame the audience for wanting the content they do because that’s what sells, but I’m more interested in learning how the metrics are being determined in Pakistan.

Stewart argues that the media doesn’t know what else sells because they haven’t tried anything else. And, is selling the only way to measure success — what about public interest?

Context matters

It’s easy to want to dismiss the Pakistani news media for its partisanship or for amplifying specific personalities. While those things are true, I think the year 2022 saw journalists do some very good work on traditional and digital platforms.

Newspapers, known to be a dying breed, continue the hard work of reporting across the country, ensuring coverage of as many communities as possible. The work has become harder because companies’ “financial struggles” have resulted in staff layoffs or salary cuts as well as other budgetary constraints that prevent the audiences’ informational needs from getting served. For example, the coverage is often more urban-centric simply because media houses can’t afford stringers outside larger towns.

Perhaps the most stark example of this was the coverage of the floods, which received attention from the mainstream media, only when events turned catastrophic. And while many media outlets sent prime time anchors such as Asma Sherazi and Meher Bokhari out into the field to cover the floods, most of them moved on to other issues (primarily politics) within a fortnight. To his credit, Geo’s Hamid Mir stayed on the field longer than others and to their credit, the team at Zara Hat Kay featured many reporters from impacted areas on their show, long after flood images had left TV screens and others had moved on.

The trouble with much of the coverage across the mediums was the lack of contextualising, and this isn’t just about the floods. This is sort of what Jon Stewart was talking about in the aforementioned episode — why is the media not going outside the status quo and contextualising events for audiences to become better informed?

While the media reported on the floods, for example, the partisanship in their reporting was evident. Where one major channel came at its coverage in Sindh and Punjab with a ‘look how terrible it is for the people there due to a corrupt government’, it approached the situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa differently. The same is true for another media group, whose anti-PTI stance has become obvious by now to the average viewer.

Another major issue in newsrooms is the lack of trained resources, who have even studied the country’s map, let alone other issues faced by the country. During a training for journalists in Quetta in 2018, the participants complained that their colleagues would call them from head offices (often in Karachi) and ask them to cover an event that took place in Gwadar. One journalist told me that he told his colleague in Karachi that it would take them less time to get to Gwadar than it would take him from Quetta. This disconnect between desk and well … basic geography is depressing.

A lot of this ties into a lack of resources — many staff on the desk are simply not equipped to do the work required for proper contextualising. So you get sloppy writing from digital, in both English and Urdu.

Financial woes

As an aside, I used quotes earlier in this section around financial struggles because I’ve yet to authenticate this claim, which I’ve heard repeated over and over from people in the media industry who tell me how hard a time it is for the media, economically.

I want to believe it because I can see my friends aren’t being paid on time at some legacy outlets — sometimes they’re two months behind in pay. However, I also know that staff employed in the same media house’s sister property gets paid on the dot each month. I’m also researching into the equally oft repeated mantra of the media’s dependency on government ads for its revenue and how the slash in that has impacted the industry.

Journalists deserve accolades for working against the backdrop of financial insecurity. I’ve spoken with at least two dozen journalists in different newsrooms, who said they felt trapped because they were unable to find better paying jobs. I also spoke to six people in hiring positions who complained they could not fit suitable staff. I feel for the underpaid, but also for the under-qualified staff on the desks and have zero sympathy for the owners whose lives have not been impacted by the so-called financial hardship they’re claiming.

A polarised landscape

Okay, back to the highly polarised media landscape, wherein you can pick the narrative of your liking for your informational needs. (I’m not referring to social-media only accounts that create “cute” easy to share posts that suit one’s already cemented position and gain a lot of traction, especially on Whatsapp. This is not news, this is propaganda.)

Within the mainstream media, one could still find a semblance of reality in a handful of outlets, especially legacy newspapers whose digital properties amplified the stories. Of course, you think, I would say this given that I’m writing for one of them, but this isn’t my first [media outlet] rodeo. I’ve seen how theirs are the stories that often get traction on social media — their reports, their editorials and their features. And it makes sense because they have the funds to spend, even if they don’t have the money for salaries. They still practice some of the elements of journalism and remain fiercely pro-democracy. They are able to contextualise events for you. They’re not just shilling for someone. Naziha Syed Ali’s investigative reporting is one example from DawnAnsar Abbasi’s reporting in The News is arguably another.

But these are just small islands of excellence amid a vast sea of mediocrity. To understand just how hard it is to report in Pakistan without fear of censure or consequences, imagine this: Ahmad Noorani’s report about Gen (retd) Bajwa’s family’s wealth was a big story to come out of an independent digital outlet. However, it only really got picked up in the mainstream when finance minister Ishaq Dar said he wanted to know how the former COAS’ information was leaked. These are the conditions journalists work under.

Nevertheless, 2022 was a year of big events in Pakistan — reporting on the lead up to, and then after, the vote of no-confidence, the floods and the change of command in the military come immediately to mind.

On that front, legacy media outlets did well in their reporting, especially given the restraints on them, be it from Pemra or well … you know where — the dreaded sword that needs no legal cover to strike to take you off air or muzzle owners into silencing editors. Editors took bold stances in their editorials, reporters went the extra mile in verifying stories before printing, journalists asked tough questions from people in power. Journalists like Sadaf Naeem put their lives on the line to get the job done. At least 53 journalists have been murdered in the last decade. There is no accountability.

The manner in which Arshad Sharif’s murder was covered is another example of partisanship and outlets pushing particular narratives — either for someone else or for their own interests. Amid all this, Twitter often plays the role of ombudsman — calling out media outlets for errors, from typos to misidentified people, places etc.

It’s a reminder of the pressure in digital newsrooms competing against social media to get the story out and errors will happen.

Working conditions

Of course, there are innumerable faults in the way the news is pushed out, but my point here is to shine a light on the miserable working conditions for so many people on the desk and in the field trying to get information across to audiences. The pressure in digital media is especially daunting, given that one is competing with social media where there are no checks and balances.

The errors, typos and editorial judgments that prove foolish in hindsight have been, and are, de rigueur in the newsroom, but the role of the journalist has evolved over the years and needs an urgent revisit.

For that, newsroom leadership needs to do better. And for that, everyone involved in the making of the news needs to revisit the purpose of journalism itself.

“The purpose of journalism is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism. “Rather, the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”

Are media owners hiring the right leaders to run newsrooms tasked with ensuring best practices in reporting, editing and disseminating information? Are newsroom leaders working towards ending income inequality at the workplace and creating an environment that makes staff’s lives better? What is the role of the HR department really, because right now, it is embarrassing; they enable abusers and serve to please masters. Moreover, job insecurity cuts across departments in news organisastions.

It is simply impossible to assess the highs and lows in media coverage without highlighting working conditions in newsrooms because that impacts how you receive the news. Those who make the news you want to hear during prime time receive the highest ratings on TV, thus the highest salary. Even though the demographics of who watches TV is on the decline.

Most media owners’ understanding of the digital landscape — for example, who consumes what and where, and how that impacts advertisers — is flawed because they are reliant on newsroom leaders to give them that information, but those men (almost always men) are holding onto power and some distorted reality of audience needs.

I’m struck by what Professor Victor Pickard of the University of Pennsylvania wrote in Nieman Lab, where he said people point fingers in several directions when trying to understand the “wild fluctuations of the news industry” but don’t discuss the main culprit: capitalism.

“It is capitalism that incentivises the degradation of our news media — disinvesting in local journalism, weaponising social media to capture our attention and data, and devaluing media workers’ labour conditions. All the while, commercial media outlets treat news as a commodity, not a public service, and audiences as consumers, not engaged citizens,” he writes.

Since Gen Musharraf liberalised the media, more and more businessmen have entered the industry with a singular goal of maximising their profits. They are not concerned with the press’ role in ensuring a functioning democracy.

The billionaires buying up the media to turn into, as Professor Pickard writes, “their personal plaything” has dangerous consequences — as we can see all over the world (looking at you Elon Musk). Even in Pakistan, a small number of people control a few media outlets, allowing them to shape public opinion to tailor their business needs if they wanted to.

It’s overwhelming to imagine a media system not dependent on the market, but perhaps there are glimmers of hope on the horizon. I know at least one editor who is venturing out on his own to create a 360 website — text, video, audio — focused solely on investigative journalism.

Perhaps a non-profit model is in the works in Pakistan somewhere? Perhaps systems will be in place in the near future to allow audiences to make micropayments for incisive fair reporting on important issues that don’t make it to mainstream media. Perhaps we can hope for activism in press unions that address the systemic inequalities in salaries and working conditions among journalists.

In April last year, I wrote about the need for public media and how it can help “fill the gap and provide fair news and diverse programming which reflects Pakistan’s plural society.” I know it cannot happen overnight, not even the next few years, but imagining a “post commercial system that privileges democracy over profit” as Professor Pickard writes, is worth fighting for.


Source link

Continue Reading


Why social media makes you feel bad



Have you ever found yourself scrolling through social media and noticed you felt a bit down? Maybe a little envious? Why aren’t you on a yacht? Running a startup? Looking amazing 24/7?

The good news is you are not alone. Although social media has some benefits, it can also make us feel a little depressed.

Why does social media make us feel bad?

As humans we inherently compare ourselves to others to determine our self-worth. Psychologists call this social comparison theory.

We primarily make two types of comparisons: upward and downward comparisons.


Upward comparisons occur when we compare ourselves to someone else (in real life or on social media) and feel they are better than us (an unfavourable comparison for us) in whatever domain we are assessing (such as status, beauty, abilities, success, and so on).

For example, comparing your day at work to your friend’s post from the ski fields (we’re looking at you Dave!) is likely to be an upward comparison. Another example is making appearance comparisons which can make you feel worse about yourself or your looks .

Although upward comparison can sometimes motivate you to do better, this depends on the change being achievable and on your esteem. Research suggests upward comparisons may be particularly damaging if you have low self-esteem.

In contrast, downward comparisons occur when we view ourselves more favourably than the other person – for example, by comparing yourself to someone less fortunate. Downward comparisons make us feel better about ourselves but are rare in social media because people don’t tend to post about the mundane realities of life.


Comparisons in social media

Social media showcases the best of people’s lives. It presents a carefully curated version of reality and presents it as fact. Sometimes, as with influencers, this is intentional but often it is unconscious bias. We are just naturally more likely to post when we are happy, on holiday or to share successes – and even then we choose the best version to share.

When we compare ourselves to what we see on social media, we typically make upward comparisons which make us feel worse. We compare ourselves on an average day to others on their best day. In fact, it’s not even their best day. It’s often a perfectly curated, photoshopped, produced, filter-applied moment. It’s not a fair comparison.

That’s not to say social media is all bad. It can help people feel supportedconnected, and get information. So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, keep your social media use in check with these tips.


Concrete ways you can make yourself feel better about social media

Monitor your reactions. If social media is enjoyable, you may not need to change anything – but if it’s making you exhausted, depressed or anxious, or you are losing time to mindless scrolling, it’s time for change.

Avoid comparisons. Remind yourself that comparing your reality with a selected moment on social media is an unrealistic benchmark. This is especially the case with high-profile accounts who are paid to create perfect content.

Be selective. If you must compare, search for downward comparisons (with those who are worse off) or more equal comparisons to help you feel better. This might include unfollowing celebrities, focusing on real posts by friends, or using reality focused platforms like BeReal.

Redefine success. Influencers and celebrities make luxury seem like the norm. Most people don’t live in pristine homes and sip barista-made coffee in white sheets looking perfect. Consider what real success means to you and measure yourself against that instead.

Practise gratitude. Remind yourself of things that are great in your life, and celebrate your accomplishments (big and small!). Create a “happy me” folder of your favourite life moments, pics with friends, and great pictures of yourself, and look at this if you find yourself falling into the comparison trap.

Unplug. If needed, take a break, or cut down. Avoid mindless scrolling by moving tempting apps to the last page of your phone or use in-built focus features on your device. Alternatively, use an app to temporarily block yourself from social media.

Engage in real life. Sometimes social media makes people notice what is missing in their own lives, which can encourage growth. Get out with friends, start a new hobby, embrace life away from the screen.

Get amongst nature. Nature has health and mood benefits that combat screen time.

Be the change. Avoid only sharing the picture-perfect version of your life and share (in a safe setting) your real life. You’d be surprised how this will resonate with others. This will help you and them feel better.

Seek help. If you are feeling depressed or anxious over a period of time, get support. Talk to your friends, family or a GP about how you are feeling. Alternatively contact one of the support lines like LifelineKids Helpline, or 13Yarn.


Source link

Continue Reading


Canada adds Russian media personalities, companies in latest round of sanctions



OTTAWA — Canada has announced it is imposing a new round of sanctions on Russian media personalities and companies accused of spreading disinformation about Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly announced the latest sanctions against 38 individuals and 16 entities, saying those affected are propagating Russian President Vladimir Putin’s lies.

Among those added to Canada’s blacklist are several Russian singers, including former contestants on the popular Eurovision singing contest, as well as actors and athletes.

The list also includes one of Russia’s largest state-owned media groups, MIA Rossiya Segodnya, which owns and operates a large number of Russian-language companies.


Many of the new additions had already been sanctioned by Canada’s allies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nearly a year ago.

The new measures come amid questions about the effectiveness of Canada’s sanctions regime.

The Canadian Press reported this week that as of June 7, Canada had ordered $123 million in assets within Canada frozen, and $289 million in transactions had been blocked under sanctions prohibitions related to Russia.

But by late December, the RCMP said only $122 million in assets were listed as seized, and $292 million in transactions had been blocked despite hundreds more people associated with Russia being put on the sanctions list.

The police force did not provide an explanation for why the sums reported by financial institutions had hardly changed during that period.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 3, 2023.


The Canadian Press

Continue Reading