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?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)