Coverage of the War
David Edwards of Media Lens has an interesting article over at ZNet, documenting a conversation he had, by phone and e-mail, with George Entwhistle of BBC’s Newsnight. Edwards starts by asking Entwhistle why anti-war voices like Scott Ritter’s, who both agree is “an incredibly important, authoritative witness” on the state of Iraq’s potential WMD programs, haven’t been invited to appear on Entwhistle’s show as often as pro-war voices. We’ve heard this conversation before–Amy Goodman’s recent Democracy Now interview with CNN‘s Aaron Brown and FAIR‘s Steve Rendall covered some of the same ground–but where it get’s interesting is in the post-interview e-mail follow-ups. We rarely get a chance to look “behind the scenes” at what goes on after the story airs or is published.
What we see here is an exceedingly polite exchange between two journalists–journalists who obviously admire each others’ work–struggling with difficult concepts. How can we measure media bias? How do journalists decide who can best give a fair and balanced report? (Note: really fair and balanced, not Fox News’ style of “fair [to those we agree with] and balanced [between people who share our point of view and those we have on but don’t let talk]”) Entwhistle relies heavily on his program’s audience appeal to show he’s doing a good job–feeling that people want coverage that makes sense of the world around them, and if his coverage were not balanced, it wouldn’t do that for viewers and viewership would go down. Edwards does not see the link, noting that when people are hungry for news, all news outlets see an increase in audience, but that this does not necessarily correlate to the quality of the news being presented.
What I find especially appealing about this article is that both men come across as reasonable, sympathetic figures, each struggling in his own way to make good journalism. This doesn’t mean that Edwards should not be held to account for failing to feature dissident voices like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn, and Michael Albert, and for featuring voices like George Monbiot, Edward Said, Denis Halliday, Rolf Ekeus, Guada Razuki, Mike Marqusee, Tony Benn, Joan Ruddock, Alice Mahon, Martin Amis, John Rees and Harold Pinter less often than they could. Edwards provides an “action item” at the bottom of the article for readers to contact Entwhistle and ask for more of this kind of voice. Interestingly, he asks that, when writing letters to journalists, writers “maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone” (showing something of the character difference between Americans and Brits, I think), a tone that is all too rare in political discussion these days. What is also interesting is that while many of the calls for “unbiased” reporting are generally calls for reporting biased towards the critic’s point of view and not other peoples’, Edwards seems to honestlybelieve in an ideal of journalism as a service in the creation of an informed public, not merely a tool for the advancement of a point of view. Refreshing, to say the least. This isn’t to say that reporters should be “neutral” or “unbiased”–they’re people, after all. But good reporters recognize their own biases, and work harder to cover the spots they would ordinarily be blind to. Good reporters treat “fair and balanced reporting” as a working ideal, not just a slogan.
LinktoComments(‘92266683’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
News You Missed
As America goes to work overseas bringing it’s peculiar brand of Democracy to the heathens, scary things are happening back home. This story is a little old, but news-junkie that I am, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere (until this mention today at Dissociated Press). The story is this: as we know, states are broke and the feds aren’t giving them any relief. To cut costs, then, a lot of states are seriously considering, or have already done so, cancelling their presidential primaries. Colorado and Utah have already done so, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, and Tennessee are thinking about it.
Now, primaries aren’t part of the Constitutional process, as parties in general aren’t, but they’re the way we’ve worked out so far to winnow down the slew of contestants to a reasonable number. They have the advantage of putting this process in the open and subjecting it to regulation. I don’t know–I’m afraid to know–how the parties are going to select their candidates next year. Backroom deals? Size of the campaign warchest? Kissing the ass of the party chair?
For the Republicans, who have given this move a lot of support, this isn’t a problem, at least next year. Running against Bush as a Republican would be political suicide. I mean, first of all, you’d have to point out something Bush did wrong and that kind of dissension just isn’t allowed in today’s Republican Party. But the Democrats are fielding like a hundred candidates! Okay, maybe 8 or so. How will these be narrowed down to the lucky person (or two) who gets to run for office?
And there’s another thing: these are states that tend to vote Republican in the Presidential race (at least, they all did last time around). The primaries are the only chance that registered Democratas in those states will have any chance, most likely, to effect the outcome of the Presidential race. The candidate that wins the primaries in Colorado, if they had one, would be the Democrat most likely to represent Colorado interests. Why should any Democrat worry about those interests now?
Now, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent. As I say elsewhere, I don’t much care for primaries as a political institution, because I don’t much care for parties as a political institution. But I’m not idealist enough to believe that the world I would prefer is the world I live in, and primaries are certainly better than nothing. You don’t massively change the foundation of your political process at the last minute to save a little money!
One other thing that scares me–what’s next? We all know Bush doesn’t care for debates that much–maybe no debates next time around? And why bother with conventions? Maybe a parliament-style presidency, who only has to call for elections when s/he feels some sort of moral or political necessity for it? The elimination of primaries represents a fundamental shift in the way politics is carried out in the US–it deserves a little thought. Oh, and a little press.
LinktoComments(‘91965463’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
Personal Milestones
Yesterday marked the 7th Anniversary of the night my partner and I first kissed outside a London tube station, the night we “officially” started going out together. We couldn’t know on that fateful April Fool’s Day where this all would take us, or how hard it would be at times. We had met at work, in the cafe at the National Gallery, where I was training her in food prep and hygiene, customer service, etc. She’s German, raised in France, and at the time spoke hardly any English, but as we got to know each other over the next few months, we clicked, somehow. Unfortunately, I planned to apply to graduate schools in the States that fall; she planned to start university in Germany. We spent most of the next three years separated and missing each other, until she got a fellowship to come to America and study, eventually earning her Master’s from CUNY with a thesis (in English, of course) on the impact of the German unification on East German women. For three years we lived together in Brooklyn, the longest I’ve ever lived at one address since I was 13. Eventually, though, I had to begin researching my dissertation, which meant time in Washington, DC, and the Midwest, and she had to start her career in international work, which meant time in Paris, Vienna, Rome, London, Brussels, Geneva, or The Hague.
We’ve had some good times and some bad times. We can both be demanding, self-conscious, aggressive, defensive, anxious, depressive, petulant, and spiteful. There’s a lot of presure being apart, but it doesn’t go away when you’re together. Having my family here and her’s in Germany means one of us is always a long way from home–a situation made worse by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath.
Living in New York City isn’t easy on a relationship either. Friends are rarely near at hand, the pressure of just daily life gets to you, commute times are long. Neither of us dealt with 9/11 well (whatever that means)–she was supposed to start a job a couple of blocks from the WTC on Wednesday, 9/12. Knowing that an arbitrary decision, the matter of a day, is all that stood between her and a front-row seat to disaster (if not worse) gave us both quite a scare, the kind of deep fear that doesn’t go away when your heart stops pounding.
Then there’s our families. Both have been supportive above and beyond their call, but still. I don’t speak German well, nor French (they lived in France for many years), so it is difficult for me to communicate with them, and vice versa. My father has the profound distrust of Germans that is common among Jews of his generation, raised in the shadow of WWII and news of the Holocaust. He loves her, but the thought of me living in Germany, or overseas at all, scares him deeply. Again, this is made worse by the events of 9/11, the anger directed at Americans and Jews overseas, the use of Germany as a base for many of the bombers.
And there’s little things–my American lack of formality makes me come off as rude in Germany, my rather picky tastes in food does the same. She’s very outdoorsy, while I’m very bookish. And so on. Big things too–there’s a lot of unsettled issues that lie between us, things that are scary and strenuous and painful to face.
But it’s her body I imagine next to mine when I sleep alone, her warmth I wish for when I’m cold, her laughter I want to hear when I’m sad (and when I’m happy). Her’s is the advice I need when I’m unsure, and the kick in the ass I need when I’m lazy. Her problems are my problems, and her successes are my pride. She has this way with people that I never stop wondering over, an outwardness, a pleasantness, that I envy. (Yeah, I know–I’m supposed to be the anthropologist, and I can barely talk to people. Go figure!) She constantly challenges me to live up to my best ethical and intellectual standards, to speak clearly and directly to people instead of burying my thoughts in an academic’s language. She has a faith in me that she lacks in herself (and vice versa). I am absolutely thrilled by the pleasure she takes in small things–the taste of fine food, the play of light in leaves, the feel of sunlight.
It’s sad and scary to be separated again now, when the world is in chaos and when both of us are unsure of our futures. Neither of us has a lot of money–I’m the typical broke grad student, she’s just getting started in her career–and travel prices are rising. Americans aren’t too well liked in Germany and France, and Franco-Germans doubly unliked here.
But so far we’ve managed, somehow. I don’t think, in the broad strokes if not the details, that our situation is much different from any other relationship. It’s hard work, sometimes, but it’s work worth doing. Of course I talked to her yesterday, sent her my love and congratulated us both for staying together this long, when so much was against us. I told her all that, but even after 7 years, I still want to tell the world, so here it is.
I love you, Nat. I hope the next 7 years are as good as the last 7.
LinktoComments(‘91861488’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
Kucinich Speaks Out
Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave the following address from the House floor yesterday (from kucinich.us):
“Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.
Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.
Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.
Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores.
Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans’ benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.
Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.
Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.
Stop this war now.”
I don’t agree with all of Kucinich’s positions, but the man has style, courage, and convictions. He certainly outclasses any 4 of the other Democratic presidential candidates put together. I can’t say this early in the game if I’ll vote Democratic in the 2004 election, but if Kucinich makes it through the primaries (since I’m registered “Independent” I won’t be voting in the primaries), I can definitely see voting for him. He certainly has the edge on Lieberman who, after 2 1/2 years of soulsearching and wondering “what went wrong” has still only managed to come up with four “liberal social goals” he can bring himself to endorse.
LinktoComments(‘91856323’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
According to Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke, Saddam Hussein is the worst dictator in world history”, including Stalin and Hitler (and Pol Pot, and Mao, and Milosevic, and…). The erstwhile Reuters reporter comes through for once, giving us a glimpse of a world in which the media really worked, with what might just be the understatement of the year: “Saddam has been condemned for his exceptional brutality against his own people but historians generally agree that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and Soviet leader Josef Stalin were responsible for killing more people than any other dictators in world history.”
Prediction: Ms. Clarke’s days as Pentagon spokesperson are numbered.
LinktoComments(‘91793674’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
Ryan McDonough sent me a link to his Flash slide-show, “Why the War is Wrong”. The music is a little jumpy, and it’s a little too slow-paced, but it’s worth a look. Especially poignant is his link between on one hand bin Laden’s desire to cause the deaths of Americans, unite the Muslim World in opposition to the West, and incite a war of Christians against Muslims, and on the other hand Bush’s fulfillment of those desires.
[Update: Ryan tells me he has removed the music and added “Next” buttons so the presentation flows at your own pace, which eliminates the reservations I expressed above.]
LinktoComments(‘91631874’) Old Comments
[Continue reading]
This piece was part of a round-table discussion I put together when I was a Web Editor at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. The rest of the discussion can be found at the site. [Continue reading]
Essay written by: Dustin M. Wax We believe that misdeeds, injustice, falsehood, and murder will not reign forever, and a bright day will come when the sun will appear. We believe there is hope for mankind; the peoples of the world will not destroy each other for a piece of land, and blood will not be shed for silly prestige. We believe men will not die of hunger, and wealth not created by its own labor will disappear like smoke. [Continue reading]
|
|