Showing posts with label marketplace of ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketplace of ideas. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

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: , , , ,

Friday, April 3, 2009

Professor Ward Churchill is Back: A Glorious Victory for Academic Freedom, Tenure, and the American Academic Way

Wherever would we be, without academic freedom, American style?

A better place, probably.

Professor Ward Churchill wasn't fired for writing and saying that people in New York City's World Trade Center deserved to die, because they were "little Eichmanns" - that's the sort of thing that's covered by academic freedom and tenure. He lost his job because he plagiarized - and got caught - in circumstances that would have made ignoring the intellectual theft embarrassing.

Victory for Academic Freedom, American Style

Professor Ward Churchill's vindication in the courts, and his return to the hallowed halls of academia, mark a victory for academic freedom and freedom of expression.

Like this piece of art, created by associate professor Paul Myers, University of Minnesota, Morris:


(from pharyngula, scienceblogs.com, used w/o permission)

When associate professor Meyers originally posted this photo, the University of Minnesota, Morris, quietly removed a few links from their official website - but defended the associate professor's right two insult two major religions.

It's what professors do. The freedom to write and do outrageous things is very important to the academic community.

Deeply buried under contemporary American academia's value system is an extremely important issue: freedom of expression. I've written posts on that before.

I've written about professor Ward Churchill before, too. Including this excerpt:
Professor Ward Churchill achieved national fame in September of 2001, when he wrote an essay titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" in which he compared "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," a professorial quote taken from a Wikipedia article.

In 2003, Professor Churchill wrote a prize-winning book entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality" (ISBN 1-902593-79-0). (Again, thanks to Wikipedia for bringing this information together.)
(July 24, 2007)

Ward Churchill's an Indian: Just Like Former President Clinton

Professor Ward Churchill and former President Clinton are both honorary members of the Keetoowah Tribe. (Rocky Mountain News)

The Keetoowah Tribe's leadership is free to bestow honorary membership on anyone they like: I have no problem with that. I wouldn't seek it out myself: my ethnic background is eclectic enough as it is.

Professor Churchill says the Keetoowah Tribe's lying. He could be right: they could be part of a vast conspiracy to keep people from knowing that the CIA blew up the World Trade Center. It's even remotely possible that all members of the Keetoowah Tribe are shape-shifting space alien lizard people. (Possible, but wildly improbable.) (January 14, 2009)

Freedom of Expression, Academic Freedom: Great Ideas

There is freedom of expression on the Internet - for now. A few years ago there was a well-intentioned (I trust) effort to 'save the children' from online pornography. The issue is a serious one.

I'm a devout Catholic, so you'd think that I'd be all for clamping down on those nasty pornographers. I am. But I don't think that creating government agencies to decide what nice people are allowed to see, and not allowed to see, is a good idea. At all.

When outfits like the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority became allies to 'save the children,' and both want Big Brother to look out for the common people: I get very concerned. Maybe it's my sixties roots.

So far, the Internet is free. People, including myself, can express ideas whether or not they're popular, or conform to the ideals of a journal's review board, or satisfy a government agent's idea of what's naughty and what's nice. I trust an open marketplace if ideas a great deal more than I do experts, picked for their proper views.

Academic Freedom - For All?

I'd be a little more impressed with "academic freedom," if I hadn't been in universities and colleges for much of the seventies and eighties, and didn't study the news. Professor Ward Churchill and associate professor Paul Meyers enjoy academic freedom. They also just happen to have views which are accepted by most American academics. Sometimes heartily accepted, sometimes not: but 'everybody knows' that the right to repeat rumors about how nasty America and capitalism and related topics is important.

As far as they go, they're right.

I'd be much more impressed with American academia, if a meteorologist with a national audience - and heretical views on Global Warming - hadn't been yanked from public view. (April 29, 2008) The institution of higher education that pulled the plug on Dr. Gray's hurricane coverage says it was budget considerations, not heresy. Dr. Gray insists that they're right I don't blame him. He's got his career to think of. And, the budget might have something to do with the decision. (March 31, 2009)

If Dr. Gray's was an isolated case, I'd assume that the official explanation was accurate. As it may be: as far as it goes. But there are quite a few 'Dr. Grays' out there - and I think they're starting to be heard. (December 16, 2008)

Time for Change: Real Change

A thorough re-examination of American academia's culture, assumptions, and rules is decades-past overdue. I doubt, very much, that any fuss by "unsavory Ward Churchill online critics" (Not My Tribe)

Until academic reform happens, American citizens will continue to pay taxes which go, in part, to supporting people like professor Ward Churchill and associate professor Meyers. People with approved views will continue having their right to be outrageous: and enjoy the assurance that opposing views will be afforded equal - but separate - protection.

More-or-less related posts: News and views: Background:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Sounds of Silence: 2009

"Silence propagates itself, and the longer talk has been suspended, the more difficult it is to find anything to say."
Samuel Johnson, on The Quotations Page

It seems that the quote is from "The Works of Samuel Johnson" Volume IV (on Google Books The quote is from a paragraph that begins:

"It is always observable that silence propagates itself, and that the longer talk has been suspended, the more difficult it is to find a thing to say. We began now to wish for conversation; but no one seemed inclined to descend from his dignity, or first propose a topick of discourse...."

So What?!

There doesn't seem to be any difficulty finding a "a topick of discourse," here at the dawn of the Information Age.

On the other hand, the willingness to "descend from ... dignity" - or self-righteousness, or whatever, is, I think, sadly lacking.
Patriots, Environmentalists, and Crackpots
A marked aversion to people who 'aren't the proper sort' is nothing new. I grew up in the sixties, graduated from high school in 1969, and started doing time in college the next fall. Back then, what I mostly ran into were terribly 'patriotic' people who were, quite sincerely, convinced that 'the Commies' were behind it. 'It' being whatever was troubling them at the moment.

If you watch reruns of M*A*S*H, think Frank Burns, without the humor. And, coming from another direction, there were people who took Paul Ehrlich seriously.

That was then, this is now. The background noise of "Commie threat" has, to some extent, been replaced by "environmental threat" - which I think is as real as the "Commie threat" was. The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea were real. They posed a serious threat to people who had developed the habit of traveling around without authorization, and setting up businesses if they wanted to.

The threat was real. The 'civil rights is a commie plot' claims were, as far as I can tell, bogus. Totally bogus.

Today, there are serious concerns about what's in the air, water, and soil. Where I live, it's not particularly healthy to eat the fish you catch in the lake. But, the 'and we're all gonna die' pronouncements about Global Warming (capitalized or not) and other dooms brought about by vile humanity remind me of the 'good old days' and Commie plots.

It's Not Just Whacked Out Liberals

Check out the list of related posts, below. You'll find references to screwball liberals, conservatives, and ideologies that don't quite fit into mainstream American politics. Every group, I think, has its crackpots.

That's the human condition, and has to be recognized. I won't say "accepted," but that's a topic for another blog.
'Now That the Right People are In Charge - - -
Trouble can start, I think, when one or more of a society's information channels is dominated by people who all feel the same way about the world, and how it ought to be.

When that happens, it's too easy to allow one side's view pass without filtering, while preventing opposing views from being heard. No 'conspiracy' involved: it's just human nature to give ideas which are "obviously" correct pass without review; while scrutinizing those which are "obviously" flawed, or simply sidetracking them.

Back in the fifties, from what I read later, and was told, what we call 'conservatives' dominated American society. The McCarthy hearings and campus radicals of the sixties helped change that.

Now, quite a few of the campus radicals are tenured professors.
The Curious Case of Dr. Gray
Things are different when you're in charge: for you, and for everyone else. Hurricane expert Dr. William Gray may have been yanked from the national spotlight by budgetary considerations. Or, because he had heretical views on Global Warming: and, with monumental lack of good sense, expressed those views.

Dr. Gray isn't making a fuss about it, and I can't blame him. Even if he knew that he'd been blackballed for having the wrong views, he's a career academic: and bucking the system is not how you get your papers published. Dr. Gray's work may make a difference, fifty or a hundred years from now. Right now, he's off the cultural radar.

Let's Give the Marketplace of Ideas a Chance

Quite a bit of me is from the sixties: although I realize that it's no longer 1968.
Sounds of Silence: 2009
So, when I saw that Samuel Johnson quote, I thought of "Sounds of Silence."

The world today isn't exactly what it was in 1965, when Simon and Garfunkle's song entered the culture. But, I think there's still good sense in the lyrics: Not communicating with each other is a bad idea. And, good sense in Simon and Garfunkle's introduction, in a video that's on YouTube.

The video picks up at the end of an introduction to the song:

"...inability of people to communicate with each other: And not particularly internationally, but especially emotionally, so that what you see around you is people who are unable to live each other. This is called 'Sounds of Silence. " (YouTube)

I won't try to sort out what the song "means." There's a variety of ideas on someone else's website. One thing that's generally accepted is that "Sounds of Silence" is about communication: or, rather, the lack of it.

I'm more inclined to accept an artist's word on what a work means, than what a reviewer, 'expert,' or fan says. So, I accept the idea that "Sounds of Silence" was more about interpersonal, than international, communication. And, about a love deficit.

The third verse can, I think, be applied to more than relations between individuals:
...And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence....
(Music Depot)
Run through what's being said and written about the War on Terror, and you'll find plenty of "people talking without speaking," "people hearing without listening."
Expression of Disgust and Exclusion are not "Communication"
People expressing disgust at "towelheads," a politico who should know better describing someone wearing "a diaper on his head and a fan belt around that diaper on his head" are not, I think being helpful. All that they're communicating is that they don't like a specific group of people who aren't just like them. (See post of February 24, 2009)

Conservatives haven't cornered the market for screwballs. A non-conservative politico made a remarkable statement about two years ago:

" 'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you.' " (See post of July 17, 2007)

If you didn't hear about one of Minnesota's up-and-coming politicos' views on the alleged American plot to blow up the World Trade Center and frame Al Qaeda, you may have heard of a professor with a similar view. (See post of July 25, 2007)

And, there's the hoplophobia that's permeated American culture. The term refers to an irrational fear of weapons. For many Americans, it's a more focused fear of guns. And, since "everybody knows" that guns cause crime, hoplophibia isn't recognized as an unusual condition (See post of December 23, 2007)
Don't Like Turbans? Don't Wear One
People aren't all alike. But we're not going learn from each other by insulting each other - however 'cathartic' that is. (Remember when psychobabble was full of that word?)

If people are allowed to express their ideas, I think that the ideas that make sense will endure. The ones that don't, won't. Except among people who are convinced that towelheads are disgusting, or that the CIA blew up New York City's World Trade Center.

And, we'll have a better chance of surviving whatever outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban have planned for people whose beliefs they don't approve of.

Sound Of Silence - Simon & Garfunkel (live sound)

Hamp32, YouTube (February 08, 2007)
video (3:19)

Related posts: Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, February 9, 2009

Islamic Website Called for 'Forest Jihad' - But Still No Evidence in Victoria

(Why do I use the phrase "Islamic website" in this post? Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network made it, and they clearly think they're Islamic.)

I think we may be seeing the phrase "forest jihad" for a while. The idea that Australia's bushfires in Victoria were the work of Muslim terrorists has been discussed in a few online news services, and the catchy phrase "forest jihad" has been used.

Australian Police still haven't mentioned evidence that Islamic terrorists torched Victoria. Yes, South Australian Premier Mike Rann said that whoever set the fire were "terrorists" - but he's a politico, and politicians have been known to make over-the-top statements in stressful times.

Forest Jihad and Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network

A European news resource, mina, discussed "forest jihad." Looks like there's more than just wild speculation behind the idea that Islamic terrorists torched Victoria.

American intelligence spotted a website that urged Muslims in Australia, America, Europe, and Russia to torch forests - and that scholars said it was okay.

"The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the 'eye for an eye' doctrine...." (mina)

I see that, according to Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network's view of things, if the fires in Australia's Victoria state prove to be the work of lions of Islam, it will be America's fault - as well as Australia's, Europe's, and Russia's. My guess is that, at least among the more 'intelligent, open-minded' Americans, it'll be mostly America's fault.

Torching brush and letting people fry doesn't seem to be quite Al Qaeda's style: or that of any other Islamic terror outfit. Approved by scholars or not, it's just not all that macho.

Or, as an Australian professor put it, "glorious." "...Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis...." (mina)

Islamic Terrorists in Victoria? Maybe - and Maybe Not

The handful of "forest jihad" articles, including mina's more detailed one, referring to a website which advocated fire as a terror weapon, make the idea of Muslim terrorists being responsible more plausible.

But I am still not convinced that it's the most likely explanation. I tend to agree with Dolnik on this point: a suicide bomber makes a much bigger splash than an arsonist.

Islamic terrorists do seem to prefer more hands-on death and destruction: whether flying airliners into skyscrapers, beheading someone with a sword, or blowing yourself up in a market. That sort of mayhem is 'glorious' in a way. Setting a fire and running: not so much.

Not Discussing the "Forest Jihad" Scenario: Conventional Wisdom vs Good Sense

I'm not surprised that the idea of Muslim terrorists being responsible for Australia's disastrous fires is being ignored in traditional news media: so far.

Old school American news media, like The New York Times and the old ABC-NBC-CBS triumvirate, have certain standards. One of these appears to be that the sensibilities of non-western cultures and beliefs should be taken into account.

So far, so good.

But, like most good ideas, it can get out of hand. It looks like open discussion of a possible connection between an Islamic website advocating 'forest jihad,' and massive bushfires in Australia, is being ignored.

Maybe 'forest jihad' isn't being ignored - but it's hard for me to believe that one man, here in a small central Minnesota town, can out-research and out-write The New York Times, and other traditional information gatekeepers.

If traditional news media knows about the possible Islamic terror connection with the Victoria fires, and isn't writing about it - they're either ignoring it, or maybe waiting until they know more.

My guess is, they're ignoring it.

There are 'good reasons' for doing so. Coming right out and saying that some Islamic group said to burn the forests, and then Victoria bushfires got set, might prejudice people against all Muslims. Never mind that it's one (relatively unknown) group, on one website: and that real terrorists who think they're defending Islam have a history of getting up close and personal with their victims (Palestinian rockets notwithstanding).

So: is it a good idea to ignore the idea of "forest jihad" because some people would go way beyond the facts?

Maybe. But those "some people" may have done so already (judging from search terms I've been seeing), I'd say that old fashioned news services ignoring an issue won't keep people from knowing about it.

Beware Unintended Consequences

Keeping carefully quiet about "forest jihad" could, however, make it look like there's a cover-up going on.

No, I don't think so.

This diffidence about discussing "forest jihad" is (I think) more likely the traditional gatekeepers' reluctance to seem critical of non-western values and cultures.

Unhappily, it creates an information vacuum (or low-pressure system, at any rate) that allows genuinely biased ideas to fly around - without resistance.

More-or-less related posts: In the news: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, January 30, 2009

Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age

This isn't the 'good old days' of my youth. A lot has changed, here in America, since the glory years of Led Zepplin and Disco.

That was when Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, or Peter Jennings told most of us what was going on in the world: and, after 1971, intellectual aspirants followed "All Things Considered." Some newspapers and magazines did their own research, but most looked to The New York Times and a few other sources in the Eastern time zone to see what the 'important' news of the day was.

Welcome to the Information Age

These must be trying times for the old-school news editors, college professors, and other established authorities. Back in the 'good old days,' these traditional information gatekeepers had a great deal of control over what ideas and information would be spread quickly, and reinforced.

People with potentially disruptive, unsettling, or "divisive" ideas had to rely on their own circle of friends and acquaintances, if they hoped to get a hearing.

That's an oversimplification, of course. Even then, an older bit of information technology, movable type and the printing press, helped editors of 'underground newspapers' to get around the gatekeepers.

That was then, this is now.

Today, thanks to a happy combination of technology and a (not exactly universal) love of freedom, just about anybody with an idea can get a hearing. Globally, providing that they use a language which is understood in many countries. (English is understood in over a hundred countries, which may help explain why so much of the Web is in that language.)

Compared to the 'good old days,' we live in a maelstrom of information and opinions.

Americans don't have a tight little cluster of 'reliable' network news programs, magazines, and newspapers to rely on.

Not everyone agrees on what the day's 'relevant' news is, or what we're supposed to know about it.

It's complex, and confusing. Anyone who tries to pay attention finds contradictory views, backed by various combinations of facts and wishful thinking.

I love it.

Some of the ideas we find on the Web are - 'alternatively sane,' I suppose would be one way to put it. One of my favorites, almost certainly a gag, involved a global conspiracy of squirrels, bent on enslaving humanity and forcing us to slave in their nut mines.

I think the 'marketplace of ideas' tends to identify crackpot notions, and allow consideration of fact-based points of view. It would be nice, if traditional gatekeepers would do the same thing: but it's nice to have an alternative.

Castro (Fidel), Castro (Raoul), Obama, Che Guevara, and today's world

I started reminiscing about the 'good old days,' and remembering why I'm so glad I'm not back there, while catching up on the news.

(And, no: I don't think that President Barack Obama is allied with Castro (either one). It wouldn't surprise me, if someone thinks he is, though: there's no shortage of odd ideas floating around.)
Castro (Fidel) to Obama: Yankee Go Home!
If Fidel Castro meant it when he called Obama "honest" and "noble," that's not what he's saying now. A Reuters article from yesterday's news, "Fidel Castro demands Obama return Guantanamo base," discusses the former Cuban president's demand that Obama give the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo to Cuba - without conditions. And, that Obama is supporting what he thinks is an "Israeli genocide" against Palestinians.

Reuters quotes Castro: "Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country," which isn't anything new. Fidel has had the same line about American presidents since 1959.
Castro (Raul), Russia, and the Inverted Pyramid
First, about the "inverted pyramid:" Journalists have used inverted pyramid organization for their stories for quite a while.

One reason may be that when the telegraph was the fastest way of transmitting a story, connections could get cut. That made it important to put the most important part of the story first.

Editors like the inverted pyramid, too. When reporters put the most important parts of the story first, an editor could cut as much off the bottom as necessary to fit an available space, and still have a coherent bit of news.

I learned, from classes and on-the-job experience, that readers tend to scan headlines. When they see one of interest, they'll read the first paragraph or two. Sometimes, they'll read more of the article. If they're particularly interested, readers will go all the way to the end.

That means that most people will never see what's put at the end of a news article. Which is okay, if the most important facts are in the headline and lead paragraphs. And, you agree with what the reporter and editor think is most important.
Inverted Pyramid Format and What's Important: One Example
The current president of Cuba, Raul Castro, is in today's news: "Russia and Cuba seal new partnership at Kremlin" (Reuters). The island nation has a new president, and is making new ties with the international community.

We read that Cuba's current president, Raul Castro, is on an unprecedented trip to Russia: and signed a partnership pact with Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev. Reflecting on the the event, Cuba's elected president stated: " 'This is an historic moment, an important moment in relations between Russia and Cuba.' "

That's from the beginning of the story. Around the middle, we read:

"Asked afterwards by a reporter about possible military cooperation between Moscow and Havana, Sechin responded: 'Why are you interested in that ?' "

The last paragraph reads:

"Trade between Russia and Cuba totaled $239 million during the first 11 months of 2008, a 26 percent rise compared to the same period in 2007, the Kremlin said. Russia mainly buys sugar cane from Cuba and sells machinery."

That seems to be a pretty good example of inverted pyramid writing, for an article that focuses on the economic aspects of Castro's trip. There may have been a tendency to focus on the positive aspects of Castro's trip: but the first post-Cold-War visit from a Cuban leader to Russia is a big deal. Perhaps Reuters didn't want to seem sensationalistic.
Inverted Pyramid Format and What's Important: Another Example
MSNBC covered the election of Cuba's new, elected, president, in February of 2008 ("Raul Castro succeeds Fidel as preside"):

The first two paragraphs are pretty solid inverted pyramid style:

"HAVANA - Cuba's parliament named Raul Castro president on Sunday, ending nearly 50 years of rule by his brother Fidel but leaving the island's communist system unshaken.

"In a surprise move, officials bypassed younger candidates to name a 77-year-old revolutionary leader, Jose Ramon Machado, to Cuba's No. 2 spot — apparently reassuring the old guard that no significant political changes will be made soon...."

So far, so good. Next is a sample from around the middle of the story. MSNBC quoted Raul's assurance that " 'The Communist Party guarantees the unity of the Cuban nation,' " and discussed possible revaluation of the Peso (and Raul's purdent observation "that any change would have to be gradual to 'prevent traumatic and incongruent effects.' " Then, MSNBC gives readers a look at what ordinary Cubans think of their new president.

" 'He's a trustworthy man,' Maria Martinez, a 67-year-old retiree who watched the announcement on the Chinese-made television in her dark living room in Old Havana. 'He won't make mistakes.'

" 'All we really want is peace and tranquility,' she added.

"Her 33-year-old neighbor, Raul Rodriguez, let out a long sigh and nodded as the announcement of Raul Castro's election was made." (MSNBC)

Looks like all Cubans want is "peace and tranquility," that they believe that their new (and elected) president "won't make mistakes," and is "a trustworthy man." And, I'm sure that that's what Maria Martinez said, or a pretty good translation.

It would be odd, if Fidel's brother didn't have supporters.

And, that may be all that many readers saw of the story. People on the Web are notorious for short attention spans, and the article was fairly long: around 1,100 words, by my count.

So, back in February, it looks like Cuba was a happy land, with a president who had the confidence of the people, and who understood the importance of caution in trying economic times.

Readers who finished the article got what I'll call bonus data: rather uncomplimentary views of Raul Castro, from Cubans who preferred not to be identified. The article ends with:

"...'This country it's like jail,' said the 51-year-old, who like many Cubans declined to give his last name to a foreign journalist when criticizing the government. 'They close the doors and say "the president is Peter or the president is Paul" and everyone responds "Good, it's Peter or Paul." There's no openness.' " (MSNBC)
Propaganda? Drama? Randomness?
Packing the front of the article with neutral or positive information about Raul Castro and his Cuba, and leaving "it's like jail" until the end might be an effort to leave the majority of readers with a distorted view, and still be able to claim objectivity.

Or, maybe the dissenting opinions were at the end for dramatic effect.

It's even possible - barely - that MSNBC editors don't organize articles, and just pop paragraphs into place as whim or chance dictate.

Just the same, unless someone read the last 142 words of the article, a reader would leave the article with the impression that Raul Castro was a prudent leader, and had the support of his people.

That might be all that's important, from MSNBC's point of view: but I don't agree.

The Information Age: Complex, Confusing, Contradictory, and Showing Great Promise

I'd rather deal with information overload, than in a society where news and entertainment was carefully regulated: for the people's good, of course.

I'm pretty sure that some don't agree with a movie review, "Che the revolutionary hero? Ruthless serial killer more like" (Scotsman.com News (January 30, 2009)), written by someone who has rather definite opinions.

And, "Gore Delivers 'Inconvenient Truth' Lecture to Senate Committee" (Washington Post (January 28, 2009)) refers to the "Oscar-winning documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth,' " which some argue isn't exactly a documentary.

I'm glad that I live in a society where Hollywood studios are free to idolize Che Guevara. I don't agree with their view, but I've learned to be very wary about censorship.

I just wish that it was a bit safer to discuss ideas which challenge beliefs like former Vice President Gore's views on global warming.

More-or-less related posts: News and views: Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 11, 2008

War in the Information Age: Cell Phone Redial Brings Battlefield Experience to Family

People, and war, haven't changed much over the millennia: Parents worry about their children who have gone to the battlefield.

Thousands of years ago, the sounds of battle might be heard in the parent's home. As societies changed and grew, soldiers traveled farther, and battlefields became distant realities.

As soldiers traveled farther, new communications technologies were developed to keep them in touch with the rest of the family.
  • Trans-Atlantic telegraph cable (mid-nineteenth century) joined by a telephone cable in 1956 made real-time communication between continents possible
  • V-mail in WWII used optical compression to make room for more letters on cargo planes
  • Communications satellites like Telstar were an incremental improvement on intercontinental telephone service
  • Cell phones, since the 1980s freed telephones from fixed outlets
Cell phones and other Information Age technologies had the potential to bring back the days when families of warriors often heard the sounds of battle.

Last month, that potential became a reality.

A family in Oregon came home in April, 2008, to find that their son, Stephen, had left a voice mail message. He was stationed in Afghanistan, and his Army MP company was under attack from a Taliban unit.

Or, more accurately, his cell phone had called home. The most likely explanation is that the phone got squeezed between their son and his Humvee.

The family heard gunfire, swearing and shouts for more ammunition. And their son's rifle barrel seemed to be overheating.

" 'You could hear him saying stuff like, he needs more ammo, or he needs another barrel,' said John Petee, Phillips' brother. 'At the end, you could hear a guy saying "Incoming! RPG!" And then it cut off.' "

It took the Petee family a while to get in touch in Stephen, but he was okay. Also embarrassed. " 'I finally got a hold of him,' Sandie Petee said. 'He was embarrassed, he said, "Don't let Grandma hear it." ' "

(From "Afghanistan Firefight Heard On Voice Mail"
KPTV; Portland, OR (May 5, 2008))

As I wrote earlier, "People, and war, haven't changed much over the millennia:" but that doesn't mean that technology doesn't make a difference.

The Vietnam conflict was called the first war delivered to America's living room, because of the relatively immediate video coverage on the newly-emerged evening news. Television coverage certainly made the conflict a more immediate reality than the newsreels and newspapers of earlier generations.

The occasional cell phone message from the battlefield is even more immediate than edited footage on the evening news.

And hearing unedited transmissions from a battle may make a difference in the way that people perceive a war.

Welcome to the Information Age

I think that the medium you're reading right now will make a bigger difference. Back in the sixties and seventies, American news was filtered through a few major east coast newspapers.

No conspiracy: the continental U.S. is four time zones wide. Newspaper editors work on tight deadlines - and making decisions takes time. It's understandable that editors would generally accept the judgment of their fellow-professionals on the east coast. That's where the sun rises on America, and where the news of the day first gets evaluated.

So, articles that The New York Times and a few other major east coast papers decided were newsworthy spread across America with the sun. Those that they didn't approve generally didn't go any further.

Broadcast news was even more restricted. If ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS news didn't think a story was worthy of mention, America didn't see it on television news.

Cable news, the Web, and especially blogs, changed all that. News is no longer what a few editorial boards want it to be. News is, I think, becoming what concerned people think is important.

Not that bloggers are necessarily better at evaluating world events than professional editors. The advantage of the blogosphere is that it lets facts and opinions rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas: not in the predispositions of a few editors.
The phone call from Afghanistan:
"Brother's Firefight"
YouTube video 2:58 (April 21, 2008)
(Be advised: this is unedited battlefield sounds, including "graphic language." Stephen didn't want his grandmother to hear it: and I think his request was wise.)

Stephen's brother posted the audio clip, and wrote:
"My brother is an MP over in Afghanistan. He was on post on April 21st. He decided to give us a call, just to let us know how he was doing.
"Nobody was home so he got the answering machine, and hung up. Just then, they started getting shot at. Somehow, his phone re-dialed, and we got this on our answering machine. He is okay."
(JRPetee, YouTube)
There are hundreds of comments, so far, many supportive, as well as quite a few standard-issue remarks like:
"We most certainly DID pick this fight!
"And how in God's name can someone protect me in another country when I'M HERE IN THIS ONE?
"brainwashed, stupid sheeple...pitifull"
"Brother's Firefight"

JRPetee, YouTube (April 21, 2008)
video, 2:58
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.