Freedom of the Press and of Information
(March 16 - 28, 2003)
by Rob Ramos
 |
| Rob
Ramos |
I. Meeting the Group
I’ve attended a few dozen seminars at least since I became active
in the “Movement” back in 1998. I’ve observed that what always
poses as a… hurdle of some significance seems to be that first
conversation, that initial “hi, I’m…” that can and often does
set the tone for how well your activity will go. Seminars and
Conferences are people-based, therefore the importance in making
sure your delegates jive well.
So there I was, several thousand kilometers from home, the solo
Filipino in a group of over two dozen – possibly one of the youngest,
too – and I was wondering how to set up that opening “hi” with
my soon-to-be colleagues.
What better way to start then with my “cab-mate?” Karl, one of
the staff at the Akademie, was waiting for late little me (no
thanks to Swiss Air) at Cologne with my colleague from Indonesia,
Khaidir. Despite the differences in age and his difficulty with
English (making me think that maybe I should have learned Bahasa
back in college), we got to talking and exchanging notes. Upon
arrival at the Akademie at about 1:00 p.m., we immediately hooked
up with four more fellow delegates who were having their post-lunch
conversation.
Looking back at it now, it wasn’t as difficult as I thought it
would be, even given the differences in cultures and a pronounced
language barrier (for the remainder of the seminar, we would be
split into three major language groups for convenience of translation
during activities: English for the majority of delegates, Russian,
and Spanish for the Latin Americans). Thankfully, two of the delegates
were proficient enough in English to translate for the Russian
and Latin American groups. But generally, it was how the group
introduced itself to its members: clumps of conversation groups
would gravitate to other groups until we would be moving chairs
and tables here and there to accommodate everyone. By the time
of the Welcome Address and first dinner, nearly every IAF delegate
had met his or her colleagues.
II. First Activities
The next day, the IAF delegates were made to
introduce a designated colleague as a form of icebreaker. The
additional, more detailed information on our fellow delegates
was a wonderful addition to the initial conversations of opening
day.
Dr. Robert Haas and Dr. Ahmed Bedjaoui were
the two facilitators and Dr. Haas started with two lectures, followed
by the Regional Reports of Africa and Latin America. The Latin
American contingent would give quite a report – creatively and
beautifully presented – that would set the standard for the remaining
regions.
A note on the Breaks. Like I said, I’m no stranger
to seminars and conferences. In fact have organized and even designed
several. Because of time constraints – usually averaging two days,
two nights – we rarely allocate much time for breaks in-between
sessions, and sometimes these short breaks get eaten up by the
sessions themselves and become “working breaks.” We usually leave
the activity’s evenings as the time for informal delegate interaction.
In contrast, the IAF breaks are lengthy enough to engage in serious
conversation among delegates (over a cup of nicely brewed coffee)
in the spacious and conducive lounge of the Akademie.
As Dr. Haas and Dr. Bedjoui would comment at
the end of the seminar, it would seem that nearly half our work
– the discussions on topics and issues, the exchange of information
on local conditions and tools of the trade, even serious debates
on the Iraq issue – was done during these breaks. Especially after
a lengthy lecture (and what lengthy lectures they were…), the
chance to flex our vocal chords and mental muscles were a welcome
relief. Furthermore, topics and issues tackled only lightly during
the lectures and exercises were expounded upon during these breaks,
the delegates launching into informal discussions and comparisons
of local conditions. Finally, it served as a good way to “recharge”
after some of the tough exercises we’d have later.
Of course, we were always on time for the next
session. Our efficient and effective Seminar Assistant, Jan Kolja
Shroeder, made sure of that.
III. The Camera Exercises
Most of the delegates were journalists, nearly
evenly split between Print and TV (if I remember correctly). The
few political operators present also had backgrounds in media.
None were inexperienced in media operations, and some were veterans
in their fields.
But none of our experiences – even for Dr.
Hanan Yousef or Natalija Trofimova, both of which have their own
TV news shows – would prepare us for the Camera Exercises.
The two-day session conducted by Ursula Werthmann,
a communications trainer, involved handling an interview and press
conferences. This was both for operations behind said camera as
well as in front of the camera, or being the subject of
the activity.
Even the veterans would find something new
in the exercises. For most, it would be their first time to face
a camera and be the subject for once. Even simple questions on
what one was doing in the Akademie or on the IAF program were
met with a certain sense of trepidation. Even Dr. Haas commented
after the first of the exercises that he felt like a novice.
The interviews were some of the best amateur
videos I’ve seen. Topics ranged from Akademie-related topics to
the war on Iraq (like the well-crafted interview on a “young Kofi
Annan” played by Driden Kunaka). The Latin Americans again showed
their creativity and flair, making an experimental video that
involved focusing on only one person at a time as compared to
the full-cast interviews done by everyone.
Good as the interviews were, the videos on
the mock-press conferences were both educational and entertaining.
Given a scenario involving an authoritarian government giving
a presscon, the delegates took to it with wild abandon. Split
into two groups, each with two delegates acting as government
representatives, the IAF members would be seen in the videos as
truly submerging themselves in their roles. Both sides would use
tactics familiar to all as either those usually used by government
and the press. Surprise proofs, additional information, denials
and the ubiquitous “no comment” and “next question please” would
all appear.
IV. The Mock UN Security Council Debate
Squeezed into the end of the second day of
camera exercises, the organizers decided to hold a Mock debate
of the UN Security Council on the Iraq issue (this was on Wednesday,
19 March 2003).
I’ve always been… fascinated with the American
stance on the issue, and admittedly share a certain sympathy with
some of the points raised by them. So in order to spare
my fellow delegates the difficulty of defending a stand they were
decidedly counter to, I volunteered to be the American representative
to the UNSC. Joining me were Quraysh Khan (Pakistan), Dainis Mikelsons
(Latvia), and Cecylia Njau (Tanzania). The four of us were facing
an assembly that, I knew, would not be amenable to the American
position of disarming Iraq by force if necessary.
It was perhaps one of the liveliest moments
of the whole seminar. Tired as we were from the Camera Exercises,
the delegates ably went about putting forward their groups’ positions.
As expected, the EU delegation was vehemently against the use
of force and the Non-Aligned Group, though less unequivocal, was
of the same mind.
I was told afterward that the American Delegation
gave a spirited defense of their position. At the time, I really
couldn’t see the effect on my fellow delegates. All I focused
on was in answering the points raised and keeping the discussion
centered on the issue at hand – i.e. Saddam Hussein, WMDs, Remember
9/11, the Kurds, the Iran-Iraq War and the Czechoslovakian “Precedent”
in World War 2, that the US wasn’t there to wage a war against
the Iraqis – and not on details like oil and imperialism. In fact,
I recall being told that I nearly convinced some of the EU and
Non-Aligned countries that the US position has enough merit!
Whether that is good or bad is something I’m
still reflecting on even as the actual war is winding down…
V. Dusseldorf
Our first time out of the Akademie was the
trip to Dusseldorf. After three intense days of exercises and
lectures, the trip was a welcome change.
To say the facility of North Rhine-Westphalia’s
Landtag is impressive is to say little indeed. The modern
structure was quite the sight inside and out. I remember commenting
more than once that if this is the facility for a State
Legislature, how’d their national Legislature look like?
Equally impressive were the representatives
of the FDP who took time out from their busy schedule to interact
with us. Dr. Friedrich Wilke, MP, gave us quite a few eye-openers
on the German Educational System, his background being that of
an academican. But several delegates, especially those engaged
in youth organizing, asked a lot of questions from Dr. Wilke’s
colleague, who is the youngest member of any of the Parliaments
in Germany. Of particular interest to the IAF were his background,
the beginnings of his political career and his life as a young
MP.
Afterwards, the IAF delegates took several
photos outside of the Landtag and proceeded to sample the
sights and sounds of Dusseldorf. We were advised by the organizers
that prices were rather high at Dusseldorf so we should save our
Euros for the longer Road Trip to the former East Germany. Still,
the girls from Africa must have a nose for bargains as they came
back later laden with stuff. Also, an interesting part of our
afternoon at Dusseldorf was eating at a Pizza Hut in Germany.
Somehow, I found it rather amusing that the first restaurant I’d
eat in during my first trip abroad is in a Pizza Hut. At least
it wasn’t in a McDonald’s.
VI. Road Trip: Nordhausen, Berlin and Magdeburg
Four days on the road, I remember thinking
that night we went back to the Akademie after Dusseldorf. Running
the program through my head in between sips of gin tonic at the
Akademie’s bar, I was trying to visualize what to expect. We were
informed already of the pronounced differences between the former
halves of Germany; I guess I was worried about any preconceived
bias coming from this description of the former East Germany.
But then, I can remember how excited I was about going to Berlin,
and a visit to a genuine Concentration Camp. Thoughts on seeing
the place where the Wall fell mixed in my mind with all those
readings during my Holocaust sessions in college.
One thing I admitted to myself, it would be
a very interesting four days.
Nordhausen came first. Unique among the Concentration
Camps, it was a late construction and served an entirely different
purpose (so it seemed) than the ones we’re used to hearing about.
There was little to see of the “aboveground” facilities as we
were told by the guide that most were flattened by an Allied bombing
run that mistakenly thought of the camp as an ammo dump.
It was the facility inside the mountain beside
the camp that spoke volumes of what was done in Nordhausen. All
my Holocaust readings during my Philosophy of Morality class in
the Ateneo spoke of camps whose very reason for existence was
to end that of one race. They spoke of systematic activities with
no apparent goal except in implementing the “Final Solution.”
Yet here was a facility that served as construction site for three
important Nazi weapons: the V1 and V2 rockets, and the first jet
fighter in the world. There I was staring at the remains of a
V2’s rocket engine and realizing for the first time just how big
a “buzzbomb” (the V1) was and that the guide was right in saying
it was the first cruise missile.
And there I was, looking at an 800m extent
of rock and reinforced concrete that served as quarters and workplace
for more than a thousand people…
It may have had a use – somehow! – I thought,
but did it make the Nordhausen camp any less than Auschwitz? And
a detail emphasized by the guide was how the German scientist
responsible for the designs of the V1 and V2 was also the same
man that headed the design team for the Saturn V rocket that brought
Apollo 11 to the Moon. I remember thinking if we who engage in
political work can really be that expedient. And if so,
should my Soul shudder at the thought at all that injustice just
because someone was, conveniently, possessed of a genius needed
by a nation?
With thoughts of the camp lying heavily in
my mental digestive system, we proceeded to the next stop. We
arrived at Magdeburg at about 6:00 p.m. or so and were surprised
at our accommodations: the Hotel Maritim! Everyone was of the
opinion that we were in a very impressive residence for
the remainder of our Road Trip.
Morning saw us making for Berlin. A guided
tour brought us around the rapidly-modernizing city. State-of-the-art
structures stood side by side with the architecture of Germany’s
imperial past. The Reichstag with its symbolic glass dome was
a stop for most of the delegates but a visit to Berlin would never
have been complete without crossing the Brandenburg Gate. An interesting
aside to our trip to Berlin was the anti-war demonstrations being
held near the embassies of the US and UK. Some of my journalist
colleagues took time out to interview the demonstrators.
One very informative part of the Berlin trip
was the talk given by Ms. Franziska Pagel, the lady in charge
of the FDP’s media group. Her presentation on the experiences
of the FDP regarding media operations and public relations gave
me a lot of ideas in transplanting such ideas and strategies to
the Philippine setting.
Back in Magdeburg for the third day of the
Road Trip, we visited the Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, the
Central German Broadcasting station in the city. Everyone was
decidedly impressed, I more so considering I’ve been to the facilities
of the two biggest national TV stations in the Philippines. Modern
equipment sat side by side with aesthetic taste in the facility.
It was the first time I’d seen overhead cameras and lights on
full-hydraulic control and under the direction of a specialized
desktop PC. Even their radio equipment, especially the audio mixers,
were highly computerized, allowing for “non-linear” and realtime
adjustments with the click of a mouse button. The afternoon saw
us at the Magdeburger Geenral-Anzeiger, a very modern print
media facility. One major concern with the company voiced by some
delegates was in its increased dependence on robotics (the facility
was almost entirely run by robots); some commented that “progress”
was taking its toll on the human workforce. Afterwards, the delegates
got the one activity they all looked-forward to: free time to
shop and look around, which nicely capped an educational but tiring
day.
On the fourth day, Dr. Lydia Huskens, FDP Party
Manager for the Parliamentary Group in the area of Saxony, gave
a talk on the challenges of Liberal Politics and the FDP in Germany.
With some three hours left before departing for the Akademie,
I took a quick lunch and had a last walk in the general area of
the hotel, saying goodbye to the Elbe and visiting the old Gothic
cathedral in the city.
VII. The Rupert Murdoch Case Study
Delayed due to technical problems in the second
day, we were finally shown the documentary on media tsar Rupert
Murdoch. In it, we were shown how powerful media can be and what
could happen if that power were irresponsibly applied.
The Rupert Murdoch Case Study, although it
did have the expected output from a group of Liberal journalists
and media operators, was interesting in what happened to the group
I was part of. We were split into three groups that would discuss
one of three questions given by the organizers. My team was assigned
the one dealing with irresponsible use of media power as a threat
to democracy. When Dr. Bedjoui called out the names for Group
2, I was sure it would be… lively, to say the least. He
had placed – whether intentionally or not, I don’t know – the
most strong-willed, opinionated and vocal members of the delegation
in a single group. Surprisingly, 7 out of 8 members of the group
had a unanimous decision. But our one dissenter insisted that
Murdoch was not a threat to democracy and in fact was the
embodiment of capitalism and the free market at its most
successful and creative best. We had to give her a crash course
in democracy and liberalism and ended up in a 1-against-7 debate
that had Group 1 (who was in the adjoining room) deciding whether
they should play the role of “UN Peacekeepers” for our Group.
In the end, the group decided to go with the majority decision
and respect our lone dissenter’s opinion by letting her defend
it in the Plenary.
VIII. The Internet
The last formal day of the seminar saw us discussing
the Internet. There was much commenting on how lightly the topic
was tackled but everyone agreed that time constraints prevented
a more thorough discussion of the subject. As it were, I’m of
the personal opinion that there was several points of information
that refreshed my knowledge of the Web and some new ones.
I was intrigued by this new technology our
speaker, Carl Philipp Burkert, told me during a break: it’s called
“wicky”, and he told me that it allows even programming-illiterates
like me to edit websites rapidly and effectively. As the LP recently
launched its own website, such new technologies and tools will
certainly help in making effective and efficient use of the resources
at our disposal.
IX. Final Activities
Of course, all things must come to an end.
The Farewell Dinner was quite a contrast to
the usual dining setup of the IAF with its solemnity, although
everyone, especially interpreters Dieter Schonebohm and Michael
Hasse with their “quotable quotes”, certainly made sure it wasn’t
a sad one.
The Akademie’s Bar had seen quite a number
of parties since our IAF group arrived. But we promised that the
Last Night would be unrivaled and it certainly was. The next morning,
I heard that one of the Akademie’s neighbors had to shout at our
group’s last remaining revelers – some never slept, as their flights
leave very early – at something like 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.
With my memories of the IAF Seminar on Freedom
of the Press and Freedom of Information, I told my unconscious
to the process the information of the last 12 days and bent my
mind to the long trip home.
Much thanks to the Akademie’s staff, not just
to Jan Kolja although our beloved Seminar Assistant was undoubtedly
one of the reasons why our stay was great and our exercises went
as well as they did. He was also a great source for all things
German and would go out of his way to assist us, even to lending
his laptop for rushed reports and escorting us to the bank during
our Road Trip. One particular Akademie staffer I have to especially
thank is Ms. Uwe Fischer, who never failed to cheer us lost little
delegates up with her sunny disposition when our travel details
were confusing and made sure that I would have a plane ticket
on the 28th by relentlessly bugging Swiss Air J
I got back safe and sound and quickly because of her, and any
delays – like the 7 hours in Zurich International and the 3 in
HK International – are not her fault but that of the incredible
carrier that I rode on and my rather undecided mind (as Ma’am
Miles will attest to). I must avoid Zurich International;
in the two times I’ve been there, something bad always
happened.
And there are the Interpreters. Not just functionaries,
but the incredible team of Dieter, Michael, sir Uwe and Ludmilla
made sure that few instances during the seminar were boring. The
Latin Americans and Russians would attest to this, as there were
times when there would be a “liberal” translation of some talks,
including commentaries from the translators that sent the Latin
Americans and Russians laughing and us English-speaking delegates
wondering why our colleagues were having so much fun during a
boring lecture.
