A word from the editor:

----->If it’s Ben & Balanced, then it’s reliable.

On this page, I will comment on recent and relevant world news and interesting articles pertaining to politics and media coverage. Even though everyone, including myself, is entitled to his or her opinions, I will try to be as fair and balanced as possible, and will strive to point to information that is not objective. There will be some praising, some bashing, and a lot of sarcasm... but mostly, there will be honesty.


Friday, May 6, 2011

Will Osama Help Obama?

Without a doubt, the most significant event of the week was the announcement of Obama’s death at the hand of the American Forces.  After ten long years, the individual responsible for 9/11 was finally found and shot.  This represents a great victory for the United States in its war against terrorism, and the news has been welcomed by the American people.
Indeed, Obama’s approval ratings went up, many media outlets, including Hannity on Fox News, entertained a positive coverage on the event and what it means to the USA.  Now I’m wondering whether this positive spirit will last.  Will Obama continue to benefit from that unexpected turn of events, or is it temporary?
If you would have asked me that question six months ago, I would have said this is temporary.  But given the unveiling of Obama’s long form birth certificate, and simultaneously Trump’s demise, I feel like the combination of the two may put Obama into a good position for 2012.  We shall keep a close eye on those poles.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Would Trump stand a chance?

Donald Trump seemed to be a popular candidate for a GOP nomination in the upcoming
Presidential elections. But will it still be the case now that Trump's most voiced
and popular topic has been exhausted? How will his fans and potential followers
react?

On one hand, the fact that Obama did release his long form birth certificate,
following the increasingly-hard-to-ignore concerns voiced by Trump, showed that the
successful businessman could indeed achieve something in just a few weeks that no
one else has been able to do in two and a half years. Trump himself humbly admitted
that during an interview on the very day of the document release, before Obama's own
public appearance, while freshly stepping out of his Trump-labeled chopper, and
congratulating himself for this proud victory. In the meantime, Fox News desperately
ponders why Obama did not disclose that document earlier.  Could it be a fake? After
all, Photoshop can do wonders nowadays. Is it true that the number sequence on that
document seems not to fit? Or as Steven Colbert revealed on the Colbert Report last
night, his mother's name is Stanley: is it a dude? In which case, who is his
biological dad? Are we even sure he is black man? And in that case, why are we
having this conversation in the first place?

On the other hand, the fact that Obama disclosed the long form birth certificate
effectively shuts the mouth of many doubters, including Trump who his now trying to
understand how the bad student that Obama was could end up attending HLS. Get over
it, affirmative action is legal, whether you agree with it or not. And who's to say
whether Obama would have needed affirmative action to get into Columbia and Harvard.
What would it bring to our current discussions? Actually, whether you agree with
Obama's policies or not, you have to admit the guy is smart. I would even argue that
patiently waiting for the right moment  to disclose the long form birth certificate,
assuming it's not a fake, was truly manipulative genius. Not only will this move
keep haters at bay while reinforcing the sentiment of injustice and hatred felt by
his most faithful subjects, but he also discredited Trump which could potentially be
a fierce adversary in the upcoming Presidential elections. Or can he now?

I'm not sure whether Donald is picking the right battles, even if he was following a
good lead as some argue. Making loud-but-short-term noise is like over-inflating a
balloon: it looks great, big and dominant  for a time, it looks better than the rest
of the balloons, and then it explodes, unable to contain itself, forgotten by
watchers, its contents dissipating into thin air. Maybe Trump should use his
pre-existing fame and credibility while sticking to non-conspiracy issues. As of
today, he's making yet another show, and I'm starting to believe that he is indeed
promoting his most precious TV show, The Apprentice.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

CC = Comedy Central (not Conservative Channel nor Coco Chanel)

After watching some clips of Jon Stuart and The Daily Show last class, I decided to check it out on my own—both on my computer for old episodes and one television for a live one.  I also watched The Colbert Report while I was at it.
I must say that there was much more information than I expected on The Daily Show, and I now comprehend the argument of some fellow classmates that Jon Stuart is a journalist.  I still hold my position that he is not, but I was even more surprised when, an hour later, Bill O’Reilly played a segment of The Daily show from that same day.  I must say that the segment was slightly taken out of context and if one watched the entire show, O’Reilly’s question—I won’t get into it—would have been dismissed on the spot.
Also, both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were less funny than I expected.  I think that it is crucial to watch those with a nice group of friends (like we do in class) and not too often.  These guys do not provide news, I think this is clear: they do a satiric commentary of the news, which can be truly appreciated only if one is informed and knows the actuality.  Meaning, get you facts straight, and then go have a good laugh on comedy Central (yeah, we shouldn’t forget the channel on which these two shows air).

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

The Mighty Adventures of Silverrock

As a result, many people hoped to see a revocation of the Goldstone report.  After all, the person after whom the report was named said: “We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” He also said: “We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.”
But instead of witnessing a general uproar and massive media coverage matching that of the original Goldstone Report, we saw a few shy articles hidden behind an impressive amount of redundant “first-page news.”  On CNN, there was not a single article mentioning the story on their first page.  I had to search for articles on the website in order to find this one: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/02/israel.goldstone.report/index.html?iref=allsearch#
Fox News was not much better.  At least an article was featured on the main page, but I really had to look for it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/04/investigator-admits-shortcomings-israel-supporters-push-recall-gaza-report/?test=latestnews#
I am not sure why we do not see a more extensive coverage of this mind-blowing turn of events.  There is even a rumor going on that the New York Times refused to publish the article mentioned above, and that’s why it appeared in the Washington Post: could that be true?  Wouldn’t that be totally scandalous?  When we stop to think about it, ethics would dictate that anyone who covered or talked about the original Goldstone report has a moral and professional responsibility to follow up with the story and keep the public informed about new information and turnarounds as they become available.  But apparently, ethical behavior is too Godly for our human mentality.  And if that wasn’t enough, the UN and London are against the cancellation of the Goldstone report (http://www.guysen.com/news_Londres-contre-l-annulation-du-rapport-Goldstone_308958.html and http://www.guysen.com/news_Le-Conseil-onusien-des-droits-de-l-homme-refuse-d-annuler-le-rapport-Goldstone_308951.html), even given the new information and opinion provided by Goldstone himself.  Is it me or does the whole thing just make no sense? One thing I know for sure: Silverrock caused a lot of trouble.  For no good reason.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Is there an echo here?

Over the past few days, I found it more and more difficult to get meaningful information from CNN and Fox News.  All the news seems to be about Qaddafi, Japan, and Syria; just have a look at the front page of these two websites: http://www.cnn.com/ and http://www.foxnews.com/.
Because of the redundant information we are fed on the main media channels, I decided to invest more time in reading Guysen News International.  On this website, you can read pure information, in real time, in chronological order: http://www.guysen.com/en/.   CNN and Fox News keep on telling us the same things over and over again about nuclear radiations and NATO taking over the “humanitarian mission” and we are getting the false impression that nothing else big is happening the world.  I want news, not a 3-4 stories daily feed that sounds like I’m too stupid to integrate more information.  The advantage of Guysen News is that it doesn’t give opinion or an analysis of the news: it provides the reader with raw news, and we are free to interpret it however we want, and there is less chance of a bias in this way.  You should check it out.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Who are we defending?

When President Obama argued for a no-fly zone in Libya, he said that it was for humanitarian reasons, to save civilians from a terrible oppressor.  It struck me as weird that we seemed to be that concerned about the welfare of civilians in Libya when there are plenty of other countries—such as Iran—where civilian protestors are mistreated by the army.
As soon as Kaddafi’s headquarters got bombarded, the vast majority of news channels jumped to the conclusion that either the French or the British were responsible for firing these missiles and that the US had nothing to do with it.  But the problem is that the French and the British are operating under US command—under Obama’s command.  It seems totally hypocritical to point at your allies and proclaim: “it is them, not us!!!”  Moreover, just a few days after the facts, Obama declared that getting rid of Kaddafi was a priority.  Wait… I thought we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, for the sake of the people, and that we had no business in the interior affairs of a foreign country.
Consequently, I am deeply worried about two things.  First, since when can we just intervene in a foreign country that is experiencing civil unrest?  This is not genocide, nor is it mass murdering: it’s civil war, and it happens.  So what’s next?  What could stop the UN to implement a no-fly zone over Israel with the excuse that it is exercises excessive force over the Gaza strip.  Now that a precedent has been set, what could possibly stop the allied forces of the West to make Israel their own business, just as they are now doing with Libya?  The second thing that worries me has been voiced by a few people over the past few days.  That question is pretty straight forward: who are we really helping?  The problem with the current protests plaguing the Middle East is that nobody knows for sure who is fighting the establishment.  And more and more indications point to Islamist organizations.  True, Kaddafi is a bad guy; he committed terrible crimes, both against his people and against other countries.  But for the past few years, he has actually been trying to fit in with the West, stopped his nuclear program and attempted to join various international institutions by making further concessions.  We knew who we dealt with, knew what to expect.  But now, who are we helping rise to power by weakening Kaddafi?  Is it the Muslim Brotherhood?  Al Qaeda?  Perhaps our old little secular Kaddafi was actually effective in keeping Islamic forces at bay.  Are we helping our future enemies rise to power?  Why enter the realm of the unknown, with so many unanswered questions, when we had tangible facts in the previous state of affairs?
So I’m worried; worried about Obama’s decisions and the way he by-passed Congress; worried about the West and its involvement in another country's interior affairs; worried about what’s coming next in and after Libya.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

No news!

It is Thursday, March 17, 2011 and I can’t even see a headline about the Fogel family.  The only headline I found with regards to Israel on Fox News was “UK urges Israel to return to peace talks” (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/17/uk-urges-israel-return-peace-talks/#) where William Hague—Britain’s foreign secretary—voices concerns to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak with regards to settlement construction in the West Bank, settlements that “run contrary to peace” according to Hague.  I find this incredible; not a week has passed since the terrible murders of the Fogels, and we are already back on the theory that it is the settlements that are undermined the peace process.  A hundred years from now, historians and students will be at a loss to understand that, I am sure.
On the CNN website, it is worse, true story.  No mention of Israel at all on the main page.   If we venture under the “world” tab, the 4th top world story read “Netanyahu on Japan and nuclear power,” a video where Netanyahu worries about having nuclear plants in Israel and announces that Israel will not develop nuclear energy for civilian use (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/17/exp.piers.morgan.netanyahu.japan.cnn).  But if you keep on scrolling down and reach the end of the page, you will find another article about Israel.  There is nothing about the family that was slaughtered less than a week ago in Israel, of course not.  Rather, there is an article about the interception of a weapon shipment, originating from Iran, which was bond to reach Gaza.  That’s a good consolation!

Saturday, March 12, 2011

“Three Year Old Stabbed in the Heart, Baby's Throat Slashed” VS “Israeli family of 5 killed in 'terror attack,' military says”

One article reads “Three Year Old Stabbed in the Heart, Baby's Throat Slashed” while the other says “Israeli family of 5 killed in 'terror attack,' military says”
The first headline comes from an article in Arutz Sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142843 while the other was featured on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/12/west.bank.family.killed/index.html?hpt=T2#
There are many inconsistencies between the two articles, and I find that there is a serious spin in the CNN article.  Just look at the headline: “killed in ‘terror attack’ military says.”  Oh, so it’s according to the military, meaning other people have a different view and this is only one side of the story.  Or maybe the fact that the military says it is in itself a source of unreliability; after all, there are a bunch of killers themselves.  And then we see ‘terror attack’ in quotes.  Seriously? What is it if it’s not a terror attack?  The fence was jumped, intruders came, and footsteps lead to a neighboring Arab village: “military trackers discovered footprints leading to the Arab village of Avrata,” says the Israeli article; this was not a mere killing!  This was a massacre of innocents, a terror attack by cowards who kill children reading in bed, babies in their cribs, and parents sleeping. 
In the CNN article, we talk about “an intruder.”  A little further down, we read that “more than one person may have carried out the crime.”  This is widely different from the “Fatah ‘Freedom Fighters’” described in the Israeli article.  The Israeli article tells us the murders were carried out by terrorists (and please note the plural), while the other article put the terms “terrorist attack” in quotes.  This is absurd. 
Now I ask you, what would have happened if it had been a Palestinian family?  What would the situation be if it had happened in an Arab village?  I’ll tell you: there would have been outrage, protests, cries from governmental agencies around the world, boycotts, bashing of Israel and the IDF, maybe even a kind of new Goldstone Report, who knows.  Where are all the people so keen to show outrage when the Israelis buy land in East Jerusalem to make hotels or residential buildings?  Where are all the individuals that claim to want justice and peace in the Middle East and are so upset about the Israeli security checkpoints?  The title of that CNN article is upsetting, to say the least.  We do not get outrage; we get "quotes."

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Is Saudi Arabia next?

This article by Caroline Glick is very enlightening with regards to the Middle Eastern state of Affairs, and kind of scary.  It depicts a new Middle East where Iran has a stronger voice and can now openly criticize the Saudis and their policies to stabilize the price of oil by producing more.  She also announces that some protests are schedule to take place in Saudi Arabia, despite the efforts make by the Saudi royal family “to literally buy off its opponents by showering its subjects with billions of dollars in new subsidies and payoffs” and by arresting Tawfiq al-Amir who on February 25 “delivered a sermon calling for the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy.”  Also, Iran is said to be a driving force behind the protest in the Middle East, information that has been confirmed by Hillary Clinton last Tuesday.  Carolina Glick says in this article that “Iranian officials, Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists and other Iranian agents have played pivotal roles in the anti-regime movements in Yemen and Bahrain. Their operations are the product of Iran's long running policy of developing close ties to opposition figures in these countries as well as in Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Morocco.” She then points out to the policies of the Obama administration with regards to the conflicts, and voices her concerns about the inaptitude and the wrong conclusions reached by the current American government, which can hinder a liberal movement in the Middle East instead of helping it.

Friday, March 4, 2011

State of Affairs in Libya

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/04/libya.conflict/index.html?hpt=T2#

In some places the reporters are not allowed.  In other places, tens of civilians are seriously wounded and are waiting for help.  Trucks full of gunmen are riding through the cities while more and more people are fleeing the country.  This is what Libya looks like right now, and I can’t help but think this is not democracy that is emerging.  Doctors, ambulances and civilians are shot at and die in great numbers every day; the government is definitely not the sole target of the protestors.

Fake oil prices!

Because of the turmoil taking place in Libya, we have recently observed an upward surge in oil prices here in the United States. Media outlets seem to find this correlation between an unstable Libya and rising oil prices as something natural and expected. However, I think this is far from the truth for one simple reason: Libya accounts for only 2% of the worldwide production of oil.
If the oil production in Libya is stalled for whatever political, social, or economical reason, it doesn't make sense for oil prices to increase like what we saw a week ago in the US. Moreover, Saudi Arabia pledged to compensate for any shortage in oil caused by the recent troubles plaguing the Middle East. Therefore, these facts lead me to believe that oil producers are taking advantage of the political climate to increase their margins. I can't understand why we don't hear about this theory on major news channel. It seems like they are all willing to accept a simplified version of the truth: uncertainty and instability leads to higher prices.  For my part, I think this is not a satisfactory answer.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Deep throat was the best…


Glad I caught your attention with this reference to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandal!


Last week, we spoke in class about the prevalence of scandals that plagued or are currently plaguing the political scene and its widespread coverage in the media. 

Many of these scandals involve sexual misconduct and other related personal matters that might not directly, if at all, impact the leadership positions and the work carried out by elected officials under scrutiny. Indeed, last class, I was left wondering about such media coverage, which led me to cry out: "who cares?!" Who cares what people do in their private lives?!!

Private life is private by definition, and what elected officials do in a bedroom should be of no concern to us as voters or as people. As long as their private life doesn't negatively impact their work ethics or performance on the job, I truly believe that it is none of my business to know that an elected official cheated on his or her spouse with an attractive young intern.

At that point, Professor Adler rightly pointed out that I am French, which could explain my position on the matter. Aside from the gap dividing the European and American cultures, our political experiences are not the same. From a cultural standpoint I could refer you to the movie "Eurotrip" which quite accurately depicts a few differences between what some describe as "the American puritan culture" and the "open" European society.

That being said, Professor Adler explained that the Watergate scandal, among other things, had a profound and lasting impact on the American political scene and altered the public opinion with regards to the expectations and values an elected official must embody. However, despite the fact that I understand this difference in political experience and find some value in this explanation, I think that it cannot completely account for that thirst among the American public for fresh gossip.

For a long time, I have observed a shift in media coverage and subjects of discussion among various social groups, ranging from college students on various campuses to adult professionals sharing news over dinner. Gossip is now prevalent in our discussions and occupies a primordial place during our social interactions, which leads me to think that our media coverage is not a cause but rather a result of what society demands.

From TV reality to Facebook, we enjoy observing others interact in social circles outside our own. Therefore, the fact that many people enjoy "stalking" our most celebrated political rock stars would not be a consequence of past disturbing events, but instead would culminate from a modern societal problem where people are more concerned about the life of strangers than about their own.

For that reason, I believe that our current media coverage is not to blame. Newspapers are trying to sell and compete against various online blogs, often depicting strong and one-sided point of views, while TV newscasters are trying to survive amidst a sea of ridicule and counter-productive shows. The day on which the people will change their priorities and demand NEWS, the media outlets will be forced to comply and supply the demand.

Mere coincidence?

Are the outbreaks of violence across the Middle East linked to each other?  Indeed, one may be left pondering, just as I am, as to why all these outbursts of violence are declaring themselves now. Why now? What's special about 2011? And all these protests seem to have little in common (aside from their respective oppressors). When revolutions erupted in European countries to overthrow monarchs, it didn't happen simultaneously all across Europe! I feel comfortable in saying that no one, after watching the French, wanted to experience what revolution felt like.
But when political analysts or anchors like Glenn Beck point to this phenomenon, they are ridiculed and put on the spot as believing in conspiracies or other theories deemed crazy.  First of all, is it crazy to speak about conspiracies?  It seems that the word itself has a negative connotation, one that is avoided in the media.  It would actually be scary to imagine that all this mayhem is caused by a particular group for a specific purpose.  It would mean that some non-governmental groups are more powerful than some governments.
But the truth and the matter is that we do not even need to enter this speculative realm to realize that it cannot be a mere coincidence.  Many have dealt with this issue by saying that these protests are contagious.  For these people it seems that in 2011, the oppressed people suddenly took matter into their own hands and found the power to stand up against oppressors and dictators.  But the question remains: why now?  Furthermore, it is not because Tunisia found the strength to overthrow Ben Ali that suddenly Libya would have the same power against Kaddafi.  Even if we accept the idea that unrest engenders more unrest, even across borders, there are so many factors that enter the equation in order to make the protests possible that it seems unlikely everyone suddenly had the same means to achieve their goals.  People who protest cannot work, so they must get money from somewhere.  Weapons aren’t free either.  And to destabilize a government tightly protected by arm forces, you generally need more than people shouting with signs in the street: you need insiders at all level of the bureaucracy and government, and that is not something that can happen overnight.
My point is that I do not think these protests are random or unrelated.  Why aren’t there more discussions about this on the news?

Thursday, February 17, 2011

A new kind of Watchdog Journalism?

We discussed in class the fact that watchdog journalism is declining… or is it maybe the end of Watchdog Journalism as we know it?
Indeed, polarization is gaining in strength: there are news outlets that promote a liberal point of view on one hand and some that promote a conservative point of view on the other.  Even though such polarization may have a negative effect on the American political life and may even hinder public debates – by promoting extreme opinions and by shutting out any idea that doesn’t belong to one’s political ideology – it may nonetheless generate a new kind of scrutiny involving one party consistently checking on the other.  This new kind of watchdog journalism has been seen most recently with the “battle” between some reporters on Fox News – such as Sean Hannity – and the Obama administration.  This would probably emerge as well on CNN and MSNBC if a Republican candidate were to win the upcoming presidential elections.  Even though some of the ideas promoted will seem far-fetched to some, investigative journalism will take place, and the public will have access to a media that critically observes the government on a regular basis.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The news.. a word of mouth


http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/15/iran.protests/index.html?hpt=T1#
I was reading this article today on cnn.com where I recognized the role of YouTube in importing chaos across borders.  In the article, it was mentioned that videos “showed throngs of demonstrators marching, burning posters of Ayatollah Ali [Khomeini] and in one instance beating a man who appeared to try to remove a poster from the hands of protesters.”  These kinds of videos can be exchanged from phone to phone without the use of the internet, by Bluetooth for instance.  So people within Iran know what is happening, and the videos can escape Iran to inform the world.  Other videos “showed police in riot gear pursuing dozens of people running away from the baton-wielding officers,” and “similar protests going on in other cities in Iran such as Shiraz and Isfahan.”
But the interesting part is that the protests in Iran probably started (in my mind there is no question) because of the riots in Tunisia, successfully overthrowing Ben-Ali, which triggered the protests in Egypt to get rid of Mubarak.  Now that protests erupted in Iran, regardless of the actual outcome or scope of these protests, I am left wondering which country is next…