Virtually in exile
   With such personal threats at home, it's not difficult to see why some
   online journalists and activists chose to work in exile. There are
   problems with this approach, obviously -- their online information
   might be blocked at home, many potential readers will not be able to
   afford access to their site and their critics will always accuse them
   of being stooges of foreign governments - but for some the benefit of
   being able to tell the truth outweighs these concerns.
   The main problem of running a Web site in exile is maintaining local
   relevance and authenticity when writing from abroad; specifically, the
   site needs regular, up-to-date information from within the country. The
   only way to do this is to develop a network of reliable correspondents
   on the ground and to develop efficient channels for getting their
   information out of the country.
   In the worst cases this means either heavily working the phones to your
   contacts on the ground, or, where phone-tapping is a concern, the
   smuggling of documentation out of the country. On the face of it, that
   would seem to be little advancement on the tedious and dangerous
   methods of the Communist-era dissidents. Still, when it works, it can
   bring the only non-regime-sponsored information to the outside world
   and offers a unique eye on closed societies. The work of the
   Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan in
   Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was certainly one of the best examples
   of such activity the Internet has ever seen.
   In less restrictive situations, the Internet itself is the networking
   tool, and e-mail allows migr publishing to be current from the ground
   in a way that Iron Curtain dissidents never could be. Even then,
   however, expanding a network of correspondents on the ground is not
   always straightforward, and the specifics of the local culture and
   local regime need to be considered.
   My own Institute for War and Peace Reporting is familiar with this
   problem. The editors of our online publications covering post-Soviet
   Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Balkans are all migr journalists in
   London who develop their networks on the ground according to the
   possibilities in individual countries. In Uzbekistan, for example, the
   situation is relaxed enough for us to have a physical office in
   Tashkent and a rather normal network of correspondents radiating out
   from it. In Turkmenistan, however, the situation is significantly more
   complicated for us. Forget a physical office: all our reporters on the
   ground communicate directly via e-mail with our central office in
   London. Trying to build a normal network there would only attract
   informants who would turn in all our associates, so we keep our
   correspondents on the ground isolated from one another. They wouldn't
   recognize each other if they sat next to one another on a bus in
   downtown Ashghabat.
   But even if you have a developed network of correspondents on the
   ground, that doesn't mean that people will feel comfortable talking to
   them. When fear so thoroughly permeates society, mouths stay closed.
   In some cases, however, the subject matter is so potentially damaging
   to people's lives that they are able to overcome their fear of the
   authorities. The work of the Three Gorges Probe, a Web-site in Canada
   dedicated to discussing the controversial Three Gorges dam project in
   China, provides an interesting example of this. Publisher Patricia
   Adams was reluctant to discuss the details of her network on the
   ground, but she told me that ordinary people in the region are very
   eager to talk to TGP correspondents about the dam, as they genuinely
   hope their concerns will be addressed. Their willingness to talk is
   understandable; after all, many of them are the ones being resettled by
   the dam project.
   The Three Gorges Probe Web site highlights another particular problem
   of this genre: oftentimes, the line between journalism and activism
   becomes fuzzy -- to the detriment of the reader seeking objective
   information. Adams insists Three Gorges Probe is pure journalism, but
   it is pretty clear that the site offers a mostly critical view of the
   project. While that may be a justifiable editorial policy intended to
   counter all the official information on the dam project, many migr
   sites have very serious problems with balance.
   Amnesty International's Umit Ozturk sees this as unfortunate in the
   Turkish case but admits, "It couldn't be any other way." Most Turkish
   and Kurdish migr sites are run by "activist reporters," people who care
   so passionately about their cause that objectivity takes a back seat in
   their online efforts.
   Veronica Forwood of Reporters without Borders, however, says it depends
   on the background of the editors. Those who come from a strong
   journalism background usually try to maintain a sense of balance and
   concentrate on on-the-ground reporting rather than commentary.
   Interestingly, there is now serious talk in U.K. NGO circles of
   creating a non-profit project specifically designed to help migr
   journalists establish Web sites with local correspondent networks for
   the people in their repressive regimes back home. The idea is to
   provide start-up funds as well as the technical expertise and
   journalism training needed to run an migr Web site with real impact on
   the ground.
   Real change is not virtual
   That impact is the heart of the problem for all Web sites working
   within and around repressive regimes. For all the excited talk about
   the Internet bringing freedom, actual examples of online publishing
   bringing about change in these countries are few.
   In many ways, the Internet seems to fulfill the same role as samizdat
   did in Communist Czechoslovakia. Like that old dissident literature,
   the Internet in authoritarian regimes offers the only place for
   critical voices, but, sadly, it has little effect on the ground.
   Remember, despite the international fame of writers like Vaclav Havel,
   outside of a small circle of intellectuals in Prague, hardly anyone
   ever read samizdat within Communist Czechoslovakia. The Velvet
   Revolution emerged from direct action within a changed geo-political
   atmosphere; decades of dissident carping had nothing to do with real
   change when the regime finally fell.
   As it was with samizdat, most people in authoritarian regimes never get
   a chance to see Internet publications, and the whole enterprise, both
   the publishing of banned information and official attempts to stop it,
   is more a game for elites: elite dissident intellectuals criticize
   elite rulers, and they argue back and forth in a virtual space. The
   opponents can score a few victories in that virtual space, but
   meanwhile, back in reality, little changes for the people on the
   ground.
   Some may find such a conclusion a bit pessimistic, especially coming
   from someone who works in the field of online journalism in these
   countries. But it is important to keep one's feet on the ground and
   neither underestimate the scope of the problem nor overestimate the
   ability of the medium.
   And there is some reason for cautious optimism. CPJ's A. Lin Neumann,
   for example, reminded me that, "elites, generally, tend to lead the
   movement toward change so the fact that the Internet is somewhat
   confined to elite communication in some places does not disqualify it
   as a change agent." Neumann points to China, saying that the Internet
   has had an effect on the ground there, leading, for instance, to
   greater impact of stories on corruption.
   Neumann also told me that the nature of the Internet means, "It is
   simply harder, even for the Burmese bad guys, to keep secrets from the
   world, because once information gets out it circulates widely."
   "Twenty years ago," he noted, "that information -- such as a secret
   arrest that is revealed through an underground contact -- would have to
   circulate by newsletters sent in the post; now it is on the desks of
   journalists and others within minutes."