Sunday, September 04, 2005
US media sick of lies, Arab media what?
Some US media is starting to justify and contextualize the New Orleans “looting.”
What do you think OCCUPATION and WAR do to the “human dynamic” then? Perhaps people can understand and empathize now? Compare 5 days in New Orleans to 50+ years in Palestine and x number of years in Iraq. That’s what irks me about US media coverage. They are willing to contextualize and humanize the reactions of “human beings” here, but not over there, in the land of scary Islam and beautiful democratic Israel.
This is not to undermine the commendable drive by the media to hold officials accountable for their laxity and disconnect from reality in their response to Katrina. But when journalists in the Arab world, " sick of official lies and stonewalling, finally start snarling" because "the only way to get the story is by getting mad," they are accused of sensationalism. Here they transform themselves "into the voice of the disenfranchised."
Perhaps now we understand?
It's clear from the comments of the president, the governor, the FEMA director, and the secretary of homeland security that they never planned for this. I don't mean that they failed to anticipate the magnitude of the flooding; we knew that already. I mean that they have no idea how easily a natural disaster can turn human beings into a second-wave destructive force. They don't understand that disasters often bring out the worst in us, that the human dynamics are collective, and that "responsibility" is quickly swamped. If you don't understand these dynamics, you can't plan for them…
What do you think OCCUPATION and WAR do to the “human dynamic” then? Perhaps people can understand and empathize now? Compare 5 days in New Orleans to 50+ years in Palestine and x number of years in Iraq. That’s what irks me about US media coverage. They are willing to contextualize and humanize the reactions of “human beings” here, but not over there, in the land of scary Islam and beautiful democratic Israel.
This is not to undermine the commendable drive by the media to hold officials accountable for their laxity and disconnect from reality in their response to Katrina. But when journalists in the Arab world, " sick of official lies and stonewalling, finally start snarling" because "the only way to get the story is by getting mad," they are accused of sensationalism. Here they transform themselves "into the voice of the disenfranchised."
Perhaps now we understand?
Comments:
<< Home
During his press conference on "Al-Manar" (a.k.a. Hizbull-Persian-Deity TV) yesterday evening, the cruel Kurdish warlord of Bayt-el-Din added yet another outlandish statement to his long list of pearls of twisted wisdom:
“…our beloved friend martyr sheikh Rafik Al-Hariri, may Allah have mercy upon him, single-handedly defeated the 1982 Israeli-Lebanese treaty that president Reagan and various Christian collaborators tried to impose on our country...” [sic]
Talk about historic revisionism!
No wonder Waleed Jumblatt is a self-proclaimed admirer of “scientific socialism”: the man would have done a great job at the head of the Ministry of Truth under the reign of comrade Jo Stalin…
Dr Victorino de la Vega
The Middle East Memo
http://www.mideastmemo.blogspot.com/
“…our beloved friend martyr sheikh Rafik Al-Hariri, may Allah have mercy upon him, single-handedly defeated the 1982 Israeli-Lebanese treaty that president Reagan and various Christian collaborators tried to impose on our country...” [sic]
Talk about historic revisionism!
No wonder Waleed Jumblatt is a self-proclaimed admirer of “scientific socialism”: the man would have done a great job at the head of the Ministry of Truth under the reign of comrade Jo Stalin…
Dr Victorino de la Vega
The Middle East Memo
http://www.mideastmemo.blogspot.com/
Dr Vic:
I am with you that Jumblatt (Kurdish warlord?) is probably spinning/embellishing facts. I am not even sure he was sober at the time of the invasion to remember details about failed treaties. He's also not a man of many constants. I am generally afraid to trust his words because he changes his mind so much. But that's common knowledge.
Post a Comment
I am with you that Jumblatt (Kurdish warlord?) is probably spinning/embellishing facts. I am not even sure he was sober at the time of the invasion to remember details about failed treaties. He's also not a man of many constants. I am generally afraid to trust his words because he changes his mind so much. But that's common knowledge.
<< Home
