The duty of reporters, the duty of the people.

A comment (not my own) in response to Washington Post article:

Al-Qaeda Suspects Color White House Debate Over Iran
By Dafna Linzer, February 10, 2007

. . . I would just like to say to the Washington Post staff that promotes this sort of propaganda and when I say propaganda I am talking about the way you are reporting this crap as newswothy - instead on jumping on the bandwagon of making this administration accountable for making a mockery out of the media including yourselves. . . . Do you not know the seriousness of the way this country is going? Please think long and hard about the way you think you have the power of the pen. . . .

-- By danders5000 | Feb 10, 2007 2:33:54 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this reader is blaming WaPo journalists for "supporting" the Bush regime by not opposing it. Read that sentence again; it is a very sad set of circumstances on many levels (e.g. the need to blame people for supporting our President). In any case, this accusation upon journalists seems rather unfair due to the ethics rules that are the guiding light of good journalism, which include neutrality and unbiased reporting.

This reader told WaPo journalists to use the power of the pen to create change in today's society, to hold the Bush administration accountable for what they've done. Although I agree that journalism should be used to balance the powers of lawmakers with the powers of the people, I don't agree that it should be used to spoon-feed one-sided ideas into the public's mind, even if they seem like good ideas at the time. With the continuing illegitimate behavior of the Bush administration, it may seem deserving and justified that the media cater to the anti-everything-Bush majority or even cater to the vengeance of having been deceived by the White House on many topics, especially concerning the "War Of Terror" which Borat aptly names it. There is now a sense of betrayal when one does not preach to the choir, as seen in the impassioned comments of the WaPo reader.

What the reader did not consider is that the role of journalism in a democratic society is to serve the truth, like it or not; to provide un-opinionated reports to give to the people for the people themselves to interpret, opinionate, and take action. To make liberal use of the pen would be to violate the neutrality that is useful in order for the public to respond logically and in all varieties of ways that mark us as an individualized society.

I believe that the WaPo article states the facts and sheds several perspectives from various sources on the situation, and in no way seems to support the issue on either side. In fact, they document that:

Five administration officials were made available for interviews for this story on the condition that they not be identified. Other officials who spoke without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.
(from WashingtonPost.com)

How is this spreading administration propaganda? It's true that there is no in-depth analysis of the further consequences of the situation, and the article doesn't offer suggestions as to what the "correct" future approaches could be, but isn't that what we the people are partially here for? Aren't we supposed to take the information from the journalists and use it to write our own letters to government, and our own opinion pieces? Journalists are necessarily under a tighter rein when they are blessed (cursed) with providing "just the facts, ma'am," and to let the readers judge as they wish, and react as they wish. That's proper journalism, no?

(What I was ranting about in my previous post was the incomplete analysis of a given situation, not the incomplete analysis of a possible propaganda scheme.)

I admit that he might be right... "maybe"...

I just read a rather calm and level-headed article on how people have settled into a partisan mindset of either "you're with us and therefore against every idea that the Bush administration puts forth" OR "you support a policy issued by Bush and therefore you are against us," which, I admit, I was very much heading towards. Anyway, it was a wake-up call for me to be more complete in my assumptions and judgment of the state of things, though "completeness" is something I've found particularly difficult to, well, judge.

See for yourself and let me know! Here's the article: Don't Think I'm Defending Bush, But..., by Clive Crook (National Journal Group, Wealth of Nations).

RANT: Jumping the climate gun

Global warming is a fact. That's good to know. Now the question is, what's the cause?

Something bugging me today. The Washington Post (and many other news groups) are still using the word "probability" to suggest the "possibility" that global warming and climate change "may" be caused by human activities.

Alright already! Despite the IPCC's report that gives us the supporting evidence we need, the public world, for some reason, is still in wishy-washy mode. Granted, the actual report came out only yesterday, but I'm on the edge! And I have a feeling that many journalists are too. Reading the WaPo article, it seems to me that this writer uses numerous "maybe"-type words painstakingly, as if each was a deliberate term that was inserted over much unwillingness and fretting against the writer's conscience; terms such as "overwhelming probability" and "90 percent certain."

I'm excited and frustrated at the same time. How much longer do we have to wait until the media start treating our contribution to the Earth's pollution as fact, not theory? Let's face it, nd humans have caused significant increases in global warming, and that is a fact, whether we contributed to it 60% or 90%, it still dictates that we need to change our way of "doing business around here." If it is indeed on the lower percentage side, all the better for us to start "early" and avoid sea level increases of 23 feet over the next 100 years, wouldn't you say?

And of course, we haven't been let down by the critics of the IPCC report, may I mention, with obvious conflicts of interest:

... the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that receives funding from Exxon Mobil, ... issued a statement urging "great caution in reading too much" into the report until the panel releases its detailed scientific documentation a few months from now.

... adding that "the underlying state of knowledge does not justify scare tactics or provide sufficient support for proposals . . . to suppress energy use and impose large economic burdens on the U.S. economy."
(from WaPo article)

So, the U.S. economy should be held above the well-being of all living things on Earth. I expect that they would be all in favor of Bush's request for an additional three-quarters of a trillion dollars (yes, you read that right) for the purpose of defense and war spending. That does a great thing for the U.S. economy, yes it does!

To explain Bush's superb request, I go to U.C. Berkeley professor, George Lakoff, who explains that neoconservative thought promotes the idea that creating a national deficit is good because it prevents the development of democratic social reform groups, for example: government assistance for health care, education, social security, well, basically the managed well-being of its citizens. In other words, neoconservative rationale is that all deserving citizens should be able to fend for themselves. And the government should be able to take the strict-father position of sitting in a recliner with a belt. "Be home by 11! ... and bring me back a paper!"

Revenge vs. Rationale

Oh boy, boys and girls, and the faux-madrassah story continues with a direct response from the Obama committee against Fox News. What's more, it's actually a pretty redeeming feel-good story, that is, until you address the nagging in your gut.

So, the Washington Post is reporting that due to Fox's irresponsible and illegitimate mud slinging concerning Obama's past, the Obama camp is "freezing out" all Fox reporters and producers, declining them access to speak with the senator or to participate in following his presidential campaign route. Revenge, sweet and simple.

While the actual truth of the matter is as dependable as "unnamed media sources" are, this does seem like a deliberate retaliation on the part of the presidential candidate if Fox reporters are whining about feeling like they're "in the freezer" and that the other people at Fox who didn't do anything against him are now the ones who are bearing the brunt of the snub.

Now I do have sympathy for the struggling new journalists at Fox who might naively believe that their station practices true unbiased journalism, and that by Obama sharing his stories with them, everything they report would be conveyed by Fox's broadcasters in the way that Obama and the journalists themselves intended it, without all the spinning, the skewing, the condescending tone of voice, the raised eyebrows of the broadcasters. This is not obviously not reality, and Obama's group is intelligent enough to suspect otherwise.

However, the question is, although it feels good now to admonish Fox for what they've done by giving them the silent treatment, what good will it do in the long run? Fox caters to a third of the American news-watching population (34% of Republicans, 20% of Democrats in a Pew Research Center study), more than any other single news station, leaving us to ponder the worse(r) of evils:

1. If that large slice of the population does not get their daily fix of Obama-vibes, albeit spun in a negative light, will they all lose interest in his persona?
2. But if they did hear skewed commentary on Obama, would they be more likely not to vote for him?
3. Would they really vote for Obama anyway, seeing that they regularly watch Fox, the neoconservative station?
4. Would it balance out favors for Obama to make a personal appearance in their states and be featured in their local news instead?

On a higher level, is it really right for Obama to turn his back on Fox? Though it feels justly validating, it is what it is: antagonism, which is ultimately a negative trait for a legislator to hold. Drawing that implication out, would he continue to ignore Fox if he got elected president? Would he hold out on talking to groups that actively dislike him? We have to remember that while Fox did actively attempt to discredit him, they did not skew his own words out of turn, which is what they did with the Hillary campaign. That may be a significant distinction.

I hoped that Obama would have been the bigger man by directly addressing the issue of Fox's childish reporting behavior with a completely mature (and fully publicized) response, perhaps even on Fox News itself, to clarify the issues. Not this childish counter-bullying (as far as I can tell, did I miss his statements?), which may be construed as hostile and irresponsible itself. But we shall inevitably see what ensues as a result. Will Hillary join in?? How long will it last?

Perhaps the only good thing about this news line is that we all now know what a madrassah is...

Go Dems, part II: "Barry"!

By now, we all may have heard about Fox News' anti-Muslim Obama "smear campaign" (what else can we expect from these guys nowadays). Started by Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times, without a proper source or background check (I guess Insight's reports are based solely on, well, insight rather than fact), it was claimed that [1] Barack Obama had studied at an Islamic madrassah in Indonesia, which translates as "school" in Arabic, but in current times implies a location for ideological and political training grounds with the purpose of spreading hatred and violence against the Western world (in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition). The newscasters on Fox and Friends also repeatedly made an issue of the fact that [2] Obama was raised Muslim for the first 10 years of his life, and that his Muslim father gave him the middle name, "Hussein." As if his conversion to Christianity and living it the majority of his life meant nothing.

Not only targeting Obama's reputation, Fox chose to include an additional, indirect, smear on Hillary Clinton by referencing Insight magazine's "insight" that [3] it was the Clinton campaign committee's idea to research Obama's background which produced this "secret" information. Fox went further to attribute these hostile intentions on the suspicion that the Clinton campaign felt financially threatened by his running.

It was indeed discovered by CNN, after investigating the claims by going directly to Obama's school in Jakarta, Indonesia, that [1] the whole madrassah story was fake: the school-in-question that he attended 40 years ago was a public elementary school (and not a madrassah) which follows a national curriculum, and where his classmates called him "Barry." In other words, it is not an Islamic school, doesn't focus on religion, and in fact doesn't give preference to one religion or another. [3] It was also revealed that Clinton's campaign had no connection to the false allegations, and that both Obama and Clinton campaign groups were outraged by the reports.

I want to comment on the truth of [2], that Obama was initially raised Muslim - and I want to parallel it to my own experience in Japan. Living in a foreign country for an extended period of time, sustained by daily interaction with the native people is a true cultural and human learning experience. At first, there definitely is that culture shock and rebellion, but live there long enough and it eventually results in an innate understanding of a distinct set of basic beliefs and perceptions of how the world functions. As a child, I suspect that Obama would have absorbed the legitimate perspective of a Muslim culture, and upon his residing in the U.S. also absorb the equally legitimate perspective of the American culture.

Ever since the start of the Iraq War, and further beyond, there has been a need for politicians who understand the true concept of "new" terms such as "globalism" and "internationalism." Specifically, in this case, not just how U.S. citizens view and react to the Muslim community, but also how the Muslim community views and reacts to the U.S. in all its meanings and implications. There is an obvious imbalance in this regard, where the current administration views foreign relations as an "Us-Them" paradigm, rather than the much more civil "We."

I fully believe that Barry Obama's unique cultural experience and understanding of the Muslim world would serve as a clear paradigm shift which will benefit the U.S.; he would be one of the few able to relate to "those people over there whom we are fighting" on a humanistic level, and even more, to empathize with their fundamental needs and bring that back to a practical level in the form of the education of U.S. citizens and our democratic politics. Isn't that what we are trying to create over there, anyway? It's ironic that our idea of democracy is based on the needs and goals of the people being governed, yet we are trying to build a democracy in the Middle East for people we don't understand. Gotta love the logic!

Go Dems!

Has anyone been keeping track of the democratic presidential candidates so far?
Disclaimer: For my own sanity, this is a completely partisan posting.

(The following are taken from President4-2008, Congresspedia, and the Washington Post's "The Presidential Field," which I'm sure will be updated accordingly, for those of you interested in following along. As for me, I'll be following the latter link because there are pictures of the candidates to judge from. Awesome... ;)

DEMOCRATIC PARTY (as of 1/21)
Official Candidates

1. Christopher J.Dodd, Connecticut Senator
2. John Edwards, North Carolina Senator
3. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Representative
   
4. Tom Vilsack, Iowa former Governor
5. Mike Gravel, Alaska former Senator
6. Randy Crow, no affiliation
   

Exploratory Candidates

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Senator
2. Barack Obama, Illinois Senator
3. Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor

Unofficial Candidates

1. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Senator (Senate website)
   
2. Al Gore, no affiliation (Washington Post profile)
   
3. John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator (Senate website)
   

At first glance (based solely on character, as Dave Chappelle advises), I'm leaning towards the two candidates who are not yet quite candidates: Clinton and Obama. It slightly worries me that these are also the two candidates who have been receiving boosted media coverage - am I a victim of media influence?? I suppose I'm being too sensitive as usual.

On the topic of sensitivity, I'm going to barge right into a glass wall (never mind treading on broken glass) by saying that, while I fully support Hillary Clinton's ability, intelligence, and experience, not to mention that the person closest to her was a very successful President himself, she is a woman. All right, before all y'all start raisin' a fuss, I really want to point out who we're dealing with across the oceans abroad. We've all heard the stories of Afghani women not being allowed to step out into the public without at least first covering their entire bodies and being escorted by a man. Women tend to have substandard rights in that region, often not being valid enough to speak, let alone vote. And I can't imagine that Kim Jong-Il would bother consulting with women (other than his harem, for other reasons), either.

Imagine the leaders of these countries, with all of their preconditioned conceptions of women, confronted with a woman who is vocal and unhidden, with a mind to communicate on an equal level with them. What would they think, how would they react on a humanistic level, and how would they respond politically? Would the United States gain any support or trust or even respect from them? Now, I know that with regards to all of the other thousands of issues on the president's plate, Middle East/North Korean/etc. Foreign Relations is only a part of the pyramid, but I can just see it: "[Insert country name] refuses to negotiate with U.S. on terms of female president. Conflict continues without end."

Why, oh why, isn't the world fair and objective??? We need a female president to temper the flaming testosterone and pompousness that make up the administration (and the world) today. Someone reasonable and gentle, yet strong; easy to approach, yet comfortable with control. Someone who is open to discussion and willing to compromise without foregoing confidence, or degenerating into automatic warfare. Someone who holds pure democratic values, yet is able to put them to practical use. I see all of that in Hillary Clinton. In fact, she has the potential to bring domestic policy to the highest levels of quality yet to be seen.

But, I need to be convinced of the viability of her presidency in international policy. Thoughts anyone?