The weblog of Christiaan Briggs
Blossom Goodchild, the scammer who claimed aliens were coming to town on 14 October, now has her own Wikipedia page.
I can see the point of recording it, considering the number of people she hoodwinked, but I wonder how many more book sales she’ll receive as a result of a dedicated webpage on Wikipedia.
U.S. to Fund Pro-American Publicity in Iraqi Media
The Defense Department will pay private U.S. contractors in Iraq up to $300 million over the next three years to produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to “engage and inspire” the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government.
I love how they refer to it as “Pro-American Publicity.”
Bush Junior at today’s UN meeting invoking, I kid you not, the UN Charter:
The United Nations charter sets forth the equal rights of nations large and small. Russia’s invasion of Georgia was a violation of those words.
Bwahhh… haha! He’s not seriously suggesting that UN bollocks about justice means anything these days is he?
Ben Kuchera, of Ars Technica, writes about the relationship between game software developers and game reviewers, and the mechanisms each have at their disposal to manipulate the other, namely paid advertising and access to information.
It’s a good practical example of some of mechanisms that corrupt a “free press” in a capitalist society and, of course, similar mechanisms are at play with governments and news media.
The writer says there is no easy solution except for reader beware. He’s correct, there is no solution under capitalism, because it’s an inherent problem of capitalism. The only proposed solution I know of is under a different economy.
Update, 7 Sep 2008: Here’s a recent example of a politician doing the same thing. i.e. manipulating news media by withholding access to information, thus ultimately lowering the ability of the targeted new media organisation to make profits.
Davis insisted that “there are no strings attached” to media access to McCain. Yet just this week, McCain abruptly canceled an interview with Larry King as punishment for a tough CNN interview with one of his spokesmen. What’s more, top McCain aide Mark Salter said that “only the good reporters” would get the best seats in the new campaign plane. “You have to earn it,” he said.
Update, 22 Sep 2008: Changed Parecon link from Wikipedia to Znet.
As an aside: the only politicians I know of that don’t deplore democracy are the Greens.
The background story, if you haven’t heard, is that National Party politicians have been secretly taped admitting that they need to say whatever it takes to get elected, then, once in power, they can get their real agenda through of redistributing the New Zealand people’s wealth to a tiny minority of rich. Here’s Bill English’s and here’s Lockwood Smith’s.
What’s remarkable about the Herald’s editorial isn’t simply that it tries to spin the story by pretending National is simply “compromising on its desired policies,” rather than that National is actually lying about its policies so it can drive them through once it’s in power:
The country now knows, if it did not before, that National has compromised some of its policy desires for the sake of its electoral prospects.
It isn’t simply that uncovering a party’s real agenda—something of vital public interest in the run up to an election—is dismissed as ”partisan politics”:
First, it is not fair to release a reporter’s tape or transcript unless … the recording could serve a public interest somewhat more compelling than partisan politics.
It isn’t simply that it admits the means of reporting on politicians is broken:
Second, the publication would damage the gathering of further information. Once bitten, a public figure is twice shy.
It isn’t simply that it admits to keeping secrets:
Nothing revealed from National’s conference sneak so far offers insights to its intentions that could not have been obtained by a journalist trusted to use a private conversation responsibly.
No, what I find remarkable about this editorial is that by putting forward this argument it is openly admitting that it can be trusted by politicians but can’t be trusted by its readers and that it is completely ineffectual in doing the job of reporting politics.
External links:
Gotcha! | 4 August, 2008
Choosing words | 5 August, 2008
Whoops, they did it again | 6 August, 2008
The Herald supports secrecy | 7 August, 2008
Recent Comments