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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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)