First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

The fall of communism in Europe opened a door to democracy and all the rights that come with it — freedom of press, speech, expression etc.

And the right to elect officials who might do all those other rights in. Such as the good people of Hungary.

The electorate reacted to eight years of bad governance and arrogance by the Socialist party by voted in a center-right candidate who railed against the elites and main stream media.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban proposed and his parliament enacted Dec. 21 a new media law with language that is deliberately vague but pleasant-sounding to the people of the country who dislike elites. The media law that could just have easily been written by the crew that used to run the country 25 years ago. (For the historically challenged, that would be the Communist Party.)

To be sure there was more to the Orban victory in April 2010. But the rhetoric focused on how the government was run by elites who had no respect for the common people.

The “populist” theme was added to the poor showing of the Hungarian economy. Then to tap the last nail into the Socialist’s party chances, a tape emerged of the then prime minister telling colleagues he lied to the voters and that hundreds of tricks kept the country from falling apart.

In April the Socialists were out and Orban was in.

Orban stepped right in to fix the problems of the country. In fact, he pledged to get Hungary’s economy back on track after the country required a bailout from the EU.

The only problem is that he saw any organization or group that opposed him to be part of the problem. And this problem had to be addressed before he could deal with the other issues facing the country. (Sound like a certain Venezuelan leader we all know?)

Anne Applebaum at SLATE reports that since taking office less than a year ago, Orban appointed a council to rewrite the constitution, cut funding for the national audit office and stripped the supreme court of its powers.

But it is the media law that is now getting attention. (After all, it was passed by the Orban-dominated parliament just this past week.)

Running to 180 pages, the law is pretty simple and vague — as is usually the case with people who want to do in freedom of press: “Do what we say or we will break you.”

Under the law:

• The government sets us a state-run media council — composed entirely of ruling party appointees.
• The media council is tasked with protecting “human dignity.”
• The media council can issue fines against news organizations up to US$1 million is the news reports are not balanced. (No definition on what “balanced” means.)
• The government has also ordered a limit on crime-related news. Such news cannot take up more than 20 percent of airtime. (And as usual with folks who try to control the media, the law does not define “crime” or mention if government corruption is included under the “crime” category.)

The law also seems to be reaching to give the government the power to censor the Internet. Here the government seems to be relying on the “human dignity” aspect of the law. Can you say “Great Firewall of Hungary”? (Maybe they can cut a deal with China and Iran to get the technology and cheap staff to monitor the Internet.)

To be sure, not everyone is sitting still for this.

Right from the start, journalists in Hungary and Europe stepped up almost as soon as the legislation was introduced: Protests at new media law in Hungary.

And again when the law was passed: Adam Michnik Editorial Criticising Media Legislation in Hungary.

Within days of the law’s passage, the chilling effect was seen in a radio interview.

Journalist Sandor Jaszberenyi was on Radio Kossuth’s morning show Dec. 28. Before taking a question about plans to open the abandoned Chernobyl reactor site to tourists, the journalist asked for a minute’s silence in protest at the media law.

The show’s host cut short the interview. Listeners then heard the radio station’s theme tune for a while. When the show restarted it was without Jaszbberenyi.

Jaszberenyi said the incident was an example of how self- censorship was already in place in Hungary.

His was not the first act of defiance on the air against the law by working journalists. The day the law was passed, two Radio Kossuth presenters interrupting their program for a minute’s silence.

They were suspended indefinitely by the station.

This legislation also came at a very embarrassing time for the European Union. Hungary is taking over the rotating presidency of the EU. The EU has raised a number of issues with Hungary over the law.

Hungarian parliamentarians say the door is not locked on making changes.

A leading member of the ruling party in parliament told the BBC that if the law was applied “in a wrong way, or there are problems” parliament would change it.

But then he fell back on the old chestnut of all those who want to stop a free press from looking into how things are done in government. He said they want to “improve” journalism in Hungary and “not to wage a war” against it.

For my money, whenever a government tries to dictate how journalism should be done, it is waging war on it.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World

Reporters Without Borders has a great list of governments that are “Enemies of the Internet.”

And there are no real surprises. The hostility governments in places such as Burma, China, Cuba exhibit toward freedom of speech, press and expression is well documented. What I like about the RSF Internet list is the detail it provides about those governments.

For example in China we learn more than just the Great Firewall is functioning but also that the number of Internet users in the country exceeds the population of the United States (384 million Chinese Internet users v. 308 million people in the United States.)

We also learn that the average cost of one hour of Internet cafe time is US$2/hour. To me this is interesting because the average MONTHLY wage in China is US$219-274.

And we learn that 72 “netizens” are in Chinese jails, among them Nobel Peace Prize winner Lio Xaiobo who is serving an 11-year jail term for writing his opinions on the Internet and helping launch Charter 08.

We also see more details about the censoring of information in China and its impact on a generation of Chinese:

On the eve of the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square events, a dozen websites such as Twitter, YouTube, Bing, Flickr, Opera, Live, WordPress and Blogger were blocked. The information blackout has been so well-enforced for the last 20 years that the vast majority of young Chinese citizens are not even aware that the events of June 1989 ever happened.

Other countries listed as enemies of the Internet are:

• Burma: Two high-ranking government officials sentenced to death for having e-mailed documents abroad: Net censorship is a serious matter in Burma. Massive filtering of websites and extensive slowdowns during times of unrest are daily occurrences for the country’s Internet users.
• Cuba: Despite a few improvements, Internet access actually remains beyond the reach of most of the population because of its high cost and low connection speeds. The regime, which maintains two parallel network, is now taking aim at a small blogger community that is becoming increasingly active.
• Egypt: Since early 2007, the government has been reinforcing Web surveillance in the name of the fight against terrorism, under the iron fist of a special department of Egypt’s Ministry of Interior. Facebook is monitored, rather than blocked, so that activists can be observed or arrested. Authorities are monitoring their people’s emails and telephone calls without any court order, by virtue of the Telecommunications Law, which requires Internet service providers to supply them with the necessary surveillance services and equipment.
• Iran: Censorship is a core part of Iran’s state apparatus. Internet surveillance has been centralized, thereby facilitating implementation of censorship.
• North Korea: Let’s start with an average charge for one hour’s connection at a cybercafé at US$8.19 with an average monthly salary of US$17.74. The large majority of the population is not even aware that the Internet exists. An extremely limited Intranet has been created, but few can access it.
• Saudi Arabia: Websites that broach the subject of religion, human rights or positions taken by the opposition are rendered inaccessible. Far from denying it, the authorities maintain that their censorship decisions are justified and claim to have blocked some 400,000 websites.
• Syria: The country is reinforcing its censorship of troublesome topics on the Web and tracking netizens who dare to express themselves freely on it. As a result, social networks have been particularly targeted by omnipresent surveillance.
• Tunisia: The Internet is seen as a potential threat to the country’s stability and image and is thus the target of pernicious censorship. Very strict filtering, opponent harassment and Big Brother-like surveillance enable the authorities to keep tight control over the news media.
• Turkmenistan: Very strict filtering is now focused on critical publications likely to target local users and potential dissidents. Opposition websites and regional news sites covering Central Asia are also blocked. YouTube and LiveJournal are rendered inaccessible.
• Uzbekistan: This country is deprived of independent media outlets. The authorities impose a very strict Internet censorship, while refusing to admit it publicly. Website filtering, sanctions and intimidation are used against potential critics of the regime. Netizens have learned to practice self-censorship.
• Vietnam: The government claims to filter only content that is obscene or endangers national security, but censorship also affects opposition websites or those that are in any way critical of the regime. Censorship primarily involves blocking website addresses, and particularly concerns sites in Vietnamese.

Then there are countries the RSF is keeping an eye on, such as Australia:

Under the guise of fighting child pornography, the government wants to set up a filtering system never before seen in a democracy. The State of South Australia has passed a law prohibiting online anonymity in an electoral context.

And South Korea:

The authorities are using the criminalization of defamation against their critics and do not hesitate to make examples of them. Since June 2008, a dozen Web surfers have been briefly arrested and interrogated for having posted online comments critical of the government within the context of these demonstrations.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

It’s that time of year again when special interest groups and news outlets publish their list of the Top 10 stories of the year. And this being a “10″ year, we also get a few Top 10 stories of the decade.

But leave it to the political masters in Beijing to miss some of the great stories in China.

What were China’s top stories in 2010?

By David Bandurski

With a list of candidates for the “Top Ten Domestic Stories of the Year“, an online survey feature released over the weekend and shared on most major news portals, People’s Daily Online packaged a politically tidy version of China’s headlines in 2010. Missing from the list of options to be selected from web users between December 17 and December 27 — with the winners announced afterwards — were not just odd favorites, but critical and defining stories, such as the ongoing burden of housing prices and a series of violent attacks on school children in April and May.

In the comments section at People’s Daily Online, web users noted a number of conspicuous absences. “I think the whole ‘My Dad is Li Gang‘ story deserves to be number one,” wrote one respondent, referring to an October incident in which the son of an influential police official in Hubei province struck and killed two female students while driving his sedan across a university campus.

The Hubei story drew a wave of public outrage after it emerged that the official’s son, when finally stopped by students and security guards, had stepped out of his car and threatened, “My Dad is Li Gang! You just try to sue me!” Bans on the reporting of this sensitive story followed quickly, and the university campus was reportedly under lockdown. Just last week, the lawyer representing the parents of one of the victims was attacked by unidentified assailants.

But no one will be casting votes for the Li Gang story, which didn’t make the short list of candidates at People’s Daily Online. A user sarcastically identified as “the river crab is so yellow and so violent“; (a reference to censorship masquerading under the official banner of ‘harmony’) wrote: “With even Li Gang not on the list, this whole thing is so obviously a fraud!”

Rest of story

As expected there was no mention of the first Chinese winning the Nobel Peace Prize. There were some online commentators who noted this omission, but who — for obvious reasons — played it safe.

In order to remove the obvious red flags, the user replaced the characters for “peace” + “prize”, or heping jiang with the same-sounding characters “crane” + “level” + “palm”, or heping zhang.

The list of 15 stories the censors and political masters put out for the people to “vote” on for the top 10 is a list of self-serving stories about great political strides made by the Communist Party and how wonderful China is.

1. The Fifth Plenary Conference of the 17th Central Committee of the CCP is held in Beijing (October)
2. CCP organizations and Party members at the grassroots levels launch intensive campaigns to encourage them to excel in their performance (April-May)
3. The Shanghai World Expo is held successfully, showing off the fruits of urban civilization (May-October)
4. The Central Party leadership introduces successive policies to adjust housing and product prices, controlling the rise of property and product prices
5. The government launches the country’s first medium and long-term talent plan (May)
6. 30-year anniversary celebrations held for Shenzhen, Shantou and Zhuhai (September)
7. Strengthening cross-straits economic ties (June)
8. China’s 6th National Census begins (November)
9. Implementation of the National Plan for the Medium and Long-term Reform and Development of the Education System (July)
10. The Chang’e 2 satellite is successfully launched (October)
11. Track laying was completed for the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway (November)
12. Guangzhou successfully hosts the 2010 Asian Games (November-December)
13. An earthquake strikes Yushu County in Qinghai province (April 14)
14. A mudslide suddenly strikes Zhouqu County in Gansu province, killing around 1,000 people (August 7)
15. 115 die and 38 are rescued in a mining disaster in Wangjialing, Shanxi province (March)

Of the stories the rest of the world think are significant that weren’t on the list included two about how the Chinese government really sees the whole issue of free press and expression:

• Xie Chaoping arrested for work of reportage exposing abuses during the building of the Sanmen Dam project in the 1950s (The Guardian: “Writer Xie Chaoping detained in Shanxi”)
• Google Exits Mainland China (January) (Forbes: “Google Takes on China”)
• Li Hongzhong NPC shouts at Beijing Times reporter (March)
  • During this year’s session of the National People’s Congress, Hubei Governor Li Hongzhong became furious when a reporter from the Beijing Times, a commercial spin-off of the Party’s official People’s Daily, asked a question about the Deng Yujiao case in 2009. Grabbing the reporter’s digital recorder from her hand, Li fumed: “You’re from People’s Daily and you ask such a question? Is this the kind of mouthpiece you are? Is this how you guide public opinion? What is your name? I want to find your boss!” Hundreds of professional journalists responded with an open letter calling on Li to publicly apologize.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Hal Roberts at the Watching Technology blog at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society has an interesting report about how the Belarus government seems to be playing dirty tricks on the opposition candidates and media outlets in that country.

Roberts, who monitors access to the Internet and Distributed Denial of Service attacks has been receiving reports of DDoS attacks against a number of media and opposition party sites leading up to Sunday’s election. He points out that a DDoS is the first step any dictator uses to prevent the opposition from building up a following.

There are also reports that the international connections necessary to send securely posted content to places such as Gmail, Facebook and Twitter are being blocked. And the blocking seems to be for all international sites not just ones the government might find offensive.

But just to make sure that the opposition does not get a fair break online, BELPAK, the Belarussian national ISP, apparently was redirecting requests from independent media sites to copies presumably run by pro-government forces and maybe the government itself. (Kind of like a government sanctioned Yes Men.)

That means as people — or news organizations — try to access the opposition parties or independent news media, they are diverted to a fake site that looks like the original. The benefit for the government is that it can remove anything it doesn’t like and no one would be the wiser.

By election day some of the diverting ceased, according the Roberts’ sources.

Why is it important for journalists to know about this?

1. As with the democracies, the websites of the media and political parties are important tools in getting more information about the campaign.
2. With few foreign correspondents on the ground in Belarus, the Internet connections to conduct e-mail interviews and to research the campaigns are vital.
3. Knowing about the hacks and attacks on independent media and political parties helps provide more information about the nature of the government of a country. And knowing the nature of a government helps explain (or put into context) government and opposition statements about social issues and the elections.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

A lot of us who pay attention to foreign affairs have resigned ourselves to at least a couple of years of serious attacks on the foreign policy apparatus in the United States along with efforts to make every international issue a U.S. domestic blood-sport issue.

Members of Congress can often get away with taking pot shots at the foreign affairs apparatus with impunity. Practically no one back home cares. So, as long as the House member or Senator takes care of constituent services, he/she will not face any grief on anything related to diplomacy or development.

And because the bean counters at major media outlets still think that only LOCAL! LOCAL! LOCAL! will save their news outlets, the U.S. media are pretty quiet about most international issues. This allows many of the international issues and programs to be attacked.

The GOP leadership has already indicated it wants the State Department budget cut and to shift the emphasis on U.S. aid to force overhaul at the United Nations.

And now, even before they take over the House, the GOP House leadership blocked the passage of a bill that Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supported. The bill would have committed the United States to combating forced child marriages abroad.

First they objected to the cost. And when that argument failed, the GOP leadership shifted the focus to the threat that money used to protect girls from forced marriages would be used to fund abortions.

I’ll let Republican Congressman Stephen LaTourrette of Ohio talk about what happened:

“Yesterday I was on the floor and I was a co-sponsor with [on] a piece of legislation with [Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)] that would have moved money, no new money, would have moved money so that societies that are coercing young girls into marriage… we could make sure that they stay in school so they’re not forced into marriage at the age of 12 and 13. All of a sudden there was a fiscal argument. When that didn’t work people had to add an abortion element to it. This is a partisan place. I’m a Republican. I’m glad we beat their butt in the election, but there comes a time when enough is enough.”

And for the record, the bill did not include any funding for abortion activities. U.S. government funding for abortion activities is already prohibited by the “Helms Amendment,” which has been standard language in appropriations bills since 1973.

The issue of forced marriages is becoming a major issue on the international scene, which is probably why not many Americans are aware of the issue.

According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, about 60 million women in developing countries between the ages of 20 and 24 were married before they reached 18. The Population Council estimates that number will increase by 100 million over the next decade.

The fact that a bill that received massive support from Democrats and Republicans (even very conservative Republicans) could be so easily derailed is symptomatic of a public disengaged with the rest of the world.

Sure I blame the politicians for being crass and looking for every advantage. But that is what politicians do. It is expected.

But educating the public and making them aware of what is going on so that the citizens of a democracy can be well-informed and weigh in on issues of concern is what the media are supposed to do. And in that job, we are failing.

The issue of forced marriages got only one brief article in the past month. It was written by the Institute for War and Peace and carried on the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader website. (Only the Foreign Policy magazine website had a story about the House action.)

Sure we all saw the horrific picture of the 20-year Afghan woman who was mutilated by her father-in-law when she tried to escape from her abusive husband.(And yes, that was a forced marriage.) But after that, the issue dropped. The issue of forced marriages in Afghanistan is a daily concern to girls in that country.

It is not hard to find stories about forced marriages in the United States. The hard party is first realizing it is an issue and then connecting this global embarrassment with the local community.

Here are some ideas:

• Go to the UNICEF website and search “forced marriage.” You will find dozens of articles and videos from around the world about this issue. This place will give you some basic information about the issue.
• Does your area have a large group of immigrants from the countries mentioned in the UNICEF articles? If so, go interview civic and religious leaders from that community to see what they have to say about the practice.
• Talk with local school counselors. What are they seeing in terms of young marriages. Are they seeing any U.S. versions of forced marriages (think “shot-gun weddings.”)
• Talk with local religious leaders about the issue of young marriage and forced marriages. What do the various faiths have to say about forcing a 10-year old-girl to be engaged to a 40-year-old man?
• Talk to junior high and high school students — especially girls — and ask them what they know about this issue. What are their reactions?

I will bet you will see more local connections to this story than you might think.

This does not have to be a crusade or a campaign against any one country or faith. But it will be a way to get local people looking at a global issue.

And maybe, just maybe, it will get local citizens urging their elected representatives to look at the big picture of foreign affairs instead of the political points that can be scored.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Yesterday (12/16) There was a great conference on secrecy and journalism held by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism called From Watergate to Wikileaks: Secrecy and journalism in the new media age.

The list of panelists and speakers included the top names in new and old media. And fortunately for those of us who were no where near Harvard yesterday, videos and blogs are posted on the Nieman site.

Some sample Tweets from the session on Whither the Gatekeeper? Navigating New Rules and Roles in the Age of Radical Transparency:

BBCPhilippaT: Washington Post “veteran” intelligence reporter Walter Pincus: #wikileaks is one more source but one that plays a clever PR game#niemanleaks

Jonathan Seitz: WP: MY resposiblity is to lay out a standard. 1. is it true? 2. is it relevant? in context? 3. Is is something that I think the public ought to know?

Jonathan Seitz: WP: I think the wikileaks release left it up to journalists to decide what to print.. and I think that’s the right thing.

lalorek: Lesson from Wikileaks is there is a huge amount of material coming out of government that people just don’t read, says Pincus #NiemanLeaks

NiemanReports: Danielle Brian (POGO) at #niemanLeaks conf : It doesn’t matter if WikiLeaks is journo org. 1st A. applies to everyone http://bit.ly/eYfAcp

BBCPhilippaT: “Just having access to the data doesnt mean that we can understand it”. Need journalists to break that barrier. Clint Hendler #niemanleaks

Here is a list of the sessions with links to the pages of blogs and Tweets:

KEYNOTE I

Journalism’s Role: Freedom of Information in the Digital Age (9:10 – 9:50 a.m.)

PANEL I: GLOBAL STRUGGLE

Prosecuted, Banned, Blamed: Reporters Push Boundaries as a Voice of Public Accountability (10 – 11:15 a.m.)

PANEL II: NATIONAL CHALLENGES

Whither the Gatekeeper? Navigating New Rules and Roles in the Age of Radical Transparency (11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m.)

KEYNOTE II

Secrets, National Security and the Press: Does WikiLeaks Change Anything? (1:15 – 2:15 p.m.)

PANEL III: FUTURE OF TRANSPARENCY

Secrets 2.0: Exploring Entrepreneurial Answers to Journalistic Obligations (2:30 – 4:30 p.m.)

A professor at Peking University seems to think that any media outlet that runs a story critical of a government agency should be sued and shut down. (Are Chinese media a public nuisance?)

Kong Qingdong, a China studies professor,recently said that “Journalists are a major public nuisance in our country. If these journalists were all lined up and shot, I would feel heartache for not a single one of them.”

Specifically Kong was commenting on Guangdong’s Nanfang Media Group, which has well-deserved reputation for serious outspoken coverage of hard news. It often receives criticism from government agencies for its in-depth and investigative coverage.

Kong said earlier this month: “I believe that the people of China should sue the Nanfang newspaper group, which every day defiles the revolutionary martyrs [of the country], besmirches the Party and the national government, and debases the Chinese people.”

You will notice that his comments fit the official Chinese government and ruling party ideas about the responsibilities and duties of journalism. Loyalty is first to the Communist Party, then to the national and local governments and then the people.

Compare that to the SPJ Code of Ethics that states in the preamble: “The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.”

And then later: “Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.”

The Nanfang Media Group operates publications that are arguably China’s most respected professional newspapers, including the Southern Metropolis Daily, Southern Weekly and Southern Metropolis Weekly. These publications regularly push the envelope of Chinese censorship. Often with serious consequences to its staff.

Editors and reporters from these news organizations have regularly been punished and fined by the national and local governments for their reporting. Some have been fired. Some exiled to distant provinces and some prosecuted.

Kong issued his view of the Nanfang group’s form of journalism after he was asked about statements made by the top official in Choingqing’s security bureau, Wang Lijun.

During a police conference on October 16, 2010, Wang Lijun said that his agency would sue any media organization or journalist who attacked the reputation of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau or the civil police force. He added that the bureau would assist individual civil police officers in filing suits if any were singled out for media attention.

To their credit, many journalists and news organizations stepped up to attack Kong for his attacks on journalists.

Guangzhou’s Yangcheng Evening News warned its readers about the overt Cultural Revolution overtones in Kong’s remarks.

“Kong Qingdong has made no secret of the fact that he is infatuated with the culture of the Cultural Revolution and beautifies the Cultural Revolution era,” the editorial said. “These calumnies that have so shocked people and filled them with unease are legacies of the language of the Cultural Revolution.”

Just so everyone remembers, the Cultural Revolution most likely caused more deaths than any other man-made event and set back China’s development by decades.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Yoani Sánchez, award-winning blogger in Cuba, had an interesting look at the whole WikiLeaks situation.

One point is the one made over and over by diplomats and observers of the global scene:

What happened in recent days will significantly change how governments manage information and also the ways through which we citizens get a hold of it.

But then she looks at the domestic situation in Cuba.

But also — let’s not fool ourselves — those regimes that are based on silence and the lack of transparency, will reinforce the protection of their secrets, or avoid putting them in writing….This lesson has already been practiced for decades, if not, when the day comes that those Cuban archives will be declassified, I will be searching them to see if they record the name of the person who decided to execute the three men who hijacked a ferry in 2003 to emigrate.

And she is right. The last thing any dictator wants is for a paper trail to exist of who did what during the periods of repression. Because one of these days, the dictators will fall. And those who tortured and killed in the name of that dictatorship will have to be held accountable.

I can hardly wait to see what Yoani has to say about Ecured.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Freedom of speech and press go hand in hand with freedom to access information. In the democracies the battle has always been to pry loose information from governments by the free press.

In a society with a free press, people depend on an independent media to tell them what is going on. And by and large there is a trust that what is reported is not vetted by some lackey for a political or economic reason.much less on rumors.

In other countries where the media are controlled by the government, rumors take the place of the media for getting information. (I still recall when the Chinese government was banning all discussion of SARS how rumors in southern China ran rampant. One particular rumor was that this strange new disease was the result of the accidental release of an experimental virus being developed by the Chinese and US intelligence services. Yep. Some folks actually believed that.)

Even in the dictatorships, however, people are finding ways to use the Internet to find information that might be contrary to official government dictates.

So what does any self-respecting dictator do? He sets up a “reference” site so people can see online “facts” that back up the government line.

The latest effort comes from Cuba.

Cuba launches online encyclopaedia similar to Wikipedia

Ecured was developed, says the Cuban government “to create and disseminate the knowledge of all and for all, from Cuba and with the world.”

It wants people to know things from an organization that is democratic, non-profit and opposed to colonization. (Amazing how dictators twist words. Like, I always figured if a country had to call itself a “people’s republic,” it was neither.)

The new service launched today (Dec. 14).

Some news organizations report that the entry on the USA is that the country has historically taken “by force territory and natural resources from other nations, to put at the service of its businesses and monopolies.”

And current Cuban leader Raul Castor is a visionary and charismatic political and revolutionary leader. EcuRed adds that Raul plays and important role in the sovereignty and independence of Cuba.

Nothing like a little fair and balanced information.

p.s. Damnedest thing is that I can get to the main page but any searches come up with an error message. Guess the server in Cuba is being overloaded with people looking for a non-colonial view of the world.

Since 2006 Nick Kristof has been running a Win-A-Trip contest. And the trips are not to resorts or 4-star hotel sites. Think Cameroon or Central Africa.

He’s not sure where the 2011 trip will go but here is the kind of person he is looking for:

The truth is, I’m not entirely sure – except that I want someone with excellent communication skills, who can blog and vlog (video blog) in ways that will capture the interest of other readers. If you’ve done blogging, vlogging or journalism, be sure to mention that — in sparkling prose! Ditto for anything else that makes you special or will make your voice more memorable.

And here is how to apply:

You can apply either with an essay of up to 700 words, or a video of up to three minutes, or both. Send the essay to winatrip@nytimes.com. Post the video on my Youtube channel, www.youtube.com/NicholasKristof, next to my own video invitation for applications. In either case, explain why I should pick you.

Read all about the trips in his Sunday, Dec. 12 column and Dec. 11 blog

• Now Grandma Can ‘Win a Trip’ Too
• Announcing Win-a-Trip 2011 — With a Twist!

One of the nice things about Kristof’s column was his call to young people to get out into the world and do some good before they settle into their jobs. (This is the same advice I gave my students at George Mason University.)

If you’re graduating from college, think about the Peace Corps, Princeton in Africa, or other chances to work or live abroad. I recently met Molly Fay, who spent a year after college in Kenya helping with “camel clinics” — health clinics that travel to remote villages by camel. That experience transformed her life. She resolved to become a doctor and is now at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

He also suggested that maybe high school seniors might want to take a “gap year” between high school and college.

He is right to say that most colleges will defer admission if the student is doing something worthwhile. My older son took a year off between high school and college to work as a scuba diving instructor in the Dominican Republic. That one year matured him more than any amount of time in college could have. (One tends to “grow up” quickly once he realizes he has people’s lives in his hands.)

I took a gap year myself, working for the Future Farmers of America youth organization and then picking peaches on a farm in France. My eldest son is taking a gap year in China right now.

I have always liked Kristof’s writings and insights. This column just confirms my high opinion of him.