Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
What's Next?
The HuffPo attacks the Times again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-inew-york-timesi-let_b_206917.html
This seems to be out of genuine concern, though. I agree, the paper must have new management. Folding altogether is out of the question; there are too few newspapers in this country as it is. CNN and Fox News are jokes. We can't rely on the Huffington Post, which is basically an opinion sheet, and PBS for all our news.
My favorite comment to the post is:
"Since the press is protected by the Constitution as an essential component of a free and democratic society, maybe the press shouldn't be owned by a tiny self-interested cabal of billionaires who have little interest in anything other than greed and hegemony? Gee, just a thought..."
Exactly. The "press" has to have diversity and competition, just like any other business. But who's going to do it? It takes money to run a news organization.
Is it possible we could get some of our news from an association of bloggers who are posted in different countries and have different areas of expertise and access? I mean we all have inside information. Journalists rely on sources for their info; they then follow up on the tips and write the stories. What if the sources themselves just started writing the news? The internet allows for protection of identity when necessary. Just a thought...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-inew-york-timesi-let_b_206917.html
This seems to be out of genuine concern, though. I agree, the paper must have new management. Folding altogether is out of the question; there are too few newspapers in this country as it is. CNN and Fox News are jokes. We can't rely on the Huffington Post, which is basically an opinion sheet, and PBS for all our news.
My favorite comment to the post is:
"Since the press is protected by the Constitution as an essential component of a free and democratic society, maybe the press shouldn't be owned by a tiny self-interested cabal of billionaires who have little interest in anything other than greed and hegemony? Gee, just a thought..."
Exactly. The "press" has to have diversity and competition, just like any other business. But who's going to do it? It takes money to run a news organization.
Is it possible we could get some of our news from an association of bloggers who are posted in different countries and have different areas of expertise and access? I mean we all have inside information. Journalists rely on sources for their info; they then follow up on the tips and write the stories. What if the sources themselves just started writing the news? The internet allows for protection of identity when necessary. Just a thought...
Friday, May 22, 2009
More PR for you-know-who
Yet again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew-york-timesi-falsifie_b_205201.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew-york-timesi-falsifie_b_205201.html
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Why?
I don't know why The New York Times feels compelled to have a "conservative" columnist. Isn't David Brooks, a neoconservative, good enough? I find Brooks to be dishonest and off-base most of the time, which seems to be criteria for a right-wing commentator. He isn't totally right-wing, but he does shill for some of the more right-wing aspects of our society from time to time. The Times thought Brooks' disingenuously narrow-minded screeds weren't enough though, and hired William Kristol to write more genuinely right-wing stuff. He was quickly canned, as far as I can tell for being unable to write much that made sense or was interesting (but why would we be surprised? The right-wing in this country is intellectually bankrupt). Now they've hired someone named "Ross Douhat." I'm not even going to bother to google him to find out who he is. He's just another mindless right-winger, tossing off paranoid opinions without supplying any background substantiation. His latest target is Dan Brown:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html
Be forewarned, this article is a "spoiler" for the film "Angels and Demons." Apparently Douhat is also spiteful in addition to his other qualities.
The article isn't totally wrong--sure, Brown's novels attack the Catholic Church, but if there ever was a worthier target of a paranoid conspiracy theory, I can't think of one. The Catholic Church has engaged in imperialism, genocide, anti-semitism, child molestation and more on a grand scale. Could a paranoid conspiracy theorist come up with something more malevolent? There is no fiction out there that could compete. Brown's novels are novels, and since people are aware that the real history is quite bad, Catholics haven't complained much about Brown.
What I find interesting about Douhat's article is that it contains classic conservative elements: 1. Promotion of the notion that modernity and change are inherently false, 2. Defense of a male-dominated, heirarchical institution, 3. Lack of detailed substantiation for accusations against the target, 4. Paranoid implications (Dan Brown's out to get the Catholic Church! Well maybe. More likely, he saw the opportunity to spin a tale that would intrigue people, dovetail on to some current societal trends, and make Brown rich).
How long before they can this guy? Please, not too long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html
Be forewarned, this article is a "spoiler" for the film "Angels and Demons." Apparently Douhat is also spiteful in addition to his other qualities.
The article isn't totally wrong--sure, Brown's novels attack the Catholic Church, but if there ever was a worthier target of a paranoid conspiracy theory, I can't think of one. The Catholic Church has engaged in imperialism, genocide, anti-semitism, child molestation and more on a grand scale. Could a paranoid conspiracy theorist come up with something more malevolent? There is no fiction out there that could compete. Brown's novels are novels, and since people are aware that the real history is quite bad, Catholics haven't complained much about Brown.
What I find interesting about Douhat's article is that it contains classic conservative elements: 1. Promotion of the notion that modernity and change are inherently false, 2. Defense of a male-dominated, heirarchical institution, 3. Lack of detailed substantiation for accusations against the target, 4. Paranoid implications (Dan Brown's out to get the Catholic Church! Well maybe. More likely, he saw the opportunity to spin a tale that would intrigue people, dovetail on to some current societal trends, and make Brown rich).
How long before they can this guy? Please, not too long.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Hogwash
This is complete and utter hogwash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01fri4.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
It doesn't matter that once upon a time Israel's Supreme Court ruled that torture is wrong. Torture continued. I saw the results with my own eyes on a trip to the W. Bank in 2004. People can say all sorts of things, and pass laws, but if the laws aren't enforced, none of it matters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01fri4.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
It doesn't matter that once upon a time Israel's Supreme Court ruled that torture is wrong. Torture continued. I saw the results with my own eyes on a trip to the W. Bank in 2004. People can say all sorts of things, and pass laws, but if the laws aren't enforced, none of it matters.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
TV is Worse
The New York Times sometimes does best when it's criticizing its competition. This story is a perfect example of gossip parading as news; someone made an unsubstantiated statement that was received without question by a TV newsperson, and the falsehood was simply repeated without question by other TV channels and right-wing commentators:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Missing the Story
In 10 minutes of watching PBS's "Frontline" last night, I learned more about the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan than I have in months of reading The New York Times.
What I learned is that Pakistani's public school system has collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of male schoolchildren attend "schools" run by extremists, who encourage martyrdom in places such as Afghanistan. The schools don't teach subjects; they just make kids memorize the Koran in Arabic. My sense is that the Koran-memorizing is a hypnotic induction technique that is used as part of the brain-washing. Since the children don't speak Arabic, they don't understand what they are reading.
How can President Obama possibly think a few drone attacks, mostly killing civilians and enraging the population, are going to minimize extremism? Wouldn't helping Pakistan build a secular school system work much better?
The Times's perspective on Pakistan and Afghanistan is laughable. In the following editorial, the Times editorial writers lament the passage of a law in Afghanistan that appears to excuse marital rape:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15wed1.html
Never once is it mentioned that many US states had the same laws in the 1980s. Not the 1880s, the 1980s.
Why not write about the real issues?
What I learned is that Pakistani's public school system has collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of male schoolchildren attend "schools" run by extremists, who encourage martyrdom in places such as Afghanistan. The schools don't teach subjects; they just make kids memorize the Koran in Arabic. My sense is that the Koran-memorizing is a hypnotic induction technique that is used as part of the brain-washing. Since the children don't speak Arabic, they don't understand what they are reading.
How can President Obama possibly think a few drone attacks, mostly killing civilians and enraging the population, are going to minimize extremism? Wouldn't helping Pakistan build a secular school system work much better?
The Times's perspective on Pakistan and Afghanistan is laughable. In the following editorial, the Times editorial writers lament the passage of a law in Afghanistan that appears to excuse marital rape:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15wed1.html
Never once is it mentioned that many US states had the same laws in the 1980s. Not the 1880s, the 1980s.
Why not write about the real issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
