We, the fools

I just read this in today's Observer.

"Withing minutes of the airports being closed, angry emails arrived.......... 'Funny how these terrorist "threats" seem to knock other more important stories off the news agenda', railed another."

Titled "Save us from the crackpots who see Zionist conspiracies in everything" by a Nick Cohen, it goes on to state:

"Since modern technology allows every fool with an internet connection to broadcast his or her ravings, I would be making too much of the emails if they didn't exemplify a wider culture of denial."

Ah, the refuge of the journalist without an argument - the ad hominem attack. Call the other party a fool, and label their opinions as mere ravings.

Also, Mr. Cohen probably meant to write "....I would NOT be making too much of the emails.......".

Let's ignore that (possibly Freudian?) slip and remember the remainder of the name-calling. If journalists were obliged to follow certain rules of formal debate which were current during my college days, I imagine many wouldn't have much to say.

noun; deliberate exaggeration, not meant to be taken literally.

That's how the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the word "hyperbole". Perhaps a suitable word to describe the preamble to a story I read in the tube in yesterday's Metro, reproduced verbatim here.

"The deadliest terror atrocity in history was foiled by British police yesterday. More than 4,000 people could have been killed if bombers had succeeded in blowing up ten flights from the UK to America - a death toll worse than September 11."

When compared with the deaths and depredation from the southern European conquest and pillage of South America, the Holocaust (which, incidentally, according to the OED, refers to the the killing of only one of Roma, Jews, Sinti and homosexuals etc. during World War II - I'd always imagined it covered all the victims of that part of our history) , the bombing of Nagasaki, the rampages of Gengiz Khan, the Vikings, the ancient Persians, the Arabs and Alexander the Great and many other bloody events, it pales into insignificance.

Especially when one remembers that it did not actually occur. So one might imagine the journalist would not have erred by starting his spiel with "The terror atrocity which, had it taken place, would have been the deadliest in history........".

However, when one reads further, one encounters our learned gentleman's yardstick - September 11.
(presumably a reference to the deaths which took place on that day in 2001 in the USA as a result of aircraft hijacking)
So perhaps he means - the deadliest terror atrocity involving aircraft in history.

But Nagasaki was pretty terrifying, wasn't it? As were Serbia/Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon.

So perhaps the preamble refers to - "what might have been the deadliest terror atrocity involving civilian aircraft.....".

NB: This blog is _about_ journalism. Not directly for op-eds on events. For that, Search The (F) Web, or buy a paper from your local newsagent.

Editing pictures after taking them

I read a story of a photographer working for Reuters who has been accused of "doctoring" an image of a war zone in Lebanon. [1] I would have been suitably shocked, but a photographer friend of mine assures me that photographs are routinely touched up. Pictures of cars, models, food etc.. Of course, adding extra smoke to a bombed building to show more intense destruction is perhaps not cricket.

When I look at pictures from a city devastated by air strikes, and all that can be seen is smoke billowing out amidst rubble, then I doubt if I could tell the difference between the east end of the city and the west. Particular features might be recognisable, like the Eiffel tower in Paris, or the London Eye in London, but apartment blocks have a distressing tendency to look similar. What is such a picture meant to convey - that man-made buildings are in need of repair and there's lots of smoke? The picture in question (from the JP website, attributed to Reuters) might easily belong to a city of an African or Asian country afflicted by civil war, or even the same city ten years earlier. News pictures rarely contain any supporting text which asserts their provenance and their fidelity, unfortunately.

I wish that each picture might have the name of the photographer, location where the picture was taken, a description of the subject or subjects, and date when the picture was taken, and whether there was any modification at all done to the picture (including cropping, colour balancing, sharpening etc.) or not. If this information is not available to the publisher, then this fact too should be mentioned.

With these criteria in mind, I couldn't find a single picture on the handful of news websites I browsed which passed muster. (and I even relaxed the first and last of these)

Before we achieve more transparency concerning the provenance of news-images, an extra plume of smoke, or even two, coming out of an apartment building seem trivial.



[1] http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID
=2006-08-06T214325Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525816599&pagename=
JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Taboo

We live in the free world, or one where we may openly dream, speculate, question, compare, express etc. within certain boundaries of libel, slander, taste and intellectual property. I was amused to read in two different UK newspapers the following phrases over the weekend, relating to the war in Lebanon. Sadly, I did not purchase the periodicals or have the opportunity to make detailed notes at the time so I must paraphrase. The subject, however, is taboo (hence the heading, and the use of blanks).

"We are soon reaching a point where it has become exceedingly difficult to tell people off for making ludicrous comparisons between the _______ and the ________ in after-dinner conversations."

".....there are those who have started to make shameful comparisons between the _______ and the _______"

I shall not fill in the blanks, but it did amuse me that guardians of the truth treat some subjects with kid-gloves, resorting to treating even comparisons with words like "shameful" and "ludicrous". I wonder what words they would use to talk about clueless people being killed, in the first instance, and Stalin style justification for the removal of doctors, in the second? This was just a "comparison". When people start equating the two blanks above (and they already have - to an extent), I wonder if our good journalists will use the words "despicable", "horrendous", "disgusting", or even "abominable".

I, on the other hand, would love them to use the word "untenable", followed by a reason why, in the opinion of the writer, such a comparison does not hold water.

(A tough call indeed, for we are already in the realm of morality, where one opinion is as good as another)

Darwin and the slave

My remarks on the Charles Darwin discussion page on Wikipedia (the English version), referred to in an earlier post, attracted rejoinders and counter-response.


How am I being offensive? I'm asking for people to be treated as human beings and not labelled as colours!

May I respectfully raise two questions:

1. Are we to specify the race of everyone on wikipedia? Or only that of those called "blacks"?

2. What terms are used for describing those who are neither "white" nor "black"?


The gentleman's skin colour might well be perfectly described by the word "black". However, I don't think the word describes the gentleman himself. To repeat, I have no hassle with a person's _race_ being pointed out, where relevant (and it has been highlighted as relevant here). The word "negroid" describes a race; "black" does not.

I believe that words are central to the way we perceive our world in the first place, and (re-)interpret it in the second. My edits were fuelled as a personal campaign against the usage of the words "black", "white" and many such others to refer to human beings. The techincal racial terms are (obviously) fine. Skin may be black! The extension from skin to person is the sort of linguistic short cut which I object to, for it tends to shape how we think - in addition to the far more intuitive flow of our thinking influencing words we choose.

Well, well - if it isn't Potter!

Two days ago I was part of an interesting workshop on the skills of professional presentation. Our instructor explained how we might use emotion as a hook to grab our audience's attention. I was asked to present a mock subject myself highlighting this and other techniques. I was to present Perl - a programming language which is apparently widely used in WWW server side scripts. This what I came up with.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome! Let me begin by writing down on this flip-chart a name.

Harry Potter
(simultaneously writes on flip-chart)
Anyone heard of him? Good, I see all of you have!

Nietzsche
(simultaneously writes on flip-chart)
What about him? I see two raised hands.

Ankh-Morpork
(simultaneously writes on flip-chart)
Anyone familiar with the name? No one?

So, as you can see, we have Harry Potter, the protagonist of the eponymous novels by Ms. Rowling, whom everyone here knows. Friedrich Nietzsche, the freethinker, is known to just two people. And no one here has heard of Ankh-Morpork, a city from the Discworld novels of Terry Pratchett, a delightful fantasy writer and cultural-political satirist.

Now, if you wished to learn more about them, or anything else for that matter, how would you go about it?

(audience murmurs - Internet, yahoo, google, wikipedia, WWW, STFW etc.)

Indeed! I too would look them up on the Internet - and 95% of all Internet servers are powered by Perl - which is what I wish to talk to you about today."

So began my spiel. I was gratified by the approbation my little attention-grabbing ploy received.

I wonder whether techniques like this form any part of serious journalism? Whether newspaper and online articles are written without any devices of this sort - just plain old truth, and nothing but?

Perhaps I won't answer these questions - the weekend's almost here: I plan to visit family tomorrow, and I'd like to do it in a pleasant state of mind.

No translation needed

The BBC carried this report on Iraq today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5233660.stm

Abdul Hassan Muhammed, a 62-year-old teacher, told AP: "A big explosion slammed me four metres (12 feet) into a wall. My friends took me to one of their stores, gave me water and asked me to relax... I didn't get my pension."


I wonder if Mr. Muhammed told this to AP in English? Were those his exact words? How sacrosanct are the double quotes in today's journalism? Do they always contain verbatim speech?

I believe that if Mr. Muhammed had indeed spoken in Arabic (which, in Iraq, is as natural as is speaking English in England), and AP translated, this fact should have been mentioned. And if the language of someone who speaks English as a second or third tongue, especially someone who just escaped with his life, isn't grammatically polished enough for the newspaper or TV station - then just use a reported speech summary.

In any case, one may assume that he didn't convert the four metres into
twelve feet whilst speaking to the reporter. Or maybe he did - perhaps he is a stickler for accuracy. But then he got it wrong - it's actually 13.1232 feet.

So in Arabic he actually fell a foot shorter than in English!

That reminds me of a packet of South African instant soup a houseguest once left behind. I chanced upon it on a winter's evening and decided to give it a shot. The instructions were in English and what I presume was Afrikaans (the script was the same, but the words sounded very Dutch). In English it said, "...and boil for 15 mins.".
The equivalent numeral (the only numeral) in the other language was 10.


As far as powdered soup is concerned, this is trivial. In the realms of explosives and journalism - this could cost lives, or worse - the truth, or both.

Lighting candles

In the aftermath of the bomb blasts in Mumbai, India on 11 July 2006, IBN Live (in partnership with CNN) offered users of the WWW to "light" a candle on their webpage.

The original URL was http://clients.ibnlive.com/features/mumatt/index.php

The text read:

"Mumbai came to a shocking standstill on July 11 when serial blasts ripped through its local trains, killing and wounding hundreds. But the city of dreams stood fearless and fighting fit.

Salute Mumbai's never-say-die spirit and Light a Candle for those who succumbed to the blasts or got injured. For every candle you light, CNN-IBN and Channel 7 will donate Re 1 for the relief of the victims."

All very well - but they also asked for name, email and phone number.

I wrote a letter to the editor (editor AT ibnlive.com) on 17 July 2006:

_______________start quoted letter_______________

Will I be correct in assuming that the email addresses and phone numbers you solicit during this "candle lighting" will not be used by you to promote your website or for other marketing purposes, or sold (or bartered, leased, donated etc.) to any other third-party organization? I wonder why you request this information (for the apparently randomly generated text image seems to be an effective enough deterrent against automated "candle lighting") and how long you intend to store this information and if you will strive to keep this information private?

> For every candle you light, CNN-IBN and Channel 7 will donate Re 1 for the relief of the victims.

I congratulate you on your humanitarian gesture. May I ask how you intend to pass this money on to the victims? Will you donate to a private charitable organization or organizations, or to the State, or undertake the task of dispensing it yourself?

Thanks for your kind attention.

_______________end of quoted letter_______________


I haven't received any response so far. It's been two weeks.

I wonder if I made a difference.

Continuing the campaign

A post or two ago (http://orthojournalism.blogspot.com/2006/07/against-name-calling.html), I had written about replacing the word "black" with "South American" in the Charles Darwin article on Wikipedia. The original line is:

"He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest."

This change was reverted, and I responded by simply deleting the word "black", as South American was evidently speculation on my part. This time, I did write my reasons on the talk page. Here they are:

Mankind, as we know it, is marked by distinctions, some more immediately apparent than others. Race (= ethnicity?) is a complicated question. Specifically, it is not easy to pinpoint any person's race on the basis of photographs, or literary evidence (the latter especially when derived from a time where race theory was far different than it is now, or did not exist). In some churches in Poland (so I've read in a German book), Jesus was shown with blue eyes. In one American movie (I think it was American anyway), he was shown with black skin. These obviously contradictory representations merely illustrate that race is often a matter of identity, and in the case where peoples mix, often the race of either the mother or the father decides what race the child will identify himself with, or be deemed by his community to belong to. Some years ago I visited a natural history museum in Edinburgh which declared that there were three races of man. Kant said there are four. Others create races at will - in phrases like "our great island race" or "Jewish race" etc.. Hence, I suggest that the concept of race, as used commonly, is not in keeping with honest scientific straightforwardness. It is also accepted that skin colour does not automatically fix a person's race. (there are additional factors such as eye colour, hair, skull shape etc., or so I understand, not being a anthropologist myself)

What does the word "black" here mean? That the person (if something described by just its colour can still be accorded the dignity of human identity) had black skin all over? Or that he belonged to the negroid race? Can we be sure that he indeed was a pure-blooded negroid? Does it make any difference to our perception of him as one who inspired Darwin with stories? I usually avoid using the word "racist" as I think it has meanings beyond what it really should. (similar to democracy, holocaust, Bosnia, terrorist etc.) However, making a reference to his skin colour here is just that - racist. Actually, it's not even racist - it's just petty, and slightly insulting.

What next? In a similar vein, we might have the Wikipedia article on Schopenhauer which states "Schopenhauer, a white Pole, indicated that he was influenced by Kant, a white philosopher, and Buddha, a brown prince." Or the brown crown prince, as he hadn't inherited when he left his father's kingdom behind.

I'm certain there are occasions when a person's skin colour, or race if you will, need to be pointed out. For example, if a certain medical drug causes different reactions based on a person's genetics. Or if a dark skinned person is being photographed - perhaps more light is needed, as compared to when a fair skinned person is the subject. Or commandos with dark skin might be chosen for a covert mission in Ghana, where those with fair skin might stand out. Or in museums of ethnology, where the actual race is defined. And numerous other such situations. But these are far from commonplace.

Everytime we use pejorative words like black, white, brown, kook, eyetie, commie, chink etc. to refer to a human being, we reinforce an image of him which uses his skin colour, race, nationality, religion, political views etc. as his defining attribute. We strip him of his dreams, songs, poetry, ability to make us laugh and think and love - all that makes him human.

What's happening around us right now?

Well, it depends upon what one chooses to see, and to whom one listens and what one reads, or can read. Here are some of the "top" stories from news websites I happened upon - around 2140h here in the UK. It's not done very scientifically - with any rigorous definition of "top" headline, nor is there any accounting for the fact that websites are updated all the time etc. However, it should still be an interesting review of what those who read English content on the Internet have available to them (no account has been taken of the fact that many sites allow one to customize content). They make interesting reading - do keep in mind that not everyone around the world has access to the Internet, and most people do not read English. Still, see if you find an interesting link here - go someplace you've never been before. This list contains sources from the UK, Ireland, Australia, USA, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Bangladesh, Mongolia, New Zealand, Canada, Iran, UAE (I think) and Russia.

1. cnn.com
U.N.: 14,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
Death toll jumps in Java tsunami, quake
3 charged with murder in Katrina hospital deaths

2. bbc.co.uk
Israel claims Iran link to crisis
Java tsunami death toll increases
'U-turn' claim over house packs

3. foxnews.com
U.S. Military Moves to Protect Americans
Rocket Barrage Slams Israel
Olmert: Could Last Weeks

4. news.google.com
IAF again drops leaflets on Lebanon
Sector Snap: Stem-Cell Biotechs Near Lows
Nortel, Microsoft Forge Comm Alliance

5. msnbc.msn.com
Beirut Evacuation
After five years, Bush to speak before NAACP
Gay marriage ban amendment fails in House

6. news.yahoo.com
Israelis say offensive could last weeks
Violence in Iraq spinning out of control
Death toll in Indonesian tsunami hits 341

7. abcnews.go.com
A New Member of the Axis of Evil?
House Rejects Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
Iran's Hezbollah Threatens Israel, U.S. Attacks

8. news.com.au
'We kill those we need to kill'
Survivor search continues
PM risks Bush nuke challenge

9. cbsnews.com
U.S. Steps Up Evacuation From Lebanon
Doc, Nurses Arrested In Katrina Deaths
Bush Finally Says 'Yes' To NAACP

10. cbc.ca/news
Military operation could take weeks: Israel
Child killer Clifford Olson denied parole
Some passport exemptions likely: U.S. Homeland Security boss

11. washingtonpost.com
Toll Climbs in Mideast As Fighting Rages On
Gonzales: Bush Blocked Probe
Blast Kills Shiite Day Laborers

12. theglobeandmail.com
Sit tight one more day, stranded Canadians told
No quick end to offensive, Israeli officials say
Parole Board rejects serial killer Olson's appeal

13. hindustantimes.com
Peace moves with Pak hit after blasts: Manmohan
'IGNOU casts aspersions on Gods'
Iran issue: PM against 'coercive diplomacy'

14. deccan.com
Kalam pitches for more farmer loans
Profit Bill decision in 2 days, says PM
Boucher confirms sequence change

15. indianexpress.com
Final seal on N-deal by year-end: US
Mumbai echo in Moscow: G-8 warns terror sponsors
Naxals massacre 26 in Chhattisgarh, many are missing

16. english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
Lebanon toll passes 230
Tsunami death toll tops 340
Violence ahead of DR Congo poll

17. gulfnews.com/home/index.html
Lebanon on brink of disaster
Dubai to get first double decker road to increase traffic in new areas
Tsunami toll passes 350 mark, over 200 others missing

18. jpost.com
125 rockets fired on northern Israel on Tuesday
IDF drops flyers over south Lebanon mocking Nasrallah
Katyushas kill one in Nahariya

19. nzherald.co.nz
Two arrested after teenager shot dead
You lie in bed thinking, how did she die? Why did it happen?'
Sightings of murdered teacher's car crucial

20. mg.co.za
Olmert: Israeli offensive will continue
SA 'not doing enough about Aids'
DA slams Nqakula's absence in current violent climate

21. tehrantimes.com
Israel’s dream to dominate Lebanon will never come true: Leader
Bush escalates the hate
UN involvement will block nuclear talks: Iran

22. graphicghana.com
Justice Annan Passes Away
Bank Fraud, Five arrested, One On The Run
US Experts To Monitor Millennium Account Projects

23. ubpost.mongolnews.mn
Rallying for Mongolia
The complete Naadam menu
Treasure trove

24. sundayobserver.lk
SLMM waits, LTTE won't release cop - 'Despicable' says Kohona
Govt. will honour truce - Keheliya
No TV today, courtesy foreign film suppliers?

25. dawn.com
No evidence of Pakistan’s hand in blasts: US
Talks delay negative development: Riaz
Export target $18.6bn, trade deficit $9.4bn: Trade Policy 2006-07

26. thedailystar.net
More taken out than pumped in thru FDI
Counting from desk continues too to justify expenditure
SC Bar mulls going to president, CJ to raise its objection

27. timesonline.co.uk/global
Lebanon evacuations mount
Katrina hospital murder charges
Suicide bomber kills 53 near shrine

28. ireland.com
Israeli PM blames Tehran over criss in Lebanon
Lebanon Air strikes kill 42 as rockets rain down on Israel
Summer heat set to peak at 30-plus degrees, says Met office

29. herald.co.zw
Cancel copper licences: Police
Inquiry into Chideya’s conduct postponed
70 GMB workers walk free

30. english.pravda.ru
Israel uses Russia's experience in its operation against Lebanon
Group of Eight declines without Russia
Pamela Anderson appears to be a soccer mom at heart

News publishing on the Internet.

The URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Age directed me to the official website of the international newspaper The Asian Age - http://www.asianage.com, with the caveat "(IE only, refuses other browsers)"

This I had to see! I clicked on it and sure enough reached a page which said ""This page can only be seen in IE"" (I'm using Mozilla Firefox, and not Internet Explorer)

Isn't that tantamount to saying: "you need to buy software from Microsoft before you can access this journalistic web-site."?

Their call, I guess; my loss, perhaps.

Against name calling.

For quite some time now, I've considered campaigning against the abuse of derogatory words such as Gook, White, Black, Chink, Gringo, Farang (distinct from Firang), Bong, Kaffir etc. I tend never to use these words in my conversation (and I'm daily exposed to people from around the world).

Some months ago, a member in an online quiz forum quoted the (a) President of South Africa as saying "But it is not the only disease which is of importance and I have always resented the views of AIDS lobbyists to push their nefarious agenda on Black people. AIDS and complex retroviral drugs are not the only health concerns of Black people."

I objected to the South African President calling his people Black and queried, “Why not simply "people"? Or African, or sub-saharan African, or Negroid population etc., for there are people of African descent (with black skin) living in Europe/US/Brazil etc. which I guess are not the focus of this President's views. I believe that words like White/Black/Desi/Kook/Chink/Ghati/Bong/Punju/Guleti/Darkie etc. are distasteful and derogatory."

My remark was lauded and countered with: "Black is not a derogatory term because the Black people chose it themselves and very proudly too. Infact I was quoting the President of South Africa’s words. They were not mine. At a point of time in history, they were called negroes or niggers. They fought against such usage and proudly called themselves Blacks. And now they are universally referred to as such. And when did White become distasteful and derogatory? :). No, don’t answer that."

Perhaps we should force ourselves to use the phrase "black skinned human being" for "black". (Similarly, "white or sometimes pink and brown skinned human" for "white", "more-diagonal-than-horizontal eyed human" for "chink" and so on.)
In time, the absurdity of this nomenclature should become evident and perhaps we can avoid referring to a person's skin colour, sexual prowess, religion, veteran status etc. unless such a specification is conducive to the idea being expounded.

What I did about it today?

As part of my research, I came across the following article on Darwin on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life

I changed the statement "He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest." to "He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed South American slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest." I announced in the Changes section: "Replaced "black" with "South American"."

Within ten minutes, I was challenged - "your revert provides no reason? the previous revert does, it also is more consistent with wikipedia, re Scots of the age are indeed listed as such, as are most english."

Perhaps I will answer: "My reason? My reason, Sir, is the dignity of man."

This was published in the Guardian yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1818247,00.html

> The indiscriminate mass murder of innocent people is terrorism, pure and simple.

Innocent people? What does innocence have to do with the right to live with dignity? If all those who died had covert subscriptions to pornographic magazines, would this have been justified?

Terrorism? The writer seems to have been reading too much of the American media and evidently believes that the word "terrorism" conveys a greater measure of shock than the word "murder". I'm sure we are glad that it was simple terrorism, and not the complicated variety.

> It can never be justified

But it was justified! It was planned and executed - that could scarcely have been done without justification. Justifiable to me - no. To millions of Indians - no. To millions of people who believe in the shared right of all humans to live with dignity - no. To those who did this - yes.

> The first thing to say is that anyone who targets suburban commuter trains is a criminal

A criminal is one who breaks a law. So if targeting suburban commuter trains (as opposed to urban school buses, for example) is against the law, then one who does so is indeed a criminal. Good catch, that.

> It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions, and wrong for hotheads to mount reprisals that would only play into the hands of hate-mongering fanatics.

So that is what is wrong! I wish this writer had written earlier that killing people is wrong - we might have avoided great human loss. Perhaps it's not too late.

This appeared yesterday in www.thestatesman.net, about the role of investigative TV in the aftermath of the blasts in Mumbai, India.



"We reach my colleague’s home in Shivaji Park at 9.30 p.m. and switch the television on. Almost immediately, we hear the anchorwoman on one channel, and she must intellectually be a blonde, tell us that if we are stuck in a traffic jam we ought to send an SMS to a particular number to inform relatives that we are okay. Oh, brilliant! I am stuck in a traffic jam and what do I do? Switch the television on!

I switch channels. Each news channel has a number it suggests can be used to send messages to relatives and friends. And some messages have started to appear on the screen. “Pooja, this is Atul. I am fine”. “Vicky, are you okay?” Of course Mumbai has only one Atul and one Vicky, of course, these messages make perfect sense. Television has achieved its objective, made idiots out of all of us.

The scroll running at the bottom of the screen says in exactly this order – “Phone lines jammed in Mumbai”; “Call 022-xxxxxxxx to make enquiries” or “If you want to be a citizen journalist, call 0120-xxxxxxx”. Excuse me, I just want to be a good husband and tell my wife I am alive. But you, Mr TV anchor, have managed to jam all the phone lines. And don’t tell me the service provider is not giving you a share of the loot. "

> and she must intellectually be a blonde,

A blonde? Why not a Peruvian? Or a Buddhist? Or a low-caste Bihari? How a responsible paper can print such racist slurs is beyond me.

> Oh, brilliant! I am stuck in a traffic jam and what do I do? Switch the television on!

No, you switch your cellphone on. Millions do not have access to traffic jams, cellphones and SMS, or the language the TV broadcast was in - so obviously this is meant for a niche audience. TV on cellphones - it has already happened; obviously no one bothered to inform your reporter, who must have been occupied with the "Use more derogatory racist insults" essay anyway.

> And don’t tell me the service provider is not giving you a share of the loot.

I wouldn't be shocked. But then most of TV is a profit making enterprise. As is this newspaper. Of course, I further assume that journalists get paid to write. (do they get paid more to be insulting?)

She does make a valid point about the futility of broadcasting names on the telly though.

This is from an article in the Jerusalem Post on 01 March 2006 titled "David Irving has a right to free speech, too" written by Peter Singer, defending freedom of speech.

Here's an excerpt:
"We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed.

Before you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims of the Holocaust, or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should say that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped Austria in time, but my grandparents did not. "

I applaud the writer for defending freedom of speech (David Irving's, in this instance).
What I do not understand is why he had to state that his grandparents were victims in Austria whilst doing so. If his grandparents had survived Austria, would that make his opinion illegitimate? What if they weren't Jewish?

The principle of freedom of speech entitles one to an opinion and the right to express it - irrespective of the circumstances of the life (or death) of one's ancestors.

I believe it is actually detrimental to the cause of free speech when its supporters lack the courage of conviction to express their opinion without avaling of artificial safeguards in terms of nationality, race, veteran record, gender, disability, religion, ancestry, language, food habits etc. - which are not generally available to all.

Mr. Irving is English. What if he shared Mr. Singer's heritage? Would that affect the truth value of his thesis? I sincerely hope not.

A couple of months ago, Mr. Bono (with the popular music band U2) was made the editor of a UK newspaper (The Independent) for the day, in an effort to generate funds and awareness (or so I imagine) for AIDS victims in Africa. He, and some others including Motorola, GAP, Armani, American Express etc., have launched a brand called RED, part proceeds of which will go towards AIDS victims in Africa. (Or are supposed to, anyway) Why can't these rich organizations and people just give their all (if they are so inclined) and leave the rest of us alone? What if another personality, perhaps a World Wrestling Federation champion, or a princess, comes up with another brand called BLACK (or CREAM), for the same cause? Should we then buy those products and services instead? Perhaps we can pick our favourite colour. What about other competing causes and charities? Should the best marketed cause win? Or the one with the prettiest ambassador, wearing the coolest sunglasses? I find it in appalling taste that style and ostensible charity have so been twined together.

However, if it does lead to good (some good anyway, for only part profits are to be sent to some organizations in Africa), perhaps it is better than nothing - if, that is, one does not take the holistic view. For these enterprises might put others out of business, or cause them losses, perhaps depriving Africa of revenue from that avenue. Let us not forget that large businesses pay taxes to regional and federal governments, and that individual nations will ultimately ensure that their own interests (security, energy needs, etc.) come first? So one might inadvertently finance wars undertaken for the sake of cheap oil, or the dumping of hazardous waste in habitable regions, or the perpetuation of violence and civil war with a supply of weapons.

Instead of buying cellphones, price plans and T-shirts from those participating in schemes like these, I would suggest that we work hard, vote knowledgeably and buy underwear according to our fancy. For those who wish to, there are plenty of ways to donate money, or even to travel to Africa and help with skills.

A couple of weeks ago, the front page of a London newspaper had a report about the Iraq war. Well, understandably the Iraq war isn't automatically "news" anymore - inspite of the killings, deprivations, loss of freedoms, political activity etc. So what does (did) this paper print on its front page? I'm afraid I no longer have the exact date this was published. Sometime in May 2006. All these things:

1. They used a font bigger than usual for headlines.

2. Font on the whole of the front page was the same size - all text was part of the headline.

3. They highlighted in red certain parts of the headline.

4. These highlighted parts were phrases - for example, "ethnic cleansing", "Bosnia" and so on.

5. They put in two photographs as well, one showing a probably starving and deprived child. Undated images, with no caption etc.

This is what it has come to - bigger fonts (perhaps if it's written that big it must be true), colour highlighting (in case one misses the significance), with pictures (which could have been taken in a studio, or downloaded from the special features section of some war film DVD), catchwords like holocaust, Bosnia, 9/11, fundamentalism, freedom (which have meanings associated with them which don't belong to the words themselves) and so on.

My friend GN, a journalist himself, suggested today I publish my opinions on some of the rather questionable print and web journalism doing the rounds. I am quite occasionally saddened and/or angered by ad hominem attacks, name calling and various forms of truth prevarication in news stories from round the world.

Here I shall endeavour to catch up on articles from various UK and international newspapers and point out what is objectionable - alongwith my rationale for so considering them.

What I hope to achieve: that my audience will read news with a more balanced mind and be on the guard for spurious arguments.

It'll also be nice if I start off along the road to immeasurable wealth. Or sagacity.