I’m a bit late in getting to it, but Foreign Policy blogger (and former TOL hand) Evgeny Morozov had a very interesting post over at Net Effect a couple weeks back entitled “What if the Trafigura case happened in Turkmenistan?” Morozov asked just that regarding the Guardian’s Twitter-abetted triumph over a certifiably evil oil company that secured an injunction against the newspaper reporting on the firm’s internal analysis of a 2006 pollution disaster - and against reporting on the injunction itself. (As The New York Times pithily put it, “the Guardian was forbidden to report that it had been gagged.”)

Prompted by a Guardian article that broadly hinted at what was afoot, the Twitterati took over, creating an online onslaught that prompted the firm, Trafigura, to relent and release the internal report. All well and good. But Morozov notes that the case points up what digital activism can’t do as well as what it can do - or, more to the point, where it can do:

“… broadly speaking, for networks of activists to exert influence on power structures, those structures have to be responsible, transparent, and fluid. The reason why the anti-Trafigura campaign succeeded is that the U.K. already enjoys a rather healthy democracy, whatever its minor shortcomings are. A similar campaign in Belarus or Uzbekistan would almost surely fail, because state newspapers have nothing to lose (they are subsidized by the government), the private sector doesn’t exist, and bureaucrats do not really care about their reputations or the reputations of the structures that they represent.

“Just look at the failure to mobilize civil society in Azerbaijan over the case of two activist bloggers who are now facing jail sentences. No matter how many Twitter users stand up for their cause, I doubt any digital activism campaigns could sway the Azeri authorities.”

I don’t think Morozov is trying to pour cold water on digital activism in Azerbaijan, Britain or anywhere else. But, as he often does in his blog, he casts a welcome critical eye on the sometimes overheated claims being made for social tools as political tools. In repressive regimes, as he points out, the hard slogging still has to be done on the ground, not just in the ether.

I am in Baku now for Bridge Camp or Körpü Kamp in Azerbiajani. It is a second Barcamp style event this year in Azerbaijan. Sitting in the chairs of the high-ranking GEF Hotel and listening on possible new media-NGO-media links, I feel pretty interested. Actually it is organized by Transitions Online Caucasus representatives, our activists and other people. I have seen a lot of people from our previous trainings and it is fun to see people coming to listen and speak on new media, and the end of the traditional one. Some people from Ganja asked me: Will i present something on new situation in Azerbaijani media?

Actually I will present old vs. new media, and sure, it is not yet the end of the one. It just should change as has been done by many. Now I see some websites from media that have pretty good design, open source based programming, comments, videos, voices in one place. That’s what I want. But still even these pages don’t t involve many journalists participating. People (even if they write comments for one of the biggest opposition newspaper) are still unanswered by editorial staff.

Hoping to change this year. Now listning to one of my first students - Rita Valiyeva on media and PR. Perfect knowledge of issues. She also serves as PR person for our Barcamps. Success - we have more people than planned.

Still a lot of jobs to do. I am always using this ugly web site to show what we need to change. Pop-up windows, no place to write comments, not even proper e-mail to the editor. But imagine - it is the most read newspaper and news website in Azerbaijan, according to various statistics. Imagine how much more they will get … if they will change.