Saturday, October 22, 2005
That's not journalism
While eating my breakfast of apple pie and milk, I watched CNN Saturday Morning. Co-host Betty Nguyen reported on a recent trip to her ancestral home of Viet Nam which is in the midst of monsoon storms. In the report she showed three orphans who were living alone in a shanty where the waters ran over the floor. They slept without blankets on plywood a few feet above the ground. They were boiling a frog to eat. At the end of the report she recalled her own background, relating how grateful she was that her family had emigrated to America. Otherwise she could be a similar situation as these children. She told how she made frequent trips back to Viet Nam, providing aid where she could. She and her camera crew had given these children some money, which she said would at least temporarily provide them some relief. The report was heartfelt and sympathetic.
The next report was about a young man who is running across the U.S. to raise money for Katrina victims. At the end of the report and interview the CNN anchors asked him for his web address where people can send money.
I liked my apple pie and milk, but it certainly was not breakfast. Similarly, these reports were not journalism. They went beyond the rules of objective reporting and became persuasive messages. Nguyen effectively used pathos to persuade her audience of the dire needs of people in monsoon ravaged areas of Southeast Asia. Not only were the images heart rending, but Nguyen's words drew upon the audience's emotions. The report clearly was no longer neutral nor was its reporter. The basic message had journalistic value, but its presentation was clearly persuasive rather than informative. The story of the runner was not even unique. I suspect many people have run the breadth the U.S. and never received CNN coverage. Maybe this story was worth covering because of its connection to Katrina; however, its reporting was clearly promotional.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Nguyen for a description of Betty Nguyen's background.
The next report was about a young man who is running across the U.S. to raise money for Katrina victims. At the end of the report and interview the CNN anchors asked him for his web address where people can send money.
I liked my apple pie and milk, but it certainly was not breakfast. Similarly, these reports were not journalism. They went beyond the rules of objective reporting and became persuasive messages. Nguyen effectively used pathos to persuade her audience of the dire needs of people in monsoon ravaged areas of Southeast Asia. Not only were the images heart rending, but Nguyen's words drew upon the audience's emotions. The report clearly was no longer neutral nor was its reporter. The basic message had journalistic value, but its presentation was clearly persuasive rather than informative. The story of the runner was not even unique. I suspect many people have run the breadth the U.S. and never received CNN coverage. Maybe this story was worth covering because of its connection to Katrina; however, its reporting was clearly promotional.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Nguyen for a description of Betty Nguyen's background.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Full moon over St. Louis
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Terrorism and fundamentalist Islam
Michael Scheuer (aka Anonymous) in Imperial Hubris: Why the west is losing the war on terror (2004) gives this explanation for terrorism facing America:
"The threat facing Amrica is the defensive jihad, an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory, or on all three. In this scenario, it is doctrinally incumbent on each Muslim - as an unavoidable personal responsibility - to contribute to the fight against the attacker to the best of his ability.... Once Islam is attacked, each Muslim knows his personal duty is to fight. He needs no one else's authority, not even his parents; indeed, he would be guilty of sin if he did not respond to an attack as best he can."
In Afghanistan and now in Iraq, the United States has replaced, in the former, the Soviets, and in the latter, the British, as the principal enemy to Islam. Bin Laden and other Muslims view U.S. policies and actions as "challenging God's word," "attacking the Islamic faithful and their resources," and "occupying and dismembering Muslim lands."
For example, in challenging God's word, America has demanded Muslims change their curricula to teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with the modern world. America has demanded donations to Islamic charities be tracked, and has imprisoned hundreds of mujahideen around the world.
In attacking the Islamic faithful and their resources, America supports India, the Philippines, Russians in Chechnya, the Usbek ex-communists, the Chinese in Xinjiang Province, and the Israelis in Palestine, all of which are waging a battle against Islamic fundamentalists. The U.S. government supports "apostate" Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. (The majority of terrorists come from these countries.) America in concert with the UN imposes economic and military sanctions on Muslim people sin Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia. The U.S. and its oil companies seek to control the Arab Peninsula to assure the supply of oil to western markets.
In occupying or dismembering Muslim lands, America helped the UN create a new Christian state in East Timor, it now occupies and effectively rules Afghanistan, Iraq, and the states of the Arabian Peninsula, and it backs Israel's occupation of Palestine and invaded Iraq to advance the goal of creating a "greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It is for these reasons, explains Scheuer, a member of the U.S. intelligence community that fundamentalist Muslims are in open jihad against the U.S.
It is not that these policies are all wrong, nor right. By understanding this viewpoint, the United States could certainly shape its policies to be more compatible with regional interests. At a minimum we could develop a policy of neutrality. Stop supporting corrupt and despotic regimes. Let regional coalitions intervene to protect human rights. Let opposing parties solve their own problems. Do not impose our values on other peoples. Become energy self-sufficient so that we do not have to rely on Middle Eastern resources.
"The threat facing Amrica is the defensive jihad, an Islamic military reaction triggered by an attack by non-Muslims on the Islamic faith, on Muslims, on Muslim territory, or on all three. In this scenario, it is doctrinally incumbent on each Muslim - as an unavoidable personal responsibility - to contribute to the fight against the attacker to the best of his ability.... Once Islam is attacked, each Muslim knows his personal duty is to fight. He needs no one else's authority, not even his parents; indeed, he would be guilty of sin if he did not respond to an attack as best he can."
In Afghanistan and now in Iraq, the United States has replaced, in the former, the Soviets, and in the latter, the British, as the principal enemy to Islam. Bin Laden and other Muslims view U.S. policies and actions as "challenging God's word," "attacking the Islamic faithful and their resources," and "occupying and dismembering Muslim lands."
For example, in challenging God's word, America has demanded Muslims change their curricula to teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with the modern world. America has demanded donations to Islamic charities be tracked, and has imprisoned hundreds of mujahideen around the world.
In attacking the Islamic faithful and their resources, America supports India, the Philippines, Russians in Chechnya, the Usbek ex-communists, the Chinese in Xinjiang Province, and the Israelis in Palestine, all of which are waging a battle against Islamic fundamentalists. The U.S. government supports "apostate" Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. (The majority of terrorists come from these countries.) America in concert with the UN imposes economic and military sanctions on Muslim people sin Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia. The U.S. and its oil companies seek to control the Arab Peninsula to assure the supply of oil to western markets.
In occupying or dismembering Muslim lands, America helped the UN create a new Christian state in East Timor, it now occupies and effectively rules Afghanistan, Iraq, and the states of the Arabian Peninsula, and it backs Israel's occupation of Palestine and invaded Iraq to advance the goal of creating a "greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates.
It is for these reasons, explains Scheuer, a member of the U.S. intelligence community that fundamentalist Muslims are in open jihad against the U.S.
It is not that these policies are all wrong, nor right. By understanding this viewpoint, the United States could certainly shape its policies to be more compatible with regional interests. At a minimum we could develop a policy of neutrality. Stop supporting corrupt and despotic regimes. Let regional coalitions intervene to protect human rights. Let opposing parties solve their own problems. Do not impose our values on other peoples. Become energy self-sufficient so that we do not have to rely on Middle Eastern resources.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Judy Miller - Was it journalism or PR?
Judy Miller, released from prison, testified that her source for a story revealing Valerie Plame as the CIA wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was Dick Cheney's assistant Scooter Libby. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
Here are excerpts from "Who is Judy Miller kidding?" by Arrianna Huffington (October 6, 2005)
The story being pitched to the public -- that Miller was a heroic, principled martyr who sacrificed her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity, then fulfilled her "civic duty" after she "finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver" from her source -- is laughable.
It defies credulity for Miller and the Times to keep insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn't.
After appearing in front of the grand jury Friday, Miller was asked to describe her role in the case. "I was a journalist doing my job," she said.
But her role is actually much, much more complicated than that. Any discussion of Miller's actions in Plamegate cannot leave out the key part she played in cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq and in hyping the WMD threat. Re-reading some of her prewar reporting today, it's hard not to be stunned by just how inaccurate and pumped up it turned out to be.
During her incarceration, a Times spokesperson described Miller as "an intrepid, principled and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has provided our readers with thorough and comprehensive reporting throughout her career." But a "thorough and comprehensive" look at Miller's career reveals repeated examples of egregious reporting, a startling lack of objectivity, too-close-for-comfort relationships with dubious sources ... and a penchant for far-from-thorough and far-from-comprehensive coverage.
Cut through the haze of revisionist portraiture and you might remember that Miller's byline appeared on four of the six articles that the Times apologized for in its unprecedented May 2004 mea culpa over its prewar news coverage.
What's more, Miller's involvement in Plamegate was a direct result of her WMD reporting. Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's now famous Op-Ed piece, which raised the idea that the Bush administration had manipulated and twisted intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, went straight to the heart of Miller's reporting -- and her credibility.
The Plame scandal took shape not only when the White House was under attack but when Miller herself was increasingly being attacked by critics for her deeply flawed dispatches. When she met with her anti-Plame source -- or sources -- she was not only still on the WMD beat but still a true believer promoting the administration's lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD threat despite an avalanche of contrary information.
The inescapable fact is that Miller -- intentionally or unintentionally -- worked hand in glove in helping the White House propaganda machine sell the war in Iraq. And that includes Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney.
Before her transformation into a journalistic Joan of Arc, Miller was in a tailspin, her work discredited, removed from the WMD beat and forced to deal with colleagues who refused to share a byline with her. She desperately needed to change the subject and cleanse herself of the stench left by her misleading coverage leading up to the war -- coverage that makes the Jayson Blair scandal, by comparison, seem ludicrously insignificant. And there are few more effective acts of purification for a reporter than going to jail to (in PR theory) protect the 1st Amendment.
Miller went from pariah to icon, and the Times went from apologizing for her work to comparing her in a series of over-the-top editorials to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Talk about an Extreme Makeover.
Here are excerpts from "Who is Judy Miller kidding?" by Arrianna Huffington (October 6, 2005)
The story being pitched to the public -- that Miller was a heroic, principled martyr who sacrificed her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity, then fulfilled her "civic duty" after she "finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver" from her source -- is laughable.
It defies credulity for Miller and the Times to keep insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn't.
After appearing in front of the grand jury Friday, Miller was asked to describe her role in the case. "I was a journalist doing my job," she said.
But her role is actually much, much more complicated than that. Any discussion of Miller's actions in Plamegate cannot leave out the key part she played in cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq and in hyping the WMD threat. Re-reading some of her prewar reporting today, it's hard not to be stunned by just how inaccurate and pumped up it turned out to be.
During her incarceration, a Times spokesperson described Miller as "an intrepid, principled and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has provided our readers with thorough and comprehensive reporting throughout her career." But a "thorough and comprehensive" look at Miller's career reveals repeated examples of egregious reporting, a startling lack of objectivity, too-close-for-comfort relationships with dubious sources ... and a penchant for far-from-thorough and far-from-comprehensive coverage.
Cut through the haze of revisionist portraiture and you might remember that Miller's byline appeared on four of the six articles that the Times apologized for in its unprecedented May 2004 mea culpa over its prewar news coverage.
What's more, Miller's involvement in Plamegate was a direct result of her WMD reporting. Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's now famous Op-Ed piece, which raised the idea that the Bush administration had manipulated and twisted intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, went straight to the heart of Miller's reporting -- and her credibility.
The Plame scandal took shape not only when the White House was under attack but when Miller herself was increasingly being attacked by critics for her deeply flawed dispatches. When she met with her anti-Plame source -- or sources -- she was not only still on the WMD beat but still a true believer promoting the administration's lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD threat despite an avalanche of contrary information.
The inescapable fact is that Miller -- intentionally or unintentionally -- worked hand in glove in helping the White House propaganda machine sell the war in Iraq. And that includes Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney.
Before her transformation into a journalistic Joan of Arc, Miller was in a tailspin, her work discredited, removed from the WMD beat and forced to deal with colleagues who refused to share a byline with her. She desperately needed to change the subject and cleanse herself of the stench left by her misleading coverage leading up to the war -- coverage that makes the Jayson Blair scandal, by comparison, seem ludicrously insignificant. And there are few more effective acts of purification for a reporter than going to jail to (in PR theory) protect the 1st Amendment.
Miller went from pariah to icon, and the Times went from apologizing for her work to comparing her in a series of over-the-top editorials to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Talk about an Extreme Makeover.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The dark and light side of globalization
Globalization has a light and a dark side, according to former South African President and Nobel Laureate F.W. de Klerk, who spoke Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2005 at Northwest Missouri State University. One aspect of the dark side of globalization is that the wealthy nations are getting richer while poor nations are getting poorer.
Isolation is no longer an option, so nations must work together minimize the bad effects of globalization, he said. Giving up some national sovereignty is necessary if the inequities in the world are to be resolved.
de Klerk claimed that multilateralism will help solve the inequities in the world. No nation can do it alone. Resolving the world's problems requires the co-operative efforts of nations through organizations like the United Nations and the world trade organizations.
However, the UN should not become a military power. Regional forces should be called upon to settle wars, internal conflicts, and regional disputes, not the United Nations. For example, the conflicts in the Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa should be resolved by forces of the African Union. The United Nations should step in only after the peace has been won.
The U.S. and its partners were wrong to invade Iraq. Overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime should have been left to a multi-national force led by Arab nations.
Trade sanctions do not work. For example, trade sanctions against Zimbabwe would only make half the population that is destitute worse off. If trade sabctions are not working within six months, they should be called off.
Disparity per capita is increasing. In 1960 the ratio of those living in the bottom 20% compared to those in the high 20% was 30:1, in 1994 78:1 and in 2003 92:1. de Klerk said the "playing fields" must be made even if poverty is to be erradicated. The best way to do this is to open the world's markets to 3rd world exports.
34 of the 41 most indebted countries are in Africa. Africa carries on 1/50th of the world's trade. Only 6 of 1000 people in Nigeria have Internet access.
Fairer access to the world markets is better than aid, he said. In the US $300 billion a year is paid to subsidize farmers, which is six times the amount spent in foreign aid. These agricultural subsidies (which are common in developed countries) make it impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete.
Getting rid of subsidies would make the markets more competitive. First world farmers with their advantages of technology and knowledge would be able to develop other agricultural products to offset any loss of subsidies, de Klerk claimed.
Cultural alienation is at the root of wars, according to de Klerk. Wars based on ideologies ended with the fall of the USSR. Now wars are based on religious, ethnic and cultural differences. For example, in Georgia, a minority faction supported by Russia is fighting the Georgian government that is being supported by the U.S. and U.K.
Only through accepting cultural diversity will the world be made safe. A quarter of the population of half the countries in the world are minorities. 59% of people in Miami are foreign born, 44% in Toronto, and 30% in New York.
Ignoring and suppressing sub-cultures leads to conflict. The world is in danger of losing its national identities. By the end of the century half of the world's 6000 languages will disappear. The perceived threat is led by Hollywood and the English language. English is the language of the Internet. 73% of web-sites are in English. Without the encouragement and acceptance of of multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism a negative reaction will occur.
de Klerk offers some good ideas (like doing away with farmer subsidies) but many of his ideas are impractical, partly because his faith in global organizations like the UN and WTO is misplaced. Both the UN and its trade organizations have proven ineffective and unfair in their dealings with nation states. Better for countries like the US and the UK to develop their own loose trade confederations and alliances outside of the auspices of the UN. Although the US pays the lion's share of UN bills, its members states vote over 90% of the time against US interests.
Isolation is no longer an option, so nations must work together minimize the bad effects of globalization, he said. Giving up some national sovereignty is necessary if the inequities in the world are to be resolved.
de Klerk claimed that multilateralism will help solve the inequities in the world. No nation can do it alone. Resolving the world's problems requires the co-operative efforts of nations through organizations like the United Nations and the world trade organizations.
However, the UN should not become a military power. Regional forces should be called upon to settle wars, internal conflicts, and regional disputes, not the United Nations. For example, the conflicts in the Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa should be resolved by forces of the African Union. The United Nations should step in only after the peace has been won.
The U.S. and its partners were wrong to invade Iraq. Overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime should have been left to a multi-national force led by Arab nations.
Trade sanctions do not work. For example, trade sanctions against Zimbabwe would only make half the population that is destitute worse off. If trade sabctions are not working within six months, they should be called off.
Disparity per capita is increasing. In 1960 the ratio of those living in the bottom 20% compared to those in the high 20% was 30:1, in 1994 78:1 and in 2003 92:1. de Klerk said the "playing fields" must be made even if poverty is to be erradicated. The best way to do this is to open the world's markets to 3rd world exports.
34 of the 41 most indebted countries are in Africa. Africa carries on 1/50th of the world's trade. Only 6 of 1000 people in Nigeria have Internet access.
Fairer access to the world markets is better than aid, he said. In the US $300 billion a year is paid to subsidize farmers, which is six times the amount spent in foreign aid. These agricultural subsidies (which are common in developed countries) make it impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete.
Getting rid of subsidies would make the markets more competitive. First world farmers with their advantages of technology and knowledge would be able to develop other agricultural products to offset any loss of subsidies, de Klerk claimed.
Cultural alienation is at the root of wars, according to de Klerk. Wars based on ideologies ended with the fall of the USSR. Now wars are based on religious, ethnic and cultural differences. For example, in Georgia, a minority faction supported by Russia is fighting the Georgian government that is being supported by the U.S. and U.K.
Only through accepting cultural diversity will the world be made safe. A quarter of the population of half the countries in the world are minorities. 59% of people in Miami are foreign born, 44% in Toronto, and 30% in New York.
Ignoring and suppressing sub-cultures leads to conflict. The world is in danger of losing its national identities. By the end of the century half of the world's 6000 languages will disappear. The perceived threat is led by Hollywood and the English language. English is the language of the Internet. 73% of web-sites are in English. Without the encouragement and acceptance of of multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism a negative reaction will occur.
de Klerk offers some good ideas (like doing away with farmer subsidies) but many of his ideas are impractical, partly because his faith in global organizations like the UN and WTO is misplaced. Both the UN and its trade organizations have proven ineffective and unfair in their dealings with nation states. Better for countries like the US and the UK to develop their own loose trade confederations and alliances outside of the auspices of the UN. Although the US pays the lion's share of UN bills, its members states vote over 90% of the time against US interests.
Monday, October 03, 2005
When is a tomato not a tomato?
The Minnesota Biotech Association MNBIO was founded in 1991 as a 501(c)(6) nonprofit trade association to serve as the eyes, ears and voice of biotechnology in Minnesota. (see http://www.medicalalley.org/). Jeffrey Smith in Seeds of Deception (2003, p. 199) tells about Bill Lashmett who saw a demonstration of GMO tomatoes at a convention of MNBIO. Six tomatoes were shown, all about the same size and color. One was picked seven days before, another 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 120 days and the final 150 days before. The tomatoes had new genes in their DNA to keep them looking fresh.
Lashmett, a man in his 60s, stood up and asked: "As a biochemist, I have a problem. If this doesn't rot or decay in 150 days, then what have you done with the nutrient value?" He didn't receive an answer, but two young men walked up to him and escorted him out of the conference session. One of the young men said, "We're not interested in nutrient value. What we're interested in is if it's picked now, will a housewife buy it in 180 days?" Lashmett was astounded.
Lashmett has become an opponent of GMOs and a proponent of natural foods for animals and humans. He describes how he watched cattle choose between Bt (genetically modified) corn and natural shelled corn. "The cows sniffed it [the Bt corn], withdrew, and walked over to the next trough, which contained fifty pounds of natural shelled corn. The cows finished it off. The next group of cows did the same thing." The same experiment was conducted on other farms in Northwest Iowa in 1998 and again in 1999. Identical trials with hogs showed the same results, also for two years in a row. Lashmett says that "animals have a natural sense to eat what is good for them and avoid what isn't." (see complete story in naturalsolutionsradio.com)
Lashmett, a man in his 60s, stood up and asked: "As a biochemist, I have a problem. If this doesn't rot or decay in 150 days, then what have you done with the nutrient value?" He didn't receive an answer, but two young men walked up to him and escorted him out of the conference session. One of the young men said, "We're not interested in nutrient value. What we're interested in is if it's picked now, will a housewife buy it in 180 days?" Lashmett was astounded.
Lashmett has become an opponent of GMOs and a proponent of natural foods for animals and humans. He describes how he watched cattle choose between Bt (genetically modified) corn and natural shelled corn. "The cows sniffed it [the Bt corn], withdrew, and walked over to the next trough, which contained fifty pounds of natural shelled corn. The cows finished it off. The next group of cows did the same thing." The same experiment was conducted on other farms in Northwest Iowa in 1998 and again in 1999. Identical trials with hogs showed the same results, also for two years in a row. Lashmett says that "animals have a natural sense to eat what is good for them and avoid what isn't." (see complete story in naturalsolutionsradio.com)
The Fox BGH Scandal
BGH is an artificial hormone many dairymen inject in cows to get greater milk yields. A number of scientists, including Samuel Epstein, M.D., have linked the consumption of BGH milk to breast and colon cancer. BGH is not permitted in Europe and has not been approved in Canada.
Fox news reporter Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson produced an expose to run on Fox13 in Florida. Because of threats from Monsanto (which sells BGH under the name Posilac) , Fox refused to air the report and eventually fired Akre and Wilson. (Monsanto buys millions of dollars of advertising from Fox.) Instead Fox ran a watered down version of the story that supported Monsanto's claims that BGH causes no harm. Under Whistle Blowing legislation in Florida Akre and Wilson sued Fox and won. Their case was later overturned on appeal.
Wilson had tried to persaude the Fox manager to run the story appealing to his basic sense of why the story was news. The manager, a former salesman, responded, "Don't tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We'll tell you what the news is." (See Jeffrey M. Smith. 2003. Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes Books. pp. 183-193; also www. foxBGHsuit.com.)
Fox news reporter Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson produced an expose to run on Fox13 in Florida. Because of threats from Monsanto (which sells BGH under the name Posilac) , Fox refused to air the report and eventually fired Akre and Wilson. (Monsanto buys millions of dollars of advertising from Fox.) Instead Fox ran a watered down version of the story that supported Monsanto's claims that BGH causes no harm. Under Whistle Blowing legislation in Florida Akre and Wilson sued Fox and won. Their case was later overturned on appeal.
Wilson had tried to persaude the Fox manager to run the story appealing to his basic sense of why the story was news. The manager, a former salesman, responded, "Don't tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We'll tell you what the news is." (See Jeffrey M. Smith. 2003. Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes Books. pp. 183-193; also www. foxBGHsuit.com.)
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
