How a truth is born

The posh media today is neither independent nor particularly critical.

Background: In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India observed that so-called honour killings were a slur on the modern Indian nation. The judgement itself was worrying in that it appeared to validate extra-judicial confessions, extended the meaning of certain common words, and displayed a shocking lack of logic and ignorance of the demarcation of power between the legislature and the judiciary (More at http://promotingfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-penalty-judicial-response-to.html).


The Washington Post ran the story too, on the very next day, i.e. 10 May 2011, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-top-court-recommends-death-penalty-for-honor-killings/2011/05/10/AFRk2IeG_story.html).

The story is attributed to the Associated Press; authorship is anonymous.

But surely, a watchful editor at the Washington Post would have been concerned with this statement:

> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people were killed each year in India for defying their elders."

A study by whom? Surely, we don't accept the quoting of statistics without provenance?

Does the figure include teenagers who drive their parents' car in spite of being told not to ("wait till you're 18 and have a license" and all that sort of thing), and get killed in an automobile accident? The language employed, "killed for defying their elders", does not exclude this and other similar cases.


The Telegraph, whilst referring to a separate "honour" killing incident (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8515426/India-mothers-accused-in-honour-killing-of-two-brides.html), five days later wrote:

> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people are killed each year in India for defying their elders."

This is exactly the same sentence published by the Washington Post. There is no attribution to the Associated Press. Nor is here the provenance of the study disclosed.

And so a dubious (in that it is too general, and unattributed) claim becomes reinforced, and acquires the attribute of being independently verified.

It would be hard to fault a post-graduate student in France from using this statement in an academic work, given that there are two easily-accessible, apparently independent sources - one in the UK, one in the USA. The academic paper would be cited by an official responsible for policy, or by a politician back in India responsible for legislation.

And so yet another truth of our modern information age is created.

The Indian Press and a Lack of Style

This recent article in the Hindustan Times on Elections in India (http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-can-boast-of-four-women-CMs/Article1-696946.aspx) illustrates the poor sense of style displayed by the Indian media.

> With Mamata Banerjee and J Jayalalithaa set to capture power in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu respectively, India could for the first time boast of four women Chief Ministers.

Why "Mamta" Banerjee but "J" Jayalalithaa? Why is one of these ladies stuck with an unexpanded initial? What possible excuse could they have?

Prefer "..boast of as many as four.." to "..boast of four..", for one assumes that the number 4 in itself is not the source of the boast, but is meant to evoke a sense of great numbers.

> BSP supremo Mayawati has singlehandedly secured power in the largest state of Uttar Pradesh four years back and her victory at that time was seen as a defining moment in Indian politics.

Prefer "Mayawati had singlehandedly secured" to "Mayawati has singlehandedly secured", given that a past event is being referred to.

> Jayalalithaa was out in the cold for the last five years in Tamil Nadu as also at the Centre, had her sweet revenge on Karunanidhi's DMK despite setbacks in the last two Lok Sabha polls and would be ruling the state for the next five years.

A clumsy sentence, on account of omitted commas.

The very next sentence is:

> Jayalalithaa's single point campaign plank was to end the "family rule" of the DMK in the backdrop of the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

Curious that "her" is not employed, instead of the proper name, given that the preceding sentence started too with "Jayalalithaa", and no other female person was named in either sentence.

> ..Shashikala Kakodkar of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party was Chief Minister of the then Union territory of Goa for most part of the seventies.

Prefer "most of the seventies" to "most part of the seventies".

> Congress' Anwara Taimur was in the top executive post of Assam for a year in early eighties

"An year", of course, and not "a year".

Prefer "in the early eighties" to "in early eighties".

The writer, in the same article employs "in the early sixties" and "in early seventies". He, or she, therefore, is neither consistent not correct.

> Since those elections in 1998, Dikshit is holding forte in Delhi.

Probably "fort" instead of "forte". Presumably, holding fort is her forte.

The shirking of intellectual duty

A recent book review in Foreign Policy (http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/11/pakistan_a_hard_country) does not appear to have been written by someone who is both non-partisan and academically sound.

The reviewer praises the book, calling it "comprehensive":

> This insightful, comprehensive portrait of Pakistan is the perfect antidote to stereotypical descriptions of the country

However, the reviewer admits, later, to the book having missed some key areas:

> There is surprisingly little on the U.S. drone program in Pakistan's tribal areas, one of the most controversial subjects in the context of strained U.S.-Pakistan relations...Lieven's discussion of the Pakistani economy is also limited...

The reviewer than labels these and other omissions as being of a "minor" nature. The drone strikes, "one of the most controversial subjects", by the reviewer's own account, and the national economy are labeled minor, in no very deft fashion.

The reviewer wishes to end on a positive note:

> ....an intuitive, intelligent, and invaluable text.

Is this the reviewer's (unconscious, perhaps) love of alliteration, or does the text satisfy on all three fronts?

What does "intuitive" mean?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive".

So, the reviewer knew really what the writer was leading up to, even before having read the text? The writer came up with conclusions and presented premises that the reviewer was previously comfortable with? Is this the reason for the positive review? Intelligent and invaluable because you reinforce my world-view.

The OED also suggests that a secondary meaning exists, but chiefly in the context of computer software, "easy to use and understand". Was the book accompanied by a list of key pages that reviewers ought to read? Were sections relevant to reviewers highlighted?

Or did the writers intentionally use easy language, making the book accessible also to non-native speakers of English?

> It is to Lieven's credit that he allows Pakistanis to express their own understanding of the nation's predicament through extensive direct quotes. This narrative device helps uncover the logic behind traits that may seem indecipherable - or even suicidal - to the outsider; the barbaric rulings of western-educated tribal chiefs, the apathy of civilian law-enforcers in the face of militant attacks, or the average Pakistani's appetite for conspiracy theories about the U.S. and India.

Direct quotes are fun. They make an account appear authentic. The reviewer suggests that direct quotes help uncover the logic behind indecipherable/suicidal traits. Is the reviewer attempting to ascribe a "logic" to these very unpleasant traits? To justify them?

> The subtlety and fluency with which Lieven deconstructs the quirks of Pakistani society may lead some to write him off as an apologist for the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can nothing be further from the truth? The reviewer does not inform us. (The next sentence about the book containing dire warnings about Pakistan's future is not a particularly novel idea) Indeed, it would appear that the reviewer has recognized that the author might be seen as an apologist for Pakistan, especially after having "known" the country for more than twenty years (as the reviewer informs us), does not wish this to happen, and attempts to nip such thinking in the bud.

> His resounding message to the Washington is to avoid incursions into Pakistani territory by U.S. ground forces, even in the event of a terrorist attack with Pakistani origins on American soil.

Superfluous definite article in "the Washington".

And why is this a "resounding" message? It would appear that the reviewer is trying too hard.

So what's the recommendation? That the US, with the world's largest military, and a history of wars in foreign countries, should not exercise any military option at all, after having been attacked? Does not appear to be awfully realistic. Or that the US should employ drones, the USAF and navy to attack terrorist installations in Pakistan?

An unusual reaction to the tragedy in Japan

The Economist (www.economist.com) sent out this message from the editor (Editor Highlights 17 Mar 2011) titled "The fallout" about the tsunami in Japan and warned governments against giving in to the popular backlash against nuclear power.

"Some natural disasters change history; Japan's tsunami could be one. For the moment, the country is still coming to terms with the scale of the calamity, trying to contain the accident at the damaged nuclear plant and restore normality to suffering people. But in the longer run, it is just possible that some good may come of this catastrophe. Past natural disasters in Japan have been followed by big changes of direction, and the country is sorely in need of change. For the rest of the world, the biggest question Japan's tsunami throws up concerns nuclear power. The accident at the Fukushima plant will only increase its unpopularity, and thus the reluctance of politicians to support it and bankers to finance it. We urge the world not to turn its back on a technology that has so far been much safer than coal, and offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels that is cheaper than most renewables."

(highlighting not in original)

> But in the longer run, it is just possible that some good may come of this catastrophe

This is facetious, at best, for anything will have "some" good come out of it, in the "longer" run. For good measure, the editorial adds the word "possible". It can be argued that one of the surviors would have gone to poison a water reservoir, thereby has the tsunami saved many lives, which might otherwise have been lost, by killing this horrible (possible) perpertrator.

At worst, however, it dismisses the human element of the very current and developing tragedy of Japan. Why? Because of the distance from the Headquarters of the Economist? Because the readership of the Economist is, generally, non Japanese?

> For the rest of the world, the biggest question Japan's tsunami throws up concerns nuclear power.

Really? Again, notice how swiftly the dead, dying and homeless victims are brushed aside. The rest of the world needs to focus on energy policy - and ignore people dying. Because Japan is so far away?

Would the Economist have shown the same detachment if this tragedy had occured in London, or in New York? Or are we to care only about western-christian civilization?

When journalists dabble in the dark arts

A recent article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/antisemitism-hatred-wont-go-away) decried the resurgence of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the journalist felt compelled to use hoary propaganda techniques. Was it to no avail that the philosopher had declared that a poor defense of the truth is detrimental to it? Countering anti-Semitism in the manner of this journalist does not promote liberty and tolerance.

• In the space of a few days, a range of assorted eminences have dropped their guard and given voice to the Jew-hating demons in their heads.

This is rather emotional language and suggests that the journalist does not particularly care for academic distance from the subject at hand. Does the journalist’s world-view regard humans beings controlled by angels and demons? Does the journalist recommend the cultivation of exorcism studies? Is the journalist assuming a universal belief in some cosmos where the journalist’s God or Gods hold court with a range of angels, demons and other other-worldy beings?

Notice also the equating of “anti-Semitism” with “Jew-hating”. Let us look at the Oxford English Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0754270) for the meaning of the word Semite.

Semite, noun, a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

So, the word Semite does not confine itself to the Jews. The term ant-Semite (defined by the OED to be "hostility to or prejudice against Jews") in the context of this article may and should therefore be replaced by anti-Judaism. This is not a particularly novel idea, as even casual Internet searches will reveal. However, it is an important one, for now we are beyond one level of complexity and countering anything that supposedly counters anti-Semitism appears to be in poor taste.

• The latest subscriber to that centuries-old canard may turn out to be Julian Assange......
• Assange later issued a denial.....

So where does that leave us? Did Assange or did he not? Our journalist does not appear to try to find out the truth. He is content to let others do the accusing for him (note the “may” in the suggestion above) and happy at his own sense of fairness for he also mentions that the accused did deny it. But fairness demands more. It demands that the journalist put the expense-account to good use and investigate what happened. If the journalist does not bother doing that, then we might anticipate the next Guardian article saying, “The Sherriff of Nottingham might have encouraged the burning alive of Jews last Friday, saying that they really finally need to pay for the death of Our Lord. The Sheriff’s office, however, denies that any mention of Jew-burning took place and also holds that it does not advance any religious views.” For this sort of juvenile gossip-mongering, the expense-account may be dispensed with.

• So far only John Galliano has paid with his job, the "transgressive" designer dropped by fashion house Dior after delivering a drunken rant in a Paris bar to two women he took to be Jews: "I love Hitler," he began.

The “only” bit above appears to suggest that the journalist believes it to be meet and right that Mr. Galliano has lost his job. But also of interest is the fact that it was a “drunken rant”. What is the way forward for us as a society, according to the journalist? That all bars ought to have video cameras where we might ensure that everything people say under the influence of drink be recorded, posted on the Internet and examined by employers the next day to see whether there are any grounds for dismissal. If one insults one’s boss, for instance? Or suggests that one wouldn’t mind meeting Jones from Accounting in a dark alley, after having had a couple of pints of real ale? Perhaps job interviews ought to include binge drinking sessions where the truth comes out, in vino veritas and all that sort of thing?

But more worrying about the “only JG has paid with his job” and the previous “a range of assorted eminences have dropped their guard” is that the journalist appears to sport a mindset reminiscent of the Roman Church during the Inquisition – that we are all sinners, that there must be more sinners who are hunted out and burnt at the stake, that many sinners are continuously on the guard in order not to be detected by those noble ones chosen to hunt out sinners, but they can’t possibly keep up their guard all the time, sooner or later they must fall.

• ….according to Mohammad Aliabadi, the head of Iran's National Olympic Committee who complained this week that the jagged-shaped logo for London 2012 clearly spells the word "Zion". That, the Iranian complained, was "a very revolting act".

Let us examine the double-quote device. The journalist uses a link (http://jta.org/news/article/2011/02/28/2743126/iran-protests-olympic-logo) to justify putting “a very revolting act” in double-quotes. This is how it should be, for it is a direct quote. However, the journalist also suggests that the “Iranian” claims that the logo “clearly” spells the word “Zion”. The link provided by our journalist (see above) does not have the Iranian do any such thing. “Clearly” clearly suggests that the Iranian is a man who is seeing things where there are none. But this is an old trick. Make your opponent appear ridiculous by false attribution, and the battle is half-won. Interesting, also, that the journalist chooses for his link a website calling itself “The Global News Service of the Jewish People”. Just a little ironic in an article decrying the allegations that the world media is controlled by the Jews.

• If most people have so far failed to see "Zion" surreptitiously contained inside the graphic, well that, Aliabadi would surely say, only goes to prove the dark genius of the Jews – able to conceal their cunning ways when it suits them.

Now the journalist claims to read the mind and thinking of the “Iranian”, and shows it to be that of a fourteen-year old. This is how we want intellectual debate to be carried out. “Dark genius of the Jews” – this is the only bit in this sorry example of journalism that elicited a chuckle.

• Or perhaps, as the US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg blogged, the Iranians are wrong and the logo secretly spells out: "Mark Spitz is Jewish, and Jason Lezak is Too, So Go Drown Yourselves in the Caspian Sea."

This appears to be an endorsement by the journalist of a rather murderous, indeed, genocidal, sentiment. Or do we let the journalist and Mr. Goldberg off the hook, for they are attempting to be humourous? Why is that, though? Why do we automatically assume that Mr. Goldberg is being witty but Iranian sport-officialdom is not? Maybe they’re sitting around having a laugh. Or crying at being possibly forced to drown themselves and their children at gunpoint. Can anti-Semitic tirades about genocide be excused on the grounds of humour? Incidentally, the “US journalist” referred to refers to himself as being Jewish, in the same article. Possibly just a coincidence, of course. Maybe he even is of Iranian extraction, given the universe’s love of coincidences.

• Puppets, snakes, masters of the global chessboard – it's a palette of imagery any Nazi propagandist would instantly recognise.

How do we test this assertion? Snakes have been used in other cultures as symbols, surely? Ditto for puppets, ditto for forces in the background. And, to make matters interesting, Nietzsche, in Also Sprach Zarathustra, claims the snake for a positive symbol. Can it be that the propaganda here consists in the use of the term “Nazi”? Associate your opponent’s devices with the Nazi movement and you weaken your opponent’s position. If one is being intellectually rigorous, then one would demonstrate how these symbols were a) used by the Nazis and b) used exclusively by the Nazis. The journalist does not bother.

• One is the claim that Jews brand any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another is the claim that Jews "cry antisemitism" in order to silence opposition to Israel. These cliches – which are belied by the sheer volume of criticism of Israel by Israelis and Jews themselves, let alone by everyone else

These might be clichés, and these might be utterly false but the journalist’s reasoning here is not logical and does not hold water. Jews (some of them) might still “cry anti-Semitism” even if the volume of criticism of Israel by (some) Israelis (includes some non-Jews, by the way) and (some) Jews is high (or low). Does no one read these articles before they are published? Not just for spelling mistakes but for basic flaws in reasoning.

• What most Jews object to is not, in fact, criticism of Israel itself, but when that criticism comes wrapped in the language or imagery of Jew-hatred.

Imagery of Jew-hatred is objectionable, certainly. However, I do not think that that makes the other bit, that most Jews (and a high percentage of Jews are Israeli; and many others, except for some orthodox ones, tend not to be against Israel) do not object to criticism of Israel, credible. Possible, of course, but the journalist does not tell us who he knows this. And it would make “most” Jews seem to be rational and civilized; members of the club, one of us, tolerant, steeped in the democratic tradition – and the other stereotypes the journalist appears to wish to cultivate.

• Similarly, Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" – seeing in such arguments a veiled, upmarket form of the perennial conspiracy theory.

Well, which it is then? Are they essays really learned? Are the writers really experts? Because if they are, then either there is a conspiracy to malign the Jews (can we call it the Jewish Conspiracy?) or the writers are not intelligent, learned, academically sound etc. etc..

• Viewed like this, Assange's remarks don't look so distant from Oliver Stone's assertion last year that there is "Jewish domination of the media", to say nothing of Richard Dawkins's breezy statement that "the Jewish lobby . . . more or less monopolise American foreign policy".

This is contemptible. The journalist had earlier mentioned that Assange had denied his having uttered the anti-Semitic remarks. But now the journalist draws upon them as if they were confirmed fact. Actually, perhaps because it is such a blatant prevarication, it is not, after all, contemptible. The journalist is merely checking if his readers are on their toes.

Interesting use of the word “breezy”, to describe Mr. Dawkin’s statement. What does it mean? The OED suggests that the secondary meaning of “appearing relaxed, informal” is meant here. So because it was “breezy” (in the journalist’s opinion), we can sort of ignore that it was a Professor at Oxford (in 2007, which is when the statement was made, according to the linked article) and a Fellow of the Royal Society (founded in 1660) who made the statement.

Notice also that the journalist does not say anything about whether or not there is a Jewish domination of the media. Something like, “Mr. Stone said that there is a Jewish domination of the media, but you see, that’s not quite correct, for the media (where?) is composed of these groups, and the main shareholders are non-Jewish.”. All the journalist does is be critical of Mr. Stone et al for expressing an opinion, without saying anything about the veracity of the opinion, which, by no means, is fantastical. It may be utterly, utterly, wrong, but it can be utterly, utterly right.

• …..immediately after the revelations of the Holocaust confirmed the murderous place where antisemitic discourse could lead.

This is a gross oversimplification. “Anti-Semitic discourse” by itself did not lead to the Holocaust. What about theories of pure race, the strong man, nationalism, the terrorism on the streets which stifled intellectual debate, the reparations in the aftermath of WW1, the loss of political freedoms etc. etc.? And people other than Semites were murdered by the Nazis in the same period. Let us not forget that tragedy, merely because they were not Semites.

• .......still crime novels with the conniving Jew as the arch-villain.

How do we want our arch-villains (in our crime novels) to be? Not to connive? Or not to be Jews? Can they be Chinese? Or Muslims? Is that all right? Or is the only decent thing for them to be is European aristocracy, born in Boston, preferably adhering to the Church of Rome?

Guardian, ask the question

A recent story on the Guardian RSS feed titled „Indian women lead fight for prohibition in villages “ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/india-prohibition-villages-alcohol) presented an all-positive picture of local democracy in action, in rural (or, not very urban, at any rate) India.

The article describes how a community leader (of a village called Changal, which last year became one of the first in the state to successfully use a 1994 law to expel alcohol vendors) was advised to refrain from supporting local alcohol prohibition, as it might lead to young people switching to medicinal drugs and the village losing its development grant (presumably as a punitive measure, given the cash-strapped position of the grant-granting authorities).

> Neither has occurred, he (Changal's sarpanch, Paranjeet Singh) said

>, and instead there has been a 40% drop in violence.

A 40% drop in violence sounds like a good thing. In many contexts, it can be a very compelling argument to support a given cause. Especially to those of us who have lived in urban locations with high incidents of drunken louts (term extended to include fourteen-year-old girls) attacking the citizenry, out of bravado or a desire for petty cash swiftly appropriated.

However, a journalist may not let a statement like that get away unchallenged. A 40% drop? Measured by whom? Over which period? Was there a control group, which ensured that some, all or most of the drop may be attributed to the anti-alcohol legislation? For how long did the drop last?

A country where journalists are required to weekly read basic norms of debate has 85% better agricultural output.

Leaps in logic and hoary propaganda techniques

The Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist, now to be found on the frontlines of the Middle East, covering himself covering himself with glory, wrote this piece yesterday, titled “Unfit for Democracy” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/opinion/27kristof.html), challenging the almost-racist (according to none other than the Eton-educated Prime Minister of the UK) view that Arabs, Chinese, Africans et al (i.e. presumably anyone who has been wallowing in tyranny for a while) are unfit for democracy.

Long live freedom, but we have learnt that the ends do not necessarily justify the means and let us not let our intellectuals get away with breaking the norms of argumentation only because we live in tumultuous times.

The first line, in this article exploring readiness for democracy, is:

> Is the Arab world unready for freedom?

A lumping together of democracy and freedom, two terms that often hobnob at the watering hole but are by no means the same. Unready is a pleasant choice, though – so, top marks as far as literary style is concerned. It is generally fifty times rarer than “not ready”, if one may go by hits on google.co.uk.

But this grouping together is no slip of the pen.

> I’ve been humbled by the lionhearted men and women I’ve seen defying

> tear gas or bullets for freedom that we take for granted. How can we say

> that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?

Again, the journalist juxtaposes “freedom” and “democracy”, implying that they are the same. (boldfacing not in the original text)

Not only that, the article has numerous references to the courage of “ordinary” humans; people defying torture, the threat of rape and death etc..

> I watched a column of men and women march unarmed toward

> security forces when, a day earlier, the troops had opened fire with

> live ammunition. Anyone dare say that such people are too immature

> to handle democracy?

The virtue of courage (personal and that of a massed group) is translated, apparently, into political maturity.

Courage, we are informed by Philip Mason in his “A Matter of Honour” is always worthy of admiration, and is independent of any analysis of causes for which men suppose they are fighting for. This would mean that the courage of a mob, of a suicide bomber, of Oliver Twist and of Horatious are all good things. But courageous or not, possessed of excellent dental hygiene or not, skilled in the pleasanter arts of the Kamasutra or not – none of these things necessarily have any influence on political maturity.

These brave men and women deserve freedom, certainly. Whether or not they will want to, or can, replace tyranny with a liberal democracy (in the manner of the West, say) cannot be extrapolated from how they behaved under stress when massed together in a public square.

> I’m awed by the courage I see, and it’s condescending and foolish to suggest that people dying for democracy aren’t ready for it.

Agreed. But that does not imply that the converse is true, that people dying for democracy are ready for it.

And let us not forget that a democracy is not automatically liberal. Freedom is worth striving for; a slighter different form of bureaucracy is probably not worth dying for. So let us treat freedom and democracy as distinct terms and socio-political features, and insist upon freedom as the inalienable right of all those currently fighting against dictatorships in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Freedom equates easily into overthrowing of the current tyrant. Whether the revolution leads to greater personal liberties, perhaps via democracy, is not a logical consequence of said revolution. It may, or may not, take place. Therefore, those fighting against old tyrants and helping to bring down unjust regimes are certainly being lead by Freedom (as Delacroix so beautifully put it) but are not necessarily fighting for democracy.

The return of the Economist

A blog on the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/02/decline_pakistan) does not even make a pretence at being objective or following the rules of debate.

"So, on a first visit to Islamabad and Lahore in nearly five years, my initial response was to think how the relentless tide of such reporting obscures another truth about the country: how pleasant it can be;"

Why is the truth of Islamabad and Lahore extrapolated to the whole country?

"The economy is lurching along on IMF-provided crutches, just a few months from the next crisis. Most people also agree about some of the basic reforms needed—in particular a broadening of the tax base. But the political parties want to make sure that it is the other parties whose voters’ pockets will suffer from the broadening. So reform is deadlocked."

Ah, the ability to accurately predict economic crises. Surely our journalist is needed at our banks and financial institutions!

Incidentally, is this a vieled attack on democracy? Especially nefarious when a journalist accuses all political parties, the entire polity of a country, of being selfish and short-sighted, even to the detriment of the people who elected them. Especially without revealing any substance to the accusation and without being more specific. Especially in a country with a history of dictatorships, with limits on basic human rights following martial law. How does the journalist know this truth? People he met in Islamabad and Lahore? Why not then attribute it to a source or a study? Or assert that this is what the journalist himself or herself has thought through.

A fascinating study in modern-day colonialism

I read with increasing distaste the outpourings of the esteemed Mr. Kristof of the New York Times. He has travelled all the way to Egypt, because he scorns anyone who dares hold an opinion on a subject without physically being within a radius of (say) 3 km from the epicentre of the, er, subject. ("I also deeply believe in opinions grounded in on-the-ground reporting not just in armchair pontificating." --Mr. Kristof on his Facebook site, 05 Feb 2011) Of course, by this logic, someone who is 71 years old must have a better insight into the first world war than someone who is only 65. And someone who has never been to South Korea cannot possibly know as much about the IMF/Korean crisis of 1997 as a journalist who took a champagne-class flight to Seoul and actually spent three whole weeks in a hotel, walking and talking with the common folk, the bureaucracy and even a couple of old ladies.

Now, the latest from Mr. Kristof is a piece on Mr. Mubarak's much awaited speech where he reiterates a commitment to hand over power to the winner of free and transparent elections in September (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/the-pharaoh-refuses-to-go/).

The title itself is not a little tacky: "The Pharaoh Refuses To Go".

The Pharaoh? I can conceive of a segment of the population who think of Egypt as a quaint old land, where they haggle over the prices of carpets, where camels are traded during weddings, where it is considered unacceptable for women to have opinions and whose economy is based on tourists giving the natives baksheesh when shown around the pyramids. But surely, journalists who work at the New York Times have access to Wikipedia and probably a university education behind them?

Compare this to the Civilized World, i.e., the West. Would the obstinacy or, if one is for the President, steadfastness, of Mr. Obama on a given issue be referred to as Chief Conquering Bear digging his heels in? (Reference to Native American history, exactly as the Pharaoh is a reference to Egyptian history) Another cheap trick is to refer to Mr. Putin as a Tsar (97,100 hits on Google, as compared to 507,000 for Mubarak Pharaoh). It recalls to mind a backward Russia, say of the 19th century, and is soothing for lots of people who feel most comfortable with accounts of foreign cultures being inferior and, for good measure, godless. Pandering to the mob is often advantageous.

A form of the ad hominem attack, then, projecting the negative associations of a modern-day pharoah onto Mr. Mubarak.

> This is of course manifestly unacceptable to the Egyptian people.

Rather fetching, how Mr. Kristof feels incumbent upon himself to speak for the Egyptian people. Or does he mean the people with whom he's had an extended conversation on the current political state in Egypt? This must necessarily be a fraction of the masses of people in Tahrir Square in Cairo, which location Mr. Kristof and camera-crew grace with their presence. That, in turn, must be a fraction of the people of Egypt. The claim is manifestly incredible.

> An Arab friend of mine who has met Mubarak many, many times
> describes him as “a stubborn old man,"....

Mr. Kristof has a friend who is an Arab - this open-to-different-cultures thing must be catching on, then. Wonder if this particular friendship predates the current Egyptian crisis. Wonder if the Arab is a non-Egyptian. If a non-Egyptian, then it is akin to referring to "my Catholic White Friend" when discussing a situation in Spain, even if said CWF is from Dublin. And if an Egyptian, then interesting that his (or her) ethnicity should be insisted upon, given that the events unfolding in Egypt are primarily of a political nature.

Someone who has met Mr. Mubarak "many, many times"? Now, Mr. Kristof did not use quote marks, so the "many, many" bit is not a direct quote. And if a direct quote, the one expects an insightful journalist to post the subtle follow-up question, "Er, how many, then? Thrice, eight, eighteen times, every three months for eight years?". Especially questionable as the Arabs do have a system of numbering superior to the stereotypical troll system of "one, two, many".

Again, an ad hominem attack - a stubborn old man, a man who is ga-ga, closed to new ideas, bitter and twisted, desperately hanging on to power because it is the only aphrodisiac.

> Suleiman just spoke as well, praising Mubarak
> and asking the youth of Egypt to go home and
> stop watching satellite television. Only possible
> conclusion: he’s delusional, too.

Mr. Kristof states - with an air of utter conviction - that the President and Vice President of Egypt are both delusional. Where from comes this arrogance? Did he date *all* the girls in his high-school class? Does his gardener back in the US hold a PhD from Moscow University? Do President Obama and the Pope have him on their speed-dials? The ancient Sanskrit proverb, "Vidhya dadati Vinayam" suggests that with wisdom comes humility, so it can't be that.

> It was interesting that Mubarak tried to push
> the nationalism button and blame outside forces
> (meaning the United States) for trying to push him out.

The phrase "Push the nationalism button" appears to suggest that our writer is contemptuous of classical patriotism, as befits a thinker of our age. Yet, the writer, in previous posts has glorified
those ready to die for their country. A little opportunistic, then.

And the extrapolation from "outside forces" to "the United States" suggests that Mr. Kristof's Arab friend is Mr. Mubarak's speech writer. He had probably written "outside forces, i.e. the United States", but Mr. Mubarak didn't know what "i.e." meant, and just skipped that bit.

Long live liberty. And the respectful handling of our ideological opponents.

Pity the truth

Let us stand up for liberty, and firmly deal with brutality, that all the children of the earth may celebrate the seasons in their own proud fashions.

But the ends do not justify the means, do they? So let us not sully the truth in this fashion nor engage in artifices of cheap propaganda.

Mr. Kristof, the influential New York Times reporter posted today on his Facebook page:

"Some people don't understand why Egyptian demonstrators remain so determined to keep on protesting. Take a look at this video, apparently showing the police shooting a lone, unarmed demonstrator in cold blood. That's the kind of brutality that the protesters want uprooted from their state, and I think they have a point. Don't you?"

Let us dissect the journalist’s message here: “….apparently showing the police…..”.

Apparently? So it is not confirmed? But then, if it’s not confirmed, then surely, one may not use it to talk about the brutality of the regime?

But that is precisely what our journalist does.

“This may not be true, but if it is, it’s pretty awful. Things that are awful are, well, awful, and we really can’t tolerate them. Long live the demonstrators”

All this without clicking on the link for the video.

Let us do that now (http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2011/02/07/7525/video-egypt-police-shoot-unarmed-demonstrator-in-cold-blood/).

The text reads:

“A video from Alexandria reportedly shows Mubarak’s police force shoot an unarmed pro-democracy demonstrator in cold blood.”

Again, the key word is “reportedly”, used early on, and then quietly ignored.

“Mubarak’s police force”? A force directly under the control of Mr. Mubarak? Or is it because Mr. Mubarak is the President of Egypt and must therefore take responsibility for all actions (and inactions) of the police forces in all the towns of Egypt? If that’s the case, then it’s also Mubarak’s army which is not shooting at the protestors? And Mubarak’s hospitals which are treated the wounded?

“Pro-democracy”? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Maybe it’s someone who’s kid brother was molested by a police officer. Maybe it’s someone who has had a couple of bottles of whisky (or distilled coconut juice) and has his nerves turned into those of the Nemean lion. Maybe it’s someone who can’t stand Mr. Mubarak. Maybe it’s someone who has been brought up in a public school imagining that it is noble and glorious to die for the fatherland. Maybe it’s someone who has been threatened with violence to his lover, in case of non-compliance. Maybe it’s someone who has no prospects, but finds the notion of the cameras of the community pointed at him as he walks forward, with the chants of the crowd behind him, to be a rather engaging one.

Anyone who has attended a football match in a football loving land knows what the screams of the mob can mean, to what they can lead.

Unarmed demonstrator? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Did the young man just walk through an international airport? What does “armed” mean? Having a rifle or a pistol or, at any rate, a largish, very visible, sinister-looking knife? What about all those suicide bombers who strap things to their waists, or to their ankles? Things which go “boom”? If an Afghan-looking man walks up to a US military post in Afghanistan, with lots of people standing behind him, cheering him on, with obvious anger towards the regime to which the military openly owe allegiance, there is a good chance that the man will be shot, if he does not stop his advance towards the post, perhaps after a warning shot.

“Cold blood”? This term is also used by Mr. Kristof. How is this cold blood? In the video can be heard a lot of confused shouting and be seen a burning tire. All this in a context of violence and hatred over the past weeks, much of it directed against state actors. At what point would the policeman have fired and the shot not considered being in “cold blood”? When the lone man walks up to them within suicide bomber range? Knifing range? Throttling range?

“The video clearly shows the man shot by the police, without any violent provocation whatsoever.”

Note, of course, that the video does NOT “clearly” show police, or even people dressed up in some sort of uniform, shooting anyone. It shows people with guns, it shows a man lying on the concrete, probably shot, but not who did the shooting.

“Rights groups and anti-government activists are saying the video is now clear evidence for all the world to see that the Mubarak regime has held onto power by the use of lethal violence and totalitarian measures.”

Which rights groups, which anti-government activists? And what of us who do not see this as “clear evidence” for the 30 years of Mubarak’s regime having being one steeped in lethal violence? Are we to have the mob march against us?

“Tonight The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof reported to CNN that watchdog groups have talled at least 297 deaths so far resulting from the regime’s violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators”

So Mr. Kristof of the NYT told CNN (so he’s working for the NYT and CNN? Are they not competitors? Or do they have shared financial interests? Does not say much for an independent media, unfortunately) that certain watchdog groups (unnamed here, for reasons……for reasons not stated here) have etc.etc..

Talled? What does that mean? Noted, maybe, from the context?

297 deaths from violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators? So, in each case, they checked that the deaths were caused by the regime and that the demonstrators were unarmed? Somehow, this sort of rigorous data analysis is not something one associates with “Mr K told CNN that some unnamed groups said that…”.

And the fact that Mr. Kristof links to a page which in turn refers to Mr. Kristof suggests that the independent-lines-of-evidence paradigm is not in play here.