A most unwelcome brand of journalism
The Economist, in an article on Indian politics, titled "A most unwelcome tricolour" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/01/indian_nationalism_kashmir?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/mc/unwelcometricolour), offers an interesting insight into shabby journalism.
> ....the number of soldiers deployed in Kashmir (it is unclear how many are there in the first place, but activists tend to put the number at a gobsmacking 500,000).
This is most irresponsible. Who is an activist? Anyone who writes letters to newspapes, displaying an interest in the fate of her fellow-man? Then some letters to the editor refer to "millions of Indian soldiers" in Kashmir. I assume that there are no official "I am an activist" T-shirts handed out by the UN, so this definition is as valid as any.
In any case, is it not a journalist's job to attempt to ascertain facts? Our author does not even bother to try. No references as to who these "activists" are, and no reason as to why these particular ones are chosen. Because they were ex-Boy Scouts and crossed their fingers?
But, let us say, that the Indian Army does not feel comfortable giving details of numbers and locations of its personnel away to the public, in an area rife with militants, and with parts occupied by three countries with nuclear weapons. This would not be unusual behaviour on the Indian Army's part, one imagines.
However, the journalist can display some thinking here. How many soldiers are there in the Indian army? How many of them belong to fighting arms (infantry, artillery etc.) as opposed to the Service Corps, Medical Corps etc.? How many engagements does the army currently have - within India, and abroad (with the UN)? And India has fought wars with two of its neighbours in recent decades, and with lots of others in the centuries gone by - this tends to make for a fair case for having a large army (even if it is one which does not have a correspondingly high attack potential). Especially in a country with high unemployment. Which formations are officially located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir? Some more thinking along these lines should help with a much better figure.
Gobsmacking, the journalist calls the figure of 500,000. Even more gobsmacking is the figure of 1 billion + Indians. Ridiculously overpopulated little country, isn't it? (Ca. 9 times more than the US, adjusting for the superior size of the latter)
But a figure alone is hardly relevant. Given that China, with the world's largest army, has occupied (according to the Indians) a part of J & K. Ditto Pakistan (ditto), and this is a country with regular military dictatorships , lots of connections with Islamic terrorists, and one of the world's largest armies.
> A few nights before Republic Day, a trainload of 2,000 of the party’s activists, which had been chugging north from Karnataka state towards Kashmir, was quietly turned around by officials as it passed through Maharashtra state, and sent south again.
This does conjure up a vision of a long journey interrupted mid-way, or even, just before their final destination. Perhaps it would not have been so exciting if the author had noted that Maharashtra state _borders_ Karnataka state, and that Srinagar is around a thousand miles away.
> In 2010, stone-throwing youths launched mass protests in Srinagar, and separatist leaders called strikes, earning a violent response from ill-trained police. Over 110 Kashmiris were killed.
This is, of course, deplorable. But are the police in the rest of India better trained? We are discussing a third-world country here and to say, for example, that after 60 years of Indian democracy, poverty abounds in Kashmir (and hence imply that this form of government is not a particularly sound one), is not entirely fair - for destitution is to be found across India.
I wonder what, in the opinion of the author, will be the reaction of the police in Bihar state, if college students started throwing stones at them.
If they were really small stones, I guess it would be all right. But big ones, sharp ones, ones that can destroy the vision of a human or, indeed, kill him, must be treated as violent (the throwing of). Yet, only on one side of the equation is the world "violent" used.
> The answer—as even the most nationalist provocateur knows—is that Kashmiris, the majority of whom are Muslim, have long disputed India’s right to rule over the territory.
Interesting juxtaposition of "majority Muslims" and "long disputed". How long is long? 60 years? 2000 years? How ancient are the kingdoms of India? Did Islam originate in Kashmir, or was there a far older way of life there, and in India? How came it to be? Long-distance mail catalogues or ruthless warriors with pointy swords? Astonishingly, these old-fashioned arguments still hold valid - in the Holy Land, for instance, etc. etc.. But we modern ones are more concerned about whether everyone has personal liberties, irrespective of the nature and size of the state.
> But the BJP’s move looks cynical and may make it harder to avoid another round of protests and killings in 2011.
Another journalist who does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "cynical". It is not the BJP being cynical, but the author, in implying that the stated aims of the BJP are but a subterfuge, and the real purpose is something else. Political parties in democracies tend to indulge in vote-grubbing activities. This is the only way to get elected.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Another substandard internet petition page
The organization Avaaz.org calls upon good people everywhere to stop "corrective rape" in South Africa (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/).
I found the platform more interesting than the issue. The "About" page on Avaaz.org does not mention who founded it, nor where it was founded. The obligatory disclosure of financial information bit states that it is "currently" incorporated... in the state of Delaware, USA. This anonymity in an organization with not a very reassuring privacy policy is suspect. Also, the etymology is not straightforward either: "Avaaz—meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—". Which several European languages, I wonder.
And now let's examine the petition itself. It talks about a "crisis" in South Africa, yet refers to only one, single case. Anyone who signs this petition without external knowledge has not grasped the basic norms of democracy. Avaaz, in enc...ouraging such behaviour, deserves to be condemned. And the demand itself is dodgy. Criminalize hate crimes? Rape is not currently a criminal act? Given the sceptre of AIDS and the other problems that a developing country has, I imagine that this one form of hate crime might take a back seat for a while.
The organization Avaaz.org calls upon good people everywhere to stop "corrective rape" in South Africa (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/).
I found the platform more interesting than the issue. The "About" page on Avaaz.org does not mention who founded it, nor where it was founded. The obligatory disclosure of financial information bit states that it is "currently" incorporated... in the state of Delaware, USA. This anonymity in an organization with not a very reassuring privacy policy is suspect. Also, the etymology is not straightforward either: "Avaaz—meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—". Which several European languages, I wonder.
And now let's examine the petition itself. It talks about a "crisis" in South Africa, yet refers to only one, single case. Anyone who signs this petition without external knowledge has not grasped the basic norms of democracy. Avaaz, in enc...ouraging such behaviour, deserves to be condemned. And the demand itself is dodgy. Criminalize hate crimes? Rape is not currently a criminal act? Given the sceptre of AIDS and the other problems that a developing country has, I imagine that this one form of hate crime might take a back seat for a while.
Friday, January 07, 2011
The case of Dr. Sen is a sad and alarming one. However, this Outlook article (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?269922) is a substandard analysis.
> The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen
> suggests India is waging war against its own people.
This appears to be hyperbole, unless by "India" is meant the Central Government of that country acting in concert with the local state government of Chhattisgarh. That would further imply that the Congress (I) (in power at the Centre, and in the Opposition in the province) and the BJP (in power in the province, and in the Opposition at the Centre) are acting in tandem.
Neither the central nor the state government, furthermore, is responsible for sentencing. That prerogative rests with the courts, from the local to the Apex.
And, of course, unless the case of Dr. Sen is shown to be typical, it has hard to see how extrapolation to the entire state machinery and the entire citizenry is a valid one.
> That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such
> immoderate punishment, when his calling is the relief
> of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints at the
> insecurity of those who know how fragile the trumpeted
> economic success of India is, how promiscuously
> distributed its rewards, and how estranged large
> segments of the population remain from the
> international hyperbole.
Excellent use of the English language, a pleasure to read. Except, of course, for the leap in logic which seems to suggest that all doctors, artists, firemen and bringers-of-food-packs-to-those-stricken-by-floods etc. are to be absolved of any crimes as long as they bring relief to those at the bottom of the pyramid, during their day jobs. Am happy to agree that there is economic inequality and varied access to education and health-care in India. That, however, in this particular context, is irrelevant. Very relevant and pressing in other contexts, of course.
> So India today is represented, not by its excluded and
> impoverished majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a
> middle class which fills the malls and hypermarkets of
> the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology
> of its own creation.
Fascinating. But, one may ask, "represented" where? In Parliament? In the Polo Club? In the slums of Calcutta? In the malls? Yes, the middle class which fills the malls is certainly represented in the malls. One wonders whether journalism ought not just to be about learning the language but also a basic grounding in the norms of debate and the basics of logical reasoning.
> It is a great pity that government should have believed
> the blandishments of all the new East
> India Companies,which have come in such smart modern
> garb, sharp suits and battalions of security personnel
> with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more
> advanced trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of
> India out of whatever they can be persuaded to part with.
This appears to have been written by an adolescent. The good-prose part of the article is over. Advanced trinkets for whatever they part with - sounds like a bargain.
> Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the
> gods, at least of imperialists who behaved like gods.
The writer appears to be unaware of the irony of writing in the language of the imperialists. Of something else too - that parliamentary democracy did not exactly thrive in India for the thousands of years before John Bull (this is presumably how the writer would describe the British, perhaps wearing fashionable sunglasses, though) showed up. And that the Indian parliament has lots of democratically elected Indians in it, empowered to change the Word of God.
A more intelligent critique of the case is to be found at http://leagueofindia.com/article/critique-raipur-session-courts-judgement-binayak-sen
> The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen
> suggests India is waging war against its own people.
This appears to be hyperbole, unless by "India" is meant the Central Government of that country acting in concert with the local state government of Chhattisgarh. That would further imply that the Congress (I) (in power at the Centre, and in the Opposition in the province) and the BJP (in power in the province, and in the Opposition at the Centre) are acting in tandem.
Neither the central nor the state government, furthermore, is responsible for sentencing. That prerogative rests with the courts, from the local to the Apex.
And, of course, unless the case of Dr. Sen is shown to be typical, it has hard to see how extrapolation to the entire state machinery and the entire citizenry is a valid one.
> That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such
> immoderate punishment, when his calling is the relief
> of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints at the
> insecurity of those who know how fragile the trumpeted
> economic success of India is, how promiscuously
> distributed its rewards, and how estranged large
> segments of the population remain from the
> international hyperbole.
Excellent use of the English language, a pleasure to read. Except, of course, for the leap in logic which seems to suggest that all doctors, artists, firemen and bringers-of-food-packs-to-those-stricken-by-floods etc. are to be absolved of any crimes as long as they bring relief to those at the bottom of the pyramid, during their day jobs. Am happy to agree that there is economic inequality and varied access to education and health-care in India. That, however, in this particular context, is irrelevant. Very relevant and pressing in other contexts, of course.
> So India today is represented, not by its excluded and
> impoverished majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a
> middle class which fills the malls and hypermarkets of
> the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology
> of its own creation.
Fascinating. But, one may ask, "represented" where? In Parliament? In the Polo Club? In the slums of Calcutta? In the malls? Yes, the middle class which fills the malls is certainly represented in the malls. One wonders whether journalism ought not just to be about learning the language but also a basic grounding in the norms of debate and the basics of logical reasoning.
> It is a great pity that government should have believed
> the blandishments of all the new East
> India Companies,which have come in such smart modern
> garb, sharp suits and battalions of security personnel
> with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more
> advanced trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of
> India out of whatever they can be persuaded to part with.
This appears to have been written by an adolescent. The good-prose part of the article is over. Advanced trinkets for whatever they part with - sounds like a bargain.
> Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the
> gods, at least of imperialists who behaved like gods.
The writer appears to be unaware of the irony of writing in the language of the imperialists. Of something else too - that parliamentary democracy did not exactly thrive in India for the thousands of years before John Bull (this is presumably how the writer would describe the British, perhaps wearing fashionable sunglasses, though) showed up. And that the Indian parliament has lots of democratically elected Indians in it, empowered to change the Word of God.
A more intelligent critique of the case is to be found at http://leagueofindia.com/article/critique-raipur-session-courts-judgement-binayak-sen
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Deceit in black and white
The Pakistani daily, The News, tends not to impress, as far as its quality of journalism is concerned - misleading headlines, inane opinion-pieces etc.. Here, however, is an example where the editorial had a bare-faced lie within it.
It had to do with Germany's Angela Merkel who stated, on 11 Dec 2010, that terrorism cannot be used to solve political problems.
The News, in its editorial "Merkel’s hard line" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=20331&Cat=8) reported this and offered its own interpretation.
> Now, we have Chancellor Merkel of Germany being
> uncharacteristically forthright - whilst on a
> visit to India - and saying to us that ‘...terror
> cannot be a means to solve political problems’. The
> implication, unstated but there in the subtext, is
> that we (Pakistan) are for whatever reason a state that
> sponsors or supports terrorism, and there can be no other
> interpretation of Merkel’s statement.
This logic is strange, of course, but a journalist is free to choose to propagate his or her own opinion.
And again:
> The Merkel visit to India is only tangentially
> about delivering a smack round the head to ourselves
> - what it is mostly about is trade.
Except, of course, that Angela Merkel was not in India - these remarks were made in Berlin.
Some other which confirm this are:
1. The German foreign office website announcing the Indian Prime Minister's upcoming meeting with Ms. Merkel in Berlin
http://www.new-delhi.diplo.de/Vertretung/newdelhi/en/03/News/Singh__Merkel__Meet-1.html
2. The official German website, containing the full text of Ms. Merkel's speech (in German)
http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2010/12/2010-12-11-pressestatement-merkel-singh.html
3. An Indian newspaper, The Hindu, reporting on the meeting
http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/12/stories/2010121266061200.htm
This then is the quality of the editorial in The News - unfortunately, anything written with plenty of praise of the fatherland and its wronged sons and corresponding contempt for the traditional enemy will be lapped up by the masses.
The Pakistani daily, The News, tends not to impress, as far as its quality of journalism is concerned - misleading headlines, inane opinion-pieces etc.. Here, however, is an example where the editorial had a bare-faced lie within it.
It had to do with Germany's Angela Merkel who stated, on 11 Dec 2010, that terrorism cannot be used to solve political problems.
The News, in its editorial "Merkel’s hard line" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=20331&Cat=8) reported this and offered its own interpretation.
> Now, we have Chancellor Merkel of Germany being
> uncharacteristically forthright - whilst on a
> visit to India - and saying to us that ‘...terror
> cannot be a means to solve political problems’. The
> implication, unstated but there in the subtext, is
> that we (Pakistan) are for whatever reason a state that
> sponsors or supports terrorism, and there can be no other
> interpretation of Merkel’s statement.
This logic is strange, of course, but a journalist is free to choose to propagate his or her own opinion.
And again:
> The Merkel visit to India is only tangentially
> about delivering a smack round the head to ourselves
> - what it is mostly about is trade.
Except, of course, that Angela Merkel was not in India - these remarks were made in Berlin.
Some other which confirm this are:
1. The German foreign office website announcing the Indian Prime Minister's upcoming meeting with Ms. Merkel in Berlin
http://www.new-delhi.diplo.de/Vertretung/newdelhi/en/03/News/Singh__Merkel__Meet-1.html
2. The official German website, containing the full text of Ms. Merkel's speech (in German)
http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2010/12/2010-12-11-pressestatement-merkel-singh.html
3. An Indian newspaper, The Hindu, reporting on the meeting
http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/12/stories/2010121266061200.htm
This then is the quality of the editorial in The News - unfortunately, anything written with plenty of praise of the fatherland and its wronged sons and corresponding contempt for the traditional enemy will be lapped up by the masses.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The truth in the border areas
An article on the front page of the (online edition of the) Pakistani newspaper Dawn had the headline, "US drone strike kills 20 militants in North Waziristan". (http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/16/us-drone-strike-kills-seven-in-north-waziristan.html) The accompanying picture was that of a drone, not the one that apparently did the killing described in the article, but a "file photo" of some other drone. Possibly from some other conflict, in some other place. But, hey, we need a photo, any photo.
Given that drone strikes take place on an almost bi-weekly basis, they don't always make it to the top of the news stack in Pakistan. This is but natural, for if it occurs regularly, and promises to go on, then it is not always "news", and so one is forgiven for not noticing the details of the account.
But let us examine this article. The headline, alert reader, suggested that twenty militants had been killed.
The sub-headline, however, is a tad more circumspect:
> A US missile strike destroyed a home and a speeding
> vehicle carrying insurgents near the Afghan border early
> Tuesday, killing at least 20 alleged militants, Pakistani
> intelligence officials said.
So now the victims are only "alleged" to have been militants. Quite a difference, is it not, and so quite shabby journalism.
> They spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the
> policy of the intelligence agency.
This is ridiculous. The Pakistani intelligence agency has a defined policy of speaking to the press anonymously? If a prosperous liberal democracy is what the press is aiming for, then this state of affairs deserves more attention and debate than a drone strike. Again, journalism fails to meet its brief.
Note also that the US military does not confirm drone attacks. This bit is not stated anywhere in the article, yet the attack is clearly labelled as originating from a drone and attributed to the US. Where from this insight? The anonymous officials at the intelligence agency? What is the name of this agency? The article does not name the journalist who wrote this story. The only attribution is "Agencies". Which agencies? For-profit press agencies? Ostensibly not-for-profit government agencies?
> The identity of the dead was not known, and agents were trying
> to get more details, said the officials.
The identity was not known - but the dead were militants, at least alleged militants? Is the contradiction not visible to the journalist who wrote this?
An article on the front page of the (online edition of the) Pakistani newspaper Dawn had the headline, "US drone strike kills 20 militants in North Waziristan". (http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/16/us-drone-strike-kills-seven-in-north-waziristan.html) The accompanying picture was that of a drone, not the one that apparently did the killing described in the article, but a "file photo" of some other drone. Possibly from some other conflict, in some other place. But, hey, we need a photo, any photo.
Given that drone strikes take place on an almost bi-weekly basis, they don't always make it to the top of the news stack in Pakistan. This is but natural, for if it occurs regularly, and promises to go on, then it is not always "news", and so one is forgiven for not noticing the details of the account.
But let us examine this article. The headline, alert reader, suggested that twenty militants had been killed.
The sub-headline, however, is a tad more circumspect:
> A US missile strike destroyed a home and a speeding
> vehicle carrying insurgents near the Afghan border early
> Tuesday, killing at least 20 alleged militants, Pakistani
> intelligence officials said.
So now the victims are only "alleged" to have been militants. Quite a difference, is it not, and so quite shabby journalism.
> They spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the
> policy of the intelligence agency.
This is ridiculous. The Pakistani intelligence agency has a defined policy of speaking to the press anonymously? If a prosperous liberal democracy is what the press is aiming for, then this state of affairs deserves more attention and debate than a drone strike. Again, journalism fails to meet its brief.
Note also that the US military does not confirm drone attacks. This bit is not stated anywhere in the article, yet the attack is clearly labelled as originating from a drone and attributed to the US. Where from this insight? The anonymous officials at the intelligence agency? What is the name of this agency? The article does not name the journalist who wrote this story. The only attribution is "Agencies". Which agencies? For-profit press agencies? Ostensibly not-for-profit government agencies?
> The identity of the dead was not known, and agents were trying
> to get more details, said the officials.
The identity was not known - but the dead were militants, at least alleged militants? Is the contradiction not visible to the journalist who wrote this?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Hope for improved journalism
A recent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11kristof.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211), excellent in its portrayal of hope, by Mr. Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, described the success of private schooling in Pakistan.
This blog, however, is more interested in the rules of logic and debate, rather than the nature of opinons expressed, and even this positive article appeared to have some flaws.
> One reason Pakistan is sometimes called the most dangerous country in the world is this:
> a kindergarten child in this country has only a 1 percent chance of reaching the 12th grade
> , according to the Pakistan Education Task Force, an official panel.
This appears to be misleading. A country is "dangerous" only if the growing child is killed, enslaved, starved etc. - if the child's guardians opt to remove her or him from the formal education system (for social, economic, religious, political, gender-based etc., i.e., self-willed reasons - many of which are commonplace in Pakistani/Eastern society), then the country is scarcely dangerous. The implication of the author's statistic is that children die (because of landmines, virulent outbreaks of communicable disease or terrorist attacks?) before they reach the age of around seventeen.
> We’ve propped up generals but not the lawyers’ movement for democracy.
Suggestive juxtaposition, as if the one involves violent generalissimos (the choice of word if one wishes to be disparaging), unloved of the people, and the other has to do with erudite and composed, except when called to the fore, gentlemen. The Pakistani army has often been disrespectful of its people, but this does not seem to be resented by most, curiously enough. Indeed, some non-staged dancing in the streets seems to have greeted every military usurpation of power. The agitation called the "Lawyers' Movement" also involved, especially in its extensions, bits that were brutal and undemocratic (i.e. without any respect for debate and consensus building).
> They (the Pak. middle class, members of) are enraged at the terrorists who have been
> tearing apart their country, they’re appalled by corruption and illiteracy, and they want
> peace so that their children can become educated and live a better life. Their obsession
> is college, not Kashmir.
Much of English language print media and Urdu language electronic media appear to contradict this. "This" appears to be reasonable and straightforward, indeed a banality ("Of course, one choses a loaf of bread to a Kalashnikov!") - but, as with all things cultural, it is obvious only given a certain cultural prejudice. If one truly (madly?) believed in a certain religion then the destruction of certain edifices (held by some to be valuable) or the killing of people (held by some to obstruct the march of righteousness on this planet) is perfectly justified. Most members of the middle class, if one is to believe the talk-show hosts and the journalists, do appear to be obsessed with Kashmir - but even more so with national politics (i.e. President Zardari, mostly), religion (i.e. Islam), geopolitics (i.e. the oppressed Islamic communities in Palestine and within the West; US dependence upon Pakistan), governance theories (i.e. should the Army take over power again; when? etc.) and cricket (i.e. the conspiracies to discredit the national team, with allegations of match-fixing, death threats etc.).
> So Zahida is now is a star in the 11th grade — speaking to me comfortably in English.
This bit was obviously not proofread by Zahida, who would probably have removed one of the instances of the word "is" from the sentence.
A recent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11kristof.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211), excellent in its portrayal of hope, by Mr. Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, described the success of private schooling in Pakistan.
This blog, however, is more interested in the rules of logic and debate, rather than the nature of opinons expressed, and even this positive article appeared to have some flaws.
> One reason Pakistan is sometimes called the most dangerous country in the world is this:
> a kindergarten child in this country has only a 1 percent chance of reaching the 12th grade
> , according to the Pakistan Education Task Force, an official panel.
This appears to be misleading. A country is "dangerous" only if the growing child is killed, enslaved, starved etc. - if the child's guardians opt to remove her or him from the formal education system (for social, economic, religious, political, gender-based etc., i.e., self-willed reasons - many of which are commonplace in Pakistani/Eastern society), then the country is scarcely dangerous. The implication of the author's statistic is that children die (because of landmines, virulent outbreaks of communicable disease or terrorist attacks?) before they reach the age of around seventeen.
> We’ve propped up generals but not the lawyers’ movement for democracy.
Suggestive juxtaposition, as if the one involves violent generalissimos (the choice of word if one wishes to be disparaging), unloved of the people, and the other has to do with erudite and composed, except when called to the fore, gentlemen. The Pakistani army has often been disrespectful of its people, but this does not seem to be resented by most, curiously enough. Indeed, some non-staged dancing in the streets seems to have greeted every military usurpation of power. The agitation called the "Lawyers' Movement" also involved, especially in its extensions, bits that were brutal and undemocratic (i.e. without any respect for debate and consensus building).
> They (the Pak. middle class, members of) are enraged at the terrorists who have been
> tearing apart their country, they’re appalled by corruption and illiteracy, and they want
> peace so that their children can become educated and live a better life. Their obsession
> is college, not Kashmir.
Much of English language print media and Urdu language electronic media appear to contradict this. "This" appears to be reasonable and straightforward, indeed a banality ("Of course, one choses a loaf of bread to a Kalashnikov!") - but, as with all things cultural, it is obvious only given a certain cultural prejudice. If one truly (madly?) believed in a certain religion then the destruction of certain edifices (held by some to be valuable) or the killing of people (held by some to obstruct the march of righteousness on this planet) is perfectly justified. Most members of the middle class, if one is to believe the talk-show hosts and the journalists, do appear to be obsessed with Kashmir - but even more so with national politics (i.e. President Zardari, mostly), religion (i.e. Islam), geopolitics (i.e. the oppressed Islamic communities in Palestine and within the West; US dependence upon Pakistan), governance theories (i.e. should the Army take over power again; when? etc.) and cricket (i.e. the conspiracies to discredit the national team, with allegations of match-fixing, death threats etc.).
> So Zahida is now is a star in the 11th grade — speaking to me comfortably in English.
This bit was obviously not proofread by Zahida, who would probably have removed one of the instances of the word "is" from the sentence.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Hidden poets at the Economist
Well, lovers of poetry, anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have managed the Brooke reference in the title "Some corner of a foreign field" in this article (http://www.economist.com/node/17312300?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/foreignfield). Unfortunately, these educated ones appear to be rather nasty.
> Like many Anglo-Indians, members of a Eurasian community
> spawned during the Raj,
Spawned? Thank you, dear Economist, for reminding us that we are discussing half-castes here and not real human beings.
(In case anyone misses the point, most dictionaries note that the usage of "spawn" in this context is derogatory and contemptuous)
Orcs, for instance, are spawned.
> The Anglo-Indian population fell from perhaps 500,000 in 1947
> to fewer than 150,000 today.
This is fascinating. "Perhaps 500,000"? What are the author's reasons for quoting this figure? May we take it as being close to 500,000? Why not "circa 500,000", then? Or is it a number that the author decided as being probable? Not that the author favours us with a source for the "fewer than 150,000 today" figure either. This sort of of shoddy homework ought to be unacceptable in a professional journalist. Of course, perhaps the professional journalist was too busy looking up the Brooke reference (Paraphrased - If I should fall, Think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field, That is for ever England) and got the security desk to write the rest of the article.
> Yet many are also thriving, thanks to rising demand
> for Anglophones from India’s booming services firms.
This is plainly misleading. All Anglo-Indians might well be Anglophones, but not all Anglophones must speak excellent English (indeed, not even all of those brought up speaking no language other than English speak it very well), and, in any case, there are plenty of non-Anglo-Indians in India who speak English (and who may or may not be Anglophones). Indeed, post-colonial, post-market-reform India is more pro-American than Anglophone.
Well, lovers of poetry, anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have managed the Brooke reference in the title "Some corner of a foreign field" in this article (http://www.economist.com/node/17312300?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/foreignfield). Unfortunately, these educated ones appear to be rather nasty.
> Like many Anglo-Indians, members of a Eurasian community
> spawned during the Raj,
Spawned? Thank you, dear Economist, for reminding us that we are discussing half-castes here and not real human beings.
(In case anyone misses the point, most dictionaries note that the usage of "spawn" in this context is derogatory and contemptuous)
Orcs, for instance, are spawned.
> The Anglo-Indian population fell from perhaps 500,000 in 1947
> to fewer than 150,000 today.
This is fascinating. "Perhaps 500,000"? What are the author's reasons for quoting this figure? May we take it as being close to 500,000? Why not "circa 500,000", then? Or is it a number that the author decided as being probable? Not that the author favours us with a source for the "fewer than 150,000 today" figure either. This sort of of shoddy homework ought to be unacceptable in a professional journalist. Of course, perhaps the professional journalist was too busy looking up the Brooke reference (Paraphrased - If I should fall, Think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field, That is for ever England) and got the security desk to write the rest of the article.
> Yet many are also thriving, thanks to rising demand
> for Anglophones from India’s booming services firms.
This is plainly misleading. All Anglo-Indians might well be Anglophones, but not all Anglophones must speak excellent English (indeed, not even all of those brought up speaking no language other than English speak it very well), and, in any case, there are plenty of non-Anglo-Indians in India who speak English (and who may or may not be Anglophones). Indeed, post-colonial, post-market-reform India is more pro-American than Anglophone.
On Poles and Lithuanians
Yet another shoddy, arrogant article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/10/poland_and_lithuania&fsrc=nwl) appeared in the incorrectly defined Eastern approaches secton of the Economist.
> This has the potential to be a really nasty and
> damaging row, not least because it will make all
> the post-communist countries look like petty-minded nitwits.
Indeed? *All* post-communist countries? Like the erstwhile DDR (East Germany)? A more reasonable point of view is that the above assertion makes the writer of the Economist article look like an arrogant megalomaniac, petty-minded at that.
> (NB to Lithuanian MFA: please use spellcheck)
This is a little ironic. The first sentence of this Economist article is grammatically incorrect. "print edition carries a short sharp take on the " - comma missing between short and sharp. The second sentence uses the abbreviations for "et cetera" and "id est" without the required periods, i.e. as "ie" and not "i.e.", etc..
> As someone who knows and likes both countries
> (and as one of a handful of western observers with
> a working grasp of both languages) I find all this depressing.
This would evoke ridicule if it were not slighty pitiful. "Western"? Where is the author from? Portugal? Eileen Limerick O'Reilly from Ireland? Are there any Africans, Chinese or Mexicans who happen to speak both languages? None such? What of Russians, Poles or Lithuanians who speak both languages, along with English, and have lived in a city in the blessed West? Would their opinion as "observers" (of man? of our times?) count? What is a "working grasp"? Enough to write semi-literate articles in the equivalents of the Economist in Poland and Lithuania? Or enough to thank Svetlana for her services and to condescendingly instruct a waiter to keep the change, whilst tipping much more than what the natives would?
One regrets, and one is probably joined by all Poles, that our writer is subject to this bout of depression. Incidentally, that's not the only insight into his or her mental state that the author allows us ("I have a gloomy feeling that we may be heading for something similar"). Depression and gloom. Perhaps the Economist ought to organize neck-massage teams in their work-places. And some vodka. Ah, no, that's the stuff people in the East drink. Not for us Westerners, thank you very much.
> Both sides prefer myths to facts.
And the West (not to mention the Chinese, the Indians and the rest of mankind, throughout all ages) does not? All humans work with and revere myths. The author ought to stay away from metaphysics (the nature of truth). Especially when (see above) in his or her current state of mind.
> The issue is ripe for outside mediation.
Outside? Perhaps the author means "Western"? Or is the rest of humanity now allowed in too? Shall we let the Africans have a go?
Yet another shoddy, arrogant article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/10/poland_and_lithuania&fsrc=nwl) appeared in the incorrectly defined Eastern approaches secton of the Economist.
> This has the potential to be a really nasty and
> damaging row, not least because it will make all
> the post-communist countries look like petty-minded nitwits.
Indeed? *All* post-communist countries? Like the erstwhile DDR (East Germany)? A more reasonable point of view is that the above assertion makes the writer of the Economist article look like an arrogant megalomaniac, petty-minded at that.
> (NB to Lithuanian MFA: please use spellcheck)
This is a little ironic. The first sentence of this Economist article is grammatically incorrect. "print edition carries a short sharp take on the " - comma missing between short and sharp. The second sentence uses the abbreviations for "et cetera" and "id est" without the required periods, i.e. as "ie" and not "i.e.", etc..
> As someone who knows and likes both countries
> (and as one of a handful of western observers with
> a working grasp of both languages) I find all this depressing.
This would evoke ridicule if it were not slighty pitiful. "Western"? Where is the author from? Portugal? Eileen Limerick O'Reilly from Ireland? Are there any Africans, Chinese or Mexicans who happen to speak both languages? None such? What of Russians, Poles or Lithuanians who speak both languages, along with English, and have lived in a city in the blessed West? Would their opinion as "observers" (of man? of our times?) count? What is a "working grasp"? Enough to write semi-literate articles in the equivalents of the Economist in Poland and Lithuania? Or enough to thank Svetlana for her services and to condescendingly instruct a waiter to keep the change, whilst tipping much more than what the natives would?
One regrets, and one is probably joined by all Poles, that our writer is subject to this bout of depression. Incidentally, that's not the only insight into his or her mental state that the author allows us ("I have a gloomy feeling that we may be heading for something similar"). Depression and gloom. Perhaps the Economist ought to organize neck-massage teams in their work-places. And some vodka. Ah, no, that's the stuff people in the East drink. Not for us Westerners, thank you very much.
> Both sides prefer myths to facts.
And the West (not to mention the Chinese, the Indians and the rest of mankind, throughout all ages) does not? All humans work with and revere myths. The author ought to stay away from metaphysics (the nature of truth). Especially when (see above) in his or her current state of mind.
> The issue is ripe for outside mediation.
Outside? Perhaps the author means "Western"? Or is the rest of humanity now allowed in too? Shall we let the Africans have a go?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Journalism and instant soup
The Economist carried an article titled "Islam-baiting in America" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/jihad_and_soup)
> There is now a ludicrous and hateful campaign to boycott
> Campbell's for having the temerity to issue a halal line of soups.
> As for the tea-party movement, with its supposed veneration
> for the values entrenched in the constitution........
The cheap-appeal-to-patriotism "values entrenched in the constitution" argument is absurd - the campaigners are boycotting, and not burning cars or killing people (which response is not entirely unknown in certain parts of the world.......). Entirely constitutional, and in the best traditions of free speech. This writer needs to get over labelling as ludicrous, hateful, infantile and shaming opinions that differ from his or her own. Or should we all have one single Economist-approved opinion, one political stance, one can of Campbell's a day?
The Economist carried an article titled "Islam-baiting in America" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/jihad_and_soup)
> There is now a ludicrous and hateful campaign to boycott
> Campbell's for having the temerity to issue a halal line of soups.
> As for the tea-party movement, with its supposed veneration
> for the values entrenched in the constitution........
The cheap-appeal-to-patriotism "values entrenched in the constitution" argument is absurd - the campaigners are boycotting, and not burning cars or killing people (which response is not entirely unknown in certain parts of the world.......). Entirely constitutional, and in the best traditions of free speech. This writer needs to get over labelling as ludicrous, hateful, infantile and shaming opinions that differ from his or her own. Or should we all have one single Economist-approved opinion, one political stance, one can of Campbell's a day?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Whatever happened to fair speech?
In a recent article in the Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Loonies-running-about-in-the-BJP-park/H1-Article1-573856.aspx), an influential Indian journalist displayed, once again, non-exemplary writing, combined with an obvious acquaintance with the language, it not with the norms of debate.
> ...it would be surprising if there were no terrorists
> at all within the (Hindu) community. In a nation of
> over a billion Hindus it is hardly cause for shock and
> horror if 0.01 per cent of the community
> turns to violence.
The consecutiveness of the two statements suggests that the journalist finds it acceptable for a community to have one terrorist for every ten thousand citizens. That equates to around ten terrorists at a large cricket stadium. How this is not cause for shock, indicates perhaps how inured the journalist is to violence. Or is this acceptable as long as the victims are other people, with journalists all dry and safe, probably because they are having a drink in the press lounge, to continue the analogy.
> Prem ("clearly a fascist of some description") got
> to be an MP twice
The "got to be" bit implies privilege. But the gentleman our journalist suggests is "clearly a fascist" was elected to Parliament by voters. Twice. Obviously, his fascism was either not as clear as suggested, or the electorate did not find it objectionable. Perhaps the journalist would that such people be not allowed to stand for election. Or that such people not be allowed to vote (that right perhaps to be given only to those who agree with the journalist). Who here is a fascist, again?
> We know that in the early days of the Sangh,
> many of its leaders supported such fascists
> as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
This appears to be a mean little propaganda trick, argument by association. Subash Chandra Bose, one of modern India's most celebrated sons, actively courted Hitler. The latter was, after all, happy to fight an Empire who had occupied the land which was the origin of the Sangh. The Sangh, which incidentally has more than a hint of nationalism in its name, was founded in 1925. Hitler was appeased, by statesmen and intellectuals around the world, before they got around to fighting him. The author does not inform us when exactly these "early days" were. Notice also that Hitler, a Nazi official of the first rank, is labelled a "fascist". The word Nazi is not, however, long neglected - in the very next sentence, however, the Sangh is advised to remove Nazis from its extended family, if it wished to discard the legacy of "those days".
> An angry mob (numbering anywhere from 500 to 4000,
> depending on whom you believe) stormed the offices
Whom should we believe? What is the choice that is ostensibly being presented to the audience? The journalist might as well have said, "a mob, armed with anything between stones and rocket launchers, depending upon whom you believe", or "numbering between eight and twenty three thousand"? Does the journalist himself or herself have a smaller range of numbers? Was this the best estimate that could be gathered? Notice that the journalist refers to police stopping the mob from entering the building - how many police personnel were on duty? Notice also that the journalist refers to video footage of the mob - was it not possible to use this footage to obtain a better estimate? Or does the journalist deliberately choose to avoid doing so?
> The basic defence (of the RSS) was that terrorist
> acts were the work of individuals and did not
> reflect on the organisation. The RSS is
> rigidly disciplined. It does not believe in violence.
Then comes the bit about the angry mob (between 500 and 4000, or perhaps even more).
> The mob shouted pro-RSS slogans and its members
> made it clear that they were protesting against
> Thursday evening’s story.
Notice that the journalist does not state that the mob was made up of (between 500 and 4000, or somewhere in that general range) RSS members.
But then comes a clear suggestion to the effect:
> If the RSS is so disciplined, then why is it
> being represented by rampaging goondas?
So was the mob an action of the RSS or not?
If not, then the journalist's self-satisfied (if only because preceded by "Oh dear, I said to myself") conclusion that the previously stated three defences of the RSS "crumbled at a stroke" may not be allowed.
If, however, the mob was directed by the RSS, then that should be grounds for a very strong legal case for the law appears to have been broken. But, if the latter, why is the journalist not clearer in his or her accusation? Why not louder? Or is it that this is conjecture on the journalist's part? Is the footage being examined by the public prosecutor's office? Is the journalist interested in that? In seeing justice done, freedom defended? Or was the article enough, an end in itself?
> Not one BJP person spoke up for freedom of the press.
This sort of statement, of course, is incredible. Did the journalist assemble all members of the BJP (or all BJP MPs? or all BJP office holders from around the country)? Give them all a chance to do so (i.e., were they aware of the context, that the freedom of the press was under threat?)?
And shameless. What about freedom of the zoo officials? And of the students? Of prostitutes, chess players, dancers, Dalits and of everyone else, especially those who are not members of the Fourth Estate, by no means diminished in power since Burke's day?
In a recent article in the Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Loonies-running-about-in-the-BJP-park/H1-Article1-573856.aspx), an influential Indian journalist displayed, once again, non-exemplary writing, combined with an obvious acquaintance with the language, it not with the norms of debate.
> ...it would be surprising if there were no terrorists
> at all within the (Hindu) community. In a nation of
> over a billion Hindus it is hardly cause for shock and
> horror if 0.01 per cent of the community
> turns to violence.
The consecutiveness of the two statements suggests that the journalist finds it acceptable for a community to have one terrorist for every ten thousand citizens. That equates to around ten terrorists at a large cricket stadium. How this is not cause for shock, indicates perhaps how inured the journalist is to violence. Or is this acceptable as long as the victims are other people, with journalists all dry and safe, probably because they are having a drink in the press lounge, to continue the analogy.
> Prem ("clearly a fascist of some description") got
> to be an MP twice
The "got to be" bit implies privilege. But the gentleman our journalist suggests is "clearly a fascist" was elected to Parliament by voters. Twice. Obviously, his fascism was either not as clear as suggested, or the electorate did not find it objectionable. Perhaps the journalist would that such people be not allowed to stand for election. Or that such people not be allowed to vote (that right perhaps to be given only to those who agree with the journalist). Who here is a fascist, again?
> We know that in the early days of the Sangh,
> many of its leaders supported such fascists
> as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
This appears to be a mean little propaganda trick, argument by association. Subash Chandra Bose, one of modern India's most celebrated sons, actively courted Hitler. The latter was, after all, happy to fight an Empire who had occupied the land which was the origin of the Sangh. The Sangh, which incidentally has more than a hint of nationalism in its name, was founded in 1925. Hitler was appeased, by statesmen and intellectuals around the world, before they got around to fighting him. The author does not inform us when exactly these "early days" were. Notice also that Hitler, a Nazi official of the first rank, is labelled a "fascist". The word Nazi is not, however, long neglected - in the very next sentence, however, the Sangh is advised to remove Nazis from its extended family, if it wished to discard the legacy of "those days".
> An angry mob (numbering anywhere from 500 to 4000,
> depending on whom you believe) stormed the offices
Whom should we believe? What is the choice that is ostensibly being presented to the audience? The journalist might as well have said, "a mob, armed with anything between stones and rocket launchers, depending upon whom you believe", or "numbering between eight and twenty three thousand"? Does the journalist himself or herself have a smaller range of numbers? Was this the best estimate that could be gathered? Notice that the journalist refers to police stopping the mob from entering the building - how many police personnel were on duty? Notice also that the journalist refers to video footage of the mob - was it not possible to use this footage to obtain a better estimate? Or does the journalist deliberately choose to avoid doing so?
> The basic defence (of the RSS) was that terrorist
> acts were the work of individuals and did not
> reflect on the organisation. The RSS is
> rigidly disciplined. It does not believe in violence.
Then comes the bit about the angry mob (between 500 and 4000, or perhaps even more).
> The mob shouted pro-RSS slogans and its members
> made it clear that they were protesting against
> Thursday evening’s story.
Notice that the journalist does not state that the mob was made up of (between 500 and 4000, or somewhere in that general range) RSS members.
But then comes a clear suggestion to the effect:
> If the RSS is so disciplined, then why is it
> being represented by rampaging goondas?
So was the mob an action of the RSS or not?
If not, then the journalist's self-satisfied (if only because preceded by "Oh dear, I said to myself") conclusion that the previously stated three defences of the RSS "crumbled at a stroke" may not be allowed.
If, however, the mob was directed by the RSS, then that should be grounds for a very strong legal case for the law appears to have been broken. But, if the latter, why is the journalist not clearer in his or her accusation? Why not louder? Or is it that this is conjecture on the journalist's part? Is the footage being examined by the public prosecutor's office? Is the journalist interested in that? In seeing justice done, freedom defended? Or was the article enough, an end in itself?
> Not one BJP person spoke up for freedom of the press.
This sort of statement, of course, is incredible. Did the journalist assemble all members of the BJP (or all BJP MPs? or all BJP office holders from around the country)? Give them all a chance to do so (i.e., were they aware of the context, that the freedom of the press was under threat?)?
And shameless. What about freedom of the zoo officials? And of the students? Of prostitutes, chess players, dancers, Dalits and of everyone else, especially those who are not members of the Fourth Estate, by no means diminished in power since Burke's day?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Not quite modern
An ambitious article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn (http://blog.dawn.com/2010/07/15/reform-now/) attempts to summarize recent socio-political movements and suggests the way forward for a modern state in the Islamic context.
It is surprising that none of the readers who commented pointed out the various misused words (words spelt correctly but meaningless in the context). That notwithstanding, read on for a review of some of the main points.
> This created dictatorships which were always venerable
> to becoming myopic and elitist at the first sign of economic
> and political failure.
Vulnerable, perhaps, and not venerable.
> Purpose of Islamic legislation regarding punishments
> should be to reform people and not to exact revenge.
This is an oversimplification of one of mankind's most involved philosophical questions, surely! To reform and not to exact revenge? Why not? If A kills B, and the entire population, including A & B's admirers, solemnly affirm that they won't go kill, should A be let off?
> One cannot force someone to become a believer.
But one can! Various forms of torture, propaganda and brainwashing have been developed towards this end.
The point one expects of a tolerant, modern and free thinker is that one _should_ not force anyone to become a believer.
> No religious principal should be imposed by force,
> because Islam has declared that there is no compulsion in faith.
Principle, perhaps, and not principal. Although principal too makes sense, in the case of a religious dictator thrust upon a people.
> All administrative and political matters are
> human affairs and hence, not subject to religious rules.
This statement is banal at best and a shallow trivialization, at worst. Administrative and political matters are human, but religion is not? If religious rules do not involve humans, then there would have been no need to write this article.
> Religious extremism should be condemned
Why? As long as the extremism does not harm humans, animals and the environment, why should anyone be bothered if someone refuses to eat onions, or pigs, or insists on not working on Sundays (when planned in advance). The author probably means violence caused by religious extremism.
> Jihad is a means, not an end. It does not permit self-destruction
> and it does not legitimise killing civilians.
This is dangerous and surprising in someone who ostensibly advocates tolerance, justice and peace. Back in the day, it might have been easy to distinguish between a civilian and a soldier. Given today's informal militias and involved value chains, this is no longer possible. What about a retired infantryman, or one on leave, or in a military prison; or a hospital attendant wearing a military uniform, or a nurse, or an 85-year old Field Marshal, or someone who delivers office materials to a country's army headquarters, civil servants and politicians in the War Ministry, building maintenance in a munitions' factory? "Does not legitimise killing civilians" implies that it is acceptable and legitimate to kill human beings as long as they don't fall into the category of "civilians" (and, by the way, that latter definiton will be supplied in a separate letter).
> Preachers are spiritual guides, not judges (and vice-versa).
The vice-versa bit is puzzling. What does it suggest? That spiritual guides are preachers, not judges? All? Some? That judges are neither spiritual guides not preachers?
> Islam and Islamic law should be understood and implied
> by each generation according to its own conditions.
Implemented, perhaps, and not implied.
> It (Sharia) is man-made
Of course, it is! As is every other system of law. But the author's statement (along with "We should define Islam in such a way that it does not undermine its global standing.") appears to be blasphemous (from the point of view of an orthodox Muslim) - this is curious, as most of the discussion appears to accept the existence and uniqueness of the Koranic God.
An ambitious article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn (http://blog.dawn.com/2010/07/15/reform-now/) attempts to summarize recent socio-political movements and suggests the way forward for a modern state in the Islamic context.
It is surprising that none of the readers who commented pointed out the various misused words (words spelt correctly but meaningless in the context). That notwithstanding, read on for a review of some of the main points.
> This created dictatorships which were always venerable
> to becoming myopic and elitist at the first sign of economic
> and political failure.
Vulnerable, perhaps, and not venerable.
> Purpose of Islamic legislation regarding punishments
> should be to reform people and not to exact revenge.
This is an oversimplification of one of mankind's most involved philosophical questions, surely! To reform and not to exact revenge? Why not? If A kills B, and the entire population, including A & B's admirers, solemnly affirm that they won't go kill, should A be let off?
> One cannot force someone to become a believer.
But one can! Various forms of torture, propaganda and brainwashing have been developed towards this end.
The point one expects of a tolerant, modern and free thinker is that one _should_ not force anyone to become a believer.
> No religious principal should be imposed by force,
> because Islam has declared that there is no compulsion in faith.
Principle, perhaps, and not principal. Although principal too makes sense, in the case of a religious dictator thrust upon a people.
> All administrative and political matters are
> human affairs and hence, not subject to religious rules.
This statement is banal at best and a shallow trivialization, at worst. Administrative and political matters are human, but religion is not? If religious rules do not involve humans, then there would have been no need to write this article.
> Religious extremism should be condemned
Why? As long as the extremism does not harm humans, animals and the environment, why should anyone be bothered if someone refuses to eat onions, or pigs, or insists on not working on Sundays (when planned in advance). The author probably means violence caused by religious extremism.
> Jihad is a means, not an end. It does not permit self-destruction
> and it does not legitimise killing civilians.
This is dangerous and surprising in someone who ostensibly advocates tolerance, justice and peace. Back in the day, it might have been easy to distinguish between a civilian and a soldier. Given today's informal militias and involved value chains, this is no longer possible. What about a retired infantryman, or one on leave, or in a military prison; or a hospital attendant wearing a military uniform, or a nurse, or an 85-year old Field Marshal, or someone who delivers office materials to a country's army headquarters, civil servants and politicians in the War Ministry, building maintenance in a munitions' factory? "Does not legitimise killing civilians" implies that it is acceptable and legitimate to kill human beings as long as they don't fall into the category of "civilians" (and, by the way, that latter definiton will be supplied in a separate letter).
> Preachers are spiritual guides, not judges (and vice-versa).
The vice-versa bit is puzzling. What does it suggest? That spiritual guides are preachers, not judges? All? Some? That judges are neither spiritual guides not preachers?
> Islam and Islamic law should be understood and implied
> by each generation according to its own conditions.
Implemented, perhaps, and not implied.
> It (Sharia) is man-made
Of course, it is! As is every other system of law. But the author's statement (along with "We should define Islam in such a way that it does not undermine its global standing.") appears to be blasphemous (from the point of view of an orthodox Muslim) - this is curious, as most of the discussion appears to accept the existence and uniqueness of the Koranic God.
Monday, July 12, 2010
A quote to a journalist
In the opinion piece "Forgotten lessons of history" published on 21 October 2009 in the Pakistani newspaper The News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=204213),
Roedad Khan writes:
> These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them.
> But as George Bernard Shaw said:
> "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
The same author, in the same publication (27 January 2009, i.e. circa ninth months previously), had written in another opinion piece "There can't be two suns in the sky" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=159208),
> Why not learn from history?
> But as Hegel said long ago,
> "Man learns nothing from history except that man learns nothing from history."
So, our journalist, attributes the same quote (itself correct in essentials but not in details), to both Hegel and Shaw!
Incidentally, Hegel writes this:
"Man verweist Regenten, Staatsmänner, Völker vornehmlich an die Belehrung durch die Erfahrung der Geschichte. Was die Erfahrung aber und die Geschichte lehren, ist dieses, daß Völker und Regierungen niemals etwas aus der Geschichte gelernt und nach Lehren, die aus derselben zu ziehen gewesen wären, gehandelt haben." (http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=5&xid=5144&kapitel=1#gb_found)
translated as:
"Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this, - that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
(http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm#II.)
in "Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte" (Lectures on the Philosophy of History), first published in 1837.
Mr. Bernard Shaw, who, incidentally, wrote a "History of Philosophy" (getting some facts wrong, most notably those to do with Nietzsche), was born years after the publication of "Philosophy of History", in 1856.
Now, it doesn't really matter who actually spoke (or wrote) certain words, assuming that the quote is used in keeping with the norms of debate. This blog has stressed this point before, when a journalist tried to incorrectly attribute a quote to Martin Niemöller (http://orthojournalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-what-did-he-really-say-this-article.html).
So, if it doesn't matter, why are we discussing it?
Well, because, in a journalist, this sort of false attribution shows intellectual laziness in looking up a quote, checking multiple sources, examining translations, understanding the relation of the quote to its context) and, which is worse, intellectual snobbiness (appeal to reputation: look, the Right Honourable Blaise Archibald Witherladle said "Black cats might not fly", so who are we to say that they might?). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority for an example sans attempt at wit).
And this particular journalist goes to town with his / her quotes!
For example, the journalist's most recent article "Lessons from a revolution" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=249067) quotes John Adams, the Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, Frederick Douglass, some unnamed (why?) person or persons ("Asylum for mankind", "birth of a new world", "begin the world over again"), Paul Johnston, Toynbee and George Washington.
The second most recent article quotes Dostoevsky, an unnamed (why?) 19th century Russian, Lenin, Oriana Fallaci and Willy Brandt. And some unacknowledged quotes (i.e., without quotation marks around them - "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", "moment of truth" etc..
Quotations can make for interesting reading, but, improperly used, they can render a piece redundant, at best, and turn it into a travesty, at worst, becoming an attempt at displaying erudition.
In the opinion piece "Forgotten lessons of history" published on 21 October 2009 in the Pakistani newspaper The News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=204213),
Roedad Khan writes:
> These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them.
> But as George Bernard Shaw said:
> "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."
The same author, in the same publication (27 January 2009, i.e. circa ninth months previously), had written in another opinion piece "There can't be two suns in the sky" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=159208),
> Why not learn from history?
> But as Hegel said long ago,
> "Man learns nothing from history except that man learns nothing from history."
So, our journalist, attributes the same quote (itself correct in essentials but not in details), to both Hegel and Shaw!
Incidentally, Hegel writes this:
"Man verweist Regenten, Staatsmänner, Völker vornehmlich an die Belehrung durch die Erfahrung der Geschichte. Was die Erfahrung aber und die Geschichte lehren, ist dieses, daß Völker und Regierungen niemals etwas aus der Geschichte gelernt und nach Lehren, die aus derselben zu ziehen gewesen wären, gehandelt haben." (http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=5&xid=5144&kapitel=1#gb_found)
translated as:
"Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this, - that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
(http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm#II.)
in "Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte" (Lectures on the Philosophy of History), first published in 1837.
Mr. Bernard Shaw, who, incidentally, wrote a "History of Philosophy" (getting some facts wrong, most notably those to do with Nietzsche), was born years after the publication of "Philosophy of History", in 1856.
Now, it doesn't really matter who actually spoke (or wrote) certain words, assuming that the quote is used in keeping with the norms of debate. This blog has stressed this point before, when a journalist tried to incorrectly attribute a quote to Martin Niemöller (http://orthojournalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-what-did-he-really-say-this-article.html).
So, if it doesn't matter, why are we discussing it?
Well, because, in a journalist, this sort of false attribution shows intellectual laziness in looking up a quote, checking multiple sources, examining translations, understanding the relation of the quote to its context) and, which is worse, intellectual snobbiness (appeal to reputation: look, the Right Honourable Blaise Archibald Witherladle said "Black cats might not fly", so who are we to say that they might?). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority for an example sans attempt at wit).
And this particular journalist goes to town with his / her quotes!
For example, the journalist's most recent article "Lessons from a revolution" (http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=249067) quotes John Adams, the Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, Frederick Douglass, some unnamed (why?) person or persons ("Asylum for mankind", "birth of a new world", "begin the world over again"), Paul Johnston, Toynbee and George Washington.
The second most recent article quotes Dostoevsky, an unnamed (why?) 19th century Russian, Lenin, Oriana Fallaci and Willy Brandt. And some unacknowledged quotes (i.e., without quotation marks around them - "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", "moment of truth" etc..
Quotations can make for interesting reading, but, improperly used, they can render a piece redundant, at best, and turn it into a travesty, at worst, becoming an attempt at displaying erudition.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A poor defense of the truth is detrimental
The title above paraphrases Nietzsche, and appears as a result of a recent article on the BBC, "The rules of speech crime" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8771721.stm).
For, whilst:
> Had the impulsive councillor said something along
> the lines of "you have disregarded your cultural roots",
> she would almost certainly not have been prosecuted.
is true, it not only misses the point but also encourages a dangerous and racist stereotyping, by implying that the two statements are equivalent (the other being "you coconut"). That, in turn, suggests that someone with a certain ethnic background _must_ hold a certain opinion, or _may not_ hold a certain opinion.
This linking between ethnicity and the right to hold an opinion is the sort of racism that needs to be watched out for.
Of course, it was no pretty sight watching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxMfHGLnLcE) the attractive young lady (surely a better adjective than "impulsive", given that she was reading from a piece of paper clutched in her delicate fingers) sputter on about it all being appalling, disrespectful and shameful, whilst finding time to scratch her belly and use pejorative language. I am very happy that this person has had to answer for her - dare I say it - disgusting behaviour.
The title above paraphrases Nietzsche, and appears as a result of a recent article on the BBC, "The rules of speech crime" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8771721.stm).
For, whilst:
> Had the impulsive councillor said something along
> the lines of "you have disregarded your cultural roots",
> she would almost certainly not have been prosecuted.
is true, it not only misses the point but also encourages a dangerous and racist stereotyping, by implying that the two statements are equivalent (the other being "you coconut"). That, in turn, suggests that someone with a certain ethnic background _must_ hold a certain opinion, or _may not_ hold a certain opinion.
This linking between ethnicity and the right to hold an opinion is the sort of racism that needs to be watched out for.
Of course, it was no pretty sight watching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxMfHGLnLcE) the attractive young lady (surely a better adjective than "impulsive", given that she was reading from a piece of paper clutched in her delicate fingers) sputter on about it all being appalling, disrespectful and shameful, whilst finding time to scratch her belly and use pejorative language. I am very happy that this person has had to answer for her - dare I say it - disgusting behaviour.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Economist on Bhopal and BP
A recent article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16439185) suggested:
"Opposition parties and human-rights activists, however, argue that the law could allow foreign firms to shirk paying proper compensation to the victims of a future Bhopal."
Sentiments like this reek of archaic nationalism. Is BP (for example) a British (again, for example) company because it has the word "British" in the name? Because the Board of Directors are exclusively British, or generally so? Because most shareholders are British? Because British passport holders hold a majority of the stock? Because most employees are British? Because most of the value chain is located in Britain? Because the consumers are British? Because it was founded in Britain? Because the mission statement has, "Ok, chaps, first thing to note is that ours is a British company, all right?" in it?
Protestors might do well to keep in mind that a) Companies are non-nationalistic entities; b) the judiciary ought to follow the law and ignore the cries of young men on the street, howsoever passionate or lynch-mob-like; and c) the government of India can introduce legislation - it cannot guarantee a conviction or the extent of punishment.
Plus, the article itself could have been better written. Consider the study which declared that "groundwater contained levels of toxic chemicals 40 times higher than the national limit. " That's not saying much, as it talks about a _limit_. Would have been more relevant to compare with actual levels in urban and rural areas.
A recent article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16439185) suggested:
"Opposition parties and human-rights activists, however, argue that the law could allow foreign firms to shirk paying proper compensation to the victims of a future Bhopal."
Sentiments like this reek of archaic nationalism. Is BP (for example) a British (again, for example) company because it has the word "British" in the name? Because the Board of Directors are exclusively British, or generally so? Because most shareholders are British? Because British passport holders hold a majority of the stock? Because most employees are British? Because most of the value chain is located in Britain? Because the consumers are British? Because it was founded in Britain? Because the mission statement has, "Ok, chaps, first thing to note is that ours is a British company, all right?" in it?
Protestors might do well to keep in mind that a) Companies are non-nationalistic entities; b) the judiciary ought to follow the law and ignore the cries of young men on the street, howsoever passionate or lynch-mob-like; and c) the government of India can introduce legislation - it cannot guarantee a conviction or the extent of punishment.
Plus, the article itself could have been better written. Consider the study which declared that "groundwater contained levels of toxic chemicals 40 times higher than the national limit. " That's not saying much, as it talks about a _limit_. Would have been more relevant to compare with actual levels in urban and rural areas.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Yet another arrogant and devious journalist
A recent article (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=246950), published in the Pakistani newspaper The News is an exercise in propaganda, whilst ostensibly decrying it.
> To quote my article titled "Media strategy failure" (June 1, 2002),
> "If one can orchestrate a barrage of lies to the media long enough,
> it will eventually be broadcast to the world as the truth."
Rather touching, this, how the journalist feels compelled to quote himself. Does he truly believe that he came up with an original idea in the summer of 2002? Compare this quote attributed to Lenin, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth", and to the Big Lie propaganda technique attributed to Hitler.
> There could be individual Taliban sympathisers in the ranks
> of Pakistan's intelligence agencies and other official circles,
> but to say that Pakistan provides concerted institutional support
> as claimed in the report is nonsense. It demeans not only the
> blood that our soldiers have shed fighting the Taliban but that
> of our innocent civilians also.
This is a common propaganda technique, "It is not comfortable, and lacks taste; therefore, it cannot be true".
The writer dismisses claims by a certain source, and reinforces claims made by another source, without himself providing any third source to support his thesis.
The article does not lack in banality either, as evinced by:
> any study based on views and observations of one party,
> in what is primarily a two-sided affair, cannot be said
> to be truly balanced.
And now for some more crude propaganda:
> Was the omission in not getting any input from Pakistanis
> deliberate? Waldman's close links with the Afghan intelligence,
> staffed for the most part by Tajiks and trained by India's RAW,
> give credence to this fact.
The writer starts with asking a question (this is certainly part of a journalist's brief), suggesting that something is a possibility. In the very next sentence, the writer refers to a "fact", suggesting that the very same thing is now (suddenly) accepted fact.
The petty racism (staffed for the most part by Tajiks) we shall overlook.
> Are we to believe that Pakistan's army chief
> has given his approval for the Taliban to attack,
> kill and kidnap Pakistani soldiers?
Another touching appeal to sentiment (surely an aspiring journalist should be taught the rules of debate, the basic aspects of rhetoric, apart from a command of the language?). This is especially indefensible, given that the Pakistani army has, in the past, moved against Pakistani citizens (Bangladesh, 1971; not to mention the regular coups against elected governments).
> What has been achieved through the blood of our martyrs
> certainly did not need any great PR effort.
Here the writer loses all pretence at keeping a critical distance from his subject. Martyrs? The dictionary entries do not fit the context; this must be some sort of appeal to religion or petty patriotism.
A recent article (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=246950), published in the Pakistani newspaper The News is an exercise in propaganda, whilst ostensibly decrying it.
> To quote my article titled "Media strategy failure" (June 1, 2002),
> "If one can orchestrate a barrage of lies to the media long enough,
> it will eventually be broadcast to the world as the truth."
Rather touching, this, how the journalist feels compelled to quote himself. Does he truly believe that he came up with an original idea in the summer of 2002? Compare this quote attributed to Lenin, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth", and to the Big Lie propaganda technique attributed to Hitler.
> There could be individual Taliban sympathisers in the ranks
> of Pakistan's intelligence agencies and other official circles,
> but to say that Pakistan provides concerted institutional support
> as claimed in the report is nonsense. It demeans not only the
> blood that our soldiers have shed fighting the Taliban but that
> of our innocent civilians also.
This is a common propaganda technique, "It is not comfortable, and lacks taste; therefore, it cannot be true".
The writer dismisses claims by a certain source, and reinforces claims made by another source, without himself providing any third source to support his thesis.
The article does not lack in banality either, as evinced by:
> any study based on views and observations of one party,
> in what is primarily a two-sided affair, cannot be said
> to be truly balanced.
And now for some more crude propaganda:
> Was the omission in not getting any input from Pakistanis
> deliberate? Waldman's close links with the Afghan intelligence,
> staffed for the most part by Tajiks and trained by India's RAW,
> give credence to this fact.
The writer starts with asking a question (this is certainly part of a journalist's brief), suggesting that something is a possibility. In the very next sentence, the writer refers to a "fact", suggesting that the very same thing is now (suddenly) accepted fact.
The petty racism (staffed for the most part by Tajiks) we shall overlook.
> Are we to believe that Pakistan's army chief
> has given his approval for the Taliban to attack,
> kill and kidnap Pakistani soldiers?
Another touching appeal to sentiment (surely an aspiring journalist should be taught the rules of debate, the basic aspects of rhetoric, apart from a command of the language?). This is especially indefensible, given that the Pakistani army has, in the past, moved against Pakistani citizens (Bangladesh, 1971; not to mention the regular coups against elected governments).
> What has been achieved through the blood of our martyrs
> certainly did not need any great PR effort.
Here the writer loses all pretence at keeping a critical distance from his subject. Martyrs? The dictionary entries do not fit the context; this must be some sort of appeal to religion or petty patriotism.
The Economist's break with form and logic
The Economist has apparently decided to go the way of much news media - simplify, entertain, improvise and lie. I shall be relieved when they hire their first young lady, utterly innocent of artifical cover, to smile at us invitingly. It shall signal an end to their pretension at being part of the Posh press, but also be a mark of respect for honesty and straightforwardness. Plus, I admire the female human form, among other things.
Let us examine a recent (24 June 2010) article, titled "The power of nightmares" (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16426072).
The exhibit "Mushrooms in a nutshell" (feel free to take a moment to applaud the wit), has this to say about some of Israel's _assumed_ nuclear warheads: Stolen, possibly. The unnamed author, in his or her tea breaks at the Economist, offers passers-by, for a small fee, spit warming services, possibly. How can a respectable publication, with the slightest pretence at journalism, condone this? Especially interesting is that the "possibly" is mentioned in a footnote and _not_ in the main table.
The security of North Korea's warheads is termed "dodgy". The upbringing of the author may safely be termed "questionable".
India is to have "misused civilian help from US and Canada". Really? Did the US and Canada write a retaliatory letter to the Economist? Does this little (moralistic, perhaps?; no legal reprecussions are mentioned) sentence suggest that India had absolutely no help from Russia, the EU and Japan - all of whom have nuclear industries. The former USSR helped set up nuclear power plants in India, incidentally.
The source of the exhibit itself is listed as "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (without any article name, page number or even publication date)" and, fascinatingly, "The Economist" itself (again, without any article name, page number or even publication date).
> Yet the sale (really a gift, as Pakistan is broke)
This is irresponsible language. What does "broke" mean, in the context of a soverign country, especially one with healthy GDP growth, especially given the current Financial Crisis? Note that other factors, such as quality of life, level of personal freedom, ratio of terrorist attacks to beer sales are not covered within the scope of "broke". A crude attempt at disparaging Pakistan, is how I would see it, then.
But let us go further, why is this "sale" a "gift"? The Economist can't really have it both ways - either it is a sale, or a gift. Incidentally, if a product is handed over free of charge, but is linked to valuable service and supply contracts that run over decades, then is it a gift or a sale?
> the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an informal cartel of countries
Praiseworthy alliteration, this, but the author appears to be ignorant of the meanings of the word "cartel", for none of them fit the context. A crude attempt at disparaging the NSG, then.
Of course, readers do not allow the Economist to escape entirely unscathed. A reader (manbearpiggy) commented:
> If you are a high-school sophomore doing a summer job, this article
> was pretty good. If you think of yourself as professional journalist
> or columnist, God help you.
The Economist has apparently decided to go the way of much news media - simplify, entertain, improvise and lie. I shall be relieved when they hire their first young lady, utterly innocent of artifical cover, to smile at us invitingly. It shall signal an end to their pretension at being part of the Posh press, but also be a mark of respect for honesty and straightforwardness. Plus, I admire the female human form, among other things.
Let us examine a recent (24 June 2010) article, titled "The power of nightmares" (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16426072).
The exhibit "Mushrooms in a nutshell" (feel free to take a moment to applaud the wit), has this to say about some of Israel's _assumed_ nuclear warheads: Stolen, possibly. The unnamed author, in his or her tea breaks at the Economist, offers passers-by, for a small fee, spit warming services, possibly. How can a respectable publication, with the slightest pretence at journalism, condone this? Especially interesting is that the "possibly" is mentioned in a footnote and _not_ in the main table.
The security of North Korea's warheads is termed "dodgy". The upbringing of the author may safely be termed "questionable".
India is to have "misused civilian help from US and Canada". Really? Did the US and Canada write a retaliatory letter to the Economist? Does this little (moralistic, perhaps?; no legal reprecussions are mentioned) sentence suggest that India had absolutely no help from Russia, the EU and Japan - all of whom have nuclear industries. The former USSR helped set up nuclear power plants in India, incidentally.
The source of the exhibit itself is listed as "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (without any article name, page number or even publication date)" and, fascinatingly, "The Economist" itself (again, without any article name, page number or even publication date).
> Yet the sale (really a gift, as Pakistan is broke)
This is irresponsible language. What does "broke" mean, in the context of a soverign country, especially one with healthy GDP growth, especially given the current Financial Crisis? Note that other factors, such as quality of life, level of personal freedom, ratio of terrorist attacks to beer sales are not covered within the scope of "broke". A crude attempt at disparaging Pakistan, is how I would see it, then.
But let us go further, why is this "sale" a "gift"? The Economist can't really have it both ways - either it is a sale, or a gift. Incidentally, if a product is handed over free of charge, but is linked to valuable service and supply contracts that run over decades, then is it a gift or a sale?
> the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an informal cartel of countries
Praiseworthy alliteration, this, but the author appears to be ignorant of the meanings of the word "cartel", for none of them fit the context. A crude attempt at disparaging the NSG, then.
Of course, readers do not allow the Economist to escape entirely unscathed. A reader (manbearpiggy) commented:
> If you are a high-school sophomore doing a summer job, this article
> was pretty good. If you think of yourself as professional journalist
> or columnist, God help you.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Newspaper-Readers
(Perhaps a subject for a modern Van Gogh, a la Potato-Eaters)
A former voracious consumer of all that magazines and newspapers had to offer, having been active on the university quizzing scene, and being congenitally curious, I have since concurred with the disparaging views expressed by Nietzsche (in his letters) and Camus (in La Chute) on newspaper reading.
The regular reading of newspapers is a harmless distraction, at best, and an ostensible absolution from the sin of intellectual laziness, at worst.
A recent article in The Economist on the suprising, continued profitablity of newspapers had as its penultimate opinion: "They (the news-reading public) will pay for news if they think it has value.". From a journalist, this is a revealing statement. One may infer from it that the journalist concedes that news does not necessarily possess value, and that the supreme objective for the sellers of news is that news must appear to have value for its consumers. Additionally, that the original brief of journalism being the Guardian of Truth, Justice and Freedom has been transformed (perverted?) into creating, refining and presenting stories to an audience desiring information and entertainment. So much so, that the word infotainment has been seen to appear in print, brings up 4,540,000 matches on Google, and boasts of a Wikipedia article.
Instead of examining the instance and consequences of this tendency towards infotainment and of the subversion of journalism to promote a particular agenda out of self-interest, let us attempt to construct a new kind of newspaper, with desired qualities potentially being an implicit indictment of the state of Fleet Street today.
The newspaper of the future
(It is possible that "paper" in newspaper shall become redundant; the
discussion here extends newspaper to include the electronic news media)
1. Social responsibility
The newspaper to be regarded as a formal part of our system of governance, i.e. a construct with the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the press and the public as actors. This means that access to news (content-providers and channels, telephony, broadband, television, cellular coverage, satellite coverage etc.) is to be regarded as a basic right, and parts of this supply chain are to be treated on par with doctors, firemen and police personnel, i.e. as essential service providers, to be subsidized by the state, when necessary, and denied the right to strike, unless a minimum service can be ensured.
Additionally, newspapers to be legally obliged to distribute stories, suppression of which might adversely affect the public good. Conversely, newspapers to suppress stories that might hurt the public. Both action and inaction in these cases to be open to legal action, after the act.
Newspapers to be expected to declare their own interest in any story they cover, or choose not to cover.
Newspapers to be obliged to follow-up on any story that has harmed or continues to harm the community. For example, a story involving bribery in a government office must continue to be reported upon till a logical conclusion is brought to the case, or is handed over to another, relevant arm (evidence handed over to the local prosecutor's office).
2. Personal accountability
All sources of stories to be clearly labelled and held accountable. Journalists to stand up for their opinions by stating ownership. If a journalist insinuates that a certain school invites bribes during the admission process, this needs to be defensible in a court of law, after the act.
3. Images, video and sound bytes
A photograph may be worth a thousand words but is in no way accompanied with a guarantee of veracity. For each photograph, video image or sound recording, it must be clearly stated when it was taken, what the subject is, whether it has been digitally enhanced (and in which ways), whether the participants were aware (and willing) that they be so captured, and whether all or part of the photograph, video film or sound bite has been staged, the classic case of child's doll being subsequently placed in a bomb crater in order to elicit an increased pathos.
4. Language of expression and debate
Given the penetration of the news media, it has an enormous influence upon the quality and development of the language used by the public. Newspapers to be obliged to ensure not just correctness of grammar but also of style. This does not, in any way, require scholarship of the calibre of The Spectator, but does imply a more-than-schoolboy command of the language, and the avoidance of phrases considered pejorative.
But more than this, and perhaps even more important, is the adherence to the common rules of debate: the avoidance of ad hominem attacks, appeal to loyality and all the usual (contemptible) tricks in the propaganda box.
Headlines not to sacrifice objectivity, taste and grammar to sensationalism.
Basic courtesy extended to human beings, case in point being when they are referred to in news stories. Everyone warrants a "Mr." or a "Ms." or even a "Comrade", depending upon the language and the zeitgeist, or perhaps everyone is referred to without an honorific.
Again, more importantly, perhaps, care must be taken not to label human beings with the colour of their hair, whether or not they are parents or commuters etc., unless clearly called for by the context.
5. Localization
In keeping with the social responsibility aspect, newspapers must primarily focus on the information needs of the community, it being a truth universally acknowledged that there is enough news to occupy a human being for all his or her natural life, with only minimum respites allowed for sleep. This being a participating universe and, moreover, the era of globalization, a suicide bomber in a foreign city, thousands of miles away, cannot be without significance. However, it is probably of lesser significance than the local supermarket no longer being wheelchair friendly, or a new production at the community theatre.
It is easy to dismiss this view as being parochial, or the opposite one as being too superficial. We are a parochial species. Notice that most news stories focus on the planet earth and also EM Forster's courageous, "It's only one's own dead who matter".
The state to first subsidize, and patronize, local language newspapers, and newspapers based in, and providing employment to, and focused on the community.
The freedom to publish in a non-local language, and exclusively (or not) deal with stories that originate from many thousands of miles away to remain.
6. Clear charter and Ombudsman
Newspapers to clearly set out their vision for the future, their raison d'etre and be accountable to this vision to the public. An ombudsman to be appointed to ensure compliance, with legal recourse remaining an option, if a satisfactory answer is not given. This is the place to put in the glorious bits about defending liberty and furthering the Word of God, if applicable.
7. Commercial advertisements
Sponsored advertisements to be clearly identifiable as such, along with the contact details of the responsible corporation.
8. Consumer feedback
Newspapers to have a well-defined system of reader feedback, with reasonable resources allocated to handling and publishing this feedback in a fair manner. Ombudsman to regulate using reporting mechanisms and other checks.
It is undeniable that the Fourth Estate plays an important role in our system of governance. Formal recognition of this de facto state of affairs can only be a good thing, assigning responsibility to power.
Not power alone, but power without responsibility corrupts.
(Perhaps a subject for a modern Van Gogh, a la Potato-Eaters)
A former voracious consumer of all that magazines and newspapers had to offer, having been active on the university quizzing scene, and being congenitally curious, I have since concurred with the disparaging views expressed by Nietzsche (in his letters) and Camus (in La Chute) on newspaper reading.
The regular reading of newspapers is a harmless distraction, at best, and an ostensible absolution from the sin of intellectual laziness, at worst.
A recent article in The Economist on the suprising, continued profitablity of newspapers had as its penultimate opinion: "They (the news-reading public) will pay for news if they think it has value.". From a journalist, this is a revealing statement. One may infer from it that the journalist concedes that news does not necessarily possess value, and that the supreme objective for the sellers of news is that news must appear to have value for its consumers. Additionally, that the original brief of journalism being the Guardian of Truth, Justice and Freedom has been transformed (perverted?) into creating, refining and presenting stories to an audience desiring information and entertainment. So much so, that the word infotainment has been seen to appear in print, brings up 4,540,000 matches on Google, and boasts of a Wikipedia article.
Instead of examining the instance and consequences of this tendency towards infotainment and of the subversion of journalism to promote a particular agenda out of self-interest, let us attempt to construct a new kind of newspaper, with desired qualities potentially being an implicit indictment of the state of Fleet Street today.
The newspaper of the future
(It is possible that "paper" in newspaper shall become redundant; the
discussion here extends newspaper to include the electronic news media)
1. Social responsibility
The newspaper to be regarded as a formal part of our system of governance, i.e. a construct with the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the press and the public as actors. This means that access to news (content-providers and channels, telephony, broadband, television, cellular coverage, satellite coverage etc.) is to be regarded as a basic right, and parts of this supply chain are to be treated on par with doctors, firemen and police personnel, i.e. as essential service providers, to be subsidized by the state, when necessary, and denied the right to strike, unless a minimum service can be ensured.
Additionally, newspapers to be legally obliged to distribute stories, suppression of which might adversely affect the public good. Conversely, newspapers to suppress stories that might hurt the public. Both action and inaction in these cases to be open to legal action, after the act.
Newspapers to be expected to declare their own interest in any story they cover, or choose not to cover.
Newspapers to be obliged to follow-up on any story that has harmed or continues to harm the community. For example, a story involving bribery in a government office must continue to be reported upon till a logical conclusion is brought to the case, or is handed over to another, relevant arm (evidence handed over to the local prosecutor's office).
2. Personal accountability
All sources of stories to be clearly labelled and held accountable. Journalists to stand up for their opinions by stating ownership. If a journalist insinuates that a certain school invites bribes during the admission process, this needs to be defensible in a court of law, after the act.
3. Images, video and sound bytes
A photograph may be worth a thousand words but is in no way accompanied with a guarantee of veracity. For each photograph, video image or sound recording, it must be clearly stated when it was taken, what the subject is, whether it has been digitally enhanced (and in which ways), whether the participants were aware (and willing) that they be so captured, and whether all or part of the photograph, video film or sound bite has been staged, the classic case of child's doll being subsequently placed in a bomb crater in order to elicit an increased pathos.
4. Language of expression and debate
Given the penetration of the news media, it has an enormous influence upon the quality and development of the language used by the public. Newspapers to be obliged to ensure not just correctness of grammar but also of style. This does not, in any way, require scholarship of the calibre of The Spectator, but does imply a more-than-schoolboy command of the language, and the avoidance of phrases considered pejorative.
But more than this, and perhaps even more important, is the adherence to the common rules of debate: the avoidance of ad hominem attacks, appeal to loyality and all the usual (contemptible) tricks in the propaganda box.
Headlines not to sacrifice objectivity, taste and grammar to sensationalism.
Basic courtesy extended to human beings, case in point being when they are referred to in news stories. Everyone warrants a "Mr." or a "Ms." or even a "Comrade", depending upon the language and the zeitgeist, or perhaps everyone is referred to without an honorific.
Again, more importantly, perhaps, care must be taken not to label human beings with the colour of their hair, whether or not they are parents or commuters etc., unless clearly called for by the context.
5. Localization
In keeping with the social responsibility aspect, newspapers must primarily focus on the information needs of the community, it being a truth universally acknowledged that there is enough news to occupy a human being for all his or her natural life, with only minimum respites allowed for sleep. This being a participating universe and, moreover, the era of globalization, a suicide bomber in a foreign city, thousands of miles away, cannot be without significance. However, it is probably of lesser significance than the local supermarket no longer being wheelchair friendly, or a new production at the community theatre.
It is easy to dismiss this view as being parochial, or the opposite one as being too superficial. We are a parochial species. Notice that most news stories focus on the planet earth and also EM Forster's courageous, "It's only one's own dead who matter".
The state to first subsidize, and patronize, local language newspapers, and newspapers based in, and providing employment to, and focused on the community.
The freedom to publish in a non-local language, and exclusively (or not) deal with stories that originate from many thousands of miles away to remain.
6. Clear charter and Ombudsman
Newspapers to clearly set out their vision for the future, their raison d'etre and be accountable to this vision to the public. An ombudsman to be appointed to ensure compliance, with legal recourse remaining an option, if a satisfactory answer is not given. This is the place to put in the glorious bits about defending liberty and furthering the Word of God, if applicable.
7. Commercial advertisements
Sponsored advertisements to be clearly identifiable as such, along with the contact details of the responsible corporation.
8. Consumer feedback
Newspapers to have a well-defined system of reader feedback, with reasonable resources allocated to handling and publishing this feedback in a fair manner. Ombudsman to regulate using reporting mechanisms and other checks.
It is undeniable that the Fourth Estate plays an important role in our system of governance. Formal recognition of this de facto state of affairs can only be a good thing, assigning responsibility to power.
Not power alone, but power without responsibility corrupts.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Not economical with arrogance
It is always faintly amusing to see the Economist (the publication as a whole, since authors remain secure in a cloak of anonymity) grapple with irony and the double-quote device.
Consider yesterday's article on the Polish presidential plane-crash (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/06/polish_air_crash_0).
> It will be interesting to see how the
> conspiracy theorists include this into
> their elastic account of what "really" happened.
The enclosed-within-quotes status assigned to the word really insinuates that the Economist has exclusive access to the one (single), pure rivulet of Truth, and no other version is tenable. What contributes to this arrogance? Or is it merely ignorance?
> Is the news just a clever bluff to conceal
> an on-going cover-up? Or is it the tip of the iceberg?
> No doubt we will be told shortly.
This is the sort of feeble attempt at wit one expects of a school-child. Surely, the Economist can do better.
In any case, surely homo sapiens has experienced and speculated enough to realize that, occasionally, even the most highly-regarded source of truth might be in error, and that even the most despicable of tyrants with rotten gums might be sticking to the facts, once in a while, and that, often, the "whole truth" is not trivial to find and present. Personal conviction and personal pedigree are no arguments, as far as the truth value of a statement is concerned.
So, the "conspiracy theorists", or indeed, a lunatic in an asylum, might be possessed of the truth. Truth has this annoying habit of not restricting itself to posh press-club lounges. They might well be wrong, but it would not just be arrogant and illogical, but also counter-productive, to dismiss views held by others.
The title of the article, "Graverobbers", lacks in taste. As a grave was not plundered, obviously the words are not used to convey their literal meaning. What, instead? Perhaps to convey a sense of opprobrium that would not have come across with merely "Robbers". Or even, "Alleged robbers", as, one assumes, even Russians are entitled to the courtesy of a court of law and not some "officials in Moscow". Interesting also is the fact that the Economist chooses not to reveal whether these officials in Moscow are the same who first denied the charge (as "blasphemous", apparently; so the Economist).
And now for some pedantry.
> Eastern approaches deals with the economic,
> political, security and cultural aspects
> of the eastern half of the European continent.
Not quite "half of the European continent", for that would imply taking parts of northern and southern Europe, traditionally regarded as being part of Western Europe, into the grouping of "Ex-communist Europe", as used by the Economist.
It is always faintly amusing to see the Economist (the publication as a whole, since authors remain secure in a cloak of anonymity) grapple with irony and the double-quote device.
Consider yesterday's article on the Polish presidential plane-crash (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/06/polish_air_crash_0).
> It will be interesting to see how the
> conspiracy theorists include this into
> their elastic account of what "really" happened.
The enclosed-within-quotes status assigned to the word really insinuates that the Economist has exclusive access to the one (single), pure rivulet of Truth, and no other version is tenable. What contributes to this arrogance? Or is it merely ignorance?
> Is the news just a clever bluff to conceal
> an on-going cover-up? Or is it the tip of the iceberg?
> No doubt we will be told shortly.
This is the sort of feeble attempt at wit one expects of a school-child. Surely, the Economist can do better.
In any case, surely homo sapiens has experienced and speculated enough to realize that, occasionally, even the most highly-regarded source of truth might be in error, and that even the most despicable of tyrants with rotten gums might be sticking to the facts, once in a while, and that, often, the "whole truth" is not trivial to find and present. Personal conviction and personal pedigree are no arguments, as far as the truth value of a statement is concerned.
So, the "conspiracy theorists", or indeed, a lunatic in an asylum, might be possessed of the truth. Truth has this annoying habit of not restricting itself to posh press-club lounges. They might well be wrong, but it would not just be arrogant and illogical, but also counter-productive, to dismiss views held by others.
The title of the article, "Graverobbers", lacks in taste. As a grave was not plundered, obviously the words are not used to convey their literal meaning. What, instead? Perhaps to convey a sense of opprobrium that would not have come across with merely "Robbers". Or even, "Alleged robbers", as, one assumes, even Russians are entitled to the courtesy of a court of law and not some "officials in Moscow". Interesting also is the fact that the Economist chooses not to reveal whether these officials in Moscow are the same who first denied the charge (as "blasphemous", apparently; so the Economist).
And now for some pedantry.
> Eastern approaches deals with the economic,
> political, security and cultural aspects
> of the eastern half of the European continent.
Not quite "half of the European continent", for that would imply taking parts of northern and southern Europe, traditionally regarded as being part of Western Europe, into the grouping of "Ex-communist Europe", as used by the Economist.
Justice or "justice"
The BBC reported yesterday the public killing by the Taliban of a young Pakistani called Waheed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10265522.stm).
The article itself is no shining example of journalism, as I shall attempt to show.
To start with, the headline "Hundreds witness Pakistan Taliban public execution" appears to absolve the Taliban of murder (by referring to the killing as an execution). The term is no accident - it appears again in the sub-headline "Up to 700 people in a tribal region of north-west Pakistan watched the Taliban publicly execute a man accused of killing two brothers, officials say." and in the journalist's assertion, "But such public executions by the Taliban are rare.", and twice more.
> He had earlier been found guilty
> by a self-styled Taliban "court".
One wonders whether the sentence requires both the double-quote device around the word court and the prefix "self-styled". The tautology aside, the reporter now seems to imply that the process was illegal. This theme is repeated in:
> There have been instances of public
> Taliban "justice" in the area before,
> but they are not common.
So the public shooting (by masked gunmen) authorized by a non-public (or, at least, not so reported in the article) and certainly illegal council is not justice. This view however, is contracted by the earlier:
> The killing also signifies an effort
> by the Taliban to win local people's
> sympathy by delivering quick justice,
> our correspondent says.
In this case, the word justice does not get treated to the double quote device, and therefore clearly indicates that the murder (or killing) is a good thing. It is just, it is quick. And (as a result) it is popular.
Things become a little murkier. Remember the killing of two brothers bit above? Well, this is reiterated:
> he had been executed on the orders
> of a Taliban council for killing two
> brothers, Noor Zeb and Alam Zeb.
But then, the article goes on to state:
> Local sources say Waheed opened fire
> on his two brothers in Miranshah's
> cycle ground area after a brief altercation
> last month.
So the victims were HIS brothers! Curious that they apparently have surnames, but he is "known only as Waheed" (i.e. does not have a surname).
And, of course, in keeping with the traditions of the BBC, the picture of masked gunmen need not have anything in the slightest to do with the incident described in the article. Apart from the fact that the text mentions guns and masks, and people wielding both.
Regardless of the shocking violence and the journalistic ineptitude, the incident also raises the question as to which courts are valid, and which are not.
If we lay aside the Dogma of Nationalism for a moment (as Galileo and Copernicus probably laid aside the Dogma of Religion when they were doing their most startling thinking), then is there absolutely no difference between a Taliban council (they even wrote a letter) calling for a man to be shot dead on the streets by masked gunmen and a prosperous, well-dressed, academically distinguished judge in the citadel of western civilization (i.e. the civilization that came up with civil law, tolerance and liberty) sentencing someone to the electric chair?
Yes, there is a difference, even if it is one of gradations. Trials are public, the law is written down and accessible to the general public and professional lawyers, open to scrutiny by legislatures; appeals are allowed, the accused is given time to prepare a defence, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the level of tolerance is high(er).
The journalist appears to sit on both sides of this divide. Is it fear that causes this?
The BBC reported yesterday the public killing by the Taliban of a young Pakistani called Waheed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10265522.stm).
The article itself is no shining example of journalism, as I shall attempt to show.
To start with, the headline "Hundreds witness Pakistan Taliban public execution" appears to absolve the Taliban of murder (by referring to the killing as an execution). The term is no accident - it appears again in the sub-headline "Up to 700 people in a tribal region of north-west Pakistan watched the Taliban publicly execute a man accused of killing two brothers, officials say." and in the journalist's assertion, "But such public executions by the Taliban are rare.", and twice more.
> He had earlier been found guilty
> by a self-styled Taliban "court".
One wonders whether the sentence requires both the double-quote device around the word court and the prefix "self-styled". The tautology aside, the reporter now seems to imply that the process was illegal. This theme is repeated in:
> There have been instances of public
> Taliban "justice" in the area before,
> but they are not common.
So the public shooting (by masked gunmen) authorized by a non-public (or, at least, not so reported in the article) and certainly illegal council is not justice. This view however, is contracted by the earlier:
> The killing also signifies an effort
> by the Taliban to win local people's
> sympathy by delivering quick justice,
> our correspondent says.
In this case, the word justice does not get treated to the double quote device, and therefore clearly indicates that the murder (or killing) is a good thing. It is just, it is quick. And (as a result) it is popular.
Things become a little murkier. Remember the killing of two brothers bit above? Well, this is reiterated:
> he had been executed on the orders
> of a Taliban council for killing two
> brothers, Noor Zeb and Alam Zeb.
But then, the article goes on to state:
> Local sources say Waheed opened fire
> on his two brothers in Miranshah's
> cycle ground area after a brief altercation
> last month.
So the victims were HIS brothers! Curious that they apparently have surnames, but he is "known only as Waheed" (i.e. does not have a surname).
And, of course, in keeping with the traditions of the BBC, the picture of masked gunmen need not have anything in the slightest to do with the incident described in the article. Apart from the fact that the text mentions guns and masks, and people wielding both.
Regardless of the shocking violence and the journalistic ineptitude, the incident also raises the question as to which courts are valid, and which are not.
If we lay aside the Dogma of Nationalism for a moment (as Galileo and Copernicus probably laid aside the Dogma of Religion when they were doing their most startling thinking), then is there absolutely no difference between a Taliban council (they even wrote a letter) calling for a man to be shot dead on the streets by masked gunmen and a prosperous, well-dressed, academically distinguished judge in the citadel of western civilization (i.e. the civilization that came up with civil law, tolerance and liberty) sentencing someone to the electric chair?
Yes, there is a difference, even if it is one of gradations. Trials are public, the law is written down and accessible to the general public and professional lawyers, open to scrutiny by legislatures; appeals are allowed, the accused is given time to prepare a defence, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the level of tolerance is high(er).
The journalist appears to sit on both sides of this divide. Is it fear that causes this?
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
On the Israeli military engaging a convoy in international waters
[Following on from readers' comments on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/was_israel_right_to_board_the.html)]
Firstly, I think people should stop calling any other people "barbaric". It is a little petty and very much ridiculous. If it has not been accepted as a maxim throughout human history, then surely the ancient Sanskrit ("What sin is it that a hungry one will not commit?") and Latin ("A man is a wolf to his fellow man") adages can be looked to. This labelling as a barbarian leads to a dehumanization of human beings which makes it very easy to start building the walls, not of Jerusalem, but of Auschwitz.
It is easy to blame the Israeli actors in this case, for they belong to a universally understood definition of an armed force. A litte intellectual effort, and surely the dead and the living are owed this, however, and things become slightly less dichotomous, slightly more colourful.
The fact that the ships in the convoy were boarded in "international waters" is not without importance. However, it can be too much stressed. Firstly, international borders are not set by God (or any human-external agency). They are set, and changed, through armed human forces, in the name of King, Gods, some sort of holy-looking book, or a variation of "those dodgy dark-skinned people over there will be thankful to us for bringing them civilization, you wait and see, and, anyway, this is really our duty", or, even, lucre.
Thus, borders are more bureaucratic than sacred. This is not to reject the value of the creative arts which have so long celebrated love of fatherland, but surely the Age of Patriotism is over? But perhaps we need another Nietzsche to proclaim its demise, and the shadow of the Buddha will be shown in caves for a century more.
If a ship in international waters attempts to fire a short-range tactical weapon at a country, or bring equipment that can be used to assemble a weapon or better target it, or bring information that can be similarly used, or resources that can free up other resources which may be used for a military purpose, surely the targeted country has a right to defend itself by attacking this ship, after attempts to dissaude its approach through non-aggressive means have failed? Or must we wait till the ship actually enters the waters of the targeted country? Or is it all right if it is, say, thirty metres away? Must the threat be clearly proven before action may be taken?
Who were the owners of the ships in this convoy? Did they, or their agents, clearly inform the people on board (including the artists, journalists and intellectuals; incidentally, I always find the latter term rather amusing) that there is a bit of a situation going on in that part of the world where the lives of humans on both sides of the religious or racial divide are constatly threatened, where soldiers (people trained and willing to use deadly weapons) actively expecting to be used to further state or party policy are not the rarest of sights? That Israel had clearly warned the convoy not to proceed? I believe the agents and owners of these ships and the passengers themselves (inasmuch as they were aware of the warnings and their presence was a matter of choice) are not entirely free of blame.
With what means may we defend the lands of our fathers and cousins? All? Then both the Israeli soldiers and the convoy participants were in the right (perhaps even those who were seeking some sort of desperate glory?). Who was in the wrong, then? Religious, political and professional opinion makers, some of whom are no longer alive? Those who gambled that one of the parties must be bluffing and endangered multiple lives? Or must there be a right and a wrong? Would it have been all right if no one had been killed immediately? Not from a stab wound or a bullet, but from insufficient heating later this winter, or through a home-made rocket outside a mall? What if the convoy were to be repeated in a week?
Our intertwined modern economies, political systems and supply chains do not allow any group of, say, hundred people to take the guilt upon their heads, even if they so choose to.
[Following on from readers' comments on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/was_israel_right_to_board_the.html)]
Firstly, I think people should stop calling any other people "barbaric". It is a little petty and very much ridiculous. If it has not been accepted as a maxim throughout human history, then surely the ancient Sanskrit ("What sin is it that a hungry one will not commit?") and Latin ("A man is a wolf to his fellow man") adages can be looked to. This labelling as a barbarian leads to a dehumanization of human beings which makes it very easy to start building the walls, not of Jerusalem, but of Auschwitz.
It is easy to blame the Israeli actors in this case, for they belong to a universally understood definition of an armed force. A litte intellectual effort, and surely the dead and the living are owed this, however, and things become slightly less dichotomous, slightly more colourful.
The fact that the ships in the convoy were boarded in "international waters" is not without importance. However, it can be too much stressed. Firstly, international borders are not set by God (or any human-external agency). They are set, and changed, through armed human forces, in the name of King, Gods, some sort of holy-looking book, or a variation of "those dodgy dark-skinned people over there will be thankful to us for bringing them civilization, you wait and see, and, anyway, this is really our duty", or, even, lucre.
Thus, borders are more bureaucratic than sacred. This is not to reject the value of the creative arts which have so long celebrated love of fatherland, but surely the Age of Patriotism is over? But perhaps we need another Nietzsche to proclaim its demise, and the shadow of the Buddha will be shown in caves for a century more.
If a ship in international waters attempts to fire a short-range tactical weapon at a country, or bring equipment that can be used to assemble a weapon or better target it, or bring information that can be similarly used, or resources that can free up other resources which may be used for a military purpose, surely the targeted country has a right to defend itself by attacking this ship, after attempts to dissaude its approach through non-aggressive means have failed? Or must we wait till the ship actually enters the waters of the targeted country? Or is it all right if it is, say, thirty metres away? Must the threat be clearly proven before action may be taken?
Who were the owners of the ships in this convoy? Did they, or their agents, clearly inform the people on board (including the artists, journalists and intellectuals; incidentally, I always find the latter term rather amusing) that there is a bit of a situation going on in that part of the world where the lives of humans on both sides of the religious or racial divide are constatly threatened, where soldiers (people trained and willing to use deadly weapons) actively expecting to be used to further state or party policy are not the rarest of sights? That Israel had clearly warned the convoy not to proceed? I believe the agents and owners of these ships and the passengers themselves (inasmuch as they were aware of the warnings and their presence was a matter of choice) are not entirely free of blame.
With what means may we defend the lands of our fathers and cousins? All? Then both the Israeli soldiers and the convoy participants were in the right (perhaps even those who were seeking some sort of desperate glory?). Who was in the wrong, then? Religious, political and professional opinion makers, some of whom are no longer alive? Those who gambled that one of the parties must be bluffing and endangered multiple lives? Or must there be a right and a wrong? Would it have been all right if no one had been killed immediately? Not from a stab wound or a bullet, but from insufficient heating later this winter, or through a home-made rocket outside a mall? What if the convoy were to be repeated in a week?
Our intertwined modern economies, political systems and supply chains do not allow any group of, say, hundred people to take the guilt upon their heads, even if they so choose to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)