An interesting report has just been translated into English (from Dutch) and published on the Web. It gives a very detailed account about the way in which Dutch Muslim fundamentalists discussed and planned actions on the Internet, before, during and after November 2, 2004, the day that Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was killed in Amsterdam. The report is written by Albert Benschop, an Internet sociologist who is teaching new media at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam (HvA). Chronicle of a Political Murder Foretold Jihad in the Netherlands By dr. Albert Benschop University of Amsterdam translation: Connie Menting http://www.sociosite.org/jihad_nl_en.php -- The conclusion of the report is called The Power of the Internet and goes like this: According to the Dutch Central Statistical Office there were about one million muslims in Holland in September 2004. About half of the Turks (45%) and Moroccans (51%) made use of the internet. These percentages are considerably higher among Turkish and Moroccan youngsters between 15 and 24 years of age, 97% and 85% respectively. So the internet is an extremely popular medium among younger allochthonous people. Both in the build-up to and digestion of the murder of Theo van Gogh the internet plays an important role. We have seen that the internet was intensively used by various, more or less radical islamic movements, in order to create a climate with aggressive words, in which a political murder of a critic of the fundamentalist islam could take place. We have seen how radicalised islamic youngsters used internet to hatch their networks of hatred and disseminate their hostile message. This gave rise to a climate for violent jihad, in which the murderer of Theo van Gogh could be recruited. A climate in which Mohammed B. and his friends of the Hofstadgroup could be trained to attack personal targets, for instance Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, and political targets, such as the house of parliament and the decadence of the Amsterdam Red Light District. ‘All blasphemers out of the world, starting with the Netherlands.’ On the other side we also saw that fortuynist, right-wing extremist, neo-nationalist and neo-nazi groupings and small groups used internet to sell their political goods. With their xenophobic, islamophobic and racist statements they created a climate of hatred of foreigners, long before the murder of Van Gogh, in which multicultural society had to be violently sacrificed for a nostalgic longing for a mono-cultural, white society. It was a deliberate pursuit of a climate in our country, in which non-European foreigners and in particular muslims wouldn’t feel at home or welcome anymore. ‘All muslims out of Europe, starting with the Netherlands.’ The extremes touched each other. Not only in the mirrored ideological representation of a country in which ethnic and religious groups are not able to live with each other anymore, but also due to a fundamental dogmatic attitude, allowing no room for dialogue or non-violent political controversy. In this logic of escalation a culture of the big mouths was generated, in which reasonableness and nuances were lost. After the murder of Theo van Gogh the already poisoned climate came sharply into focus. Weblogs and discussion forums were only used to express passionate emotions in rugged language. But they were also and in particular platforms for the expression of political ‘incorrect’ proposals and measures. “The most popular weblogs like GeenStijl, Retecool and Volkomenkut lead the way in revealing new facts, although these facts appear to be mainly old and familiar. The broadcasting companies dutifully lurch after them” [Geert-Jan Bogaerts]. In the chase after the identity of the murderer of Theo van Gogh a picture of Mohammed Bouker was published on several weblogs. Although this person had nothing to do with the case (apart from having the same initials), this was enough reason for the editorial staff of the Limburger to liven up their Saturday edition [6.11.04] with a portrait of the alleged killer. A capital error for a quality newspaper that usually takes its journalistic responsibilities seriously. The next day, after the error had come to light the newspaper apologised in public to the person involved. The chief editors announced that an internal investigation would take place into “how this could have happened” [limburger.nl]. The traditional news suppliers of newspapers and broadcasting companies noticed that their monopoly on news service and interpretation of the news was undermined by what was taking place on the internet. “Internet puts pressure on paper and television,” Geert-Jan Bogaerts wrote. “The traditional news suppliers (newspaper empires, broadcasting companies) are seeing their monopoly crumble away. The modern news consumer makes use of new techniques on the internet, such as RSS and web diaries. Users can determine themselves when they want to take in the news, and which channel they want to use for this purpose. If the traditional news monopolists want to survive, they will have to adapt their organisation to it in a better way” [Volkskrant 27.11.04]. The free gathering of news performed by the individual and associated bloggers increasingly influences the public debate. They publish contributions that are picked up straight from the street, but also information that has been adopted from unknown or well-known media. The good with the bad are published and made accessible to a wide public. Unconfirmed rumours can roam the internet for days. For professional journalists this is an abomination. It proves once more how important it is for journalists to deal professionally with available information, by carefully checking their sources. If you don’t, the news supply degenerates into a rumour machine. “The internet implies that journalism should make higher demands than ever on the assessment and selection of information and especially on the transparency of sources” [Elsbeth Etty, NRC, 17.2.04]. However, the internet cannot just be dismissed as a rumour machine, in which one and all can voice their possibly self-invented little facts and opinions. The internet is also and especially a communication medium, in which lies are exposed very quickly, in which wrong information is quickly corrected, in which limited information is quickly completed, and in which untenable or dubious opinions are quickly contradicted. We have seen before how the internet can contribute to the reinforcement and intensifying of media hypes, and how it is employed as an increasingly powerful source of media hypes. But we have also seen how the internet helps shatter and correct media hypes. The internet is and remains a medium with greatly contradictory effects. This isn’t so much caused by the medium itself —after all the internet is not a subject possessing the capacity to act and for that reason cannot do or produce anything—, but by the way in which the internet is used by people and groups with various and often contradictory interests, needs, opinions, desires and aspirations.