Obama and the Giffords shooting in Arizona: newyorker.com
As always, Hendrick Hertzberg offers a thoughtful commentary. By now, of course, there has been time to reflect. And as he says, "The atmosphere smelled cleaner in the days after Obama said what he said. Something had changed. And when it fades, as it must, perhaps the memory of it will leave us all in a better place than where it found us".
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/01/24/110124taco_talk_hertzberg#ixzz1BZZrWjSB
Thursday 20 January 2011
Thursday 13 January 2011
Domestic concerns
As a World Service junkie, I probably suffer from an overload of 24/7 news. Even so, the WS does provide a counterbalance to the largely domestic focus of the UK news, and today the news focus in various media sources is a reminder of how, ultimately, the news tends to be largely domestic in its concerns.
President Obama's Tuscon speech is featured on the BBC News web site, and it is reported in three of the quality dailies: the Guardian,The Independent and The Telegraph (I didn't bother with the Times as it is now behind a pay wall). But, it doesn't receive much in the way of commentary in the UK media, although there was quite a long item on it on the Radio 4 Today programme. In fact, the focus of the UK media today is the by-election up north, whose results will be the subject of minute examination in the context if the coallition government.
In comparison, the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/] as might be expected devotes a lot of space, both reportage and commentary, to the President's Tuscon visit and speech. The discrepancy of focus between the UK and US press highlights the essentially domestic nature of these various events. What goes on in American politics seems to foreign observers to be America's business, which makes the character of political rhetoric seem even more exotic. Just as the vox pop interviews of Americans and samples of shock jock radio that appear on UK TV seem like samples of curiously alien cultural practices.
But, the effects of such cultural -- and political -- practices don't just stop at the shores of the USA. Just as the rabid extremes of political rhetoric are not without wider effects, however indirect. So, while the Oldham by-election will take centre stage in tomorrow's news, what continues to nag me is the international implications of the aftermath of the Tuscon shootings.
President Obama's Tuscon speech is featured on the BBC News web site, and it is reported in three of the quality dailies: the Guardian,The Independent and The Telegraph (I didn't bother with the Times as it is now behind a pay wall). But, it doesn't receive much in the way of commentary in the UK media, although there was quite a long item on it on the Radio 4 Today programme. In fact, the focus of the UK media today is the by-election up north, whose results will be the subject of minute examination in the context if the coallition government.
In comparison, the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/] as might be expected devotes a lot of space, both reportage and commentary, to the President's Tuscon visit and speech. The discrepancy of focus between the UK and US press highlights the essentially domestic nature of these various events. What goes on in American politics seems to foreign observers to be America's business, which makes the character of political rhetoric seem even more exotic. Just as the vox pop interviews of Americans and samples of shock jock radio that appear on UK TV seem like samples of curiously alien cultural practices.
But, the effects of such cultural -- and political -- practices don't just stop at the shores of the USA. Just as the rabid extremes of political rhetoric are not without wider effects, however indirect. So, while the Oldham by-election will take centre stage in tomorrow's news, what continues to nag me is the international implications of the aftermath of the Tuscon shootings.
Wednesday 12 January 2011
Blood Libel, Mrs Palin and Mr Diamond
That mistress of understated political discourse, Sarah Palin, has now produced a smooth talking to camera statement in which she attempts to turn the criticism of the kind of inflamatory language used by herself and others of like mind against her critics by invoking the term 'blood libel'. In doing so, she seems to me to demonstrate precisely the kind of distorted and hectoring language for which she is being so justly criticised. The tone of American political debate produced by the right wing is well and truly off the scale as far as many observers outside American are concerned. Even in Australian political debate, notorious for its robustness, there is little to match the extremism so common in American political discourse.
Without harking back to a prelapsarian golden age of politeness and even deference in public discourse, I think it's possible to discern a ratcheting up (or down, depending on your perspective) in the range of violent language used in American political debate. This is nothing to do with robust discussion and argument, but has a lot to do with stoking up emotion and confirming allegiance to an extreme position.
When, within weeks of 9/11, I was in the USA working with a group of people from the former Soviet bloc, I was both struck and dismayed by the quality of discussion on mainstream US TV. One day in a coffee break, we discussed what we were witnessing on TV, and one member of the group expressed a widely agreed thought: 'It is propaganda'. And this was a group of people who had, until quite recently, spent their lives deconstructing propaganda so they certainly knew propaganda when they met it!
The American media are, thanks to the dismantling of regulatory controls, under no obligation to present a balanced viewpoint on any issue. This has given a carte blanche to the purveyors of propaganda -- of either political extreme -- only, of course, it is right wing interests who largely control the media. So, that guardian of free speech and open political debate, Rupert Murdoch, is secure in his business as well as political interests in running Fox News, whose trademark slogan, 'Fair & Balanced', is evidently taken at face value by an alarmingly high percentage of viewers. (In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News, and only 37% distrusting it -- source Wikipedia).
In effect, strange political/celebrity creatures like Mrs Palin have access to and support from a major source of propaganda masquerading as news. At its most extreme, these right wing forums not only purvey propaganda, but do so using language and expressing attitudes which contribute both to a coarsening of political discourse and to a normalizing of extreme views and forms of expression. No doubt, Mrs Palin is correct to claim that the Tuscon murderer was not persuaded to carry out his shooting by such language and views, but equally, Mrs Palin cannot simply accuse her critics as promoters of a blood libel. The accusation is as obscene as it is spurious. But I doubt that the viewers of Fox news will think so.
Meanwhile, the boss of Barclays bank was faced with some pretty robust questioning when he appeared before the Treasury select committee. Unlike the Royal Bank of Scotland and several other banks, Barclays wasn't bailed out by the taxpayer in the big bank meltdown, so Mr Diamond felt entitled both to his £8million bonus and to adopting a pretty bare faced rebuttal of the criticism levelled at him for taking such a huge bonus.
What is reprehensible is not merely that he is being awarded (or awarding himself) such a bonus. It is. rather that, as was pointed out by a financial expert on this morning's 'Today Programme', neither Mr Diamond nor his over compensated team have done much to secure shareholder value for Barclays shareholders. I checked out the evidence: on 14 January 2000, Barclays shares opened at 398, and ten years later, on 31 December 2010, closed at 361.65, with huge fluctuations in between, but mostly in the past several years, trading at less than the opening value in January 2000. So, what is Mr Diamond getting a bonus for? It's time for a revolt by Barclays shareholders (many of whom are insurance companies and pension funds).
So, in both banking and right wing politics there is a level of deceit and self interest which is truly staggering. Not so much 'blood libel' as 'bloody libel' and barefaced greed.
Without harking back to a prelapsarian golden age of politeness and even deference in public discourse, I think it's possible to discern a ratcheting up (or down, depending on your perspective) in the range of violent language used in American political debate. This is nothing to do with robust discussion and argument, but has a lot to do with stoking up emotion and confirming allegiance to an extreme position.
When, within weeks of 9/11, I was in the USA working with a group of people from the former Soviet bloc, I was both struck and dismayed by the quality of discussion on mainstream US TV. One day in a coffee break, we discussed what we were witnessing on TV, and one member of the group expressed a widely agreed thought: 'It is propaganda'. And this was a group of people who had, until quite recently, spent their lives deconstructing propaganda so they certainly knew propaganda when they met it!
The American media are, thanks to the dismantling of regulatory controls, under no obligation to present a balanced viewpoint on any issue. This has given a carte blanche to the purveyors of propaganda -- of either political extreme -- only, of course, it is right wing interests who largely control the media. So, that guardian of free speech and open political debate, Rupert Murdoch, is secure in his business as well as political interests in running Fox News, whose trademark slogan, 'Fair & Balanced', is evidently taken at face value by an alarmingly high percentage of viewers. (In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News, and only 37% distrusting it -- source Wikipedia).
In effect, strange political/celebrity creatures like Mrs Palin have access to and support from a major source of propaganda masquerading as news. At its most extreme, these right wing forums not only purvey propaganda, but do so using language and expressing attitudes which contribute both to a coarsening of political discourse and to a normalizing of extreme views and forms of expression. No doubt, Mrs Palin is correct to claim that the Tuscon murderer was not persuaded to carry out his shooting by such language and views, but equally, Mrs Palin cannot simply accuse her critics as promoters of a blood libel. The accusation is as obscene as it is spurious. But I doubt that the viewers of Fox news will think so.
Meanwhile, the boss of Barclays bank was faced with some pretty robust questioning when he appeared before the Treasury select committee. Unlike the Royal Bank of Scotland and several other banks, Barclays wasn't bailed out by the taxpayer in the big bank meltdown, so Mr Diamond felt entitled both to his £8million bonus and to adopting a pretty bare faced rebuttal of the criticism levelled at him for taking such a huge bonus.
What is reprehensible is not merely that he is being awarded (or awarding himself) such a bonus. It is. rather that, as was pointed out by a financial expert on this morning's 'Today Programme', neither Mr Diamond nor his over compensated team have done much to secure shareholder value for Barclays shareholders. I checked out the evidence: on 14 January 2000, Barclays shares opened at 398, and ten years later, on 31 December 2010, closed at 361.65, with huge fluctuations in between, but mostly in the past several years, trading at less than the opening value in January 2000. So, what is Mr Diamond getting a bonus for? It's time for a revolt by Barclays shareholders (many of whom are insurance companies and pension funds).
So, in both banking and right wing politics there is a level of deceit and self interest which is truly staggering. Not so much 'blood libel' as 'bloody libel' and barefaced greed.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
Empathy
The news from Queensland has not been good for the past two weeks or more, with serious and extensive floods in Central Queensland, effectively trashing a major agricultural region while also bringing to a halt the mining and export of around 25% of the world's coking coal. Terrible and disastrous as these floods have been -- and in fact, they are still covering huge areas of the state -- the most recent floods in Toowoomba and now in Ipswich and Brisbane have hit a vein of empathy prompted by few other natural catastrophes. Why?
Undoubtedly it is because I know people involved, have managed to Skype one friend near Toowoomba (in the misnamed Highfields -- height has not proved to be a protection against these floods), and have had a very affecting e-mail from friends in an outer suburb of Brisbane saying that they have had to take refuge in a nearby church (presumably a designated refuge centre) as their house is threatened with being engulfed by the flood when it peaks on Thursday.
This news has had a very unsettling effect because it is only recently that I was staying with or visiting the friends involved, and was passing through the areas and the town -- Toowoomba -- where the flash floods have occurred with such terrible effect. I know the house which has been flooded in Highfields, and to which our friend only shifted from Brisbane a few months before, and in November, I was staying with the friends now in the flood refuge. Their house. while near the Brisbane River, had always seemed to me to be comfortably above river level, which was many feet below the riverside ramble which I occasionally took while staying there. In fact, it now transpires that the flood level is so enormously above the levels I have observed in happier times that it is virtually impossible to comprehend the scale of it. Except that I know that if it really does hit the 25 metres or so above normal that is predicted. my friends' house will surely be flooded.
And I am aghast at the prospect of trying to cope. How to remove precious belongings and. what is even more pressing, where to store them safely? How to handle the prospect of sitting helplessly by while one's house is trashed by the overwhelming force of the flood? And how to consider the prospect of having to re-establish normal life again?
So, with a first hand knowledge of the areas being flooded, and with a stake in the safety and well being of friends, a deeper seam of empathy has been mined than has emerged in response to equally or more tragic disasters -- the Haiti earthquake is one that comes to mind. I suppose it demonstrates how significant -- even vital -- personal experience and affection are in discovering a capacity for empathy and sympathy with the victims of these events. Not, really, an uplifting discovery, but, a sadly pragmatic one. Meanwhile, we monitor the news with anxiety -- and empathy.
Undoubtedly it is because I know people involved, have managed to Skype one friend near Toowoomba (in the misnamed Highfields -- height has not proved to be a protection against these floods), and have had a very affecting e-mail from friends in an outer suburb of Brisbane saying that they have had to take refuge in a nearby church (presumably a designated refuge centre) as their house is threatened with being engulfed by the flood when it peaks on Thursday.
This news has had a very unsettling effect because it is only recently that I was staying with or visiting the friends involved, and was passing through the areas and the town -- Toowoomba -- where the flash floods have occurred with such terrible effect. I know the house which has been flooded in Highfields, and to which our friend only shifted from Brisbane a few months before, and in November, I was staying with the friends now in the flood refuge. Their house. while near the Brisbane River, had always seemed to me to be comfortably above river level, which was many feet below the riverside ramble which I occasionally took while staying there. In fact, it now transpires that the flood level is so enormously above the levels I have observed in happier times that it is virtually impossible to comprehend the scale of it. Except that I know that if it really does hit the 25 metres or so above normal that is predicted. my friends' house will surely be flooded.
And I am aghast at the prospect of trying to cope. How to remove precious belongings and. what is even more pressing, where to store them safely? How to handle the prospect of sitting helplessly by while one's house is trashed by the overwhelming force of the flood? And how to consider the prospect of having to re-establish normal life again?
So, with a first hand knowledge of the areas being flooded, and with a stake in the safety and well being of friends, a deeper seam of empathy has been mined than has emerged in response to equally or more tragic disasters -- the Haiti earthquake is one that comes to mind. I suppose it demonstrates how significant -- even vital -- personal experience and affection are in discovering a capacity for empathy and sympathy with the victims of these events. Not, really, an uplifting discovery, but, a sadly pragmatic one. Meanwhile, we monitor the news with anxiety -- and empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)