Many a times I have watched television give a slanted view of the strife between Palestine and Israel. Whenever you hear of the Palestine-Israeli strife, it is usually one sided. The news will either show how much the Palestinians are suffering under the oppression of the Israelis who are taking their land by force or it will show you the terrorist activities of Hamas against Israel.Even when I hold conversations with my friends who are from he region, no one wants to admit that both sides have committed there fair share of destruction. The Palestinian side wants freedom and autonomy from Israel and is willing to fight to the bitter end for it. The Israeli side is not willing to let go, they refer to Hamas as terrorist and some have even claimed in regard to Hamas that an ant does not go to war with an elephant. This is in reference of course to both countries military forces.
An article in the New York Times titled "Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes From Both Sides" came like a breath of fresh air.According to the article, a UN report that came as a result of the investigation of the war in Gaza last winter has found that both Palestinian and Israeli militant groups are guilty of war crimes. Israel assaulted Gaza and terrorized a civilian population and as a result affected Gaza's economic capability. Israel was also responsible for the destruction of food production lines, water and sewerage facilities, using women and children as human shields and use of white phosphorous as a weapon of war.
Palestine on the other hand,fired rockets at Israeli civilians and killed and abused members of the rival Fatah political movement.
Now some may argue that Palestine's list is fairly smaller but considering the size of Palestine's military forces, that is hardly surprising. Who is to say what the extent of damage would be had Palestine had a greater military at its disposal?
Both parties of course argue that they acted in self defense. It is much more eye opening when you look at both sides of the story before you draw conclusions.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bin Laden was within US grip.
I read two articles that were both on the same subject but they had a totally different approach to the matter. This went well with the objective of this blog which is to try and analyse how the media we are typically exposed to shapes our opinion on certain issues. Also, to demonstrate the importance of gathering information from different sources.
According to BBC news, a senate report was written by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff Osama bin Laden was allowed to walk unmolested into Pakistani territory because calls for reinforcement were rejected. It laid the blame on the Bush administration as a whole but was not very critical and accusing.It was sympathetic towards the then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said that he expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and also mentioned that he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.
Another article on guardian.co.uk made it very clear that it was former secretary of defense Donald Ramesfeld who let Bin Laden escape in 2001. Its interpretation of the report is that Ramsfeld had the chance to ensure that Bin Laden was either captured or killed but instead he let him slip away.According to the article, the report lays blame for the July 2005 Underground bombings in London on a failure to kill the al-Qaida leaders at Tora Bora.
It also went into detailing the evidence in the report that proves Bin Laden was indeed in Tora Bora, how many men he had, why he was there and how exactly the US failed to capture him. It was critical of Republicans and assumed that most Republicans would dismiss the report as partisan.
Reading from the two articles gives two very different perspectives of the Bush Administration and the report itself. It fascinates me how one report can be interpreted by two news outlets so that at the end of the day, you may not be able to tell whether or not it was the same report in the first place. The best and most responsible thing for a citizen who wants to be well informed is to find the report and read it, but in our busy and always on the move days, how many people would rather get the condensed version from whichever news source they trust the most?
According to BBC news, a senate report was written by the Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff Osama bin Laden was allowed to walk unmolested into Pakistani territory because calls for reinforcement were rejected. It laid the blame on the Bush administration as a whole but was not very critical and accusing.It was sympathetic towards the then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said that he expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and also mentioned that he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.
Another article on guardian.co.uk made it very clear that it was former secretary of defense Donald Ramesfeld who let Bin Laden escape in 2001. Its interpretation of the report is that Ramsfeld had the chance to ensure that Bin Laden was either captured or killed but instead he let him slip away.According to the article, the report lays blame for the July 2005 Underground bombings in London on a failure to kill the al-Qaida leaders at Tora Bora.
It also went into detailing the evidence in the report that proves Bin Laden was indeed in Tora Bora, how many men he had, why he was there and how exactly the US failed to capture him. It was critical of Republicans and assumed that most Republicans would dismiss the report as partisan.
Reading from the two articles gives two very different perspectives of the Bush Administration and the report itself. It fascinates me how one report can be interpreted by two news outlets so that at the end of the day, you may not be able to tell whether or not it was the same report in the first place. The best and most responsible thing for a citizen who wants to be well informed is to find the report and read it, but in our busy and always on the move days, how many people would rather get the condensed version from whichever news source they trust the most?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Obama's Bow.
I couldn't understand what the big deal was about Obama's bow to the Japanese emperor was when we were discussing it in class. So I decided to go and read some more on it.Of course I got an overwhelming amount of information. I was actually surprised at how much media attention that bow had received. I figured since it had made the weeks agenda and so prominently, it must be a big deal and it really was!One article by The Los Angeles Times online incoorperated this video that compared a number of bows to Obama's with the objective of showing how drastic Obama's bow was and how embarrassing this was for America.
Correlation is NOT causation.
A recent article in the BBC blatantly stated that climate change is a cause of the conflict in Africa. In fact, the title of the article is CLIMATE CHANGE IS "A MAJOR CAUSE OF CONFLICT" IN AFRICA And it gets better!Right under a pitiful picture of an old woman with tears in her eyes, was the subheading: Climate has been cited as a factor behind civil war in Sudan. As my eyes scanned through it all I could hear in the back of my head was professor Bhasin's voice going over and over again, emphasizing "correlation is not causation"
It is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the truth in a world wide news channel. I can think of quite a number of cases that would discredit climate change as a cause of conflict in Africa. Kenya, which boarders Sudan to the south has seen some fair share of conflict. North Eastern province is the driest region of the country. The Rift Valley is one of the most fertile regions. The Rift Valley has experienced some of the worst tribal clashes leading to civil strife.The North East, according to BBC should be experiencing conflict but it has seen little to no civil strife.
Northern Uganda has experienced one of the longest running wars in Africa. Climate has nothing to do with it. South Africa, one of Africa's most developed, experienced a wave of anti-immigrant violence.It had nothing to do with climate. Zimbabwe has been experiencing post election strife. I don't know about you but I would say the causal arrow in this case is not pointing in the same direction across all the countries that are subject to this study.
Food scarcity is a valid argument because the reason most wars occur is over struggle for resources. But, the poor have always had a food shortage even in times when the economy was blossoming and the rain was abundant. Much like the argument made in the study that showed in countries where wine consumption was high, divorce rates were low. It is not wine consumption that causes low divorce rates but these two factors are correlated. The real reason behind the low divorce rates is Catholicism- a religion that prohibits divorce but doesn't have any restrictions concerning wine consumption. Similarly it is not climate change that causes civil strife in Africa. Climate change, especially low rainfall, leads to low crop production and low agricultural output. This in turn leads to high food prices that the poor population cannot afford. This in turn leads to other things like a desire for wealth, a desire for land resources where they can grow crops to sustain themselves and the cycle continues to grow.
The problem of civil strife in Africa is multifaceted but I do not believe that climate change is a major contributor. The one factor that contributed the most to the civil strife in Africa is colonialism and interference by foreign powers. Rwanda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Somalia are good examples of countries who's wars have been fueled and even supported by foreign powers such as France, UK and even the United States.But these are the facts I will never read about in the news. What a great watchdog we have!
It is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the truth in a world wide news channel. I can think of quite a number of cases that would discredit climate change as a cause of conflict in Africa. Kenya, which boarders Sudan to the south has seen some fair share of conflict. North Eastern province is the driest region of the country. The Rift Valley is one of the most fertile regions. The Rift Valley has experienced some of the worst tribal clashes leading to civil strife.The North East, according to BBC should be experiencing conflict but it has seen little to no civil strife.
Northern Uganda has experienced one of the longest running wars in Africa. Climate has nothing to do with it. South Africa, one of Africa's most developed, experienced a wave of anti-immigrant violence.It had nothing to do with climate. Zimbabwe has been experiencing post election strife. I don't know about you but I would say the causal arrow in this case is not pointing in the same direction across all the countries that are subject to this study.
Food scarcity is a valid argument because the reason most wars occur is over struggle for resources. But, the poor have always had a food shortage even in times when the economy was blossoming and the rain was abundant. Much like the argument made in the study that showed in countries where wine consumption was high, divorce rates were low. It is not wine consumption that causes low divorce rates but these two factors are correlated. The real reason behind the low divorce rates is Catholicism- a religion that prohibits divorce but doesn't have any restrictions concerning wine consumption. Similarly it is not climate change that causes civil strife in Africa. Climate change, especially low rainfall, leads to low crop production and low agricultural output. This in turn leads to high food prices that the poor population cannot afford. This in turn leads to other things like a desire for wealth, a desire for land resources where they can grow crops to sustain themselves and the cycle continues to grow.
The problem of civil strife in Africa is multifaceted but I do not believe that climate change is a major contributor. The one factor that contributed the most to the civil strife in Africa is colonialism and interference by foreign powers. Rwanda, Cote D'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Somalia are good examples of countries who's wars have been fueled and even supported by foreign powers such as France, UK and even the United States.But these are the facts I will never read about in the news. What a great watchdog we have!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Objectivity.
As I read through the article "After the Horror at Home: Shootings at Fort Hood," I couldn't help but admire how well the writer had presented the facts, interpreted the event but still maintained a high degree of objectivity.The article did a good job of maintaining neutrality. Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan was presented as a murderer not as a radical Muslim who was out to kill in the name of his religion.
The article also covered different reactions to the killings. It pointed out to the fact that there could be more than one explanation to why this happened. The article was informative without leaning to any one side. All arguments were well developed and that to me is what good journalism is. The fact that it acknowledged the bias in right-wing and left-wing interpretations to why this happened was a plus.Here is a direct quote from the article,
"Elsewhere, Americans were grasping for explanations. The most likely is that the killer was merely a deranged and isolated individual. But right-wing bloggers and talk-radio hosts have focused on his religion: he had stopped in a convenience store dressed in a traditional white robe and hat on the morning of the attack, and there were reports that he had yelled “Allahu Akbar” before the shootings. Another interpretation suggests that Major Hasan was suffering from the stressful experience of military service during wartime, even if the psychiatrist had not, yet, been deployed into combat."
This was a good example of framing and how the media can tell people not what to think, but exactly what to think about.It is important especially in events as delicate as Fort Hood to maintain an informed public rather than promoting mindless propaganda without clear facts.
The article also covered different reactions to the killings. It pointed out to the fact that there could be more than one explanation to why this happened. The article was informative without leaning to any one side. All arguments were well developed and that to me is what good journalism is. The fact that it acknowledged the bias in right-wing and left-wing interpretations to why this happened was a plus.Here is a direct quote from the article,
"Elsewhere, Americans were grasping for explanations. The most likely is that the killer was merely a deranged and isolated individual. But right-wing bloggers and talk-radio hosts have focused on his religion: he had stopped in a convenience store dressed in a traditional white robe and hat on the morning of the attack, and there were reports that he had yelled “Allahu Akbar” before the shootings. Another interpretation suggests that Major Hasan was suffering from the stressful experience of military service during wartime, even if the psychiatrist had not, yet, been deployed into combat."
This was a good example of framing and how the media can tell people not what to think, but exactly what to think about.It is important especially in events as delicate as Fort Hood to maintain an informed public rather than promoting mindless propaganda without clear facts.
Ever heard of a Biblical Christian terrorist?
I can't help but wonder why the words Qu'uranic, Islamist and terrorist always have to go together in news stories!I have never heard of a Biblical Christian terrorist or a Jewish terrorist for that matter. The media does play an interpretation role but the playing field is definitely not level when we come to this issue.Why would anyone assume that the only reason that a man of a particular faith (In this case Islam) would commit murder is in the name of his religion?
Don't get me wrong, it is saddening, unfortunate and disturbing, what happened in Fort Hood. My heart goes out to all the families that lost loved ones and to the American Military for losing great irreplacable resources. But to simply mark the attack as an act of "radical Islamic" terrorism because the attacker was Muslim is myopic.
In their analysis of Obama's speech all that FOX news could focus on was how Obama did not refer to Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan's action as Islamic terrorism.The man was obviously mentally disturbed by his imminent deployment to Afghanistan. But, that of course is not as important as how Muslim the man is. This kind of news promotes stereotypes against Muslims and promotes the view that Islam as a religion promotes terrorism.
If a person is a terrorist he is simply a terrorist, associating religion in this case was almost uncalled for. Besides, the state department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism said on an interview with CNN that the attack had no linkage to any outside group. With great power comes great responsibility. The mass media shape opinion, which way we are swayed is up to us. The media have a responsibility to bring out truth before propaganda and in this case it was a close call.
Don't get me wrong, it is saddening, unfortunate and disturbing, what happened in Fort Hood. My heart goes out to all the families that lost loved ones and to the American Military for losing great irreplacable resources. But to simply mark the attack as an act of "radical Islamic" terrorism because the attacker was Muslim is myopic.
In their analysis of Obama's speech all that FOX news could focus on was how Obama did not refer to Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan's action as Islamic terrorism.The man was obviously mentally disturbed by his imminent deployment to Afghanistan. But, that of course is not as important as how Muslim the man is. This kind of news promotes stereotypes against Muslims and promotes the view that Islam as a religion promotes terrorism.
If a person is a terrorist he is simply a terrorist, associating religion in this case was almost uncalled for. Besides, the state department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism said on an interview with CNN that the attack had no linkage to any outside group. With great power comes great responsibility. The mass media shape opinion, which way we are swayed is up to us. The media have a responsibility to bring out truth before propaganda and in this case it was a close call.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Gay and in the news.
I stumbled upon a story in the BBC and as I read it I could not help but note that a news story of its kind would never have seen the light of day in the Kenyan mainstream news media. Like many African countries, homosexuality is not accepted in Kenya. It is a crime and one can be imprisoned if found guilty of being gay. This may sound ridiculous to some ears and perfectly normal to others.
To understand why the media in Kenya is very careful and conservative about issues like this, one has to understand that the main purpose of the media is to support national interests with regard to economic and social development. The media has to support the government in the spread of national unity and cultural integrity. What is not good for all of us, cannot be good at all.
The BBC story was about a young man who is living in the UK who claims to be gay,christian and African. It was not an article that one would define as anti-gay, as a matter of fact it is easy to see that the tone of the article is a sympathetic one towards gay Africans. The lines that BBC chose to highlight are those that applauded the UK for being accepting towards the gay community and those condemning African leaders for not embracing the gay community. The subject of the article was a 31-year-old Kenyan student currently studying in the UK. He was saddened by the fact that in Cameroon, there was an outing of top personalities for their alleged homosexuality. He was expressing his hope that one day he can be able to expose who he really is and not be afraid. Political campaigns in Kenya never entail gay rights or the empowerment of gay community. It is not an issue that commands any attention unless of course the media is condemning homosexuality.
It cannot be denied that there is a gay community in Africa and everyday it grows out it of its shyness. Many underground gay movements have taken root and the volcano is about to erupt. The mass media in Kenya has been under pressure to cover stories on homosexuality and the latest fault line being the case of a kenyan gay couple who got married in the UK. The Kenyan Newspapers, TV & Radio stations ran the story but not in the same friendly tone as that of BBC. The lines that Nation Newspaper chose to highlight were those about how the two men's families are being victimized in the rural villages where they have to live with the consequence of having raised gay children. They chose to highlight the shame that the parents are facing. They chose to talk about how Gichia and Ngenga are pleading with the world to leave them alone and mind their own business-- Nothing about rights or acceptance.Politicians in Kenya of course only speak against homosexuality, or don't speak of it at all.
Kenya is still a very homophobic society and the story did indeed spark outrage and controversy. This maybe precisely what the mass media is afraid of. With the gay issue being hot on the lips of every kenyan, it is unlikely that the media will keep quiet about it. At the end of the day, they still want to make money.
To understand why the media in Kenya is very careful and conservative about issues like this, one has to understand that the main purpose of the media is to support national interests with regard to economic and social development. The media has to support the government in the spread of national unity and cultural integrity. What is not good for all of us, cannot be good at all.
The BBC story was about a young man who is living in the UK who claims to be gay,christian and African. It was not an article that one would define as anti-gay, as a matter of fact it is easy to see that the tone of the article is a sympathetic one towards gay Africans. The lines that BBC chose to highlight are those that applauded the UK for being accepting towards the gay community and those condemning African leaders for not embracing the gay community. The subject of the article was a 31-year-old Kenyan student currently studying in the UK. He was saddened by the fact that in Cameroon, there was an outing of top personalities for their alleged homosexuality. He was expressing his hope that one day he can be able to expose who he really is and not be afraid. Political campaigns in Kenya never entail gay rights or the empowerment of gay community. It is not an issue that commands any attention unless of course the media is condemning homosexuality.
It cannot be denied that there is a gay community in Africa and everyday it grows out it of its shyness. Many underground gay movements have taken root and the volcano is about to erupt. The mass media in Kenya has been under pressure to cover stories on homosexuality and the latest fault line being the case of a kenyan gay couple who got married in the UK. The Kenyan Newspapers, TV & Radio stations ran the story but not in the same friendly tone as that of BBC. The lines that Nation Newspaper chose to highlight were those about how the two men's families are being victimized in the rural villages where they have to live with the consequence of having raised gay children. They chose to highlight the shame that the parents are facing. They chose to talk about how Gichia and Ngenga are pleading with the world to leave them alone and mind their own business-- Nothing about rights or acceptance.Politicians in Kenya of course only speak against homosexuality, or don't speak of it at all.
Kenya is still a very homophobic society and the story did indeed spark outrage and controversy. This maybe precisely what the mass media is afraid of. With the gay issue being hot on the lips of every kenyan, it is unlikely that the media will keep quiet about it. At the end of the day, they still want to make money.
The Sale of American Newspapers is Falling-says the Economist.
According to the Economist the sale of American newspapers has been falling and keeps falling. At the end of September 2009, daily circulation fell by 10.1% compared to September of 2008. The Economist says that more readers are moving to the internet to get the news free. I couldn't help but wonder if this is purely due to the recession or if it had more to do the content of the newspapers. Of course not all newspapers are entirely biased or filled with irrelevant human interest stories but more so, the advertising. A great example that is so close to home is the AJC. If you compare how much of the content in the AJC is advertising and how much is actual news you find that about a third of the paper consists of advertising.
The commercial influence on newspapers is growing. The desire for profit cannot be ignored and yet this desire for profit may be driving newspapers to the grave. I don't know about you, but when I pick up my newspaper I want to see news and not advertising. Sometimes I pick up a newspaper and I wonder why they don't just make it an advertising paper rather than a NEWSPAPER. There is just too much advertising and very little news. Stories on violence and sex scandals can be attributed to the huge desire to make profit. It is difficult to differentiate between mainstream newspapers and tabloids and magazines based on content because there is not much of a difference.
The only paper whose circulation did not drop is the Wall Street Journal. I flipped through a copy of the October 22, 2009 issue to see why its readers are so faithful to the paper.I still do not know why but one thing was evident, not half as many ads as those in the AJC! Yes, I understand that the cost of publishing is high, and yes I understand that the more the advertisements the more the money to produce tomorrows paper, but please, let us not lose focus on what the function of the NEWSPAPER is.
The commercial influence on newspapers is growing. The desire for profit cannot be ignored and yet this desire for profit may be driving newspapers to the grave. I don't know about you, but when I pick up my newspaper I want to see news and not advertising. Sometimes I pick up a newspaper and I wonder why they don't just make it an advertising paper rather than a NEWSPAPER. There is just too much advertising and very little news. Stories on violence and sex scandals can be attributed to the huge desire to make profit. It is difficult to differentiate between mainstream newspapers and tabloids and magazines based on content because there is not much of a difference.
The only paper whose circulation did not drop is the Wall Street Journal. I flipped through a copy of the October 22, 2009 issue to see why its readers are so faithful to the paper.I still do not know why but one thing was evident, not half as many ads as those in the AJC! Yes, I understand that the cost of publishing is high, and yes I understand that the more the advertisements the more the money to produce tomorrows paper, but please, let us not lose focus on what the function of the NEWSPAPER is.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Class Debate-Stricter regulations on violence and sex on TV
I am sure most of you are aware of Albert Bandura's social learning theory and the results of his research. The Bobo doll experiment clearly proved that children exposed to filmed violence are likely to imitate what they see.Yet the mass media is filled with sex and violence-right from TV,radio,video games the internet,you name it. The problem is that these children grow up to be adults. As much as we would like to say everyone recovers from that childish mindset and moves on to better things, the evidence is overwhelming. Look at the number of violent crimes,rape cases,teenage pregnancies or divorces related to extra marital affairs and domestic violence in America today to find your answer. This does not mean that TV is the only factor but it is certainly a key contributor. Let us look at a few case examples:
1. Dec 7,1981 Olivia N. v. NBC Olivia sued NBC for damages and injuries suffered after a group of minors artificially raped her with a bottle. Olivia N. alleged that her attackers had viewed and discussed the artificial rape scene in a broadcast of the movie Born Innocent and that led them to commit the crime.
2.In December of 2007, 16-year-old Daniel Petric shot his parents, killing his mother,because they would not let him play a violent video game called Halo 3
3. In 1999, Lionel Tate killed his 6-year-old cousin with whom he was practicing professional wrestling moves that he had seen on TV.
Just how much violence do kids see on TV? According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the average american child witnesses 200,000 violent acts on television by the age of 18.
Similarly,children who watched a lot of TV with sexual content are about twice as likely to start having intercourse during the subsequent years as those with little exposure to televised sex. This constant exposure leads to desensitization to both violence and sex. It is the good guys that our kids are taught to emulate. So, despite all the lectures from mum and dad about how wrong it is to hit others,TV says it is okay if you are the good guy. It is okay if you are wonder woman, batman or superman.
When we watch TV, there are no discussions of whether premarital sex is right or wrong, it is just portrayed as something that is done. TV sex rarely shows the negative effects of irresponsible sex, instead it is portrayed as something that everyone is doing. And if everyone is doing it, then it must be right!Despite what research on harmful effects of TV has proven, very few parents are able to restrict what their children watch. Yes, there are parents who do their job right by using parental control. These are the ones who make enemies of their children. But, what about the ones who grew up in the same setting of sex and violence and see nothing wrong with it? What about the technologically challenged who have no idea what parental control is, or don't know how to use it?
For adults what kind of values do shows like A Real Chance at Love, Rock of Love and the Bachelor promote? Adultery and promiscuity over marital intimacy,profanity, and irresponsibility are certainly a few of them. Our moral standards are degrading by the second through the content we let into our minds. If we don't want to become immune or numb to the horror of violence, if we don't want to become a society that accepts violence as a way to solve problems, if we don't want to see our children pregnant at age 16 or even 9, we should urge the government to enact stricter regulations on sex and violence, not just on TV but on all mass media outlets.
1. Dec 7,1981 Olivia N. v. NBC Olivia sued NBC for damages and injuries suffered after a group of minors artificially raped her with a bottle. Olivia N. alleged that her attackers had viewed and discussed the artificial rape scene in a broadcast of the movie Born Innocent and that led them to commit the crime.
2.In December of 2007, 16-year-old Daniel Petric shot his parents, killing his mother,because they would not let him play a violent video game called Halo 3
3. In 1999, Lionel Tate killed his 6-year-old cousin with whom he was practicing professional wrestling moves that he had seen on TV.
Just how much violence do kids see on TV? According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the average american child witnesses 200,000 violent acts on television by the age of 18.
Similarly,children who watched a lot of TV with sexual content are about twice as likely to start having intercourse during the subsequent years as those with little exposure to televised sex. This constant exposure leads to desensitization to both violence and sex. It is the good guys that our kids are taught to emulate. So, despite all the lectures from mum and dad about how wrong it is to hit others,TV says it is okay if you are the good guy. It is okay if you are wonder woman, batman or superman.
When we watch TV, there are no discussions of whether premarital sex is right or wrong, it is just portrayed as something that is done. TV sex rarely shows the negative effects of irresponsible sex, instead it is portrayed as something that everyone is doing. And if everyone is doing it, then it must be right!Despite what research on harmful effects of TV has proven, very few parents are able to restrict what their children watch. Yes, there are parents who do their job right by using parental control. These are the ones who make enemies of their children. But, what about the ones who grew up in the same setting of sex and violence and see nothing wrong with it? What about the technologically challenged who have no idea what parental control is, or don't know how to use it?
For adults what kind of values do shows like A Real Chance at Love, Rock of Love and the Bachelor promote? Adultery and promiscuity over marital intimacy,profanity, and irresponsibility are certainly a few of them. Our moral standards are degrading by the second through the content we let into our minds. If we don't want to become immune or numb to the horror of violence, if we don't want to become a society that accepts violence as a way to solve problems, if we don't want to see our children pregnant at age 16 or even 9, we should urge the government to enact stricter regulations on sex and violence, not just on TV but on all mass media outlets.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
When a woman wears the pants.
Sudan is under scrutiny, this time not because of Darfur, not because of the war. But, because a woman was found guilty of wearing trousers. Lubna Ahmed Hussein, faced upto 40 lashes if she was found guilty or had to pay a fine of $200. As reported in BBC news, international pressure was on Sudan to set the woman free. Amnesty International called on the government to withdraw the charges. The French foreign minister is one of those quoted to have strongly condemned the flogging. But, the fact remains that the woman was found guilty under article 152 of the Sudanese criminal law. She was found wearing trousers in Khartoum, which is an area run under sharia law. Someone paid the fine and she is now out of prison and receiving heavy media attention.
Out of curiosity, I looked up Hussein's story in the Sudanese newspapers online, none of them carried the story. Not even the Sudan's southern newspapers. The south is considered largely Christian and according to BBC news, in support of women's rights. Do the Sudanese people consider wearing trousers an essential human right for their women? Could this be something cultural that everyone outside Sudan is blowing out of proportion? Hussein did mention that under Sharia law she committed no crime but under a section of Sudanese law she was found guilty. If this is true, the issue has nothing to do with Islamic faith or Christian faith but Sudanese culture.
Even as I skimmed through the New Sudan Vision, the Sudan News Agency, and the Juba Post, I could not help but notice the male oriented articles and written by the predominantly male authors.
Although I am going off on a tangent here, I have one last thought to share. All the hype over the trouser issue and all the coverage it received from western news media, led me to the curious question, why was the UN so quick to condemn the conviction of this woman when it still struggles with the definition of genocide. The UN human rights office was quick to tell the Sudanese government. that Hussein's arrest was a violation of international law. An article in the Economist defines the Darfur conflict as neither an all out war nor a proper peace. It also stated clearly that despite the fact that 300,000 people had been killed, the conflict in Darfur is "widely accepted to be below what aid agencies consider the threshold for emergency." All I could do was gasp as I read these words.
So what is the threshold for emergency?
Out of curiosity, I looked up Hussein's story in the Sudanese newspapers online, none of them carried the story. Not even the Sudan's southern newspapers. The south is considered largely Christian and according to BBC news, in support of women's rights. Do the Sudanese people consider wearing trousers an essential human right for their women? Could this be something cultural that everyone outside Sudan is blowing out of proportion? Hussein did mention that under Sharia law she committed no crime but under a section of Sudanese law she was found guilty. If this is true, the issue has nothing to do with Islamic faith or Christian faith but Sudanese culture.
Even as I skimmed through the New Sudan Vision, the Sudan News Agency, and the Juba Post, I could not help but notice the male oriented articles and written by the predominantly male authors.
Although I am going off on a tangent here, I have one last thought to share. All the hype over the trouser issue and all the coverage it received from western news media, led me to the curious question, why was the UN so quick to condemn the conviction of this woman when it still struggles with the definition of genocide. The UN human rights office was quick to tell the Sudanese government. that Hussein's arrest was a violation of international law. An article in the Economist defines the Darfur conflict as neither an all out war nor a proper peace. It also stated clearly that despite the fact that 300,000 people had been killed, the conflict in Darfur is "widely accepted to be below what aid agencies consider the threshold for emergency." All I could do was gasp as I read these words.
So what is the threshold for emergency?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
South Africa's Golden Girl.
Poor Castor Semenya. I can only imagine how betrayed and embarrassed she felt when her story hit the news. To grow up a woman all your life and suddenly have a bunch of strangers accuse you of being a man. I can imagine the shock that swept over the rural parts of South Africa that she came from. Things the traditional African has never heard of before. A woman with too much testosterone may be considered a man? For us, when God gives you a child it is either a girl or a boy, nothing in between. I can imagine their confusion, 'what kind of crazy people would call Castor a man', they must have thought. 'We should never have sent our daughter to those competitions'. That is Africa, where a child is raised by a village and children are not judged by their testosterone levels. South Africa proved that when they gave her a hero's welcome at the airport. They even have a fond nickname for her, "The golden girl."
Sunday, August 30, 2009
BYE BYE LOCKERBIE
As I read the Reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57J62W20090821
about how Americans were "upset" and "condemned" the heroes welcome that Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi received once he got home to Libya, I could not help but wonder how many Americans even knew who he was let alone why he was a news worthy item. I could not help but wonder whether they were upset when operation El Dorado Canyon killed 40 Libyans including Muamar Qaddafi's 15-month old daughter. I could not help but wonder if they had condemned the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 that killed 290passengers among them 66 children that happened the same year, 1988, as the Lockerbie bombing. I could also not help but wonder if the media at that time had highlighted those events in the condemning tone it takes now when it describes the Megrahi release.
about how Americans were "upset" and "condemned" the heroes welcome that Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi received once he got home to Libya, I could not help but wonder how many Americans even knew who he was let alone why he was a news worthy item. I could not help but wonder whether they were upset when operation El Dorado Canyon killed 40 Libyans including Muamar Qaddafi's 15-month old daughter. I could not help but wonder if they had condemned the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 that killed 290passengers among them 66 children that happened the same year, 1988, as the Lockerbie bombing. I could also not help but wonder if the media at that time had highlighted those events in the condemning tone it takes now when it describes the Megrahi release.
Interestingly,all the American and UK news sources I have read from report that he was welcomed by hundreds of youth at the airport. But how many is hundreds? Is it on the higher or lower scale of hundreds? Is it 200 hundred or 900?When someone speaks of a heroes welcome, I conjure images of streets teaming with thousands upon thousands of adoring fans. Then again, how many is thousands, right? I guess it is a relative term, what is a heroes welcome for me, may not be a heroes welcome for CNN,the Economist,Reuters,AP and the list goes on. In a city as big as Tripoli with a population of about 1.6million, hundreds hardly seems like much of a heroes welcome.
The Libyan news however, claimed Al-Megrahi was welcomed by thousands, many of whom were shocked at the state of his health! The Tripoli posts claims to have interviewed a number of people who were all happy about Al-Megrahi's return and condemned the Scots for not administering justice. Which brings us to the question, who's figures are really true? Are the Libyans as passionate about this man as their media really want the world to think? And if they are, do they view him as a terrorist?
The Tripoli post in December 2008, months before Al-Megrahi's release ran a flamboyant headline :
| ||||
In the eyes of the Libyan news it remains a fact that Al-Megrahi is an innocent man bearing a stigma he does not deserve. One compelling article by Joseph M. Cachia talks about how Al-Megrahi has been set free from bondage but not from the responsibility of proving his innocence.http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=5&i=3531&archive=1. In his article Cachia asks a question that would rouse different responses for both sides. "Does anyone seriously believe that Scottish Government would release a man convicted of murdering innocents, unless there was good reason for considering that conviction to be more than a manipulated conspiracy? "
Of course for the Libyans it is because the Scottish government had convicted an innocent man all along, hence the supposed heroes welcome and support for Al-Megrahi. His innocence however, is a tricky factor. Al-Megrahi always maintained his innocence and asked for an appeal back in 2001. Why was his appeal denied?Why did Libya pay off the Lockerbie victims if Iran was truly responsible as Libyan news media now claims?Yet, we all know that Libya has a valuable resource that both the UK and US would love to lay hands on. An article in the economist also mentions that several world leaders have been courting Qaddafi
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14335988&fsrc=nwl.
Libya is ripe for foreign investment. That is no lie. All in all, we cannot deny the fact that all countries have their self interests in mind. Whether Al Megrahi was an innocent or guilty man ceases to the issue when states are set on reaping maximum benefits from this fascinating and controversial interaction. In the case of international politics, we seldom hear the truth. We are only fed with what is best for us as Libyans, as Americans, or as Scots to hear. "Best" is a decision our governments make for us, we do not get to choose, not this time.
Libya is ripe for foreign investment. That is no lie. All in all, we cannot deny the fact that all countries have their self interests in mind. Whether Al Megrahi was an innocent or guilty man ceases to the issue when states are set on reaping maximum benefits from this fascinating and controversial interaction. In the case of international politics, we seldom hear the truth. We are only fed with what is best for us as Libyans, as Americans, or as Scots to hear. "Best" is a decision our governments make for us, we do not get to choose, not this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)