You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Media’ category.
“Since Israel’s brutal 21-day assault on Gaza in the winter of ’08-’09 (dubbed by Israeli politicians as Operation Cast Lead) that led to over 1,400 Palestinian deaths – of which 930 were civilians including many women and children – followed by its deadly raid on a civilian Turkish ship headed to Gaza in June 2010 that resulted in nine casualties and dozens injured, many Palestinians as well as their advocates in the West have spoken of a significant “sea change” in the western media’s once hegemonic support for Israel. However, since this latest military operation began – already claiming more than 30 lives and injuring hundreds – evidence of any changing tide has been scant.”
Well we need to have *some* happy news from the occupied territories no? It can’t always be more innocents dead and heavy handed state oppression can it?
“Some mainstream liberal media outlets have discussed the imbalance between the rocket launches from Gaza resistance groups and the attacks executed by one of the mightiest armies in the world. While some may take this as a sign of newfound “support” or “empathy” for Palestinians, this is precarious logic. If Hamas’ rockets were to become more powerful, as they are proving to be, will these outlets retract their critique of Israel’s actions? Or is support for Palestinians contingent on them remaining “victims” and will vanish at any sign of their resistance becoming more powerful or effective?”
Perspective is always so important. The farcical Fox News is readily distinguishable as propaganda, but are we ready to see the propaganda function of other media organizations, the BBC for instance.
“A focus on “who started it?” consumes the mainstream media’s discussion on the latest violence, leading commentators to discuss timelines as though they were opinions rather than verifiable facts to consider and, to a one, even getting that wrong, with media outlets from NPR to the NYT declaring that Israel’s – rather than Hamas’ – strikes were retaliatory.
Meanwhile pundits feverishly try to tease out a political motive to explain Israel’s latest massive assault on Gaza. So far, the realpolitick most commonly alluded to is the impending Israeli election, scheduled for January 22, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak strategic reasons for timing an assault on Gaza now.”
Defending the nation is always a great political platform to run on, even when you are the aggressor.
“When it comes to looking behind the scenes of Israeli military assaults on Gaza (or Lebanon), there is always a general hoping for a promotion, a politician looking for votes, and an arms dealer making profits, but the rationale that enables that triumvirate to enact the lethal policies we are seeing play out in Gaza right now is the same one that allows the Israeli government to calculate how many calories each Palestinian in the Gaza Strip needs to survive, and to then intentionally allow fewer trucks and supplies in to meet that need. And it’s the same rationale that motivates the Israeli occupation authorities to prevent construction in Area C of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to encourage widespread drug addiction in Area B, and to make near-daily incursions into Area A to arrest political leaders, activists and journalists.
It’s the rationale of a coloniser, who wants land but not the people on it.
The other pervasive rationale has been that Israel is “testing” the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt as well as, to a degree, President Obama in his second and last term in office.”
I find it amusing how often people refer to the media as having a “liberal bias”. It is such a counter-intuitive claim to make given the composition of the majority of mainstream media outlets (ad driven, reliant on the government for information). Media Lens never gives an inch when it comes to the ‘liberal press’ bowing to power.
Liberal journalism is balanced, neutral and objective, except when it’s not. A BBC news report on Hugo Chavez’s latest election triumph in Venezuela commented:
‘Mr Chavez said Venezuela would continue its march towards socialism but also vowed he would be a “better president”.’ (Our emphasis. The article was subsequently amended, although the ‘but’ remains)
The ‘but’ revealed the BBC’s perception of a conflict between Venezuela’s ‘march towards socialism’ and Chavez becoming a ‘better president’. Despite the appearance of neutral reporting, the ‘but’ snarled at both Chavez and socialism.
A second BBC article described Chavez as ‘one of the most visible, vocal and controversial leaders in Latin America’.
Another found him a ‘colourful and often controversial figure on the international stage’.
“Is Chavez more ‘controversial’ than war—fighting leaders like Bush, Blair, Brown, Obama and Cameron? How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people has Chavez killed? Imagine the BBC reporting: ‘David Cameron is an often controversial figure on the international stage.’ In fact the term is reserved for enemies of the West.
The same bias is found in editorials that often express, or reflect, the passionately partisan views of owners and editors. In 1997, the Independent proclaimed that Tony Blair’s election victory ‘bursts open the door to a British transformation’ to a ‘freer land’. (Neal Ascherson, ‘Through the door he can begin to create a freer land,’ The Independent, May 4, 1997)”
Damn Liberal Media indeed…
An explosion and/or fire at Shaw Court in Calgary has knocked out a significant quantity of telecommunications equipment, affecting not only bank machines and radio stations, but stuff like 911 service and the program that tells ambulances which hospital they should take a patient to.
I’m going to repeat the salient bit:
…SPRINKLERS…in that room…ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT…
SPRINKLERS…ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
SPRINKLERS + ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT?!
LOLWHUT?
Normally when you talk about mission-critical infrastructure, you’re talking about stuff like the servers that handle banking and the stock market. And for that kind of thing, the technology exists to have redundant servers in multiple locations that can fail-over almost seamlessly if something like this happens. We don’t have all the details, but chances are some of this stuff is weirdass old mainframes and actual physical mechanical switches that can’t be failed over quite so easily. Still, why in the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you put sprinklers in with them? I mean, I know the obvious answer, which is that halon is expensive. But whose brilliant idea was it to cut this particular corner? Maybe it’s just me, but I think 911 service is a bit more important than the stock market.
I wonder what colour the sky is in the land of Fox News. I really do. The level in inaccuracy and partisan slant censorship present is an obscene injustice against the American people and their right to know what is done in their name. Certainly we can make fun of our ignorant neighbours down south, but we’re missing the point, we should be ridiculing their fatuous news media for the gross veil of ignorance that twists how Americans see themselves and the world.
April 10th, One Day Without Shoes (or Comprehension)
Today is a day in which a company encourages you to go barefoot for a day (the website for this year has been mostly scrubbed of overt branding; criticism and backlash against this cynical corporate venture must be growing) of in order to ‘raise awareness’ and ‘help children’ the world over. Oh, and let’s not forget profit from the gullibility and ignorance of people. I’ve discussed how Tom’s Shoes plays on peoples ignorance in a previous post and thus shall not linger too long on how despicable this ad campaign is. I will repost a quick summary, just so we’re all aware of the how crappy this one-day nonsense actually is.
“Companies like Tom’s shoes take White Liberal Guilt and build a empire on the fuzzy feel good notion of helping others just by buying their brand of shoes. Hey, what could be wrong with getting shoes and having another pair donated to a needy person elsewhere on the globe? The notion of BOGO or “buy one, give one” is a cagey play by Tom’s as it exploits our altruistic instincts; we want to be good generous people, we want to be seen as people that help. It is a nice feeling, but should nice feelings escape critical examination? Of course not, especially when the noxious tentacles of greed are wrapped firmly around our feel-good assumptions about a product or service. NEWSFLASH – The poor of the world do not need more shoes! Sustainable jobs, debt forgiveness, clean water (etc.) – hell yes, but shoes, unless they are edible are far down the frakking list.”
Yah, you get to raise awareness. Awareness of a brand of shoes that is playing you for your altruistic notions in order to flog their product. So when you see the people walking around barefoot today make a note, these are also the same shallow people who do not bother with doing their research and as a result have wholeheartedly bought into the superficial lies of a misanthropic corporate entity.
Celebrate a day without shoes indeed.
What are the inner workings of The Daily Show or Real Time with Bill Maher? The interviews give a small slice of insight into what the leading satirists in America believe they are doing and why they do what they do. Also, Rory Bremner, from the UK is also mentioned. I’ve never heard of him until now but it seems he occupies the same space as Stewart and Maher. I’ll see if I can dig up some of Bremner’s work, for the sake of curiosity.
I think one of the smartest things a parent can do is get rid of the TV if they have children. TV land is a violently misogynistic place that perpetuates the current ugly set of cultural norms we have here in North America. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation shares some startling/depressing facts about what people are subjected to while they watch TV.
“Nearly 2 out of 3 TV programs contained some
violence,2 averaging about 6 violent acts per hour.3
• Fewer than 5% of these programs featured an
anti-violence theme or prosocial message emphasizing
alternatives to or consequences of violence.4
• Violence was found to be more prevalent in children’s
programming (69%) than in other types of
programming (57%). In a typical hour of programming,
children’s shows featured more than twice
as many violent incidents (14) than other types of
programming (6).5
• The average child who watches 2 hours of
cartoons a day may see nearly 10,000 violent incidents
each year, of which the researchers estimate
that at least 500 pose a high risk for learning and
imitating aggression and becoming desensitized to
violence.6
• The number of prime-time programs with violence
increased over the three years of the study, from
53% to 67% on broadcast television and from
54% to 64% on basic cable. Premium cable networks
have the highest percentage of shows with
violence, averaging 92% since 1994.7
With this sort of socialization base are we really surprised about the lack of empathy and caring in our society?
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…