Back when I had TV, I was a big fan of the satirical Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Like many Daily Show fans, I noted that the self-described 'fake news' show was actually more informative than 'real news' programs. The reason is because Stewart and his colleagues are unafraid to ask The Question about an issue that screams out to be asked. He demonstrates the hypocrisy of leaders not in his words but in their own words. Mainstream media journalists, slaves to a fake objectivity which is really neutrality, generally won't do this because they are petrified of one thing: losing access.
Some in the elite are snarky about people who watch The Daily Show and get their information from other non-traditional sources. They think the assertion that Stewart's fake news is more real than the real news is a fanciful exaggeration. And to be honest, I once wondered it myself.
Now, it turns out that there is empirical evidence to back it up.
"The proportion of each story devoted to substance [on The Daily Show] was greater than in the network news stories," according to an Indiana University study.
The IU researchers noted that Stewart himself has insisted that he is a comedian and not a journalist.
And perhaps this is the strongest indication of all of how discredited TV journalism has become. The non-journalist presents a more newsworthy show than the real journalists.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
The dastardly helper of the poor
The Economist has a cautionary portrait of Brazil's incumbent president Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, generally know as just Lula. President Lula will face a runoff for re-election at the end of this month.
The somewhat menacing title of the piece: 'Love Lula if you're poor, worry if you're not.'
Of course, helping the destitute is a pretty good strategy, both political and social, for the leader of the country with the world's greatest disparity between rich and poor.
From the cataclysmic title, you'd think he were some sort of Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez where he steals land or assaults judicial independence.
But his real crime, at least by reading the article, is being from the center-left.
According to The Economist, among the catacylsmic developments of Lula's first time:
-The poverty rate, as measured by the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a business school, fell from 28% of the population in 2003 to 23% last year
-While suppressing inflation and containing the deficit, he has transferred more cash to households, partly through the Family Fund, which helps the poor, but also through increases in the minimum wage, which raises publicly financed pensions.
-Instituted a Family Fund, a stipend of up to 95 reais a month that goes to parents who keep their children at school and take them for medical check-ups. The fund now reaches the poorest quarter of Brazil's population... the price of rice has “fallen a lot”, another boost to the family budget.
-Cash transfers have animated the economy of the poor north-east, where retail and wholesale trade jumped 15.6% in the year to July.
-His government has done several useful things, such as passing a bankruptcy law. A long-delayed measure to encourage the private financing of public works may at last yield results. And, after a shaky start, a new model for commissioning power generation is starting to show it can attract private capital to the electricity industry.
So his policies have reduced poverty for millions of citizens, increased trade and encouraged parents to seek education and health care for their children? By The Economist's own analysis, Lula has cut inflation, created jobs and kept the economy growing. Foreign debt no longer hangs over Brazil like the blade of a guillotine.
What a monster!
But the magazine's real objection is that state spending is high and economic growth as other countries in Latin America. Ironically, the fastest growing in South America is in evil Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. But as real life improves for ordinary Brazilians, if not for foreign money men, I'm sorry if I don't seethe with outrage at Lula.
There certainly are more issues to tackle. Urban crime is rampant and the country's educational system needs improvement. And while the president is seen as personally incorruptible, several prominent members of his party have been shown to be otherwise. The constitution Lula inherited is a convulted mess and he's called for its reform.
But so far, he's off to a good start.
Unless your standard for judging presidents is how well they cater to financiers in New York and London.
The somewhat menacing title of the piece: 'Love Lula if you're poor, worry if you're not.'
Of course, helping the destitute is a pretty good strategy, both political and social, for the leader of the country with the world's greatest disparity between rich and poor.
From the cataclysmic title, you'd think he were some sort of Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez where he steals land or assaults judicial independence.
But his real crime, at least by reading the article, is being from the center-left.
According to The Economist, among the catacylsmic developments of Lula's first time:
-The poverty rate, as measured by the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a business school, fell from 28% of the population in 2003 to 23% last year
-While suppressing inflation and containing the deficit, he has transferred more cash to households, partly through the Family Fund, which helps the poor, but also through increases in the minimum wage, which raises publicly financed pensions.
-Instituted a Family Fund, a stipend of up to 95 reais a month that goes to parents who keep their children at school and take them for medical check-ups. The fund now reaches the poorest quarter of Brazil's population... the price of rice has “fallen a lot”, another boost to the family budget.
-Cash transfers have animated the economy of the poor north-east, where retail and wholesale trade jumped 15.6% in the year to July.
-His government has done several useful things, such as passing a bankruptcy law. A long-delayed measure to encourage the private financing of public works may at last yield results. And, after a shaky start, a new model for commissioning power generation is starting to show it can attract private capital to the electricity industry.
So his policies have reduced poverty for millions of citizens, increased trade and encouraged parents to seek education and health care for their children? By The Economist's own analysis, Lula has cut inflation, created jobs and kept the economy growing. Foreign debt no longer hangs over Brazil like the blade of a guillotine.
What a monster!
But the magazine's real objection is that state spending is high and economic growth as other countries in Latin America. Ironically, the fastest growing in South America is in evil Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. But as real life improves for ordinary Brazilians, if not for foreign money men, I'm sorry if I don't seethe with outrage at Lula.
There certainly are more issues to tackle. Urban crime is rampant and the country's educational system needs improvement. And while the president is seen as personally incorruptible, several prominent members of his party have been shown to be otherwise. The constitution Lula inherited is a convulted mess and he's called for its reform.
But so far, he's off to a good start.
Unless your standard for judging presidents is how well they cater to financiers in New York and London.
Friday, October 06, 2006
No integrity vs no ideas: is their another choice?
The party of national security and family values is turmoil as its house of cards finally comes crumbling down. This long overdue event has been triggered by two crises of its own making.
First came the explosive revelations from Bob Woodward. Arguably the most respected print journalist in America, Woodward's new book accuses the Bush administration of deliberately misled the American public as to the scale of the disaster in Iraq. He also accused the administration of intentionally withholding key intelligence from his allies in Britain.
Woodward's book says that insurgent attacks in Iraq are now running at a rate of about four an hour and that officials believe the situation will get worse next year.
This came a week after a leaked intelligence report concluded the self-evident (to everyone but the president and his apologists) conclusion that the Iraq debacle has worsened the terror threat.
Then, the Mark Foley scandal exploded. The GOP Congressman resigned after it was revealed that he was exchanging sexually explicit correspondances with young male pages. But the bigger scandal erupted when it was alleged that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was informed of Foley's conduct months ago. This allegation of a coverup was made not by the opposition Democrats but by two promiment members of Hastert's own Republican caucus, including his second in command.
So while most Americans are being made less safe by Republican policies, there is one group that's been protected by the GOP: Congressional pedophiles.
(At least until the media called them on it)
Of course the Democrats, with their record of kow-towing in craven complicity to Bush until it became politically expedient to do otherwise, are little better. Some Americans will limit themselves this November to a fake choice between massively corrupt ruling party and a substance-free former ruling party. If Americans aren't going to consider voting for a smaller party at this point in time, then will it ever happen?
First came the explosive revelations from Bob Woodward. Arguably the most respected print journalist in America, Woodward's new book accuses the Bush administration of deliberately misled the American public as to the scale of the disaster in Iraq. He also accused the administration of intentionally withholding key intelligence from his allies in Britain.
Woodward's book says that insurgent attacks in Iraq are now running at a rate of about four an hour and that officials believe the situation will get worse next year.
This came a week after a leaked intelligence report concluded the self-evident (to everyone but the president and his apologists) conclusion that the Iraq debacle has worsened the terror threat.
Then, the Mark Foley scandal exploded. The GOP Congressman resigned after it was revealed that he was exchanging sexually explicit correspondances with young male pages. But the bigger scandal erupted when it was alleged that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was informed of Foley's conduct months ago. This allegation of a coverup was made not by the opposition Democrats but by two promiment members of Hastert's own Republican caucus, including his second in command.
So while most Americans are being made less safe by Republican policies, there is one group that's been protected by the GOP: Congressional pedophiles.
(At least until the media called them on it)
Of course the Democrats, with their record of kow-towing in craven complicity to Bush until it became politically expedient to do otherwise, are little better. Some Americans will limit themselves this November to a fake choice between massively corrupt ruling party and a substance-free former ruling party. If Americans aren't going to consider voting for a smaller party at this point in time, then will it ever happen?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Hooray for high oil prices?
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Some environmentalists are thrilled by the relatively high price of oil. They see it as the only way to wean westerners off their addiction to cars. This view may be well-meaning but myopic. It presupposes that the only people affected by increased petroleum costs are upper middle class suburbanites in rich countries who could easily swap their gas-guzzler for a commuter train token with marginal inconvenience.
In reality, the people most harmed by high oil prices are in the developing world, as this VOA piece explores.
The effect in Senegal, for example, means lower energy generating capacity and thus power cuts. It means higher prices for passengers in public taxis and buses, which are the primary means of transport for most Senegalese. It means higher inflation and slower growth.
So the next time you smile with self-satisfaction about sticking it to SUV owners, just remember that they aren't being harmed anywhere near as much as African city dwellers and subsistence farmers who already can barely afford to make ends meat. Is that really anything to be smug about?
Some environmentalists are thrilled by the relatively high price of oil. They see it as the only way to wean westerners off their addiction to cars. This view may be well-meaning but myopic. It presupposes that the only people affected by increased petroleum costs are upper middle class suburbanites in rich countries who could easily swap their gas-guzzler for a commuter train token with marginal inconvenience.
In reality, the people most harmed by high oil prices are in the developing world, as this VOA piece explores.
The effect in Senegal, for example, means lower energy generating capacity and thus power cuts. It means higher prices for passengers in public taxis and buses, which are the primary means of transport for most Senegalese. It means higher inflation and slower growth.
So the next time you smile with self-satisfaction about sticking it to SUV owners, just remember that they aren't being harmed anywhere near as much as African city dwellers and subsistence farmers who already can barely afford to make ends meat. Is that really anything to be smug about?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
'Your fate is in the hands of a barely literate judge' and other tales of NNY justice
Remember that New York Times' series on New York state's dysfunctional court system?
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise offers a followup on the situation in northern New York counties.
Local judges, some of whom weren't even lawyers, complained about lack of training from the state and lack of resources.
Kevin Nichols, a lawyer from Malone, complained that a town justice in St. Lawrence County sent his client to jail in 1998 based on 'secret' evidence. A probation officer brought in documents to the courtroom to show the man had violated probation.
But when Nichols asked to examine the paperwork, as is the defense’s right, the judge refused, he said. 'When I pointed it out that it was inherently wrong in this country to send someone to jail based on secret government documents,' Nichols recalled, 'he told me to be quiet or he’d send me to jail in contempt of court.'
The basic problem is that the simple lack of qualified people willing to do the job. The village justice in Saranac Lake spends over 20 hours a week on cases but earns a mere $10,034 a year, notes The Enterprise.
A former public defender in Franklin County who served for 15 years, Alexander Lesyk, said he believes the law has gotten too complex leaving many justices ill-suited for their responsibilities. He said the judges he’s come across have run a wide spectrum, from thoughtful and fair, to those that seemed mentally unstable.
'The people who take the job, for the most part, take the job because they want to help the community,' Lesyk said, 'but that’s perhaps why we need to change the job. Because someone will get the job for no other reason than they’re willing to do it.
'Quite honestly, I have appeared in front of judges in Franklin County who had trouble reading,' Lesyk added.
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise offers a followup on the situation in northern New York counties.
Local judges, some of whom weren't even lawyers, complained about lack of training from the state and lack of resources.
Kevin Nichols, a lawyer from Malone, complained that a town justice in St. Lawrence County sent his client to jail in 1998 based on 'secret' evidence. A probation officer brought in documents to the courtroom to show the man had violated probation.
But when Nichols asked to examine the paperwork, as is the defense’s right, the judge refused, he said. 'When I pointed it out that it was inherently wrong in this country to send someone to jail based on secret government documents,' Nichols recalled, 'he told me to be quiet or he’d send me to jail in contempt of court.'
The basic problem is that the simple lack of qualified people willing to do the job. The village justice in Saranac Lake spends over 20 hours a week on cases but earns a mere $10,034 a year, notes The Enterprise.
A former public defender in Franklin County who served for 15 years, Alexander Lesyk, said he believes the law has gotten too complex leaving many justices ill-suited for their responsibilities. He said the judges he’s come across have run a wide spectrum, from thoughtful and fair, to those that seemed mentally unstable.
'The people who take the job, for the most part, take the job because they want to help the community,' Lesyk said, 'but that’s perhaps why we need to change the job. Because someone will get the job for no other reason than they’re willing to do it.
'Quite honestly, I have appeared in front of judges in Franklin County who had trouble reading,' Lesyk added.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Taking their eye off the ball
I'm no fan of the nativist brigade, to say the least. I think that if you believe in the free movement of goods and services across borders (aka: free trade) then that also implies accepting the free movement of people, since labor is a service. If you truly believe in free trade, you should reject all restrictions on who enters the country. There should be no such thing as illegal immigration from Mexico, a partner in the so-called North American Free Trade Agreement. As such, I believe the fence approved by Congress to separate the US and Mexico is a bad idea. It's a political solution, not a practical one.
That said, the reaction of the Mexican government is absurd. The Mexican Foreign Relations Department.sent a letter of protest to the US. Outgoing president Vicente Fox called the wall 'shameful.' His foreign secretary riducuously compared it to the Berlin Wall.
The AP noted Fox has spent his six years in office lobbying for a new guest worker program and an amnesty for the millions of Mexicans working illegally in the United States.
Yet it begs the question, why is the Mexican government so concerned with making sure its citizens CAN flee the country (the Berlin Wall having the opposite purpose)? Why does it want its labor force to go elsewhere?
Instead of contriving pseudo-nationalist fight with Washington, the conservative administration in Mexico City should focus more on improving the living standards of its people so they are less inclined to flee the country for economic reasons in the first place.
If the Mexican government worried more about poverty reduction, then maybe migration policy would take care of itself.
That said, the reaction of the Mexican government is absurd. The Mexican Foreign Relations Department.sent a letter of protest to the US. Outgoing president Vicente Fox called the wall 'shameful.' His foreign secretary riducuously compared it to the Berlin Wall.
The AP noted Fox has spent his six years in office lobbying for a new guest worker program and an amnesty for the millions of Mexicans working illegally in the United States.
Yet it begs the question, why is the Mexican government so concerned with making sure its citizens CAN flee the country (the Berlin Wall having the opposite purpose)? Why does it want its labor force to go elsewhere?
Instead of contriving pseudo-nationalist fight with Washington, the conservative administration in Mexico City should focus more on improving the living standards of its people so they are less inclined to flee the country for economic reasons in the first place.
If the Mexican government worried more about poverty reduction, then maybe migration policy would take care of itself.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Wire service follies
I've written several times (most recently here) about the 'we don't make news, we just report it' mainstream media's institutional bias against smaller parties in particular and outside-the-box views in general.
Ideologues claim there is a right-wing (or left-wing) bias in the media. But this is really more an attempt to shape the media than to analyze it. For years, the right claimed the media suffered from a 'liberal' bias. And the news media pushed toward the right in reaction. In fear of controversy. The left finally noticed that this was working and started attacking the media's 'conservative' bias, hoping that they can push it back.
This misses the point. The real bias of the corporate media is against non-traditional views. Let's be honest: Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky are as unlikely to get mentioned or interviewed on the networks as Pat Buchanan or the head of the infamous Minutemen jihadists. The media sees its job not to report or reflect all points of view or even most, but rather the ones a few inches on either side of the center. It wants predictability, not controversy.
One of the most egregious perpetrators of bias against smaller parties is the Associated Press. While the average citizen can turn to many TV channels, magazines and websites for national and international issues, most Americans get their information on state and regional issues from their local newspapers. While some major metropolitan newspapers do have their own reporter at the capital, most local newspapers rely on the Associated Press for coverage of state issues.
Since public perception of state issues is viewed almost entirely through the prism of the AP, whether their coverage is expansive or limited is a crucial question.
Here in New York, the AP has almost completely ignored the non-major party candidates running for state office. No mention of Green gubernatorial candidate Malachy McCourt or any of the other smaller party candidates. Most other media oulets have followed its lead.
The AP is running a weekly series of questions and answers with two (but not all) of the candidates for governor: Democrat Eliot Spitzer and Republican John Faso.
Presumably, they ignored the smaller party candidates because 'there wasn't enough room.'
Different papers ran different excerpted different versions of the piece but among the hard hitting questions answered by the two men:
-Who pays the house bills and balances the family check book?'
-What would you do about traffic congestion in and out of Long Island's Hamptons? (this segment was deemed relevant to its readers by a central NY paper!)
-Have you ever used marijuana?
So the AP didn't think readers would be interested to know what smaller party candidates thought about education funding, Iraq and dredging of the Hudson River. Yet the wire service magically found room to say that both men smoked pot but only one balanced his family's checkbook.
We certainly wouldn't want the beautiful people from suffering through those nasty traffic jams.
Ideologues claim there is a right-wing (or left-wing) bias in the media. But this is really more an attempt to shape the media than to analyze it. For years, the right claimed the media suffered from a 'liberal' bias. And the news media pushed toward the right in reaction. In fear of controversy. The left finally noticed that this was working and started attacking the media's 'conservative' bias, hoping that they can push it back.
This misses the point. The real bias of the corporate media is against non-traditional views. Let's be honest: Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky are as unlikely to get mentioned or interviewed on the networks as Pat Buchanan or the head of the infamous Minutemen jihadists. The media sees its job not to report or reflect all points of view or even most, but rather the ones a few inches on either side of the center. It wants predictability, not controversy.
One of the most egregious perpetrators of bias against smaller parties is the Associated Press. While the average citizen can turn to many TV channels, magazines and websites for national and international issues, most Americans get their information on state and regional issues from their local newspapers. While some major metropolitan newspapers do have their own reporter at the capital, most local newspapers rely on the Associated Press for coverage of state issues.
Since public perception of state issues is viewed almost entirely through the prism of the AP, whether their coverage is expansive or limited is a crucial question.
Here in New York, the AP has almost completely ignored the non-major party candidates running for state office. No mention of Green gubernatorial candidate Malachy McCourt or any of the other smaller party candidates. Most other media oulets have followed its lead.
The AP is running a weekly series of questions and answers with two (but not all) of the candidates for governor: Democrat Eliot Spitzer and Republican John Faso.
Presumably, they ignored the smaller party candidates because 'there wasn't enough room.'
Different papers ran different excerpted different versions of the piece but among the hard hitting questions answered by the two men:
-Who pays the house bills and balances the family check book?'
-What would you do about traffic congestion in and out of Long Island's Hamptons? (this segment was deemed relevant to its readers by a central NY paper!)
-Have you ever used marijuana?
So the AP didn't think readers would be interested to know what smaller party candidates thought about education funding, Iraq and dredging of the Hudson River. Yet the wire service magically found room to say that both men smoked pot but only one balanced his family's checkbook.
We certainly wouldn't want the beautiful people from suffering through those nasty traffic jams.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Left-wing comedy in Glens Falls
Local comedian John Briggs informs me that he will be bringing his show to Glens Falls.
Briggs and another former Tonight Show writer Mike Irwin will be presenting Left Wing Laughs at the newly renovated Park Theater at 14 Park St. (between the Civic Center and the Glens Falls Hospital). It will be held on Friday October 13 at 8:00 PM. Tickets at $12.
Observes Briggs: "The News Should Be Fair & Balanced. Comedy Should Have a Point of View."
For reservations, call the theater box office at 793-2600. You can also visit the Park St. Theatre website.
Briggs and another former Tonight Show writer Mike Irwin will be presenting Left Wing Laughs at the newly renovated Park Theater at 14 Park St. (between the Civic Center and the Glens Falls Hospital). It will be held on Friday October 13 at 8:00 PM. Tickets at $12.
Observes Briggs: "The News Should Be Fair & Balanced. Comedy Should Have a Point of View."
For reservations, call the theater box office at 793-2600. You can also visit the Park St. Theatre website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)