Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts

Friday, October 22, 2010

WikiLeaks: Again, Still

It's in the news: WikiLeaks dumped another few hundred thousand classified documents into its website. I don't think it matters whether the usual newspapers and broadcast news studios re-publish parts of that set of information.

This is the Information Age, and even those folks who still read newspapers are generally able to go online themselves - or know someone who can.

Those 'classified' documents aren't secret any more.

WikiLeaks and the Real World

I've written about WikiLeaks before. (August 13, 2010) I think what they did earlier this year was wrong: Not because 'America can do no wrong,' but because America is trying to protect journalists, the WikiLeaks bunch, and the rest of us from religious crazies who are determined to kill anybody who won't do Islam their way.

And these WikiLeaks stunts don't make that job any easier.

A few American news outlets have mentioned the possibility that bad things will happen to folks in Iraq as a result of what WikiLeaks has done. That's likely enough. And, if Iraqis get killed because they helped free their country from Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda: I'm pretty sure it'll be blamed on America. And/or the Bush administration. Or western imperialism. Or maybe Mickey Mouse.

War is Not Nice

I've made the point before: War is not nice. Things get broken and people get killed. (February 15, 2010)

I think it would be nice if there was no more war.

I think it would also be nice if everybody everywhere would be nice.

That would be: nice.

Problem is, there are not-nice people in the world. Some of them have decided that their particular version of Islam is the only 'real' one - and that anybody who doesn't agree should be killed.

That's not nice.

It would be nice if Al Qaeda and all the rest would come to, say, the Berkeley campus; hug a tree; throw a Frisbee; chat with someone in the political science department about peaceful coexistence: and from that day forward do nothing more violent that carry a sign or burn a flag. An American flag, of course.

My guess is that burning something like a Saudi Arabian flag would be classified as 'hate speech.'

'Everybody Knows' What Those American Soldiers are Like

The word "torture" is already in the news, regarding these WikiLeak documents. I have no doubt that, somewhere in that mass of 400,000 or so docments, there's an account of a soldier doing something wrong.

I remember Abu Gahrib. The dirty picture. The abuse that didn't stop until the commander learned about it. And was being investigated by the time reporters got the story. (January 25, 2009)

That wasn't an Iraqi My Lai, and I rather doubt that there's one in this latest dump.

Motivation and Responsibility

I don't know why whoever's calling the shots at WikiLeaks is putting peoples' lives in danger. I could make some guesses:
  • Money
    • WikiLeaks is getting huge publicity from these data dumps
    • Traffic at the WikiLeaks website should increase
    • Some may now give money to WikiLeaks
  • Idealism
    • 'The people have a right to know!'
    • The vile fiends must be revealed - America's
      • Military
      • Government
      • Imperialism
      • Whatever
  • A desire for
    • Attention
    • Causing strife
    • Something Freudian
I don't know why WikiLeaks is putting the lives of Iraqi patriots on the line. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably idealism. Whoever makes decisions for WikiLeaks may really believe that the outfit is doing the right thing.

Whatever the motive(s), what WikiLeaks has done doesn't surprise me. And I'm pretty sure if there's something unpleasant about an American soldier in those documents, it'll get full press coverage. It's the sort of clueless, irresponsible foolishness that I've come to expect from Western mainstream news media.

And that's another topic.

Related posts:
In the news:
Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 13, 2010

WikiLeaks, Real Journalists, and Common Sense

Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières apparently doesn't think that WikiLeaks should dump tens of thousands of classified documents. Apparently the reporters-rights group realizes that releasing the names of Afghans who cooperated with coalition troops might not sit well with the Taliban and others.

And, what is impressive, Reporters Without Borders realizes that the folks running the Taliban are inclined to kill people they don't approve of. And, that letting these Afghans get killed wouldn't be nice - even though they did help free their country from the Taliban.

Beware Unintended Consequences

Reporters Without Borders also seems concerned over what the American government might do in response to dumping these documents. With, I think, good reason.

On the whole, I prefer living in America and think that this country offers a great deal protection for freedom of expression than, say, North Korea, Sudan, or Somalia. I also think that America's leaders aren't perfect: and can make serious mistakes.

Like clamping heavy controls on what people are allowed to publish and read on the Internet.

I'll admit to having a personal stake in this: I maintain 10 other bogs, besides this one. At this time, I am free to do so. I don't have to pay a government agency for a permit to publish, I don't have to pass a background screening and loyalty test: and I rather hope that continues to be the case.

I like being free to speak - or, rather write - my mind.

Endangering the lives of people who helped free their country from religious crazies - even for the groovy reason of 'ending the Afghan war' - could give the American government reason - or excuse - to take control of what so far has been a free medium of communication.

I don't agree with everything that everyone puts online - but I don't want to be "protected" from folks who don't agree with the administration, either.

Here's that open letter from Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières:
"Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: 'A bad precedent for the Internet's future' "

"Julian Assange
"Founder
"Wikileaks

"Dear Mr. Assange,

"Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article 'Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010' on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

"Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April's publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration's U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

"Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article's publication. We are not convinced that your wish to 'end the war in Afghanistan' will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

"It is true that you said that 'a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports' were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being 'reviewed further' and that some of them would be released 'once it was deemed safe to do so.'

"Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

"Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal 'shield law' protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

"The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

"Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

"We look forward to your reply,

"Sincerely,

"Jean-François Julliard
"Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

"Clothilde Le Coz
"Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC"
(from http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html, used w/o permission)
Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 30, 2010

WikiLeaks, Killing People Who don't Agree, and Living in the Real World

From today's news:
"U.S. worried more secret documents may be released"
Reuters (July 30, 2010)

"U.S. officials are worried about what other secret documents the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks may possess and have tried to contact the group without success to avoid their release, the State Department said on Friday.

"The shadowy group publicly released more than 90,000 U.S. Afghan war records spanning a six-year period on Sunday. The group also is thought to be in possession of tens of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables passed to it by an Army intelligence analyst, media reports have said.

" 'Do we have concerns about what might be out there? Yes, we do,' State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told a briefing, adding that U.S. authorities have not specifically determined which documents may have been leaked to the organization...."
My take on the data dump / leak / whatever? It's not a good thing. I might not have chosen quite so colorful a phrase as some American officials have, but I'm in general agreement with this:
"...'BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS'

"Both Crowley and Gibbs expressed concern that the document dump might expose U.S. intelligence-gathering methods and place in jeopardy people who had assisted the United States.

" 'You have Taliban spokesmen in the region today saying they're combing through those documents to find people that are cooperating with American and international forces. They're looking through those for names. They said they know how to punish those people,' Gibbs said...."
(Reuters)

"The People have a Right to Know"

"The people have a right to know," and permutations on that phrase, have been around for decades. I associate it with the National Inquirer, probably because of that "Inquiring minds want to know" marketing campaign.

The idea that an informed populace is necessary is, I think, correct: at least, in a country where citizens can vote on issues and/or who their leaders will be. Which takes "the people have a right to know" out of the realm of "Diet of Doom" journalism and into a rather more serious area.

Censorship, Freedom of Speech, and Common Sense

The real world isn't particularly well-suited to simple solutions. Not when it gets to the nuts-and-bolts level.

I don't particularly like censorship. I've written about that before. Quite a lot, I see.

On the other hand, I'm aware that there are people in the world who are not nice. At all. Some of them flew airliners into skyscrapers almost 10 years ago, with regrettable results.

Today, quite a few folks sincerely believe that Americans - and anybody else who doesn't live up to their particular version of Islam - should either become their sort of Muslim, or become dead.

The rest of us, including quite a significant numbers of Muslims, would rather not live in a Taliban-style world.

That's where the trouble with these leaked documents comes in.

As I see it, the Taliban thinks that people who are identified in these documents should be dead. The people whose identities have been compromised probably don't agree.

That's the sort of conflict that would, ideally, be settled over a nice cup of tea.

We don't live in an ideal world, so that's not what will happen.

I'd like to believe that whoever has the as-yet-unreleased documents sincerely believed that "the people have a right to know," and had no clue that lives were at stake. And, that the individual will now realize that not-nice people will almost certainly do not-nice things if more secrets are leaked.

I don't think that's likely.

Wouldn't It be Nice, If Everyone was Nice?

We live in a not-nice world. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and like-minded groups are quite willing to kill people whose ideas don't match theirs. They're not the only trigger-happy ideologues around, of course: but right now they're a major threat.

It'd be very nice if the Taliban's leaders and all the rest would suddenly decide that it isn't nice to kill people who aren't just like themselves - but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

So, until everybody decides to be nice - we'll need to have secrets. Not many, I hope, but some.

Related post:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 15, 2010

War is Not Nice

The headline says it all:
"Civilians die in second day of Afghan offensive"
CNN (February 14, 2010)

"Twelve Afghan civilians were killed Sunday when two rockets fired by coalition forces in southern Afghanistan missed their intended target, as the Taliban showed stiff resistance to the NATO assault against the militant group.

" 'We deeply regret this tragic loss of life,' U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, said in a statement. 'The current operation in Central Helmand is aimed at restoring security and stability to this vital area of Afghanistan. It's regrettable that in the course of our joint efforts, innocent lives were lost.'..."

War is Not Nice: Things Get Broken, People Get Killed

I think it would be nice to live in a world without war.

I think it would be nice if nobody ever got sick, or stubbed their toes, or had a toothache.

And I think it would be really nice if airliners hadn't been piloted into New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon a few years ago: with another crashing into a field as the passengers were regaining control.

That would be nice.

I think war is not nice. Things get broken. People get killed. Sometimes people who don't think God is telling them to kill other people get killed.

That is not nice.

The Taliban is Not Nice, Either

Afghanistan was run by the Taliban for quite a few years. I've gotten the impression that not everybody in Afghanistan was entirely pleased with how that particular bunch of self-proclaimed defenders of Islam acted when they were in charge. Banning soccer wasn't the best idea, from a public relations point of view.

Then there was what was done to the Bamiyan Buddhas. ("February 17, 2009)

If the Taliban had stopped with destroying irreplaceable ancient works of art, I might not be so unwilling to regard them as nice people. But killing their fellow-Muslims for being Islamic the 'wrong' way?

That's not nice.

Civilians Got Killed in Afghanistan: That's Not Nice

The BBC's article on this incident had the same headline for a few hours yesterday. They've changed it: which I think is nice. And, just as accurate as CNN's more old-school "Civilians die..." line. Here's how the BBC article started, with the new headline:
"McChrystal regrets Afghan deaths"
BBC (February 14, 2010)

"Nato has confirmed that two rockets fired at militants during its offensive in Helmand, south Afghanistan, missed their target and killed 12 civilians.

"The rockets struck a house in Marjah as thousands of Nato troops continued their operations to oust the Taliban.

"Nato's commander Gen Stanley McChrystal said that 'we deeply regret this tragic loss of life'.

"Coalition forces are aiming to build on gains in Operation Moshtarak, tackling snipers and booby-traps on day two...."
Credit where credit is due: Both CNN and the BBC acknowledge that NATO tried to warn people in the area that not-nice things would be happening there. That act stood out in my eyes, because one of the advantages a military force can have is that of surprise.

Distributing leaflets and warning civilians that a military operation was going to happen soon reduces that element of surprise, a lot.

I suppose it helps that this is a NATO operation, not one involving those awful, nasty, rough Americans.

American Imperialist Warmongers?

Oops. Actually, over 4,000 Marines are involved.

I think there's a strong tendency to identify military operations where American troops are involved as "NATO" or some other not-American name.

When it's fairly obvious that an effort is being made to keep innocent civilians from being killed, or when things are going well.

When something's amiss, though: It's often "America" and "American." It's really hard to shake the impression that a 'blame America first' attitude is behind quite a bit of news coverage.

I've written before, that I don't think America is perfect. (More: "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business" (July 3, 2008))

I don't think this country is the source of all the world's ills, either. And I do think that America is one of the few countries around with the ability and the willingness to take on - and occasionally take the lead - with unpleasant tasks like dealing with outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Somali-Americans Rally Against Extremism Tomorrow: But Who Cares?

That's unfair - but quite honestly, the Michael Jackson funeral and falling stocks seem to be crowding an upcoming protest off the front page, and often right out of the news. The Somali-American protest/rally planned tomorrow afternoon in Minneapolis isn't being completely ignored, though.
"Somali-Americans in Minnesota will protest a rash of suicide bombings in their homeland at a rally Friday in Minneapolis.

"Somalia has been at civil war for the past two decades, but suicide attacks began to surface only recently. Last month, the radical Islamic group Al-Shabaab struck again, killing a number of Somali government officials and tribal leaders...."

"...Shaair said [Shirwa] Ahmed's alleged role in the October attack is all the more reason why Somalis in Minnesota must condemn the violence. Shaair said many Somali-Americans were angered when they heard the news.

" 'They're wondering why would a Somali who's here and who came here to find peace and a safe haven would go back to commit these acts of terror? It doesn't represent us,' Shaair said. 'The community is against suicide bombings.'

"Some Somalis in Minnesota have been personally affected by the violence of their homeland. One Twin Cities woman lost some of her close relatives in a bombing last month in western Somalia...." (MPR)
Shirwa Ahmed is the Minnesotan who dropped out of sight in his home state, and showed up in Somalia: there were pieces of him large enough to identify by DNA analysis, which may have been some comfort to his family. What could be found of him was shipped back to Minnesota and given a decent funeral.

As for the "alleged role" - there was forensic evidence that Shirwa Ahmed had been the star in a suicide bombing. (March 10, 2009)

I discussed editorial preferences, unpleasant realities, and traditional journalism in another post. (July 1, 2009)

At least Minnesota Public Radio is giving some pre-event publicity to the protest: albeit with the old-school 'minority misunderstood and suspected by the FBI' angle.

Somali-Americans in Minnesota Apparently Don't Know Their Place

I suspect one reason why Somalis in Minnesota aren't getting as much press coverage of the rally is that many of them don't know their place.
"...Last week, Jamal participated in a protest accusing Minnesota’s only Muslim civil rights organization, the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) of impeding an investigation into the missing Somali youth. The protest was organized by Abdirizak Bihi, Jamal’s colleague and an uncle of Burhan Hassan, one of the missing Somali young men.

"I, unfortunately, know Bihi all too well. When I ran for Mayor of Minneapolis, I caught Bihi, who was working for McLaughlin’s campaign, running around the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood telling Somalis not to vote for me because “she is a lesbian.”..." (Star-Tribune)
I could be wrong, but I think that black people - even if they're foreigners - who have the audacity to speak against an established civil rights group like CAIR, and have ideas which are distinctly not politically correct is something that traditional American journalists would rather not deal with.

And, judging from that Star-Tribune article, some of that uppity sort are making their voices heard.

For some people with long-standing traditional views, it's troubling times.

Related posts: News and views: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Somalia, Minnesota, Traditional Journalism, and Unpleasant Realities

The investigation into the disappearance of young Minnesota men - one of whom later starred in a suicide bombing in Somalia - is moving along. Some Somali-Americans have been indicted by a federal grand jury, for their alleged involvement in the matter.

The details are still sketchy, which is understandable since there hasn't been a formal announcement of the indictments yet.

Judging from the 'victim' angle that Minnesota Public Radio took in an article on a Somali-American woman: When this investigation does hit the traditional news sources, the focus may be on something other than the families whose sons were taken.
"...Ali has heard that FBI agents, working on what she says are false leads, have been asking about her in connection to the case. Agents have been showing Ali's photograph while conducting interviews as part of their probe, according to some of the young people who attend Abubakar.

"Ali said she's even heard talk in her community that she was the one who sent the boys to fight in their homeland, a country where anarchy and violence are the rule. She denies the accusation.

" 'It's very sad,' she said, pausing to dab away tears with the hem of her skirt. 'It's hurting me so much. I'll be the last person on earth encouraging violence. I'm against violence.'..." (Minnesota Public Radio)
Abia Ali runs a girls' program at the Abubakar As-Saddique mosque in Minneapolis.

Minnesota Public Radio's focus on the tears of Abia Ali is, I think, an example of traditional editorial decision-making. (July 1, 2009)

A Familiar Refrain

Parts of the MPR article are very familiar: a member of a minority group - and a woman - is misunderstood by those she is trying to help, and suspected by the FBI. It's a pattern that I've run into for about four decades now.
Recognizing Humanitarian Work: That's Nice
I appreciate a Somali-Minnesotan being displayed in a favorable light. Earlier this year, members of Senator Lieberman's staff came to Minnesota and started the Senator's investigation into how the FBI was 'mishandling' things, by asking: " What is radicalizing young Somali men? " (March 22, 2009) From my point of view, that's 'way too close to the "what makes Irishmen drink too much?" questions that half my ancestors had to put up with.

Lieberman's staff did a good job of giving the impression that they thought all young Somali-Minnesotan men were radicalized, or were in the process of being prepped for jihad. Dumb. Really dumb.
Ignoring the Abubakar As-Saddique Connection: Perhaps Not Entirely Wise
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that people whose parents came from Somalia, or who are first-generation Minnesotans, are well-served by playing up the 'misunderstood victim' angle, while ignoring how the Abubakar As-Saddique mosque may be connected to the little matter of Shirwa Ahmed, and others like him. (March 10, 2009)

So far, something like 20 young Somali-Minnesotans have disappeared. Although the number is small, their lives are not (or, in the cases of those whose body parts have been found, were not) trivial.

MPR mentions that Ali is called "Sister Abia" at the Abubakar As-Saddique mosque, and: "...Last year, the Minneapolis police department awarded her for her work with young people...." The public radio station may be unaware that the Abubakar As-Saddique mosque has been the focus of an FBI investigation into the disappearance of Somali-Minnesotans. (March 22, 2009)

There may be no cause-effect link between activities at the mosque and young Minnesotans winding up in so many pieces that it takes DNA analysis to figure out who they were. However, I'm impressed by the conspicuous absence in the MPR article of the mosque's role in the FBI investigation.

Osman Ahmed, the uncle of one young Minnesotan who disappeared and later died in Somalia, believes that a specific local mosque - apparently the Abubakar As-Saddique mosque - is where young men are convinced that jihad is a good idea. (June 7, 2009)

I suppose Osman Ahmed is the sort of person who made "Sister Abia" "very sad."

Polite reticence is one thing: but writing an article about a sympathetic victim, without mentioning why there's talk about her possible connection with dead Minnesotans, may not be serving either "Sister Abia" or Somali-Minnesotans in general.

Unless something very unusual happens, very unpleasant facts are going to be aired in public. If not soon, in the foreseeable future.

I think it's best to acknowledge facts, and deal with them. It looks like some Somali-Minnesotans think so, too.

Terror Recruitment in Minnesota: Another Approach to the Problem

Instead of playing up the 'victim' angle and ignoring dead and missing Minnesotans, some people in the Somali community are organizing a protest in Peavey Park.

If you've never heard of it, don't feel bad. Not many people outside Minneapolis have. It's at 730 East 22nd Street in Minneapolis, or the corner of East Franklin Avenue and Chicago Avenue, depending on whether you're an 'address' or 'intersection' person when it comes to locations.


View Larger Map

Organizers of the protest have it scheduled for Friday, July 3, 2009, from 3 to 6 in the afternoon. They're expecting (or hoping) for thousands of people to show up.
"...Organizers state: The Somali-American Community in Minnesota is taking a stand and we want the world, the mainstream Community and the Somalis in the Diaspora to know our stand and strong opposition to these terrorists. The Somali-American Community in Minnesota will release a press release and voice the community stand on issues related to suicide bombings and terrorism in the protest. The Somali-American Community in Minnesota is requesting you to attend and cover the protest and to join us in the condemnation of the violent extremists and their suicide bombings...." (American Chronicle)
This is a blast from the past, too: a protest with signs and slogans.

This, however, I have more respect for. The protest organizers are not ignoring a problem that's troubling their community. They're facing it head-on: and trying to tell their neighbors, Senatorial staffers, and anyone who's paying attention that not all Somali-Minnesotans are 'radicalized' - and that they don't want terror recruiters in their community.

Maybe thousands of sign-waving protesters won't change the world this time. But that sort of protest is still an effective way to demonstrate determination and numbers: and to draw attention to an issue.

Related posts: News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Neda Agha Soltan's Death was 'Staged' - Officially

Well, that didn't take long.

Monday, Iran's president Ahmadinejad announced that there would be an investigation into Neda Agha Soltan's death.

Today, two days later, Iranian police have the answer:
"Iran's Police Chief says the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a 'prearranged scenario'...." (Press TV)
There it is: neat, tidy, and about as good as the ayatollahs could expect.

We're also supposed to believe that Neda's murder - or, rather, all the fuss over it - is the fault of western media.
"...Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident --which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets--, was in fact a 'premeditated act of murder'.

"The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda's life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype...." (Press TV)
This really isn't anything new. Iran's leadership has been saying that terrorists and/or the CIA - anybody except their own enforcers - killed Neda Agha Soltan.

I think Press TV represents one form of traditional journalism: state-run, with an editorial policy determined by the country's rulers. The official news story I quoted from is from the English-language version of Press TV's website, and presents Neda's death in as favorable a light as possible, I'd say, in the circumstances.

Another sort of anything-but-traditional journalism is what what an op-ed piece called "Twitter journalism." (examiner.com) The author raised a legitimate point: that rumors can spread very rapidly on the Internet, and that some journalists are reporting 'tweets' on Twitter as news - without verifying the information. The op-ed concludes:
"...As a writer, it troubles me to see news sources reporting Twitter news before it has been authenticated. In our world of 24-hour information, having the freshest news seems like it's becoming more important than having the most accurate news." (examiner.com)
I'm all for accuracy: but there's more involved in traditional journalism. Any item of news has to be observed or researched, and written: and then passed to at least one editor for evaluation.

If the news is, in the editor's opinion, sufficiently interesting and important to the readers, the editor will consider whether there's room in the paper. At a minimum, there will be a decision as to whether there are both time and resources enough to push the story into publication.

Editors are human. If the story conforms to what they expect or want to be so, they'll be inclined to believe it. If it doesn't, and the editor is very professional, the reporter may be required to do more research and verification. At worst, an editor will simply assume that stories which conform to his or her preconceptions are true, and those which don't, aren't.

Something like that may have happened last year, when The New York Times published a story about a letter sent by the Mayor of Paris. I'd have wanted to verify the letter, before assuming that the Mayor of Paris, France, was quite so interested in New York State politics. But, I don't work for The New York Times.

The letter was a fake. (December 22, 2008)

Yes: "Twitter journalism" can spread rumors as if they were facts. But I'd rather live in a world where incidents can be reported, in near-real-time, by people who aren't established gentlemen of the press in the American northeast, or west coast.

As far as verification is concerned: I think traditional journalism has a place in that regard.

I also think that "Twitter journalism" has a place, broadcasting facts that the traditional press isn't particularly motivated to publish.
"In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right." Ellen Goodman, American Journalist (1941-) (The Quotations Page)
Related posts: News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle

Iran's Supreme Leader and his enforcers are doing their best to keep order in Iran. They're (apparently) killing protesters and (allegedly) rounding up reporters. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran is now a world leader, when it comes to imprisoned or missing journalists.
"...Iran now has a total of 33 journalists and cyber-dissidents in its jails, while journalists who could not be located at their homes have been summoned by telephone by Tehran prosecutor general Said Mortazavi...." (Reporters Without Borders)
Three more reporters were arrested yesterday.
"...The latest arrests bring the number of journalists picked up and imprisoned since the disputed presidential election to 26.

" 'After demonising the foreign media, the authorities are trying to have it believed that Iranian journalists are spies in the pay of foreigners, confusing news reporting with spying', it added...." (Reporters Without Borders)
If you compared the two quotes, you're right: 33 plus three does not equal 26. Either the earlier figure was a typo, or "journalists and cyber-dissidents" aren't the same as "journalists." Or, Reporters Without Borders are making the numbers up and not keeping track of what they said before.

I'm going with the 'typo' or 'apples and oranges' scenarios for the moment. It's not that I trust Reporters Without Borders without reservation: but I don't think they're stupid, either.

For starters, they're aware of what's been going on since the dawn of the Information Age.

Today, If You've Got a Cell Phone, You're a Reporter - a Video Cell Phone, and You're a News Team

In the 'good old days,' maybe a dozen people would have seen Neda Agha Soltan die. Today, anyone with an internet connection and a decent browser can find the cell phone video of her death. (June 23, 2009)

When a regime locks up many professional journalists, and places tight restrictions on what the rest are allowed to do, people around the world are limited to the regime's official version of what's going on. And, whatever people post to the Internet.
YouTube Videos: Not Approved and Cleared by the Islamic Republic of Iran
"Police invasion on people tehran vanak Sq 13 June 2009"

PersianKoli, YouTube (June 13, 2009)
video, 1:01

"Riot police caught by crowd - Protests in Tehran after election"

Mousavi1388, YouTube (June 14, 2009)
video, 3:30

"Tehran Helicopter flies over protesters june 22 2009"

feridata1, YouTube (June 22, 2009)
video, 0:41

One thing I noticed in quite a number of videos identified as coming from Iran was the position of the camera.

American television journalists have been using what I call "ankle shots" on crowds for decades. It's quite effective at making a dozen or so people look like a huge crowd. The other angle, somewhat above eye level, is effective at making a cluster of a few hundred people look small in comparison with the surrounding street and buildings.

Some of the YouTube videos were taken from about mid-chest level. Quite a few of those also showed a wobbling, jerky image, as whoever was holding the camera ran for cover or dodged a club.

I selected these for their length, content, and comparatively steady camerawork.

There are a few lessons to be learned from these videos:
  • The crowds may be mostly men, but some of them have been going bald for a while - and women are protesting too
  • Not all Iranians are like their leaders
    • After expressing their opinion regarding the propriety of addressing citizen concerns with riot police, at least some of the 'rioters' took one of the police aside and assisted him
The motorcycle didn't fare as well as its rider. I suppose a lesson here is: Nothing says 'no' like a brightly burning motorcycle.

Whether or not this is the beginning of the end for the ayatollahs' regime, I think its clear that traditional information gatekeepers like journalists no longer have a near-monopoly on determining what the rest of us are allowed to see and hear.

That kind of freedom is messy and demands effort, but I think it's worth it.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)) The Quotations Page
Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Roxana Saberi, American-Iranian Journalist, Sentenced to Eight Years for 'Spying'

Update (May 11, 2009)
Roxana Saberi is an American journalist. Her father was born in Iran, her mother is Japanese, and she grew up in Fargo, North Dakota. She's in Iran, where she was arrested for buying wine and convicted of being a spy. She's been sentenced to eight years in prison under Iran's own version of Sharia law.

"...'This is a shocking miscarriage of justice,' said US Senator Byron Dorgan, who represents the state of North Dakota where Saberi's family lives...." (ABC)

With due respect to the North Dakota Senator's statement, I disagree. To me, the word "shocking" means primarily to be "surprise greatly." (Princeton WordNet)

I am not in the least surprised that this American reporter was sentenced to eight years in prison for being a spy. It's the sort of thing I expect the Ayatollahs of Iran and their ministers to do.

I'll grant that Senator Dorgan's remark is accurate, though, if another meaning of "shocking" was intended: to "strike with disgust or revulsion." (Princeton WordNet)

Reaching Out to Iran and a Reality Check

The BBC gave a wonderfully succinct description of how the current American administration took word of Roxana Saberi's sentence:

"...President Barack Obama 'is deeply disappointed at this news,' his spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"Correspondents say the case will have serious implications for US-Iranian relations at a time when Mr Obama has reached out to the Tehran.

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier expressed her disappointment at the sentence.

"She said the US would vigorously raise its concerns about the case with Tehran...." (BBC)

More of what Secretary of State Clinton said, from CNN:

" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was "deeply disappointed" by the news. "We are working closely with the Swiss Protecting Presence to obtain details about the court's decision, and to ensure her well-being," Clinton said in a statement.

"The United States will 'continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government,' Clinton said. 'Ms. Saberi was born and raised in the United States, yet chose to travel to the Islamic Republic of Iran due to her desire to learn more about her cultural heritage. Our thoughts are with her parents and family during this difficult time.'..."

I'm relieved to hear a high administration official say that America will 'vigorously raise our concerns' over this matter. I also hope that the current administration realizes that, while 'reaching out' is a very nice idea, the leadership in some countries quite simply isn't nice: and no amount of friendliness and good will is likely to change that unpleasant fact.

Roxana Saberi's Big Mistake: Not Acting Like AMPAS

A delegation of AMPAS (American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) got a tour of Iran recently. Press TV ("the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.) posted an article about one of the delegate's reaction to the Iran they saw.

"President of the American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis says Iran is very different from what the US mainstream portrays...."

"...'Iranians are very sophisticated, educated and culturally literate people and they have access to far more western media and technology than any of us had realized.' He said.

" 'We traveled freely around Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan and we didn't see any signs of political demonstrations or speech directed against Americans.'..."

"
(from Press TV, used w/o permission)
"Sid Ganis at Persepolis, Shiraz, Iran"

Maybe that's how Roxana Saberi should have acted: smiled a lot, said very nice things about Iranians, and not asked too many questions.
AMPAS, Smiles, and Saying Nice Things
I think it's wonderful that Hollywood bigwigs feel like taking time out of their busy schedules to travel abroad in the interests of creative exchange and education. And, it looks like they had a fine time on their trip to Iran.

I hope they had opportunities to compare notes with Iranian movie-makers. Hollywood could use some new ideas, in my opinion - but that's an entirely different topic.

And, I'm glad that they didn't follow the lead of Louisiana's Representative John "Towelheads" Cooksey. That was a boorish and ignorant remark to make in America. In Iran, it would be boorish, ignorant, and probably not a little dangerous.

Even "sophisticated, educated and culturally literate"people might be understandably miffed - and Iran doesn't have the reputation for protecting free speech, no matter how daft, that America does.

As it was, the AMPAS delegation met nice Iranians; had a great time, judging from that photo of Sid Ganis at Persepolis; and said nice things about Iran.
Roxana Saberi and Being a Reporter
We don't know anything about Roxana Saberi's trial, but she must have done something to make Iran's leaders peeved with her.

In a way, it really is her fault that she's looking at an eight year stretch in an Iranian prison - assuming she lives that long. She should have smiled a lot, not asked too many questions, and said nice things: like AMPAS.

Iranian-American Relations and Somebody from Fargo, North Dakota

In a way, the foreign policy of America must not be determined by concerns of - or for - one person.

On the other hand, I think the treatment of Roxana Saberi is a strong indication that Iran's leaders are not even close to being on the same page as America when it comes to basic ideas like freedom of expression.

I hope that Roxana Saberi survives her encounter with "her cultural heritage".

I also hope that the current American administration realizes that all the friendliness in the world will not make all countries as safe as America for people who ask questions.

Related posts: In the news: Background: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

American Journalist Roxana Saberi: Fargo's Freedom; Iran's Ayatollahs

Update (May 11, 2009)
Roxana Saberi is an American journalist, in Iran, charged with espionage.

It's an open-and-shut case, as far as I can tell. She's been going around asking questions and taking notes. Spies ask questions and take notes. The verdict is due soon - two guesses what it'll be, and the first one doesn't count.

Looks like the Islamic Republic of Iran will show the world what Islam and Islamic justice is all about in the near future. The Ayatollah's notion of what 'real' Islam is, anyway.

Roxana Saberi - North Dakotan

This case is a bit more personal for me, since I grew up on the North Dakota/Minnesota border, in the Red River Valley of the North. Roxana Saberi grew up in Fargo, North Dakota. (For what it's worth, her father's Iranian, her mother Japanese. I'm interested in where people's ancestors come from - but I'm not as bothered by 'those foreigners' as some Real Americans seem to be.)

It's quite likely that Roxana Saberi will be convicted of espionage - or anything else that the Iranian bosses like.

The American government has demanded her release. A mouthpiece for Iran's judiciary called the demand "ridiculous and against international laws." (LAT blog)

My sympathy is with Roxana Saberi, her parents, Reza and Akiko, and everybody who has to deal with Iran and it's masters.

More-or-less related posts: News and views: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Meanwhile, in Iraq, Bush Ducks a Shoe

In a televised interview, President George W. Bush said that it was, in his opinion, one of the wackier things that had happened in his presidency. Here's how the Associated Press described a press conference in Iraq:

"...'The war is not over,' Bush said, adding that 'it is decisively on it's way to being won.'

"It was at that point the journalist stood up and threw a shoe. Bush ducked, and it narrowly missed his head...."

I'll have CNN pick up the story at that point: "The shoe-thrower -- identified as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist with Egypt-based al-Baghdadia television network -- could be heard yelling in Arabic: 'This is a farewell ... you dog!'

"While pinned on the ground by security personnel, he screamed: 'You killed the Iraqis!'..."

Al-Baghdadia seems to be an Iraqi-owned, Cairo-based satellite station, and they're upset about their journalist. The station is demanding that Iraq's government release their journalist. If the shoe-thrower isn't released, it will be a blow to democracy and freedom of the press. Their ideas: not necessarily mine.

BBC has a short video (1:35) of the incident - and Bush responding to questions afterward. I don't know how long "Shoes hurled at President Bush" will stay up, so I made a transcript of Bush's response:

"So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?

"Ah, it is one way to ge- gain attention. Ah, it's it's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and have people not gesturing with all five fingers. It's a way for people to draw, you know, attention - I don't know what the guy's cause is, but one thing is for certain: he caused you to ask me a question about him. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it. Ah, these journalists here were very apologetic. They were, you know, they were - said that this isn't - this doesn't represent the Iraqi people. But that's that's what happens in free societies, where people try to draw attention to themselves. And so, I guess he was effective, cause he caused you to say something about it."

The American president also said that the shoes were size 10.

I suppose that President Bush could be criticized for not being culturally sensitive: I don't know that everyone in Iraq knows what "not gesturing with all five fingers" means, and the president didn't explain that remark, as far as I could tell. For British readers, it may be appropriate to say that an American referring to "the guy" doesn't mean the same thing as a Britisher saying "the Guy."

Seriously, Now

This exchange of ideas - well, ideas in one direction and shoes in the other - is amusing, almost, but not important. America and Iraq have been negotiating security arrangements for the next few years. At this point, it looks like American troops will be out of Iraq by 2011.

I hope that the Iraqi government knows what it's doing - but it's their country.

It looks like Bush isn't any more popular among some Iraqis, than he is among come college professors. I'm not sure what the shoe-throwing journalist would like Iraq to be like: I've gotten the impression that Saddam Hussein didn't make many friends, outside his own clique, and he's the one who would be giving journalists directions if the coalition hadn't butted in.

Finally, I've made the point before that "...National leaders are not expected to lead their armies in battle." Just the same, it's nice to know that the current president of the United States has good eyesight and reflexes, and didn't feel threatened by a couple of size 10s aimed at his head.

In the news:
Posted by at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts, Michelle Malkin, and Common Sense

(The news media weren't as inventive as I feared they might be: see Update at the end of this post.)

Let's start with a little quiz:
  • Rachael Ray
  • Dunkin' Donuts
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Common Sense
What item does not belong with the others?

Dunkin' Donuts decision to pull an ad that Michelle Malkin and (apparently) quite a number of casual observers didn't like is still in the news. "Dunkin' Donuts pulls Rachael Ray ad over 'terror' controversy" (CNN Money.com (May 29, 2008) discusses the matter from a business perspective. [February 16, 2009: This article is no longer available]

And, the journalists are still getting it wrong.

Journalists Quoting Reporters Quoting Columnists?

The CNN article's lead is factual: "The coffee and baked goods chain removes an online spot where Ray wears a fringed black-and-white scarf that critics complain looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress."

CNN also displays a screenshot of the 'terrorist' scarf, which I think is vital in an article about the appearance of something.


(from CNN, used w/o permission)
[February 16, 2009: This image is no longer available]

After that good start, CNN repeats a quote that they claim is from Michelle Malkin's column of May 23, 2008:

"The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, 'has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant [and not-so-ignorant] fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.' "
(from previously cited CNN article)

The only problem is that Michelle Malkin's post, "Of donuts and dumb celebrities" (May 23, 2008), does not contain those words. At least, not in that order.

The nearest approximation to the CNN "quote" is in a comment to the post:

"Look, the kaffiyeh has a *direct* association with Palestinian violent action against Jews and Westerners that goes back at least 40 years. Yassir Arafat himself popularized the use of the keffiyeh in direct conjunction with his terror campaigns. Many, many, many innocent people have been brutally murdered under that black and white emblem".

I'll admit that Michelle Malkin could have edited that passage out after the journalists read it, but I doubt it. If she had re-written her post, that would have been bigger news than the original Rachael Ray / Dunkin' Donuts debacle. The headlines would practically write themselves: "Conservative Columnist Cover-Up," "Malkin Re-Writes Controversial Post."

An earlier claim that Malkin had written that particular claptrap is in an MSNBC article, posted yesterday, which contains a portion of the CNN quote: "popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos." That seems to indicate that both articles are drawing from the same source.

MSNBC might have gotten its material from either of these articles:
  • "Dunkin' Donuts yanks Rachael Ray ad
    (Boston Globe (May 28, 2008))
    "By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan Globe Staff / May 28, 2008"
    • " 'The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,' Malkin yowls in her syndicated column. 'Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.' "
  • ""Rachael Ray Involved in Keffiyeh Controversy"
    (The Hollywood Gossip (May 28, 2008))
    "Posted at May 28th, 2008 12:55 pm by mischalova
    Filed under: Rachael Ray" .
    • " 'The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,' Malkin wrote in her syndicated column. 'Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.' "
The Boston Globe article does not have a time stamp, as far as I could see, so it's hard to tell which of these actually came first.

Of course, it's possible that CNN, MSNBC, The Boston Globe, and The Hollywood Gossip all got their material, including the ersatz quote, from a source I wasn't able to find.

A Clueless Conservative Columnist and Cultural Awareness

However fictional the details may be, mainstream news got one thing right. Michelle Malkin posted a column that deserves a place in the Clueless Hall of Fame. (If the CHF doesn't exist, it should. Although it would be a crowded place.)

Michelle Malkin clearly wanted her readers to believe that Rachael Ray and Dunkin' Donuts were promoting Palestinian terrorism with a paisley scarf.

She may actually believe that the scarf is a keffiyeh, and have been unable to perceive the obvious differences between the scarf's pattern and that on the keffiyeh worn by Yasser Arafat.

She may even be correct in her assertion that many people on the coasts identify that sort of headgear with terrorism.

But to make the claim that Dunkin' Donuts was promoting terrorism - without checking the facts - showed abysmal judgment, at best.

Back when I was growing up, before Telstar, Michelle Malkin's egregious blunder might have been more forgivable.

And, back then, Rachael Ray's scarf wouldn't have gotten someone's attention. Odds are that, if that photo had been in a magazine, some nut would have taken the trees as cherry trees in blossom - and a symbol of Japanese Imperialism.

These days, particularly with so much attention focused on the Middle East, it's hard not to see dozens, hundreds, of men in the everyday clothing of that part of the world.

Noticing what's seen is something else.

Patterns on the kaffiyeh aren't all alike, and I noticed that men with the same pattern seemed to form groups more often than those with different patterns. My working hypothesis has been that the patterns are similar to the tartans of my Scots ancestors, indicating membership in some kinship group.

I'm impressed, not positively, that Michelle Malkin missed that detail.

I'm even more impressed that, on top of everything else, Michelle Malkin consistently misspelled Rachael Ray's name. According to Michelle Malkin, the Food Network personality's name is "Rachel Ray."

And, I'm embarrassed to admit that I picked up that mis-spelling in my post on this topic yesterday. It's corrected now, except where I quoted from Malkin's column. There, following my standards, I repeated the words of the source: not what I thought the words should be.

Previous post on this topic:

"Rachael Ray and Yasser Arafat? GET A GRIP!"
(May 29, 2008)

More:
Key to the quiz:

Answer to the quiz:
  • Rachael Ray
  • Dunkin' Donuts
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Common Sense
What item does not belong with the others?

Answer: Michelle Malkin. This conservative columnist didn't do some simple, fast, research before posting that May 23 column. Therefore, her name does not belong in a list that includes the term "common sense."

Mainstream news media didn't do their research, either, but that's another matter.
UPDATE May 29, 2008

Thanks to techfun, a fellow-member of BlogCatalog, who pointed out the actual source of the quote that was being referenced by news articles. It's from a post in Townhall.com: "Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts and the Keffiyeh Kerfuffle "
Townhall.com (May 28, 2008)

That's right: May 28, 2008. Not the May 23 post that reporters seemed to be referring to.

That's a relief. Whatever I think about the habit of reporters and editors to pick which facts they like, and which they don't, I've assumed that what they identified as a facts were, indeed facts.

The possibility that mainstream news media had repeated an unsourced quote - and not bothered to check an online source - was extremely disturbing. I'm glad to see that the quote actually did come from Michelle Malkin.

As for Michelle Malkin's remarks: I still think that she needs to learn that people in other parts of the world 'dress funny,' and that sometimes celebrity endorsements are made by people wearing contemporary fashions.

earthlingorgeous, another BlogCatalog member, had this observation on Rachael Ray's outfit: "It's not a terrorist scarf FYI it's the traditional design and for women to wear it it's called a Krama."

That's from a discussion thread I started: "Rachael Ray, a 'Kaffiyeh,' and a Plea for Help" (BlogCatalog discussion thread (started May 29, 2008)).
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Rachael Ray and Yasser Arafat? GET A GRIP!

Please, people: think!

I realize that it is a challenge to come up with a new column on schedule, but I would have hoped that Michelle Malkin, or anyone else who gets paid to crank out words, would take a deep breath, think, and maybe use common sense and a search engine before turning in a column.

This week's prize piece of runaway cluelessness may be Michelle Malkin's identification of a scarf worn by Rachael Ray in a Dunkin Donuts commercial as a symbol of terrorism.

Ignorant Column, Misquoting Journalists

"Rachael Ray ad pulled as pundit sees terror link"
MSNBC (May. 28, 2008)
  • "Malkin claimed scarf similar to those worn by murderous Islamic extremists"
  • "Dunkin' Donuts pulled a television spot featuring talk show host and Food Network personality Rachael Ray this weekend after a Fox news commentator associated it with terrorists.
  • "In the ad, Ray is wearing a scarf that Michelle Malkin said in her nationally syndicated column resembled a kiffiyeh, Middle Eastern garb that is 'popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos.' " ...
Funny. I thought that Michelle Malkin was a columnist who appeared on Fox News: Now I see that MSNBC identifies her as a "Fox news commentator."

Michelle Malkin's column doesn't appear on the FoxNEWS.com website, but the FoxNews.com website does include an Associated Press article about the mess ("Dunkin' Donuts Pulls Rachael Ray Ad Over 'Terror' Symbolism" FoxNEWS (May 28, 2008)).

The column that started this exercise in nonsense, and has cost Dunkin Donuts a great deal, is "Of donuts and dumb celebrities" Michelle Malkin (May 23, 2008))
  • "Sigh. You all know I've been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for quite some time–and have touted their strong position in favor of immigration enforcement.
  • "Charles Johnson notes, and many readers have e-mailed about, Dunkin Donuts' spokeswoman Rachel Ray’s clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I'm hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology.
I'll admit that "hate couture" is a moderately well-turned phrase. Other than that, the Malkin column seems to be clueless blather.

It would be different, if the scarf that Rachael Ray wore bore a serious resemblance to the kaffiyeh worn by the late Yasser Arafat.

It doesn't. Not to my eyes, anyway. Sure, both are black and white, and have a generally rectilinear pattern. But that's as far as the resemblance goes. Even the ratio of black to white is visibly different.

MSNBC doesn't come out much better. That quote ("popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorsts appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos") that presumably came from Malkin's column does not appear in the column. Granted, it might have been edited out later - but a blatant bit of clumsy cover-up like that would have been a bigger story than the original.

The closest to MSNBC's purported quote is in a comment to the column: "Look, the kaffiyeh has a *direct* association with Palestinian violent action against Jews and Westerners that goes back at least 40 years. Yassir Arafat himself popularized the use of the keffiyeh in direct conjunction with his terror campaigns. Many, many, many innocent people have been brutally murdered under that black and white emblem"

Keffiyeh: a Symbol of Terrorism?

Doing a little checking for this post, I think I can see why Michelle Malkin might have blundered. "Where Some See Fashion, Others See Politics" (The New York Times (February 11, 2007)) describes how the kaffiyeh had become a fashion statement in some circles. I'm no expert, but I think the Times writer goofed, describing Arafat's 'chainlink' pattern as being the standard in the Arab world. I've seen many variations, in news footage.

Seeing pictures of Yasser Arafat in a kaffiyeh, and seeing knockoffs on fashion-conscious westerners, thinking that any black-and-white tasseled cloth is an Arafat kaffiyeh almost makes sense.

Almost, but not quite.

First, and most important, there isn't all that much resemblance between what Rachael Ray wore, and the sort of kaffiyeh worn by Yasser Arafat.

Second, I don't see much evidence that kaffiyehs (I know: that's probably not the correct plural form) are unique to terrorists. Identifying a presumed kaffiyeh as symbolic of terrorism is not merely ignorant: it is a feat of ignorance on a heroic scale.

I had assumed, from what I saw on news and documentary footage from the Middle East, that patterns on a kaffiyeh indicated membership in a kinship group. That assumption is based in large part on the habit some of my ancestors had, of wearing tartans which identified their clan.

I've been able to find nothing about the significance of the kaffiyeh patterns, but have found sources which show that the 'Arafat pattern' isn't the only one in use.

Finally: a look at Rachael Ray's scarf, the kaffiyeh on Arafat's head, and others:


(from MSNBC, used w/o permission
Screen shot of the Rachael Ray ad, with the 'terrorist' scarf.


(from CBC Yasser Arafat obituary, used w/o permission)
Pictures of Yasser Arafat, at about the same scale as the Rachael Ray picture, and one showing more detail of his kiffiyeh.

Other kaffiyeh patterns:


(from Dolls Clothes, used w/o permission)


(From The New York Times, used w/o permission)


(From Corbis, used w/o permission)

Another post on this topic:

"Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts, Michelle Malkin, and Common Sense"
(May 29, 2008)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.