Media & Communication Technology: July 2008

Thursday, July 31, 2008

scrabble goes to court

Please follow this case for next week.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Radovan Karadzic is set to appear in the court for first time

Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is in UN custody after he was arrested by the Serbian Secret Service on Monday according to Swiss Info Channel. He was taken to Serbian Court, which decided to give custody to the UN crime court in Hague. Karadzic had change his appearance and was walking freely on the street practising alternative medicine. According to Swiss Info Channel and BBC the arrest of Karadzic is very positive step for Serbia. Formerly, the Serbian government was heavily criticized for not turning in the suspect war criminals. Now that the government has to deal with the separation of Kosovo and the accusation from the UN that no peaceful actions have been adopted for dealing with Kosovo, Serbia is trying to show the world and more over the EU and the UN that they can be responsible for their actions. Serbia wants to be considered for EU accession soon and their looking to promote more positive look over their politics. (It is an interesting fact that Karadzic was not arrested for 13 years after many people have said they had seen him.)

Karadzic is set to appear in court on Thursday at 4 PM local time (10 AM EST). At that time one would know how is the former Bosnian Serb leader going to plead and defend against the "11 charges of including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which Brammertz called "the most serious crimes under international law". (CNN World News)

Ravi assignment for 08/06/08

1. Go to blip.tv -- set up account.

2. Shoot one minute of video on any device to bring into class. Please bring any connecting cables, as well.

FGG

EX

iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25934315#25934315" frameborder="0" scrolling="no">

EX

iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25934315#25934315" frameborder="0" scrolling="no">

Media Bias: Human Rights in China

The human rights condition in Beijing, China is getting worse as the summer Olympic Game approaches, BBC News reported on July 29, 2008. Beijing re-establishes the use of “re-education through labour”, the control of rights activists and journalists, and the use of random incarceration, according to Amnesty International. China, however, denied all charges.

A spokesperson is pleading to world leaders who will attend the Games to protest against China’s human rights violations. However, Chinese government officials denied the charges. A Chinese spokesperson, Li Jianchao, said that “I hope that Amnesty International can take off the tainted glasses they have been wearing for years and see China in a fair and objective way, and do something more constructive".

The Chinese government is well known for denying human rights charges in the past. Now the Chinese government is saying that government “reforms have improved” the situation in the country and its economic management has enhanced the quality of life for millions of Chinese people. Essentially, what the Chinese government is telling us is that while the West is outsourcing and interfering in its internal affairs, the Chinese government is doing a better job promoting reform and managing its economy to improve the quality of life for Chinese people.

According to my sister, Wendy, who is currently studying in Beijing, the “Chinese news agency” reported that the West is trying to “destroy the Olympic Games for China.” Chinese news agency said the human rights allegation is the “West maneuver to sabotage” the Olympic Games in Beijing, according to Wendy. She also said the Chinese people and her classmates are happy and willing to make any required sacrifices for the Olympic.

As we have discussed in class last week, the news media is bias. Every news agency reports in ways that are desirable. Different countries, on the other hand, report news that is beneficial to their national interest. BBC News reports human rights violation in China, while China defends its human rights policy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7529453.stm

Blogging in China??

As we have been discussing in this class trying to get information about a particular event is best done when you view a number of sources. I decided to look into citizen journalist covering the Beijing Olympics. Many blogs are covering this popular topic but not as many as I had hoped to find writing from inside China. There are a number of them being updated on a regular basis but I never seemed to find one that I felt was comprehensive enough. It is well known China is not a country known for its freedom of expression and blogging is not any different. ‘Bloggers’ have lost their jobs in China based on what they have wrote online, such as ex-policemen Wu Youming

One of the early blog supporting websites in China, Sohoxiaobao, is currently shut down.

(See Article Here).

When I googled their site and used the google translation key the following text came up:

"SOHO tabloid network temporarily closed notice

Because of a lack of self-discipline of individual netizens in the tabloid published a blog of sensitive information, and public opinion does not match demand, resulting in SOHO tabloid network was temporarily closed, we are the procedures to apply for the lifting of the ban.

Is suspended, all data are well-preserved, time to resume the use of a separate notice to inform, Thank you for your understanding and support!

At the same time, let us care for SOHO tabloid from the desire of network, especially in the Olympic Games, cautious statement, the law prohibited release of information.
SOHO tabloid network

July 18, 2008"

There were a few blogs that I was able to access that had information but to get a full story of the situation in China (for the Olympics and beyond) those blogs needed to be paired with news agencies to get a fuller picture. It would also help if I was able to read Chinese as many of my findings were a language I can not read. One site that, I think, is of interest:

Beijing Olympics Fan

Context and Media Matters

This blog on today's Dailykos is a great example of how an op-ed in a major national newspaper (in this case, The Washington Post) can take a comment out of context and twist it to suit the writer's political agenda.

Sometimes, as the contents of an op-ed are echoed by cable news sites, the contextual fact that is purposely left out, is muddied or lost in the frenzy of TV sound bites . The falsehood that the op-ed initially states, for disingenuous purposes, is then transformed perceptively into a viable point of contention, open to an honest discussion. At this point, the current trend is to have purported "experts," "debate" the validity of the context on shows like Hannity and Colmes or Hardball. However, once such action is taken, the initial misrepresentation becomes something more analogous to supportable opinion as opposed to the out right fallacy it had always been. In short, this sort of coverage of deliberate and deceitful conjecture generally fuels misconceptions that run rampant through public mindsets all the while perpetuating unethical journalistic practices in the mainstream media.

If you ever hear something on TV, or read an op-ed in a paper that is reported as a viable, fact-based, opinion but you have questions concerning its true validity and want to know more, check out the website Media Matters for America.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Center for Citizen Media

Check out the Berkman Center's Center for Citizen Media, a "new initiative aimed at helping to enable and encourage grassroots media, especially citizen journalism, at every level."

The McCain/Media Narrative Strikes Again

According to Greg Sargent on Talking Points Memo, the mainstream media sources have again failed to reveal a McCain inaccuracy. In a recent ad, John McCain attacks Barack Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany:

As you can see in the ad, McCain stated, "Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press each ran stories about McCain's ad, and although each note the Obama campaign's denunciation of its claim, not a single one of these reports explained, what the pentagon confirmed, that the ad is actually based on fallacy.

The real reason Obama didn't visit, as many indie-journalists like Sargent quickly uncovered, was eventually picked up and reported on by NBC's Andrea Mitchell:

"That there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign-violating rules that it not be a political stop.

Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press."

Again, it takes an independent journalist to point this out to the public and again, MSNBC apparently aware of the Blogshere, but still a half-step behind, picked it up.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Queen Rania of Jordan goes on YouTube

Queen Rania of Jordan recently made her first appearance in youtube. She is trying to educate the world about Muslim culture. She is using this kind of media to take her massage outside of her own country and the Arab Wolrd.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7524933.stm

My friend is from Jordan and he didn’t hear anything of what Queen Rania was doing but he seemed very impress. In his opinion what she is doing is great. No Arab leader open themselves to this much criticism and for a woman to do this in the Middle East that takes a lot of courage.

The leaders in the Middle East put barriers between them and individuals. People usually can’t criticize leaders or they will go to jail, as simple as that.
The new King and the Queen are trying to change it but it’s hard for the royal family and also the people to accept such a change. Before the current King it was King Husain he was also trying to open people to speak their minds. The King made it ok for people to criticize politicians and also make fun of them but the king was a no! Now the new King, Abdulla is welcoming all kinds of criticism. When he first became a king, he dressed up as a cab driver and picked up people and tried to ask them and see what they though of the country, king, economy and so on...

He thinks is great what Queen Rania is doing, she is making people think differently of Jordan. “Would you imagine a Saudi woman doing what she is doing it’s rare firstly her husband would not approve and secondly the people wouldn’t approve”. The Queen is showing the world that Jordan is an open minded country that gives women their rights.
She is also doing something no Arab leader has done (man or woman), go online and have discussions with random people.

I also agree that she is doing an amazing job, she is taking a lot of courage to do this videos and most important she is educating the world. Her
These are some of the responses that Queen Rania Received:

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Role of Media in Democracy: Business

WGBH has an amazing array of programs available under their educator resource tab. I am using this for some of my advanced students. Thought this may be interesting, especially with the sub-prime, fannie mae/freddie mac mess, Enron, etc.
http://www.forum-network.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3758

Role of the Media in Our Democracy: Business
Neil Brown, executive editor, St. Petersburg Times
David Carr, columnist, New York Times
John Carroll, former editor, Los Angeles Times
Ellen Hume, director, Ctr. on Media & Society, UMASS Boston

Ellen Hume moderates a panel discussion on the responsibilities of the press when it comes to business reporting and on the business of the media. A free and independent press is essential for democracy. The press has a responsibility to inform citizens about both the policies and actions of our government and any credible challenges to those policies and actions; to report on conditions that may require new or different government initiatives; and to raise timely questions itself about questionable policies and the rationales presented for them. How well are the media fulfilling these weighty responsibilities? What are the impediments to their fulfillment?

This discussion is part of the Fourth Annual Fall Symposium of The Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities, entitled "No News is Bad News". The Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities promotes the use of history, literature, philosophy, and the other humanities disciplines to deepen our understanding of the issues of the day, strengthen our sense of common purpose, and enhance and improve civic life.

Audio
Video

Boston College
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Boston College

Media Narrative & Reality--Thank Goodness for the Bloggers

At this point in the presidential campaign, John McCain is seemingly a side show to Barack Obama's celebrity-like status in the media's ongoing narrative. This seems to be to McCain's benefit. While everyone on the network and cable news awaits an Obama gaff overseas - something on which they can finally, truly pounce - it seems as though a serious McCain error was almost missed here at home (if not only by the mainstream media). Were it not for a few citizen journalists and unaffiliated bloggers, McCain's mistake might have gone unnoticed.

As Seth Colter Walls reported in the Huffington Post, "During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the 'surge strategy' in

Iraq

." As per the transcript:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
Senator McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

No actually it is not a matter of history. In fact, the false depiction here is McCain's, not Obama's. According to Alan Ackermann, on his Blog Attackermann, "[MacFarland], was commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, based in Ramadi in 2006 and early 2007 and is a key figure in embracing the Anbar Awakening before it even had that name." MacFarland explained exactly what was happening in Anbar between the Sunnis and al Qa'ida in an interview with Pam Hess of UPI, (about two months before Bush even decided on the surge). The interview is available in entirety on the United States Department of Defense website, here. The following is the excerpt from which Ackermann is basing his assessment:

Pam Hess: This is Pam Hess with United Press International. You said that violence is down 25 percent. Could you put numbers on that? I don't know that we know specifically what you all are doing out there.
And also, I've heard recently from someone who visited Ramadi and Anbar in general is that there is a lot of Sunni insurgent and al Qaeda violence between the two groups, but that the al Qaeda side seems to be exacting a heavy toll. They're killing a lot of the Sunnis that are opposing them now.

Col. Macfarland: Okay. Thanks, Pam.

Well, first of all, attacks have dropped from about 20 a day to more like 15 a day. It was actually a little bit lower than that before Ramadan. We had a little bit of a surge, an uptick since Ramadan began, and we'll wait to see how that levels out here in the next few days. But it has been on an overall downward trend.

With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.

Beyond this incontrovertible interview comes even more evidence as pointed out by Mark Lynch on his Blog, Abu Aardvark. In his military review titled, "Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point," Col. MacFarland wrote a summary of his experiences in Anbar Province and how they helped turn the war in the Sunni parts of Iraq, which started the "Anbar Awakening." This is official military history. According to Ilan Goldenberg, "The time frame he discusses in his essay is June 2006 through February 2007. It should further be noted that the first "surge" of troops arrived just as MacFarland and his men redeployed out of Anbar."

What is especially notable in all of this is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the "Awakening," and whether or not it was caused by the surge. In a speech given to the American Enterprise Institute with fellow Senator, Joseph Lieberman, on January 5, 2007, McCain said:

"Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region. ... But it's important, as I said in my opening remarks, that this troop surge be significant and sustained."

Hmmm. So what's the big deal you might ask? Well beyond the fact that John McCain lied, or forgot, or whatever, it has been clear that he has based the crux of his campaign around the idea that he knows best when it comes to Iraq. McCain's military experience somehow directly translates into good policy judgement and his primary example is his backing of the surge. But politicians will do as politicians do. Ultimately it is the media's job to catch them when they do, do. Whether rhetoric, mis-truths, or mistakes, the role of the press is to examine and identify. In this instance, that did not initially occur. Given the media's dominant narrative which has been to leave McCain's comments about Iraq unquestioned, that is not surprising.

One need not look any farther than the wide scale response that Wes Clark received when he challenged McCain's policy expertise and judgement to see this narrative in action:

"He [John McCain] has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility... because in the matters of national security policy-making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. He hasn’t made the calls."

Clark's comments did not coincide with the media narrative about presidential candidate McCain. Shortly after he spoke these words, every major news agency from CNN which said, Wes Clark's comments are the "lowest form of politics," to Fox News which reported, "Clark seems to have attacked McCain's service," added spin to the narrative.

The point was missed because it didn't coincide with the ongoing narrative. After all, how could Wes Clark try to paint a picture out side the frame?

So again, here and now, when CBS initially decided to not show this part of McCain's interview, it did so, perhaps, to maintain this ongoing narrative. Were it not for bloggers like Ilan Goldberg, Seth Colter Walls, and Marc Lynch, would Kieth Olberman have made his report? Would CBS eventually provide the full transcript and interview on their website?

Either way you look at it, the American public is not getting the whole story without the help of unaffiliated journalists. Without the vigilance of citizen bloggers the mainstream media would be free to dictate the story with whatever coverage they deem fit. In a time when there are an ever dwindling number of corporations owning these media outlets, and the airwaves are ever more allocated to these large corporate entities, it is critical that these journalists are out there, chasing the true story.

"The Meaning of Karadzic"

Ann wanted to point all of you to this piece on the Huffington Post.

We Love Tim

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Video

American Airlines

Rush!

Beauty Picks from the Today Show

Colbert Report The Word video

Daily Show Clip

George Allen

NBC News version 2

NBC news story

Check out this story!

Serbian blogs about karadzic's arrest

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/07/23/croatia-reactions-to-the-karadzic-arrest/

Cover images from Jutarnji List and Slobodna Dalmacija

class tonight

Be sure to continue monitoring your news sources.

Happy Hour

A bunch of guys enjoy some cocktails.

Happy hour can be a lot of fun, but of course only in moderation.

citizen blogger from Albania

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/07/20/blogger-of-the-week-elena-ignatova/

very interesting political blogger from Albania talking about central and eastern European politics

Julian Sanchez, Citizen Journalist

Modern technologies have made it possible for ordinary people to act as journalists.
Greater access to inexpensive devices and the internet allows individuals to collect, record, investigate, and broadcast their own news events. These individuals are called “Citizen Journalist”, according to our previous class lecture. Their goal is to escape the “bias-media” and provide accurate, independent, and dependable information that our society needs. The perfect example of citizen journalist is Julian Sanchez.

According to his website, JULIANSANCHEZ.COM, Mr. Sanchez is a writer and journalist, living in the Washington, D.C. area. He regularly writes on technology, privacy, and sexual politics. Sanchez is a frequent contributor to the technology websites Techdirt and Ars Technica, and a writer for The Economist’s U.S. politics blog, Democracy in America. He is also a “contributing editor for Reason magazine”. Sanchez is a graduate of New York University, where he obtained a degree in philosophy and political science. For more information about Julian Sanchez, visit www.juliansanchez.com.

Iraqi Blogger

Salam Pax, is the voice of the internet generation in Iraq and could
even be considered the founder of Iraqi blogging. He has inspired and
encouraged many others, such as river band, a female blogger.

Salam started the first website "Where is Raed?" Raed is his friend
from Baghdad University¹s architecture school who moved to Amman in 2002.
Salam posted silly things for his friend at the beginning and then he started
to post about unspoken hardships of life in Iraq and how people were
preparing for the war. Once the war started he posted about how the Iraqis
struggled through electricity blackouts and the destruction of Baghdad.

Through his postings, Salam became an eyewitness blogger in Iraq,
documenting the war and after that, the 2004 U.S. political
conventions.
Salam's online diary has fascinated the web's myriad of users with its
sharp observations of day-to-day life in Iraq.

Salam Pax eventually became a columnist for the British Guardian
newspaper and published a book of his weblog posts. Salam Pax: The Clandestine
Diary of an Ordinary Iraqi.

It's very important to have Iraqi voices telling the world what is
going on,and Salam was just the beginning. And because of him, many other
bloggers have started to report about life in Iraq.

Sudan's President Charged with Genocide

Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, has been charged for genocide and war crimes in Darfur last week by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.The international community has been seeking resolutions to the terrible conflicts and full disregard for human rights in Sudan for a long time now. The "accusations" by Mr. Moreno Ocampo are just the beginning of end of this on-going nightmare. The UN has estimated that around 300,000 people have died as a result of genocide and forceful relocation to Darfur Camps. Another 2.5 million are displaced with no homes and food.
Omar al-Bashir, however says that Sudan "does not recognize the ICC or its decisions." (BBC News)
In his recent trip to the region of Darfur, the president addressed the local people as of nothing has happened in the past. He looked supportive of international aid programs and declared that Sudanese were people of peace. (BBC News)

"We will continue developing Darfur and will pump out its oil "
Sudanese President

As different media presented the event, readers could see the story through different lenses. For example BBC News focuses more on the Sudan's president and his actions after the accusations occurred. On the other hand FOX News focused solemnly on Mr. Moreno Ocampo and the evidence that would be used to get a possible warrant for arrest. Global Security presented the story somewhere in between BBC and FOX but focusing more on Sudan's representative in London, Khalid al Mubabrak and his opinion. And last but not least, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) criticized the U.S. government for not offering enough support on charges against Sudan's president. The IHT, also says that the Bush administration is offering "ambivalent" support to Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo but is not fully backing up the charges. According to the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the U.S.A. have to decide if somebody is guilty of genocide "according to our laws, our regulations with respect to who should be subject to war crimes and genocide related statues". Against "Western" media, the Sudan Tribune uses a totally different spin on the event. In stead of talking about the charges, it speaks about Arab League's support for Khartoum. The 22 foreign ministers of the AL have said that they would stay true to Sudanese President, however they did not ask for suspension of the charges.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Zimbabwe Crisis Might Finally End

This report gives a description of how Zimbabwe resent presidential elections have become a battle for power. Most important it reports how two different news media describe this recent event.

Zimbabwe has face terrible crises throughout the years, and more since the presidential election took place earlier this year. Robert Mugabe as well as opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai claimed the presidency of Zimbabwe. During the first electoral rounds Tsvangirai won more votes, but electoral officials said neither one had 50 percent of the votes required to win.

During the Second round of election a number of violent events happened to the opposition party of Mr. Tsvangirai. The New York Times espressed that the reason why Mr. Tsvangirai pulled out of the electoral race was because many of his members were being assassinated. The BBC modestly expressed that the reason that Mr. Tsvangirai pulled out of the race was because of violence against it supporters.

For the first time in about 10 years both leaders meet in order o reach some kind of agreement. The BBC & the New York Times have two different narrations for the events. BBC position is very neutral toward Mr. Mugabe and does not at any moment questions his past actions nor his decision of why he wants to reach a new deal with the opposition. The New York Times in the other hand, portraits Mugabe as an opportunistic who is acting out of interest in order to gain legitimacy in Africa.

In addition, The New York Times expressed in more detail why The European Union is giving more sanctions to Zimbabwe, even though the president is willing to reach an agreement with the opposition. The newspaper specify that the sanctions are for “senior officials”, The BBC just referred them as people and does describe what types of sanction The EU is enforcing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7518883.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/world/africa/23zimbabwe.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin

Monday, July 21, 2008

Effective blogging tips

Along the lines of one of my closing points from last Wednesday's class, please read this post "Nine Signs of an Effective Blog Post" on problogger.net. This site seems geared towards showcasing how to make money blogging (which I'm somewhat skeptical about), but I thought this post offered some good tips.

After reading that, consider editing your existing assignments to be more effective!

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Blackboard from last Wednesday

I've posted a composite of the blackboard from our discussion on citizen journalism on flickr.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Citizen Journalist in Iraq

Citizen Journalist to speak on real deal in Iraq

As a freelance journalist in Iraq, David Enders reported on stories that often went untold. In his 18 months in the Middle East-spanning from the outset of the invasion to this summer-Enders accessed areas previously designated unsafe for any westerner, let alone a journalist. The 28-year-old will speak tomorrow at Washington University about his findings and his most recent stint in the Shia-dominated Anbar province, where U.S. forces face new byproducts of war such as ethnic cleansing, factional clashes and the growing refugee crisis.Over the summer, Enders, author of the new book "Baghdad: Bulletin," which chronicles his war coverage, and filmmaker Richard Rowley traveled to Iraq and Syria. It was part of a project chartered by the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting in an effort to tell the real-life stories of the citizens in these war-torn regions.Besides spending about two weeks embedded with troops, a common war coverage strategy of the media that offers maximum safety, Enders spent most of his time with Sunni and Shia militia groups without any American military protection.Regarding his most recent reports, Enders finds that some of the war's most alarming issues have received little attention in the day's public discussion. "The U.S. is contributing openly to war crimes," he said. "But it doesn't seem that that's generally discussed."Zach Dyer, a Washington University alumnus, was one of the people responsible for bringing Enders to the University. "The Iraq subject is interesting because it's a chance to take a topic that is really volatile, really important, and on a personal level affects a lot of Americans," said Dyer.Dyer went to work for The Pulitzer Center in Washington, D.C. after graduating last spring.Enders' reports on Iraq deserve intense consideration, Dyer said, because they ask the essential question: "What's the actual situation in the country?"Along with recognition from The Pulitzer Center, an organization that provides in-depth coverage of global crises, Enders' articles on the humanitarian crises have garnered national exposure. His reports are featured in The Washington Times, Democracy Now!, Foreign Exchange and al Jazeera English. His most recent byline landed locally, on the front page of the "NewsWatch" section in last Sunday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch.Enders, who also teaches English and journalism at the middle and high school levels, has an interest in seeing young people take an interest in global affairs. Students should know "how we interact in the world," said Enders in an interview, and "the best lesson plans are the ones that have a heavy, real-life element to them."For students, Enders' talk may convey the reality of war in Iraq, a version not diluted by politics or network television producers."He's not pandering to any particular audience," said sophomore Raghu Harrington. "The anchors of the major TV stations have a responsibility to be compelling to audience members, but a freelance journalist doesn't have that obligation.""David brings a very interesting perspective to the whole debate," said Pushkar Sharma, the programming coordinator for the International Area Studies department. "There are very few people who have had that experience with that perspective. We would be wrong not to bring him to campus."In addition to his visit to the University, Enders will also speak at area high schools about his reporting, part of the Pulitzer Center's "Global Gateway" initiative to educate young people on the importance of international affairs.For more information on David Enders or the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, visit http://www.pulitzercenter.org/.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir faces criminal charges

This is a short version of an important news bulletin illustrated by both CNN and MNSBC News. According to CNN, Louis Moreno-Ocampo (Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court) has submitted a criminal proposal to the international court against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and the judges have already accepted the charges. MNSBC, however, reported that Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Court to deliver an arrest warrant for President al-Bashir. Both CNN and MNSBC News have presented a different version of the same story.
The head prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has filed genocide condemnations against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for a five-year operation of hostility in Darfur, CNN reported on Monday. The charges comprise convincing efforts to eliminate African tribes in the war-torn province with a combination of murder, rape and deportation.

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Louis Moreno-Ocampo submited his facts against al-Bashir to the judges at the Hague in the Netherlands on Monday, and the judges have accepted eleven of Moreno-Ocampo’s earlier proposals to the court. The judges are now obligated to determine whether to deliver the warrant, according to CNN. The warrant would make Mr. al-Bashir the first president to be summoned by the ICC for genocide, if delivered. Moreno-Ocampo says there are sufficient proofs to believe that al-Bashir stands criminal liability for five counts of genocide, two counts of felony against humanity, and two counts of war crimes.

MNSBC News, on the other hand, reported the same news story a little differently. MNSBC reported that prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges Monday against Sudan’s president, condemning him of engineering efforts to exterminate African tribes in Darfur with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation. That part of reporting is similar to that of CNN. However, MNSBC reported that the Sudanese government has denounced the charges because the ICC does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICC, which CNN News did not clarify.
MNSBC also reported that Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Court to deliver an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir to stop the slow deaths of 2.5 million Sudanese who are presently under attack from government-backed janjaweed militia.
Both CNN and MNSBC have just given their own version of an important news-story. The media and communication have changed, and the way we get our news has also changed dramatically—thanks to modern technology. Everybody has a story to tell, and technology makes it possible for everyone to tell their own version of a story. The above is my own version of re-writing the story.
News sources http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25671505/#storyContinued
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/14/darfur.charges/?iref=mpstoryview

Joshua Marshall-Citizen Journalist

Joshua Micah Marshall does not belong to any traditional news organization. Instead, he has created his own. This, by its very definition, makes him a "citizen journalist".

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, to get to the newsroom of Talking Points Media in lower Manhattan, "you need to visit a pungent block of cut-flower wholesalers on Sixth Avenue, then climb a narrow stairway to an eight-hundred-square-foot suite that might once have been an accountant’s office." This modest space is the home of a news organization that was almost single-handedly responsible for bringing the story of the fired U.S. Attorneys to the attention of the public. Outlets, including the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, noticed in January the sudden pattern of U.S. Attorney departures, but only Talking Points gave the matter sustained attention that month.

In February of this past year, Marshall won a George Polk Award for his reporting on this matter. According to the New York Times, his web site, Talking Points Memo, is the first internet only news cite to win the Polk Award.

Marshall uses a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging. But he operates a long way from the cliched, commentator on the network news. Since 2000, when he started, Marshall has grown his operation from a one man Blog into a newsroom in Manhattan, with several reporters, including two in Washington. Yet, Marshall does not shy away from the notion of blogging. As he said in the New York Times interview:

“I think of us as journalists; the medium we work in is blogging. We have kind of broken free of the model of discrete articles that have a beginning and end. Instead, there are an ongoing series of dispatches.”

I think it is important to point out that blogging alone does not make a "citizen journalist." Anyone can blog for any reason. A blogger can represent the corporate run media as well as he or she can represent self. What makes a citizen journalist is in the idea that the consumer of the news (whatever that news might be) crosses over and becomes a distributer of that news. In short, the audience member becomes a role player. Josh Marshall fits this definition.

The following video is taken from the website the Veracifier. You will notice in this clip a couple key elements that act to further support the claim that Marshall is a citizen journalist. The first is that he is highlighting and then challenging, as he states, "the mainstream media's dominant narrative." As an outsider, he is very capable and almost obliged to take this position. It is what defines an unaffiliated journalist in many ways (but not always).

You might also notice that Marshall is not and does not have to be completely objective. John McCain in this instance is the crux of his commentary about the media. Marshall does, however, have a self-imposed responsibility to his audience. With that in mind, the subjective statement he is making is supported with factually-based evidence that leads to logical, analytical conclusion(s). His reporting takes on a multi-dimensionality in this regard. This is critical to Marshall's credibility as a journalist as well as what has enabled him to garner the attention of his peers.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Assignment for 07/23/08

1. If no image on your original post, add image.

2. Make a new post with an example of Citizen Journalism (not Steve Garfield)

Some live streaming tools

From our guest Steve Garfield, some live blogging tools:

- qik
- flixwagon
- kyte

Follow Steve Garfield on Twitter.

Welcome Our Guest!

Our guest tonight is Steve Garfield.

Prisoner Exchange

Every news source is going to cover a story with their own particular lens based on a number of different factors. For this assignment, and the first time I have ever contributed to a blog (a bit nerve-wracking for someone who doesn’t like their writing!), I decided to check out a few newspapers from around the globe to see how they covered the recent events transpiring in Israel and Lebanon with the prisoner exchange with the Hezbollah. My sources were CNN (U.S. based), Haaretz (based in Israel),Aljazeera (based in Qatar), Mail & Guardian Online (based in South Africa), The Australian (self explanatory I hope) and the Daily Star (based in Lebanon).
They all covered the basics of the story. Hezbollah turned over the remains of two Israeli soldiers for, in part, five Lebanese prisoners and roughly 200 bodies of fighters that have been killed over the years. Those numbers have varied slightly from article to article. Each paper covered both sides of the story and the reaction that citizens from each country had. The mood in Israel was one of sadness and tears while Lebanon declared today a national holiday with parades and celebrations planned. Every article covered the major points but the amount of details and history included in the article was different in each case. In the Australian and South African paper there was a larger background on the story, in particular about Samir Kuntar.

Kuntar, whose name is spelled different depending on what paper your read, was labeled as hero by some (such as quotes from officials in Lebanon) to a terrorist in the Israeli paper. CNN introduced the reader to Kuntar as a convicted murder, as he was sentenced to life for killing a man in front of his 4-year old daughter, then crushing the little girls skull and killing her in 1979. A third family member died that day when the mother accidently suffocated her 2-year daughter while trying to stifle her cries as they hid during the attack. The Israeli newspaper gave the most graphic account of the incident.
Only after reading all the numerous articles and comparing the information provided was I able see any kind of bias from the newspapers. All articles gave opinions from both sides but the use of words to evoke emotion is what I felt was the real difference in the telling of the story. I feel that I was only able to get a solid grasp on this story after reading accounts from numerous ‘lenses’. Had I read just one article from one perspective I would not been able to acquire such a comprehensive picture of the events.

Release of Ingrid Betancourt

Ingrid Betancourt was a presidential Candidate in 2002 in Colombia. While campaigning she was kidnap by the revolutionary Army Forces of Colombia (FARC). She was held hostage for about six years. On July 3rd she was released with another 14 hostages, including three American's. The news of her release was known worldwide, she was interview by BBC, CNN, and she was in the cover of the New York Times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7486552.stm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0703/betancourti.html

The other three American's that were released with her did not get as much media cover as Ms. Betancourt did, they were also hostage for about the same time, and separated from their family as Ms. Betancourt. The NY times as well as BBC only cover very little about the Three American which work. Although, the Boston Globe did a little more reaserach on the three hostages.

The trio - Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell - have now arrived back in San Antonio, Texas, where they will undergo medical tests and be reunited with their families. BBC

The three Americans, Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes, were captured in 2003 while working for the Northrop Grumman Corporation after their surveillance plane went down on an antinarcotics mission for the Pentagon. NY Times

One of the contractors, Thomas Howes, is a native of Cape Cod who had settled in Florida. Howes and the other two, Marc Gonsalves and Keith Stansell, were flown directly to the United States to reunite with their families and undergo tests and treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. They had been the longest-held American hostages in the world. Boston Globe

Ingrid had an interview with Larry King describing how the hostages were saved, and her experience.http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/09/king.betancourt.intw/index.html?
As well, BBC interviewed her but they focus on how she was able to listen to BBC while she was captive and this was her only media to the outside world. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/07/080711_betancourtbbc_sl.shtml
Betancourt is a French citizens as well, she also got a lot of coverage in Europe. It is clear that the rescue of the 15 hostages was a very important event, but how does a foreigner get more media attention here in the US that a US citizen?
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3830568758780210148

Consumer Prices Surge

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumer prices shot up in June at the second fastest pace in 26 years with two-thirds of the surge blamed on soaring energy prices.
The Labor Department reported that consumer prices jumped 1.1 percent last month, much worse than had been expected. Energy prices rocketed upward by 6.6 percent, reflecting big gains for gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas.
The big rise in prices cut deeply into consumers' earning power with average weekly wages, after adjusting for inflation, dropping by 0.9 percent in June, the biggest monthly decline since 1984.
The 1.1 percent June price increase was the second largest monthly advance in the past 26 years, surpassed only by a 1.3 percent gain in September 2005 from a jolt to energy costs after Hurricane Katrina.
Separately, the Federal Reserve reported that industrial output rose 0.5 percent in June, the fastest pace in 11 months. The increase, the highest since a 0.6 percent gain in July of last year, reflected an end to an automotive production strike rather than any widespread strength in the economy.
The report on retail inflation followed similarly grim news on Tuesday that wholesale prices had shot up by 1.8 percent in June.
The news on inflation kept a lid on stock prices, which were trading mixed after one of the nation's largest banks, Wells Fargo, announced it would raise its dividend.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress on Tuesday that the Fed was concerned about the threats posed by rising inflation.
Bernanke said that the "upside risks to the inflation outlook have intensified lately, as the rising prices of energy and some other commodities have led to a sharp pickup in inflation and some measures of inflation expectations have moved higher."
Bernanke's comments underscored the bind the central bank is in, caught between a faltering economy that is struggling to overcome a prolonged housing slump and a severe credit squeeze, and the risk that inflation would move higher.
Many analysts believe that the central bank is likely to leave interest rates unchanged for the rest of the year out of concern that any tightening of credit policy could send the economy into an even worse tailspin.
Over the past 12 months, consumer inflation is up by 5 percent, the largest year-over-year gain since a similar 5 percent rise in May 1991.
Food prices also showed a big increase in June, rising by 0.7 percent, more than double the 0.3 percent increase of May. Vegetable prices shot up by 6.1 percent, the biggest increase in nearly three years.
Core inflation, which excludes energy and food, showed rising pressures too with an increase of 0.3 percent in June, up from a 0.2 percent gain in May and the biggest one-month rise since January.
This increase reflected a 4.5 percent jump in airline ticket prices, the biggest one-month rise for airline fares since March 2000.

Iraq Oil Deal ‎

The Iraqi Central government and Council of Representatives is discussing the New Oil Deal which allows foreign oil companies to cut long-term exploration and development deals with the government for 20 years, renewable for an additional five years. Companies willing to operate in a country with high physical risks — insurgents regularly blow up pipelines and kill contractors — will be allowed to export their oil after paying the government a minimum 12.5% royalty, although there are often additional cash signing bonuses to the government. Most "profit oil," extracted after operating costs are met, would likely go to Baghdad.

I am following this topic through different media. There was fear that the foreign oil companies would move into Iraq in force, and stay long after U.S. soldiers withdraw especially since Iraq nationalized oil from British companies on June 1st 1972. This could lead to another type of occupation.

Some analysts focus on the idea that Iraq has the world’s third largest oil reserves, which are mainly in the north and the south of the country. This means the Sunni region would not benefit from these revenues. This could increase the gap between multi-ethnic groups in Iraq, and increase the sectarian violence.

Another opinion is that al-Maliki's government is trying to serve the Western demand in Iraq, by passing the draft of this deal instead of looking out for the Iraqi people’s interest.
Another opinion suggests that Iraqi oil reserves were a motivation for the invasion because Saddam Hussein was an obstacle to the West accessing Iraqi oil. By removing him from power and executing him, the West can now working behind the scenes to get these drafts passed, which will lead to easier access to the Iraqi oil fields, and thus to influencing Iraqi policy.

One point really caught my attention: if Iraq wants to be open for international investment I questions why the contracts were not awarded to Russian companies since they worked in Iraq for many years and they have the experience with the Iraqi environment and culture.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Funny Stuff?

For the last eight years, satire has seemingly resurged as a powerful informational tool. Some would thank Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for this, and others perhaps including Stewart and Colbert, might offer thanks to our own president, George W. Bush. I personally thank all of them, a few others, and Jonathan Swift to boot, but that's neither here nor there.

What is here and there and just about everywhere of late is a running commentary regarding the current New Yorker magazine cover. By now you all must have seen this picture depicting the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, as a "terrorist fist jabbing," bin Laden loving, insurgent, Muslim, out to burn the flag and country with his left-leaning, black panther-a-tude; not to mention his wife, who just recently learned to be proud of this great nation, and she's 44! After all, its been a top story for at least two and half news cycles and that's a virtual eternity in this day and age. Anything that lasts this long in the spotlight is bound to be covered slightly differently depending on the medium through which it is being filtered. This story is not any different.

Just about every reputable news site has given the same facts that Sandy Kozel of the AP gave in her first report, posted here, courtesy of the Washington Post. As reported therein, a representative from the magazine explained, "On the cover of the July 21st issue of The New Yorker, in 'The Politics of Fear,' artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign." Most media agencies also covered the Obama camp's initial condemnation which stated, "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

However, once these facts are presented, the deviations in opinion come forth putting a particular slant to the story. Its the slanting that keeps the story spinning from news cycle to news cycle. Take for instance today's New York Times article titled, "Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke". In this particular perception, Bill Carter makes the case that Obama is an anomaly of sorts. Unlike his predecessors (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Bush) and his opponent (McCain), who is old--which is always funny--Obama provides little in the form of humor for men like Stewart and Colbert to sink their teeth into. In this regard, Carter explains that the only way to make a wise crack about the guy is to satirize the misinformation that has been perpetuated on right wing blog sites and through internet email chains.

Alexander Burns from Politico covers the story from the view point of the cartoonists. He relays the perspectives of Pulitzer Prize winning artists, Ann Telnaes and Nick Anderson, who both agree that there will always be someone offended somewhere. The cover, Telnaes wrote in an email, "Was meant to be satirical and comment on the ludicrous rumors which have been going around the Internet and repeated endlessly on cable news." According to Telnaes, the campaign operatives and pundits who have attacked the cartoon have been misreading the image. However, Anderson does point out that, "As a piece of satire, it utterly fails. The artist and the New Yorker editor [David Remnick] have claimed that it is so over the top that it is clearly absurd. But it’s not sufficiently over the top. It is merely depicting what the whisper campaigns have been suggesting." Anderson added that the cover might have been more effective if it had included the title of the cartoon, “The Politics of Fear,” on the front of the magazine.

Anderson's perspective is shared by others in the media as well. According to Joe Achenbach at his Achenblog at www.washingtonpost.com:

"Here's a fundamental rule of humor: It must be funny to work. Another rule: 'Almost funny' is invariably just as bad, and often worse, than being extremely unfunny. When something is 'almost funny,' but not genuinely funny, people can feel insulted, as if you're saying, 'This is funny, and I'm laughing, but your sense of humor is so stunted and pathetic that you just don't get the joke.' I'm not even sure this cover is 'almost funny' -- because it deals so heavy-handedly with such a sensitive topic. Osama on the wall, the flag burning, the Angela Davis wife -- the natural response is to cringe rather than laugh."

Nevertheless, still others have a different take on what is funny. In his article, People Complaining about the Obama "New Yorker" Cover Are Wrong, Jackson Williams of the Huffington Post , relays the time in 1992 when Newt Gingrich deemed the Clinton's, "counter-culture McGoverniks." Then like now, the New Yorker responded with a hyperbolic depiction of Bill and Hillary sitting at the oval office, wearing tie-dyed T-shits and passing a bong. To Jackson, this Obama cover is no different. The problem is not whether the cover is funny, instead the problem is that too many people in our country believe these false things about Obama. That is not the New Yorker's fault, that is the American education system coupled with the media's repetition of the propaganda. When people have a lack of interest in the political process, yet they continue to hear out-of-context sound-bites, they are seemingly more prone to believe what they hear without further investigation.

Another perspective was articulated to me by one of my Republican friends. To him, the scale to which this blows up in the media (or not) depends entirely on Obama's reaction. If Obama brushes it off as a joke (as Jon Stewart suggested on the Daily Show), then so will most media sites, as well as Americans (at least those who are considering voting for him). However, if Obama issues a harsh response condemning the image, then the publics' reaction, according to my friend, would likely be negative. It's an interesting take on the whole situation.

As of Larry King earlier tonight, Barack Obama finally put his two cents into the bucket. As cited on CNN.com, Obama told King,

"It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.
"I've seen and heard worse. I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment."

Whether or not this statement would be sufficient enough for my friend is likely irrelevant, as I am quite sure he is not going to vote for Obama either way and ultimately, this is not the point. What is the point, is the use of satire as an informative device. Whether you think the New Yorker cover is funny, informative, damaging or crude, one thing is for sure, it has elicited such a wide variety of opinion and response, a dialog has commenced and information has been disseminated. And just look at the bright side, at least the New Yorker isn't advocating the consumption of your babies.

Monday, July 14, 2008

US missiles going into Poland/Czech Republic

I am very new at this blogging thing and being the first homework assignment, I was not sure how far to go... so....

For my first blog entry ever, I am choosing to review information contained in international newspapers/media about the US wanting to put missiles into Poland, with an interceptor base to be located in the Czech Republic. I also reviewed information from the Council of Foreign Relations and opinions from the public, posted on various US news websites.

Briefly, the US’s wish to put missiles in the area referred to as Eastern Europe, has been going on since 2006, when the subject was first brought up by Dubbya. The Czech Republic and Poland were targeted since these two nations are very close allies to the US. The missiles are being put in these areas to protect the US from “rogue attacks” from nations considered to be “enemies” of the US. The “rogue states” means Iraq. Every article I saw in the US press had “rogue states” in the text, quickly followed by Iraq. One can easily connect the dots where the US is trying to protect its behind from only one “rogue state” – Iraq. The US has similar missile sites located in Alaska, Greenland and Britain, but there is never a mention of a rogue state with those locations.

The proposed missile program consists of basing 10 interceptor missiles in northeast Poland near the Russian border with a radar facility in the Czech Republic, located southeast of Prague. The US says this shield would complete the existing US missile system that has locations in Greenland, Alaska and Britain.

The image “http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2412951_1,00.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The image “http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2412951_1,00.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Needless to say this missile program, sometimes referred to as “Son of Star Wars”, has a $3.5 billion price tag (and climbing) has wrangled the Russians, let alone the people of Poland and the Czech Republic. According to the articles that mentioned public opinion, more than 70% of residents in those two countries opposed the missile program because of fears of retaliation by Russia, and the fear that once again, foreign countries could exercise significant control over their sovereignty. A detailed explanation on how a missile shield works can be seen at this link. http://www.socyberty.com/Military/How-Missile-Shields-Work.113436

If one would only study history – even briefly Dubbya – one could easily understand those two countries’ well grounded fears. For hundreds of years, wars have been fought over and through these two countries. Both countries are now part of the European Union and NATO, who are now enjoying levels of freedom they do not want to give up.

The missile debate includes a classic he-said/she said mentality, with old style rhetoric, chest thumping and threats of retaliation. True theatre but much more frightening since it’s real.

Background
Having lived in Europe for a bit, I have seen first hand the European way of approaching potential conflict. In short, Europeans tend to think before they act, while the US acts first and thinks later, or not at all. According to Helle Dale, the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, “there is little if any debate in Europe about the dangers posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or ballistic proliferation. Europeans generally feel content and at peace with the world. However, the proliferation of ballistic-missile and nuclear technology are one of the major problems facing the 21st century world. The major powers continue to invest in their nuclear arsenals, including Russia, and are therefore, highly critical of any US missile defense plans.” It could be an old argument – why can you have these toys (missiles/nuclear arms) and I can’t?

As we know, Russia has changed dramatically since the fall of Communism in 1989. Change has not been easy. Its military arsenal has suffered greatly in quality and quantity and for two decades. It seemed that Russia had lost its “super power” status. Pride has been wounded and over the years, Russia has been rebuilding its pride. However, old Cold War memories and rhetoric haven’t faded.

Russia sees the US missile program as a threat to its sovereignty. No amount of chatter from the US is convincing the Russians that these missiles will, at some point, be pointed at them. “This system is of no use against a huge nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal such as that possessed by Russia,” said Condi Rice, (CFR, Russia’s Beef with Regional Arms Control, (7/16/07). Putin and Medvedev have referred to it as a new arms race and threatened retaliation against Poland and the Czech Republic, and anyone else who hosts missiles against Russia. US-Russian tensions stem in part from Moscow’s resurgence as a major geopolitical player buoyed by high oil prices and a growing economy. With the collapse of Communism, Russia feels that some of the arms agreements it signed was from a position of weakness, and a weakened Russia was rolled over during two rounds of NATO expansion into the old Eastern bloc territory. A stronger Russia now, regrets such conciliatory policies because they feel encircled, and the Russian bear is now growling back. Russia is upset with the pro-US and pro-European countries that used to be former Soviet satellites. http://www.cfr.org/publication/13242/russias_beef_with_regional_arms_control.html

Meanwhile, the US and Europe have been falling over themselves supporting their new NATO allies, assuming that the new members will always be staunchly pro-Europe and pro-American. In the beginning, this was true, but as the satellite countries have grown, the allies have seen that these countries have their own opinions and are willing and able to stand up for their rights and have their wishes be respected. These countries will no longer roll over for the allies. Case in point, Poland. But first…….

Czech mate/Russian position

The rhetoric surrounding this program was turned way up when last week, the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and Condi Rice signed an agreement for Czechoslovakia to host the radar system for the missile base in Poland. Arguing “the agreement represents progress toward a more secure world”, Topolanek has opened the door for the US to have carte blanche over this radar system. No article I found mentioned anything about Czech oversight, or a check and balance type system to make sure the radar was not being used for anything except its specific intent – shoot down Iraqi rogue missiles.

Moscow proceeded to warn of a “response”, a “warning” in the Russian papers. “We are not satisfied with it, and we will consider a measured response, but we will not go hysterical over it,” said Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in the Moscow Times. He is “forced to respond” to this matter. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080710/113695372.html

Interestingly enough, only the Russian media/press mention that they have offered the US alternative, existing radar stations in Russia, but Washington said they could only be used as supplements. The US response is silent on missile options in Russia and accuses Russia of inflaming European opinion to make Europeans nervous. US officials are assuming Russia’s bellicose rhetoric is just that – rhetoric. Once again, arrogant, ignorant US government officials, mouthpieces. Don’t poke the bear!

Another tidbit only mentioned in the Russian press/media is that Moscow was disbanding other missile sites in accordance with a US-Russian Treaty signed in May 2002. But with the new agreement with the radar systems, Moscow is no longer disbanding that missile site, located in central Russia, but instead is now going to deploy advanced hypersonic missiles, which can effectively penetrate missile defense systems. Uh boy. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080710/113695372.html

Meanwhile, the Czech press has offered minimal coverage to the event, only saying that the agreement has been signed. No Czech media/papers, have gone in depth about the potential ramifications of the missile program. Prague has only admitted being “surprised” by Russia’s reaction to their signing the agreement.

One big hurdle that must be crossed with the Czechs is the ratification of the agreement by parliament, and dealing with widespread opposition to the agreement. Papers feel that the backers of the agreement in the Czech parliament do not have the votes to approve the agreement.

Only CNN mentioned this little tidbit. “Russia has proposed a joint global missile defense system that would include Russia, the US, Europe and others, but the US has been cold to the idea.” And we are surprised because?

Polish perspective
In May 2007, talks began with the Polish government about putting the 10 missiles on Polish soil. Warsaw was cooperative, if not overly eager to host the missile sites, and then president Lech Kacynski was ready to give Washington the keys to the country. But last October, elections were held in Poland and Kacynski’s party lost many parliamentary seats and a new prime minister was elected. Donald Tusk is a pro-European leader, while Kacynski is very much a nationalist. Kacynski alienated many European countries with his nationalist fervor. He made his twin brother prime minister, which only caused more problems in Poland and throughout the world.

Tusk has been adamant that the missile program is an American program, not a Polish program and Poland feels no threat from Iran. According to Time Magazine, there has been real frustration in Poland about the American declarations and the real state of Poland’s cooperation. Poland wants millions of dollars to upgrade its military and air defenses as well as a guarantee of jobs for local firms, other economic aid and guarantees of its security. This stance is different from Kacynski’s original deal. Poland is standing up for itself! The Poles are also very aware of Russia and do not want to incur Moscow’s wrath. The US has said essentially – forget it, you (Poland) is just a tool. We want your land and that’s it. Typical arrogant, ignorant US mentality by this administration. Even a brief history of Poland would let the administration know what a power keg this issue is for Poland. It has been an issue (having a potentially hostile Russian neighbor) for centuries!

Warsaw is not budging from its stance, and the political rhetoric continues on both sides. “We are talking, nothing is ruled out, we want to have this done as soon as possible, we want it to be mutual beneficial, it’s not against Russia…. etc., etc., etc..” But the big push for the US is getting this deal done before Dubbya leaves office.

US egomania
In classic Dubbya/administration (my way or the highway) policy, if the “boys” don’t get their way with Poland, they will go to Lithuania and locate the missiles there. While the Pentagon has denied talking to Lithuania about potential sites, the Lithuanian government seems to know a lot about the issue and very willing to accommodate the missiles. “No comment” is a familiar refrain. None of this has been reported in the US press/media. This information about Lithuania is coming out of the Polish and Russian press.

Reuters in Europe had a VERY interesting snippet on July 5, 2007. “Boeing would build the US missile defense systems in Poland for around $600 million if Warsaw agrees…” The head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency said in March that Boeing would be a logical choice to lead the interceptor part of the missile shield. No reason why was given that Boeing would be the logical choice, and there has been no mention in any US media about this, prior to or in the present about Boeing getting a contract. Nor has there been any mention why Boeing would be a logical choice.

UK perspective
Britain and Russia are currently experiencing strained relations, and it appears to show based on a London Times article from July 9, 2008 about the missile issue. The snarky language is obvious. The timing of the signing of the missile agreement has been seen as especially damaging to Russia due to the timing of the announcement (at the G8 summit), against a novice Russian president, intending to humiliate him on the international stage because Moscow is powerless to derail the missile program. According to the Times, unlike Putin who continually issued regular threats to target nuclear weapons against states that hosted the missiles, Medvedev has replaced aggressive rhetoric with a sense of injury. The missile agreement “offends Russia greatly”. Medvedev’s goal appears to be to string the process along, waiting for Dubbya and his neocon cronies to get out of office, because Moscow feels that a new president will kill the deal. Poland’s tough line against the US is bolstering Moscow’s confidence in this respect.

Moscow also has two more growing republics who want to declare independence, as well as Georgia and Ukraine wanting to join NATO (offers go out in December 2008). Moscow is stridently against these two issues. The growing republics are beginning to attract more attention, possibly diverting Moscow’s attention from the missile program. Meanwhile, the Times says that Medvedev has been offering pan European solutions (previously mentioned global defense system) as a potential way of working with the west as opposed to confronting it.

In conclusion it’s a classic case of where you get the news when it comes to the news you hear or read. It’s the old adage - consider the source. However, the British press seems to be much more hostile to Russia than the US press does. The bias in their reporting is obvious. Meanwhile the Czech press is essentially silent and the Polish press is presenting its issues as well as the US response, in what appears to be neutral language, but is obviously more focused on the reaction/concerns of its neighbor – Russia.

The next few months will be very interesting for all involved. Will the US stop strong arming Poland, and agree to its reasonable demands? Will Dubbya take his toys and stomp off to Lithuania because Poland and potentially the Czech public, had the nerve to say “no” to the missile system and stand up to the US? My money is on Dubbya acting like he has so many times in the past. Throwing a temper tantrum and running to Lithuania, alienating two of the US’s strong allies in central Europe.

A man from Italy appears to have said it best. “What angers me is the fact that Europe cannot find common ground on these issues and we must let the Americans and Russians decide our security.”