Bush killed democracy

The latest Newsweek aptly states that President-elect Barack Obama will not only be confronted with an unprecidented economic recession, but a global democratic contraction, too.

The last quarter of the 20th century was signified by a democratic movement that changed the face of global politics; however in the last decade this progress is under threat.

Is there any coincidence that this decline has directly coincided with the shambolic reign of George W Bush?

In the past nine years, eight of which have been governed by Bush, two thirds of countries that embraced democracy have now slid back into the clutches of authoritarianism. Maintaining these fledgling democracies has been a greater task than engendering the collapse of authoritarian rule.

George Bush’s self rightious, uniltaral approach to politics that alienated the world is largely to blame. It could be argued that the international security that Bush so coveted can be directly attributed to his lack of savvy foreign policy.

How can he expect to promote democracy abroad when he continues to chip away at the constiutonal principles that the United States was founded on? Simply put, the hypocrisy that America forces upon the world is a hard pill to swallow.

The Obama administration will face the mamoth task of reviewing America’s forgein policy and reversing the remarkable bluders that divided the world with moralistic rhetoric by once again embracing a multilateral approach to politics.

Madoff made-off with billions

In the largest securities fraud case in history, Bernard L. Madoff has disgraced the face of investment banking further, by losing an estimated $50 billion via conducting what is known as a Ponzi scheme. In other words, he would pay returns to his investors out of the principal of other investors instead of real profits.

How he managed to keep the Securities and Exchange Commission at a distance is a question under much public scrutiny. He has later commented that his actions were catalysed by "irrational euphoria".

SOME OF THE REPORTED LOSSES CAUSED BY MADOFF:

- Clients of Santander, Spain - $3.1bn
- HSBC, UK - $1bn
- Royal Bank of Scotland, UK - $601m
- BNP Paribas, France - $460m
- Nomura, Japan - $303m

This isn't the first tme Madoff has been investigated for dodgy business, it is now known that the SEC received reports about him in 1999, almost ten years ago. The pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit, one can't help but question who has known about this; and moreover, what else is going.

Meanwhile in hell...

Only two months ago the situation seemed as if it couldn’t get any worse, but it has.

Ongoing food shortages and severe poverty in Zimbabwe has lead to the worst cholera outbreak in decades.

“The extent of suffering ‘has reached Auschwitz proportions’, read the bold title of a two-page spread in The Times yesterday.

And with mass media attention like this - we hope - comes widespread action.

Gordon Brown, who has been one the most outspoken world leaders against Mugabe, has said that the issue is an international emergency, “the world is saying ‘enough is enough”.

Similarly, Condoleeza Rice said, “If this is not the moment that it is obvious to the international community that it is time to demand what is right, I don't know when that moment will ever come.”

The first signs of a regime that could be on the brink any time soon are surfacing in the words of politicians the world over; cracks in Mugabe’s usual steadfast façade are becoming obvious. Perhaps Mugabe has been woken up to the picture of his country in descent.

Could we be getting somewhere?

Though the cholera outbreak, or something similar, was on the cards. When a country finds itself in economic collapse, when clean water, food and healthcare is so scarce, you would want to assume that someone shouts “CRISIS” and international bodies of the first-world flock in before any major outbreak or before the place ceases to be a country at all. Unfortunately, in our not-so-perfect world, it doesn’t work like that.

It takes something like this to bring about change. Change, let’s not get ahead here, but in the last few days we have heard the most promising words from international bodies that international intervention could be on the way. Let us pray.

Second missing reporter in one week - China

The latest incident, captured by CCTV footage (below), shows reporter Guan Jian being taken away by five men in a hotel in Shanxi.

Guan Jian was reportedly a chief journalist at Networking News, a weekly publication by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He was sent to Taiyan, Shanxi province, to investigate a dodgy property deal.

Similarly, Chinese reporter Li Min was invetigating corruption while she was seized at her home in Beijing.

What a price to pay for investigating graft and wanting to expose those who are expoliting an area of a North China now well-known for corruption.


Photo from Chinaorg.cn

"Final indignity"

FINAL INDIGNITY AS BUSH DUCKS SHOE IN IRAQ, so blunty but fairly read this South China Morning Post headline.

"This is your farewell kiss, you dog!", shouted Arabic journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi as he threw his size ten shoes at the President on his final visit to Iraq

'Mad' PM versus Mad Mugabe

Robert Mugabe's denial of his impoverished country reached new levels this month when he refused to acknowledge the cholera epidemic, which has now killed 600 in Zimbabwe.

The severity of the disease has caused a global outcry, finally, and once again Gordon Brown is ahead of the international stand-up against the failed state.

Mugabe didn't fail to entertain with another absurd response to international concern for Zimbabwe:

"This is now an international rather than national emergency. International because disease crosses borders," says Brown.

"I don't know what this mad Prime Minister is talking about," responds Mugabe.

GREER WATCH

The play does not make direct reference to Greer, but clearly revolves around her as the main character and criticises her years of feminst radicalism and novels, that contributed to a generation of mothers 'emancipated from their kitchens'.

Though it is exteremly critical of Greer, and raises some interesting issues about the role of Greer's radical feminism in Australia - to what it extent was it welcomed? what did it do to the face of feminism?

Whats more, two months ago the play debuted on West End, London. Greer has lived in the UK for years now, and the popularity of this fresh Australian play is sending her steaming.

She has called the playwriter, Joanna Murray-Smith, am "insane reactionary" who "holds feminism in contempt".

Many Australians feel that the Greer movement in some way discredited the female movement, by creating extreme ideals that did not match up to real life (and the play shows this very well, with a great mix of comical satire and drama). Did women want feminism at that militant level??

And so as anti-Greer sentiment make it way to UK shores, the question is this: how much will Aussie opinion alter the English attitudes towards Greer? Perhaps we're still bitter, maybe she's not that bad. Nevertheless, at the rate Greer's comments are reering heads at popular figures around the world, we're bound to get an answer some time soon.

GREER WATCH

Finally, a black female first-lady graces us from the White House. Michelle Obama is popular with critics. She's eloquently spoken, down-to-earth, a good sense of humour and, from what we see, a great support base for her husband, President-elect Barack Obama.

There is no wonder, then, why Greer critics were ready to pounce after she gave Michelle Obama a few words. What I question is what she was thinking when it was said. There is nothing feminist, intellectual or witty about her comments on Mrs. Obama, they were either said with envy, bitterness, publicity or boredom.

According to Greer, Michelle Obama has a big head and a questionable fashion sense.

A cheap shot, Greer.

How can she think that this irrelevant, shallow comment would reflect her well? It makes me think that she loves the negative media attention - alas, could it be?

GREER WATCH

This fantastically feminist book of Greers is her most famous. She dictates why men hate women and why we have been taught to hate ourselves, too. There is no holding back, as shown in this excerpt:

"Women have been charged with deviousness and duplicity since the dawn of civilization so they have never been able to pretend that their masks were anything but masks."

This book created 'Greer prototypes'. Many women in the early 1970's were affected by it's forthright feminism, how it dared to challenge social boundaries (and still does). Through her radical ideas and strong opinion, it gave women a firm sense of power and awareness.

While it appears Greer has laid comment on many sections of English society already, why is it that she doesn't have the same shock-horror "can't believe she said that" affect as she does in Australia?

This was one of many hate comments I've found by Australians on blogs about Germaine Greer:

I just wanted to say a HUGE F*** YOU to Germaine Greer for her insensitive, inappropriate and unsympathetic and completely UN-Australian comments about the death of Steve Irwin.
Go to hell you old bat.

Greer was on Ramsey's cookalong live show last week, and mentioned that UK celebrities Cheryl Cole and Katie Price were "too skinny to be role models". This caused a mini up roar, most notably The Guardian had a few of their journalists write-up opinion pieces on it, but the earth wasn't shaking. Maybe most agreed with what she said (I do, in part), maybe its a cultural difference, or maybe the English just don't care what she has to say.

I know I sound critical of Greer, and by many means I disagree with much that she offers (or the opinions that she takes too far, more specifically), but as a young woman (and perhaps this is my inner feminist speaking) there is something about Greer I like and admire. Perhaps further research will have me hating her in my next post, we'll see.

GREER WATCH

Photo from The Sydney Morning Herald

Australia was perhaps 'not ready' for Germaine Greer. Her feminist outcries and controversial commentary made her a recoginised, and generally disliked, figure in the Australian public sphere. But it has been a year since I moved from Melbourne to London, and I am finding that the U.K has yet to demonise "the Greer factor", as we have done at home.

I watched one of those popular comedy news quizzes the other day, Have I got news for you, and to my shock, there was Greer...sitting up there with well-respected comedians and bantering with them like a house on fire.

And hence, I am Greer Watching for a series of posts on my blog. I want to follow her, document some of the absurd things she says (and has said), but also discover the real Greer...does she have a point, or is she simply a bitter cow?

Let's begin.

Are we desensitised to war?

“Pictures often lie.
In war, truth is the first casualty.”
- Phillip Knightley, 1999

Satellite and advancements in communication meant that Vietnam was a landmark war for media coverage and for the first time we were finally getting ‘real’ images of war brought to our living rooms. And so like never before, the people of America, Canada, Australia, France, China and others involved in the Invasion of North Vietnam were able to see graphic pictures of a war they were involved in; and they weren’t happy with what they saw.

And they fought for their right to anti-war protests in an era where hippies tied themselves to trees and everyone thrived on ‘Make love not war’ paraphernalia…but have we since hardened-up to the images we see? Have we have slipped into a cosy bed of acceptance for war, or do the BBC and CNN offer us a sanitised version of its reality?

The media has a profound effect on public opinion. Period. It’s why the law makes sure Journalists shut our big mouths during trials and equally, why we are forever in court over acts of defamation...there is no wonder that the media is a hot propaganda apparatus during wartime.

The danger here lies when you have an outlet like the BBC: you have deadlines, you have a news slot to fill, you have competition, a budget and you have people to keep happy (namely government bodies and sensitive viewers). After this, what you are left with, in most cases, is a ‘safe’ news bulletin.

Much of what we see in Iraq shows the ebb and flow of battle, nothing new, nothing offensive, nothing to be upset about…though nothing to be affected by either. Keeping it safe is a dangerously common theme…and what we are left with is passive viewing.

I understand that it is impossible to replicate the violent scale of war on a news bulletin; its nature is so remote from normal life that it just will not happen. And I understand that the BBC must concern itself with the protection of children. But this must be measured against the public’s right to know and see accurate realities of war, so they can conjure opinion, debate and vote.

What I do suggest is that outlets like the BBC rethink their current war coverage model and consider this, while admittedly delicate, so very crucial, balance. Journalists should not be led into the tempting world of generalised or ‘safe’ war footage. Our responsibility as the ‘fifth estate’ is far too important in a democratic society that prides itself on a ‘free press’.

Independent Middle Eastern news station, Al Jazeera (below), has a model of openness compared to that of the BBC.

First photo from Vietnam Veterans of America, second photo from SMH.com.au

Perpetually in turmoil

BBC broadcast and online coverage unraveled a lengthy and deteriorating picture of the events in Mumbai.

The wave of attacks on seven well-known locations in Mumbai's cosmopolitan area looked like an orchestrated and formidable mess.

The terrorists who are now believed to be from Pakistan, disembarked inflatable boats onto Mumbai shores at nine o'clock Wednesday morning.

Their first port-of-call was a Jewish centre where a group of eight people were held hostage. This was followed by attacks on a series of popular expat locations, then two leading hotels at 9:45pm, including the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel (below), where hostages were held on the upper floor.

After a wave of attacks by open fire and explosion, including the Cama Hospital at 10:15pm and fifteen minutes later at the crowded Chattrapati Shivaji railway station (above), the terror continued into the next day with military rescuring hostages and overall enforcing damage control as seemingly best they could.

At least 130 people have been confirmed dead and over 370 injured - Indians, Italians, Australians, Germans and British are among those killed.


Photos from BBC.co.uk

Journalism at the WSJ is as good as it was pre-Murdoch, says McIntosh

Neil McIntosh brushed aside claims yesterday that Murdoch’s acquisition of the Wall Street Journal has been detrimental to its journalistic integrity, saying that “It was extremely good before the takeover and it’s extremely good now.”

In the year since Murdoch won his $5 billion bid for the WSJ there has been great skepticism that the acquisition has affected it’s reputation of high quality journalism.

Yet at the University of Westminster lecture he praised the WSJ owner, “It’s a time of expansion and ambition and NewsCorp taking over has sparked a lot of that.”

McIntosh is transferring from his editorial position at the historically anti-Murdoch newspaper, The Guardian, to become head of the Wall Street Journals online sector in Europe.

He remained positive that the WSJ’s media-mogul owner does not have any effect and that his renowned right-winged views will not impact the new site.

He admitted there has been a “mix of opinions” on the Internet, but that he had not spoken to anyone at the WSJ personally who has said “bad things”.

On the other hand, the most senior editor of the WSJ resigned four months after the acquisition, amid hearsay of conflicts between the newly positioned pro-Murdoch editor, Robert Thompson.

But Neil McIntosh remained positive and said the new site will be experimenting with new online technology and innovative web-design.

In the face of recession, he also spoke of declining newspaper sales and painted a grim future for regional newspapers.

However, it wasn’t all bad news, he reminded students that the opportunities for online journalism are ever-expanding and his new project at the WSJ will be opening up room for plenty of employment soon.