The Guardian and the Common Editorial on Climate Change
The Guardian's view on the common editorial on climate change shared by 56 newspapers is stated here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial
> A number of major US titles evinced support for
> the project, but stopped short of signing up,
> leaving the admirably independent-minded Miami Herald
Independent-minded obviously means "agreeing with me"!
Let us, of course, excuse the irony of independence being equated with signing up for a common editorial.
> One US paper's response: "This is an outrageous
> attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell."
Interesting this, that the Guardian chose not to respond to this very valid accusation.
The "go to hell" bit is a little over the top, not just because the US paper said it (in an official statement?) but that a UK paper, ostensibly the guardian of truth, justice and good taste, chose to leave it in. Why? To remind us that the Americans are ill-mannered? Or to suggest that anyone who can use such a phrase probably has an untenable argument. This is the sort of cloaked ad hominem attack that makes one want to switch to The Sun. Half-naked people and too much football, but there is a lack of underhandedness.
Unfortunately, there is no list of papers which were invited to carry it, nor indeed, of those asked, whether they were given enough time, clarification and meta-information to either accept or reject the idea, with enough background.
Why do we need multiple newspapers? Shall we not just settle on one party line? One accepted scientific position - perhaps multiple centres of research are superfluous. Just leads to unnecessary debate, when we all know that we are right.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
The wolf in a journalist's clothing
The Pakistani newspaper Dawn (www.dawn.com), which I have been following for a couple of years now, generally tends to be slightly more responsible than the papers of its class. Aside from the letters written by its readers, the most hatred and disregard for logical reasoning and the norms of civilized debate is shown by its regular columnists Javed Naqwi and Kuldip Nayar, both based in neighbouring India. Hatred for what? Generally speaking, India, the West, democracy and liberal values.
However, I was more than usually shocked to read an article about Pakistan's nuclear program architect titled "A.Q. Khan in the news again" by Cyril Almeida, published today (25 September 2009) at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/cyril-almeida-a.q.-khan-in-the-news-again-599.
And what was shocking?
> The security establishment/army high command
> has acted foolishly (Kargil and support for
> militancy beyond its sell-by date are just
> two examples), but nuclear weapons are an
> entirely different category.
Firstly, the notion that militancy (i.e. terrorism, i.e. the indiscriminate murder of civilians) was acceptable till a certain point, as implied by its "sell-by date". What was this date? A point till which the support for terrorism could remain secret and would be without consquences? (Of course, nurturing terrorism is seldom without consequences - it affects generations and societies, and can come back to haunt one, as the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can probably testify)
Also interesting is why the journalist implies that nuclear weapons are somehow holy, and beyond the reach of those with dastardly designs. If you train militants, surely there is a chance that they, the trainers and the trainees, will use all means of violence to achieve their ends, and not just the ones on the lower side of the scale.
> In any case, it can be argued that the
> government is barking up the wrong tree
> by going to the courts because the law
> is not geared to deal with hard cases
> such as A.Q. Khan.
This is the repellent bit. Is not a lynch mob being summoned here? "The law is too good for him, bring on the noose"! Of course, the journalist attempts to absolve himself by the phrase "it can be argued", i.e. he himself is not arguing it.
It can be argued that the earth is flat, or, at least, was flat, till 1360. It ought to be argued that journalists should have the courage to stand up for their opinions.
And then, towards the end, the journalist drops all pretence of being civilized.
> After all, if one thing is certain it is
> that Khan is a man with a big ego. Hack
> away at his standing in the domestic public
> eye, and he may choose to live out his days
> in quiet retirement.
A man with a big ego? Do not all men have big egos? And all women? And everyone else? Or does the journalist possess the skill of looking into the thoughts of another human being and measuring the size of the ego?
And then he calls for destroying someone's reputation, not on the basis of the other person's actions, inactions or published beliefs, but because doing so would profit some agenda that the journalist holds dear. This is the most despicable of incitements.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against wolves and do not seek to imply that they would ordinarily have anything to do with journalists.
The Pakistani newspaper Dawn (www.dawn.com), which I have been following for a couple of years now, generally tends to be slightly more responsible than the papers of its class. Aside from the letters written by its readers, the most hatred and disregard for logical reasoning and the norms of civilized debate is shown by its regular columnists Javed Naqwi and Kuldip Nayar, both based in neighbouring India. Hatred for what? Generally speaking, India, the West, democracy and liberal values.
However, I was more than usually shocked to read an article about Pakistan's nuclear program architect titled "A.Q. Khan in the news again" by Cyril Almeida, published today (25 September 2009) at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/cyril-almeida-a.q.-khan-in-the-news-again-599.
And what was shocking?
> The security establishment/army high command
> has acted foolishly (Kargil and support for
> militancy beyond its sell-by date are just
> two examples), but nuclear weapons are an
> entirely different category.
Firstly, the notion that militancy (i.e. terrorism, i.e. the indiscriminate murder of civilians) was acceptable till a certain point, as implied by its "sell-by date". What was this date? A point till which the support for terrorism could remain secret and would be without consquences? (Of course, nurturing terrorism is seldom without consequences - it affects generations and societies, and can come back to haunt one, as the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can probably testify)
Also interesting is why the journalist implies that nuclear weapons are somehow holy, and beyond the reach of those with dastardly designs. If you train militants, surely there is a chance that they, the trainers and the trainees, will use all means of violence to achieve their ends, and not just the ones on the lower side of the scale.
> In any case, it can be argued that the
> government is barking up the wrong tree
> by going to the courts because the law
> is not geared to deal with hard cases
> such as A.Q. Khan.
This is the repellent bit. Is not a lynch mob being summoned here? "The law is too good for him, bring on the noose"! Of course, the journalist attempts to absolve himself by the phrase "it can be argued", i.e. he himself is not arguing it.
It can be argued that the earth is flat, or, at least, was flat, till 1360. It ought to be argued that journalists should have the courage to stand up for their opinions.
And then, towards the end, the journalist drops all pretence of being civilized.
> After all, if one thing is certain it is
> that Khan is a man with a big ego. Hack
> away at his standing in the domestic public
> eye, and he may choose to live out his days
> in quiet retirement.
A man with a big ego? Do not all men have big egos? And all women? And everyone else? Or does the journalist possess the skill of looking into the thoughts of another human being and measuring the size of the ego?
And then he calls for destroying someone's reputation, not on the basis of the other person's actions, inactions or published beliefs, but because doing so would profit some agenda that the journalist holds dear. This is the most despicable of incitements.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against wolves and do not seek to imply that they would ordinarily have anything to do with journalists.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Poor style and worse journalism
An article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn protested against supposed US plans to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. Poorly and without any respect for the norms of debate.
(http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-us-plans-imperial-presence-qs-10 ; Karamatullah K. Ghori; 30 August 2009)
> But they are, for the record, just geared to
> Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan,
> lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in
> the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts
> of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
This is, of course, not a syntactically valid sentence. One can merely guess what the journalist wishes to express, although a weak attempt at sarcasm appears to have been made.
The following paragraph, apart from the use of the singular where a plural is called for, first refers to reports by "media pundits in Pakistan" as being the source for the proposed increase in US consular staff, but then swiftly introduces statements which appear to be the author's personal truths, i.e. he or she is confident that they are true, and are not attributed to "media pundits".
>..... huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land
> in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave
> has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for
> just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth.
One wonders why the verb "sold" is enclosed in quotation marks. Was it really leased, and not sold? Was only a pretence of selling it made? In either case, it entirely changes the tone of the deal. The journalist goes on to imply that the price was below market value (notice that he does not state what the market worth is, how this has been determined, and, of course, a fraction can be the number one, or even two, i.e. that the American's paid twice the so-called market worth). Furthermore, given that the "prime land" is in the capital city's diplomatic enclave, one expects it to be given to consulates, and not used for holiday homes, high rise office buildings or malls. That would put a constraint on the "market worth". The journalist insinuates that the Pakistanis were short changed -- given that the Americans are pouring in billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan, this seems a little churlish.
> The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were
> triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence.
> George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of
> Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate
> than coining the shibboleth of
>‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of
> Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified
> on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s
> dream of an imperial America holding the world
> in its thrall.
The journalist does not appear to be aware of the meaning of the word "shibboleth". A little pathetic, then, this attempt at high-flown language. Perhaps the journalist should stick to simpler words. For example: "America bad, we good.".
The "dream of an imperial America" is the sort of anti-US rhetoric one might expect of an ill-informed schoolboy. Or journalist.
An article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn protested against supposed US plans to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. Poorly and without any respect for the norms of debate.
(http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-us-plans-imperial-presence-qs-10 ; Karamatullah K. Ghori; 30 August 2009)
> But they are, for the record, just geared to
> Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan,
> lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in
> the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts
> of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
This is, of course, not a syntactically valid sentence. One can merely guess what the journalist wishes to express, although a weak attempt at sarcasm appears to have been made.
The following paragraph, apart from the use of the singular where a plural is called for, first refers to reports by "media pundits in Pakistan" as being the source for the proposed increase in US consular staff, but then swiftly introduces statements which appear to be the author's personal truths, i.e. he or she is confident that they are true, and are not attributed to "media pundits".
>..... huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land
> in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave
> has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for
> just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth.
One wonders why the verb "sold" is enclosed in quotation marks. Was it really leased, and not sold? Was only a pretence of selling it made? In either case, it entirely changes the tone of the deal. The journalist goes on to imply that the price was below market value (notice that he does not state what the market worth is, how this has been determined, and, of course, a fraction can be the number one, or even two, i.e. that the American's paid twice the so-called market worth). Furthermore, given that the "prime land" is in the capital city's diplomatic enclave, one expects it to be given to consulates, and not used for holiday homes, high rise office buildings or malls. That would put a constraint on the "market worth". The journalist insinuates that the Pakistanis were short changed -- given that the Americans are pouring in billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan, this seems a little churlish.
> The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were
> triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence.
> George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of
> Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate
> than coining the shibboleth of
>‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of
> Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified
> on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s
> dream of an imperial America holding the world
> in its thrall.
The journalist does not appear to be aware of the meaning of the word "shibboleth". A little pathetic, then, this attempt at high-flown language. Perhaps the journalist should stick to simpler words. For example: "America bad, we good.".
The "dream of an imperial America" is the sort of anti-US rhetoric one might expect of an ill-informed schoolboy. Or journalist.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
We lecherous ones
An article in The Economist, published on 20 August 2009, titled "Snap it, click it, use it" (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14257721) had the following implicit judgement:
> Lecherous readers who photographed it
> were rewarded with additional pictures
This seems to suggest that readers who were not lecherous, but photographed anyway, were not rewarded with additional pictures.
The author seems not to be at peace with his or her morality, or at least, that aspect of it which makes him or her judge readers who take photographs of models in swimsuits to be lecherous, quite irrespective of whether such readers are interested perhaps in fashion, or do not come from a prudish background where the human form is considered repulsive, especially as the author then speaks of the readers being "rewarded", implying that receiving (additional) pictures is a good thing.
This is 2009. Can we please stop calling people lecherous? What next? Heathen? For those pagans who do not believe in Our Lord who died on the Cross for our Sins?
An article in The Economist, published on 20 August 2009, titled "Snap it, click it, use it" (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14257721) had the following implicit judgement:
> Lecherous readers who photographed it
> were rewarded with additional pictures
This seems to suggest that readers who were not lecherous, but photographed anyway, were not rewarded with additional pictures.
The author seems not to be at peace with his or her morality, or at least, that aspect of it which makes him or her judge readers who take photographs of models in swimsuits to be lecherous, quite irrespective of whether such readers are interested perhaps in fashion, or do not come from a prudish background where the human form is considered repulsive, especially as the author then speaks of the readers being "rewarded", implying that receiving (additional) pictures is a good thing.
This is 2009. Can we please stop calling people lecherous? What next? Heathen? For those pagans who do not believe in Our Lord who died on the Cross for our Sins?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Of Indians and Chinese
A faithful reader of the Financial Times, I was slightly put off by a tasteless remark in the article "Costly lesson for Indians in Australia" by Amy Kazmim, published on page 8 on 24 June 2009.
Ms. Kazmin reports that "her (Ms. Thakur, an Indian student's) first semester was spent in a disappointing accountancy course pushed hard by an agent but filled only with other students from India and China". (emphasis added)
The usage of "filled with" to refer to humans is bad enough, but the insinuation that it is sub-obtimal to have said filling done with Indians and Chinese is appalling. Would it have been better if there were lesser Chinese and more Scandinavians? The obvious implication is that the mere presence of Indians and Chinese, quite irrespective of intellectual ability or motivation, tends to lower the credibility and quality of a host academic institution, and is not on at all.
I hesitate to use the word "racist", but am not sure if Ms. Kazmin's opinion is entirely undeserving of that epithet.
A faithful reader of the Financial Times, I was slightly put off by a tasteless remark in the article "Costly lesson for Indians in Australia" by Amy Kazmim, published on page 8 on 24 June 2009.
Ms. Kazmin reports that "her (Ms. Thakur, an Indian student's) first semester was spent in a disappointing accountancy course pushed hard by an agent but filled only with other students from India and China". (emphasis added)
The usage of "filled with" to refer to humans is bad enough, but the insinuation that it is sub-obtimal to have said filling done with Indians and Chinese is appalling. Would it have been better if there were lesser Chinese and more Scandinavians? The obvious implication is that the mere presence of Indians and Chinese, quite irrespective of intellectual ability or motivation, tends to lower the credibility and quality of a host academic institution, and is not on at all.
I hesitate to use the word "racist", but am not sure if Ms. Kazmin's opinion is entirely undeserving of that epithet.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Of journalist and runners
Having recently watched the film Midnight Express (1978) based on the book of the same name by William Hayes, I looked up the Wikipedia article, and saw an article titled "Revisiting the land of 'Midnight Express'" by a Stephen Handelman published on 24 June, 2007 in The Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228860).
The subtitle refers to Mr. Hayes as an "escaped hashish runner". The journalist's distaste for Mr. Hayes is unmistakeable, but surely he ought first to inform the police if he believes that Mr. Hayes continues to "run" hashish (which is what the noun "runner" implies).
Perhaps he meant ex-runner, and that too would be admissible only if Mr. Hayes "ran" hashish repeatedly. One is not called a jogger after having gone for one's second jog.
> I asked Hayes whether he
> worried about being part
> of a propaganda ploy.
> "I've always loved Turkey,"
> he answered cautiously.
I wonder how the journalist knows that Mr. Hayes answered cautiously? Can it be that the journalist means "sofly", or "slowly", presumably possessing no means of looking into the thought processes of another human being? But "slow", "soft" and other intonations of speech are relative - did the journalist perhaps capture a large sample and figure out what the standard deviation is?
> In the land of the Midnight Express,
> morning still arrives with a caveat.
The caveat, presumably, is that one might be subjected to the outpourings of a journalist who seems to have parted ways from truth, style and fair reporting, when one picks up the newspaper, no matter how glorious the morning otherwise is.
Having recently watched the film Midnight Express (1978) based on the book of the same name by William Hayes, I looked up the Wikipedia article, and saw an article titled "Revisiting the land of 'Midnight Express'" by a Stephen Handelman published on 24 June, 2007 in The Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228860).
The subtitle refers to Mr. Hayes as an "escaped hashish runner". The journalist's distaste for Mr. Hayes is unmistakeable, but surely he ought first to inform the police if he believes that Mr. Hayes continues to "run" hashish (which is what the noun "runner" implies).
Perhaps he meant ex-runner, and that too would be admissible only if Mr. Hayes "ran" hashish repeatedly. One is not called a jogger after having gone for one's second jog.
> I asked Hayes whether he
> worried about being part
> of a propaganda ploy.
> "I've always loved Turkey,"
> he answered cautiously.
I wonder how the journalist knows that Mr. Hayes answered cautiously? Can it be that the journalist means "sofly", or "slowly", presumably possessing no means of looking into the thought processes of another human being? But "slow", "soft" and other intonations of speech are relative - did the journalist perhaps capture a large sample and figure out what the standard deviation is?
> In the land of the Midnight Express,
> morning still arrives with a caveat.
The caveat, presumably, is that one might be subjected to the outpourings of a journalist who seems to have parted ways from truth, style and fair reporting, when one picks up the newspaper, no matter how glorious the morning otherwise is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)