Through a series of interviews with an all-star cast of dozens of performers, television writers and other intellectuals - among the best known are Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, Drew Carey and the animated boys of “South Park”
This comes directly from the New York Times. These are our intellectuals!
I’m filing this one under humor. This story from Al-Jazeera tells us that the verdict is in on America. Unfortunately, few news outlets have picked this story up. Besides special interest groups, the only news source with such a code of ethics as:
Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones
to run this seems to be Al-Jazeera. Although Telesur will probably pick it up.
Notably, this trial is related to the Nuremberg trials by the activist group who held it.
Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.
This is the first article of Al-Jazeera’s Code of Ethics, and it reflects the ideal for which most other mainstream news sources strive. Unfortunately, a quick scan of Al-Jazeera’s reporting on any given day verifies that the news agency seeks the exact opposite. To illustrate this, I have drawn a story reported by the BBC and by Al-Jazeera. The story refers to Pakistan’s new crackdown on foreign students at madrassas (religious schools). I chose the BBC to represent a western version of the story specifically because they are not generally characterized as pro-American. Now, to the story:
In the both versions, the basic story is the same. However, the devil is in the details. For example, the BBC quotes Pakistani President Gen. Musharraf saying
We will not allow madrassas to be misused for extremism, hatred being projected in our society.
In addition, the BBC article mentions the fact that one of the recent London bombers studied at a Pakistani madrassa. Finally, the BBC reports Tony Blair referring to “extremism” and “radical madrassas in context of the bomber who had studied in Pakistan.
But, the BBC article then presents another view of the madrassas. The students themselves are acknowledged:
The students said they were there simply to learn and were “more disappointed than angry” at the terror links.
To finish the article, the BBC recognizes that many of the poor and rural turn to the madrassas for their education. I think this passes as a balanced report.
Al-Jazeera paints a dramatically different picture of the incident. First of all, they never hint that any London bomber studied in one of the madrassas. Instead, they mention that Blair’s reasoning for urging a crackdown was that some of the bombers had recently visited the country.
Unwilling to purport any terrorist ties to the schools, Al-Jazeera moves on to tell us how great they are:
Madrassas offer free religious education and board for more than one million Pakistani children, especially in areas neglected by state education services. Some have been targeted for preaching hatred against the West.
If this is so important to Al-Jazeera, they should be glad that Pakistan is denying foreign students Visas to study at the madrassas. After all, those foreign students are essentially taking food out of the mouths of the “more than a million Pakistani children neglected by state services”. But, Al-Jazeera is not afraid of a little self-contradiction in the fight against America.
Instead of recognizing the terrorist activities, Al-Jazeera claims that they are targeted for preaching hatred to the West. After that, Al-Jazeera throws a curve:
Some schools were set up as military training sites during the 1979 to 1989 US-backed war against the Soviet occupation in neighbouring Afghanistan.
The implication is that any militant element related to the madrassas is the fault of the U.S.
Al-Jazeera also mentions President Bush’s phone call to Gen. Musharraf in order to discuss the “war on terrorism” (yes, those quotes come from Al-Jazeera, not me).
So, connecting the dots, we see that under pressure from America, Pakistan is unjustly depriving poor and rural students of their education (that the state can’t provide) in a misguided attempt to curb anti-Western teaching. What is the Arabic word for Uncle Tom, by the way?
If you want to read both stories and decide for yourself, here they are:
BBC
Al-Jazeera
While Danny Glover is busy acting as a member of the advisory board on the new Telesur network to give his support to the Chavez-backed channel, a highly predictable development surfaced. Apparently, they are seeking to link up with Al-Jazeera. Of course, according to the President of Telesur:
We launch Telesur with a clear goal to break this communication regime and present a vision, a voice which until now has been silenced. Telesur is an initiative against cultural imperialism.
Those touching sentiments, combined with the possible coupling with Al-Jazeera translate into an obvious, simple message: Anti-American propaganda.
In regard to the Telesur’s debut, Chavez has produced such gems as:
I am sure that Telesur will maintain its independence. Telesur will not depend on any government … it will be free to navigate in the waters of truth and contribute to the construction of a new world…
Yes, Hugo holds himself in very high regard. He constantly accuses Bush of trying to topple him. Of course, Bush has been too busy toppling other, more important dictators. Sorry Indio.
Once again, out of the Twilight Zone we call Hollywood crawls an avid supporter for a random anti-U.S. head of state. Danny Glover, unwilling to be outdone by Castro amigo jack Nicholson or Hanoi (I mean Baghdad) Jane, has stepped forward in support of Hugo Chavez. My favorite quote from the article:
The actor, a supporter of Chavez, praised Venezuela’s elections in recent years as examples of democracy and said, “I’ve been encouraged by what I see here.”
Then again, I guess El Indio (Castro’s pet name for Chavez) aligned nicely with the Hollywood crowd when he referred to the U.S. President as a pendejo.
Remember that John Travolta movie with the thrilling, though outlandish plot involving a deranged criminal stealing his nemesis’ face? Well, now reality seems to be catching up with fiction. This NY Times article talks about the possibilities of face transplants. While my immediate reaction was: wow, now criminals can effectively dissapear, I found in the article talking points for other sides to the inevitable ethical debate surrounding this possible medical breakthrough. Read it here (you need a subscription).
Powered by WordPress