Monday, February 13, 2006

 

Quality and the Mainstream Media

For the Swedish readers. We often hear the argument that Mainstream Media gives us more quality and thorough investigation than bloggers. I know I might not spell everything correctly on this blog since I mainly write very fast - getting the posts published is more important than getting every single letter on the right place. But the mainstream media is supposed to be better than bloggers. Yeah, right. This story from today's edition of the broadsheet Swedish paper Dagens Nyheter:

Hajen är död
Skaparen av "Hajen" är död. Författaren Peter Benchley har avlidit i en ålder av 65 år.
Steven Spielbergs film om en vit haj som terroriserar ett kustsamhälle på Long Island uppmärksammades över en hel värld. Peter Benchleys intresse för havets djur väcktes redan i barndomen som han tillbringade på ön Nantucket på Massachusetts.

Han tog examen på Harward, arbetade som talskrivare åt president Lyndon Johnson, inledde en journalistkarriär och blev författare på heltid. 1974 utkom "Hajen", i filmen med samma namn medverkade Peter Benchley som upphetsad reporter.

"Hajen" är fortfarande en av Hollywoods mest berömda filmer och boken har sålts i mer är 20 miljoner exemplar.

Peter Benchleys intresse för havets okända var livslångt, på sin hemsida skrev Benchley:
- Om du är försiktig finns ingen anledning till oro över att bli attackerad av "sea creatures".

Hösten 2005 insjuknade Peter Benchley i en lugnsjukdom, det var i sviter av den som han stilla av avled i hemmet i Princetown, New Jeresy.

Harward? lugnsjukdom? New Jeresy? Makes you wonder if this journalist even knows what Harvard is... or if he even has a clue about where New Jersey is located?

# posted by Joakim Nilsson @ 2:25 PM

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

 

I love boobs (but I don't need to shout about it)

Funny story. Swedes can actually be real prudes sometimes. And we don't even need to rely on the FCC. At least the newspapers are free to publish what they want.
Let's be reasonable here. Lindex, a major competitor to Swedish H&M in the field of women underwear has a poster campaign out now where the claim to "love boobs". This, some politicians argue, is insulting to women. Yeah, exactly. I am sure Lindex would just love to insult its main group of customes (i.e. women). I guess that kind of lost logic only makes sense to a politician.

# posted by Joakim Nilsson @ 11:26 AM
 

French kissing in the USA

There's a lot of french kissing (or butt kissing...) going out from the US to the Muslim world right now. American MSM are not showing the images of Mohammed not to offend Muslims. (Showing prisoners of war without any right to legal councelling or legal status on base Gitmo is something completely different of course, which will not insult any Muslims at all.) What is with this sensitivity training one might ask. Can't US authorities see this conflict for what it is - just like one of my readers wrote in a comment on this blog earlier - it is a photo opportunity for some fundamentalists that use the cartoons as a reason to further their own political agenda.

Still ... the US State department feels that the cartoons are insulting. (See transcript from press briefing below.) Which begs the question - has press spokesman McCormack even seen the cartoons? As ironic as it may be - he confirms that he has not (see transcript)! What part of the Sharia law about stoning women is it he feels that we should show our respect to? Which part of the burqa-laws in former Al-Qaida controlled parts of Afghanistan is it he wants us to "understand"?
When did public beatings of homosexuals in the name of religion become the US policy - if not for themselves so at least in terms of "reaching out" to the Arab world? THIS is what the cartoons wanted to address - together with the hot topic issue that illustrators felt they would be threatened if they dared to attempt to draw Mohammed (even in a less cartoon-satire way...) - which they obviously have.

Bill Clinton asked, high on sensitivity training , compared the "anti-Islamic prejudice" in Europe with a previous "anti-Semitic prejudice." Funny. I thought that most Islamic cultures in the Middle East were Semitic (as in Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Syriac...) but maybe Clinton knows something about linguistic/ethnicnationalism that I don't.

Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff has a great take on the American approach to Tolerance Towards Intolerance in his WP column.

***

Transcript from press briefing, US State Department, February 3:

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any -- first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example -- and on the particular cartoon that was published -- I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see -- that's what you're asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would -- we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you're just hoping that it doesn't -- I'm sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they're doing and you just hope it doesn't get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I --

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn't escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so --

QUESTION: You did. I'm trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews -- or it was the Egyptians -- this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was --

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that's the use of the word "unacceptable" and "not acceptable," exactly what that implies. I mean, it's not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say "unacceptable," it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is -- our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It's just the one word "unacceptable," I'm just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn't you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's for you and your editors to decide, and that's not for the government. We don't own the printing presses.

QUESTION: Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it's following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish -- these cartoons. Is the election mood -- is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I'd refer you to that answer.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, George.

QUESTION: Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do -- or is it -- or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?

MR. MCCORMACK: George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That -- all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is -- it's not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.

QUESTION: You're not dictating -- everybody knows you can't order people not to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find --

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right, you're right.

QUESTION: -- now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying -- you know, that -- you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this -- you're dealing with deeply-held beliefs.

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right. You're right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of -- millions and millions of people around the world would find these images -- these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm, yes.

QUESTION: Forgive me if you maybe addressed this, because I was out of the room filing on some other stuff, about Rumsfeld's remarks about Chavez?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we covered that one.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: We did.

QUESTION: The question I wanted to ask -- and if you covered that, then I'll just shut up -- is, is there an ‘out-of-sync" when you get an official like that making a remark at the same time you're trying to do public diplomacy in the region? All of a sudden, you've got somebody coming from out of area to make a remark like that. I mean, who's basically running the public diplomacy? Did you address that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I did, in full.

(Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Take my word for it. (Laughter.)


# posted by Joakim Nilsson @ 9:39 AM
depeche mode tour 2005/2006