Earlier today, a small boiler room explosion shattered a number of windows at a hotel in Davos, the site of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting. While no one was hurt, this event drew attention from virtually every major media source I checked as part of my daily perusal of the news. First of all, I found it interesting that an event that elicited not "so much as a jostle or a wince" according to one eyewitness. Considering the importance of corporate sponsorship (especially advertising) in news broadcasting, the only explanation I can conjure for such intent coverage on such an insignificant event would be that the news corporations want to increase their demonstrated level of concern for corporations so as to gain the approval of the high powered executives at the Davos conference. Secondly, I found decidedly different accounts of the story as I switched between news sources. For example, both the New York Times reported that the police recieved a message from an "Italian activist" website claiming responsibility for the explosion, but had yet to verify the integrity of the source. The Washington post neglected to report any claim of responsibility, insisting that "police said it was caused by fireworks."
Fox News differed dramatically from the Times and the Post in reporting its story. In the subheading of the article as it appeared on the website, Fox alleged that "Left-wing activists claimed responsibility for a minor explosion on Thursday at a hotel in Davos, close to where top executives and world leaders were meeting, but nobody was hurt." This claim, which appeared as the first sentence in the article, not only verifies the source that the Times said Swiss police had not yet validated, but it also introduces political dichotomization into the issue with the use of the phrase "left-wing." As we discussed in class today, this rhetoric is so deeply ingrained into American media consumers that the readers of this article instinctively identify the perpetrators of this explosion with a Democratic agenda. Of course, Fox news is known as having a fairly strong conservative bias, just as the Post and the Times are known for having more liberal biases (although not nearly as pronounced as Fox's conservative slant). The use of this language in Fox's material helps to forward its own political agenda set forth by the ownership, whereas the liberally leaning Post and Times have no incentive to use such language because of the ownership's traditionally liberal bias.
Fox news also had a short video segment they ran with the story on their website. In the segment, a business reporter in Davos elaborates on the event, and gives a report of an eye-witness account. While an eyewitness account seems like a perfectly reliable source in a story like this, I found it interesting that the reporter asserted the source's American nationality quite adamantly (she states this Americanness three times in a video that runs for less than two minutes). I found it curious that the source might be viewed as more reliable simply because of its American affiliation (after all, every person at the forum is high level or CEO level and probably a reliable source of such information). The Davos explosion blatantly advertises the variously skewed reporting supplied by the Times, the Post, and Fox news.
Fox Article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/01/27/minor-explosion-davos-hotel-injuries-reported/ (video is a link)
NYTimes: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/small-blast-at-davos-hotel-shatters-glass-and-calm/?scp=12&sq=davos&st=cse
Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/davos-diary/2011/01/me_and_the_bomb.html
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Husain Haqqani
I sometimes surprise myself at how small a percentage of interesting opportunities I pursue at Andover. While I am often busy, to this point I have surprisingly rarely taken the initiative to attend lectures and events featuring distinguished outside speakers. Tonight, by chance, I attended the commons dinner with Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States. While I hadn't originally intended to go, I somewhat accidentally RSVPed yes when one of my friends posted the event on his Facebook status. After attending, I could not be more grateful that I mistakenly signed up. Ambassador Haqqani spoke engagingly and articulately, answering our questions with ingenuousness and clarity rarely see in politicians. Through his thick Pakistani accent, I perceived a man simply oozing with knowledge and intelligence, eager to contribute towards social and political progress in Pakistan and in the world. The Ambassador provided a fresh perspective on Pakistan and the rest of Asia and the Middle East with rhetoric untarnished by any of the five filters of media with which we have grown so accustomed. The degree to which I enjoyed my dinner with Mr. Haqqani, a dinner I shared with about thirty other PA students, compels me to wonder why I do not take advantage of more opportunities like this one.
During dinner, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Haqqani how the political and social environments in Pakistan changed after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2008. I distinctly remember the American media's portrayal of the event as a woeful tragedy that sent "shockwaves" all throughout the Asia and the world. I remember the media talking about Bhutto's bravery and goodness as if she were infallible, almost goddess-like, and how the assassination was a major setback in the "War on Terror" in Pakistan. Yet while it is true that Bhutto was a vital part of the Pakistani fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the Ambassador gave a slightly different story of Pakistan's reaction to Bhutto's assassination. He first pointed out that Bhutto's status as a symbol of change in Pakistan transcended politics, meaning that while she was not always a perfect politician with perfect policy beliefs, her status as the first female prime minister in Pakistan meant that she would automatically garner a great deal of Pakistani support regardless of her flaws as a person or a politician. Mr. Haqqani went on to say that Ms. Bhutto's death dramatically increased support for her political party (of which Mr. Haqqani is a member), and actually allowed her party to gain significant seats in the next parliamentary election. I remember little or no talk of these beneficial repercussions of Bhutto's death in the media. Mr. Haqqani's sincere and frank response to my question somewhat took me by surprise. I hardly expected a proponent of political change and progress in Pakistan to highlight the good aspects of the death of such an important icon.
As a final note, I thought it was interesting to see how readily Mr. Haqqani challenged U.S. policy in Pakistan. He blatantly criticized the U.S. for over-investing in the Pakistani military and not encouraging Pakistan to increase infrastructure, which he proclaimed is the real agent of security in Pakistan. The governmental/informational dependency filter in Chomsky prevents the U.S. media from such forthcoming reproach of U.S. foreign policy. Overall, I found Mr. Haqqani's visit to Andover thought provoking and intriguing, and it makes me question why I don't more consistently take advantage of the resources available for me to increase my own education here at Andover.
During dinner, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Haqqani how the political and social environments in Pakistan changed after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2008. I distinctly remember the American media's portrayal of the event as a woeful tragedy that sent "shockwaves" all throughout the Asia and the world. I remember the media talking about Bhutto's bravery and goodness as if she were infallible, almost goddess-like, and how the assassination was a major setback in the "War on Terror" in Pakistan. Yet while it is true that Bhutto was a vital part of the Pakistani fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the Ambassador gave a slightly different story of Pakistan's reaction to Bhutto's assassination. He first pointed out that Bhutto's status as a symbol of change in Pakistan transcended politics, meaning that while she was not always a perfect politician with perfect policy beliefs, her status as the first female prime minister in Pakistan meant that she would automatically garner a great deal of Pakistani support regardless of her flaws as a person or a politician. Mr. Haqqani went on to say that Ms. Bhutto's death dramatically increased support for her political party (of which Mr. Haqqani is a member), and actually allowed her party to gain significant seats in the next parliamentary election. I remember little or no talk of these beneficial repercussions of Bhutto's death in the media. Mr. Haqqani's sincere and frank response to my question somewhat took me by surprise. I hardly expected a proponent of political change and progress in Pakistan to highlight the good aspects of the death of such an important icon.
As a final note, I thought it was interesting to see how readily Mr. Haqqani challenged U.S. policy in Pakistan. He blatantly criticized the U.S. for over-investing in the Pakistani military and not encouraging Pakistan to increase infrastructure, which he proclaimed is the real agent of security in Pakistan. The governmental/informational dependency filter in Chomsky prevents the U.S. media from such forthcoming reproach of U.S. foreign policy. Overall, I found Mr. Haqqani's visit to Andover thought provoking and intriguing, and it makes me question why I don't more consistently take advantage of the resources available for me to increase my own education here at Andover.
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Jevons Paradox
On today's New York Times website, I found a business article entitled, "In New N.Y.U. Plant, a Collateral Carbon Benefit," which discusses a recently opened New York City power plant that "it gets almost three times as much useful energy out of a unit of fuel as a typical utility power plant does" (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/in-new-n-y-u-plant-a-collaterial-carbon-benefit/?ref=energy-environment). The article goes on to discuss that this new technology is beneficial for earths atmosphere, and may be essential to cutting carbon emissions and slowing global warming. After all, fuel efficiency does mean fewer emissions, right? A month ago I would have most likely adamantly agreed with this assertion and condoned the use of the new technology in all power plants across the nation. However, a subject of discussion in a recent economics class has caused me to be more reserved in seeing absolute benefits in the application of this new technology. This economic concept is called the Jevons Paradox, and, while unproven, it provides an interesting lens through which to look at the concept of fuel efficency.
The Jevons Paradox stipulates that an increase in efficiency does not necessarily result in a decrease in the negative external consequences of a certain industry. Pretend someone invents a machine that makes the process of extracting energy from burning coal twice as efficient, meaning that the people dependent on coal based energy get twice as many kilowatt hours per lump of coal than they did previously. Now of course, if people's habits and consumption stayed constant, this new coal-burning machine would mean emissions from coal burning, one of the chief sources of pollution and greenhouse gas, would be cut by 50 percent. However, other forces play into this scenario. This new efficiency would significantly increase the supply of coal-based energy. This increase in supply would induce a lowered price of coal-based energy. This drop in price, in turn, would dramatically increase the quantity of coal based energy demanded, both by corporations and by personal residencies. Also, the lower price of energy for corporations would enable companies to produce goods at a lower price, which would increase the quantity of these products demanded by consumers. This new demand would inspire companies to consume even more energy to produce more goods so they satisfy the market. The Jevons paradox states that this coal required to meet this increase in consumption, both of coal itself and of the merchandise produced by coal-based energy, can be enough to completely cancel out the gains in efficiency made by the new machinery. In other words, the lower price of the more efficient energy causes people to use SO much more of the more efficient energy that emissions stay the same or even rise. After hearing the implications put forth by the Jevons Paradox, I find it difficult to believe any news source that says an increase in efficiency leads to an indisputable lowering of emissions, whether the article addresses an increase in the efficiency of coal or of any other energy resource. I cannot deny that economics class has turned me into a significantly more cynical person when it comes to the issue of climate change because of the intricate balance that holds our economic world together. While I would love to believe that the New York Times is a perfectly authoritative source on the issue of energy and climate change, the Jevons Paradox compels me to question the accuracy and the truth of articles triumphantly proclaiming new innovative methods for energy efficiency as agents for lowering climate change.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Music and Manipulation
As I have watched the news over the past few weeks, I have begun to notice more and more the effect that music has on me as a viewer. Nearly every news show or network has an overly dramatic, quasi-epic theme song that provides me with a subconscious mindset as I watch the news. For example, here is the CNN theme song that they play during promotional advertisements for their network, and for introductions to their nightly news program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwasO3udSqQ
This next clip is a clip of the theme song to the 1996 action film, "The Rock," featuring Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage (two of the most prolific action stars of the modern movie era).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPrHH3DOaSE
In my humble opinion, the CNN theme has an even more cinematically epic feel to it than the theme for the action film. The inflated spectacle of the music before these news programs compels me to imagine action in the newscast similar to that in an action movie with a similar musical score. The tone this music sets for the newscast means that CNN must maintain a similar level of energy in their newscast as they maintain in the theme music or run the risk of boring their viewing constituency. CNN must, to some degree, keep their stories sensationally and emotionally stimulating if they wish to preserve this intensity. In contrast, NPR, a public radio station, has a much lower key attitude with regards to its theme music. Here is a collection of NPR themes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MU6K8MBr78
While these theme songs are by no means completely mundane, they produce a much less adrenaline-ized buildup and thus influence me to hear their news broadcasts with a much less dramatic expectations. Of course, I understand that CNN has corporate and monetary motives while NPR has much less emphasis on these thing, but that does little to change my view that the music skews my perception of the news.
As I have contemplated the topic of music in media, I have realized more and more how profoundly music affects my day to day perception. A walk from the Sam Phil steps back to Pease House listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P9mmZyGb4s makes for a dramatically different experience than the same walk listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3DJhwAhrjY. As I look back on many of my most memorable experiences, I realize that music has skewed my perception of a great number. For example, my most vivid memory of last spring occurred as I sat on the great lawn playing the acoustic song in the link above on my guitar, watching the sun set. I have seen many sunsets and I have spent countless hours playing guitar outside, but that particular moment stands out in my mind because the music I was hearing affected my ability to glean beauty from my surroundings. Music has a subtle and undeniable affect on memory and on my view of life and the news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwasO3udSqQ
This next clip is a clip of the theme song to the 1996 action film, "The Rock," featuring Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage (two of the most prolific action stars of the modern movie era).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPrHH3DOaSE
In my humble opinion, the CNN theme has an even more cinematically epic feel to it than the theme for the action film. The inflated spectacle of the music before these news programs compels me to imagine action in the newscast similar to that in an action movie with a similar musical score. The tone this music sets for the newscast means that CNN must maintain a similar level of energy in their newscast as they maintain in the theme music or run the risk of boring their viewing constituency. CNN must, to some degree, keep their stories sensationally and emotionally stimulating if they wish to preserve this intensity. In contrast, NPR, a public radio station, has a much lower key attitude with regards to its theme music. Here is a collection of NPR themes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MU6K8MBr78
While these theme songs are by no means completely mundane, they produce a much less adrenaline-ized buildup and thus influence me to hear their news broadcasts with a much less dramatic expectations. Of course, I understand that CNN has corporate and monetary motives while NPR has much less emphasis on these thing, but that does little to change my view that the music skews my perception of the news.
As I have contemplated the topic of music in media, I have realized more and more how profoundly music affects my day to day perception. A walk from the Sam Phil steps back to Pease House listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P9mmZyGb4s makes for a dramatically different experience than the same walk listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3DJhwAhrjY. As I look back on many of my most memorable experiences, I realize that music has skewed my perception of a great number. For example, my most vivid memory of last spring occurred as I sat on the great lawn playing the acoustic song in the link above on my guitar, watching the sun set. I have seen many sunsets and I have spent countless hours playing guitar outside, but that particular moment stands out in my mind because the music I was hearing affected my ability to glean beauty from my surroundings. Music has a subtle and undeniable affect on memory and on my view of life and the news.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Which Side is the Dark Side?
On Wednesday, Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim militant group and political party based in Lebanon, effectively dismantled the Lebanese government by resigning from the Lebanese Cabinet of which it composed a significant portion. Hezbollah, considered a largely hostile force by the United States (namely the military), has come under fire from many different publications as "paralyzers" (New York Times) and "Iranian-backed" (Fox News), both images that hold negative connotations in our society. Yet as I have seen this topic, which is of significant global importance, discussed in the media over the last couple of days, the issue of perspective has been prominent in my mind. In Borges's Everything and Nothing, Shakespeare appears a vulnerable and identity-less character, far from the grandiose image his name generally conjures. As Borges's account proves, one's interpretation of Shakespeare depends greatly on the criteria for judging his character. Rather than interpreting him through his work and mental genius, Borges looks at Shakespeare the man through his human quest for self-understanding. In many of the articles I have read on the Lebanon crisis, journalists have chosen to look at Hezbollah's actions through the lens of the United States, and the interests of the U.S. and its allies. The Fox News's website's most prominently displayed article on this matter, entitled "Israel troops on alert after Lebanon government fails," shifts the focus from the actual events in Lebanon to their effects on the U.S. interests in the Middle East. Few, however, take the Borges approach and analyze the reasons behind Hezbollah's actions and their stance.
I read a book a few years ago called "Dreams and Shadows" by Robin Wright, an eminent journalist who has written for many publications including The New Yorker and Time magazine. In her book, Wright talks about Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon. According to her, while Hezbollah began as a radical militant group, it emerged in the mid 2000's as a legitimate grassroots political and social organization. Hezbollah provided healthcare, education, employment, and opportunity for many in Lebanon who otherwise would not have had access to these resources. From the angle of many Lebanese, Hezbollah has been a savior and a foundation in unstable times. Yet most U.S. newspapers choose to focus on the negative and terroristic acts of Hezbollah rather than the good they have done for the country, and while its contribution to the collapse of the Lebanese government over the past few days has significantly decreased Hezbollah's legitimacy, U.S. publications still take an entirely negative perspective on the organization. One of the New York Times's articles is entitled "Hezbollah's Latest Suicide Mission," language charged to invoke the image of an evil terrorist organization in the reader. This kind of charged language, while it is certainly justifiable from the U.S. perspective, takes into account none of the good that Hezbollah has provided for the Lebanese. The article only briefly discusses the reasons for Hezbollahs' withdrawal (objection to U.N. indictments of several members over the murder of prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005), while harping on the militancy and power-hungry nature of the organization, using words like "power-drunk," "militant," and "destabilizing." While Hezbollah has committed its fair share of heinous crimes and contributed to the violence in the Middle-East, these articles present the story as a too one-dimensional occurrence by a too one-dimensional organization. So far, I have seen little evidence that anyone has made any effort to follow in Borges's footsteps and challenge the decidedly wicked presentation of Hezbollah in this story.
I read a book a few years ago called "Dreams and Shadows" by Robin Wright, an eminent journalist who has written for many publications including The New Yorker and Time magazine. In her book, Wright talks about Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon. According to her, while Hezbollah began as a radical militant group, it emerged in the mid 2000's as a legitimate grassroots political and social organization. Hezbollah provided healthcare, education, employment, and opportunity for many in Lebanon who otherwise would not have had access to these resources. From the angle of many Lebanese, Hezbollah has been a savior and a foundation in unstable times. Yet most U.S. newspapers choose to focus on the negative and terroristic acts of Hezbollah rather than the good they have done for the country, and while its contribution to the collapse of the Lebanese government over the past few days has significantly decreased Hezbollah's legitimacy, U.S. publications still take an entirely negative perspective on the organization. One of the New York Times's articles is entitled "Hezbollah's Latest Suicide Mission," language charged to invoke the image of an evil terrorist organization in the reader. This kind of charged language, while it is certainly justifiable from the U.S. perspective, takes into account none of the good that Hezbollah has provided for the Lebanese. The article only briefly discusses the reasons for Hezbollahs' withdrawal (objection to U.N. indictments of several members over the murder of prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005), while harping on the militancy and power-hungry nature of the organization, using words like "power-drunk," "militant," and "destabilizing." While Hezbollah has committed its fair share of heinous crimes and contributed to the violence in the Middle-East, these articles present the story as a too one-dimensional occurrence by a too one-dimensional organization. So far, I have seen little evidence that anyone has made any effort to follow in Borges's footsteps and challenge the decidedly wicked presentation of Hezbollah in this story.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Photographer's Pencil: The Tucson Shootings
In On Photography, Susan Sontag quotes Fox Talbot, a photographic innovator in the 19th century, with the assertion that photography is a "natural image...without any aid whatsoever from the artist's pencil" (88). While Sontag goes on to recognize and explain the artistic qualities of photographs and how perspective and context contribute to the weight of a photograph, her book's publishing date limits her ability to recognize the degree of irrelevance of Talbot's claim with regards to 21st century photography. Sontag's inclusion of this quote by Talbot without direct contradiction is misleading when looking at photography of the last decade. Before I lived in a dorm with Yuto Watanabe, the head of photography for the Phillipian and an active freelance photographer, I might have believed Talbot's assertion to be perfectly applicable to the modern times. However, after watching Yuto process photos for the Phillipian and for his personal and modeling photoshoots, I have grown skeptical that any photo in the news is free of Photoshop's mark.
Yuto tells me that nearly every photo in fashion magazines, catalogues, and the news is photoshopped to express the message the publisher intends. These edits range from subtle or almost unnoticeable to blatant, egregious shifts in the subject matter. For example, here is the photo that the New York Times ran of Arizona killer Jared Loughner:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/11/us/11loughner_75.html
In contrast, here is the photo run by ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-loughner-alleged-tucson-shooting-gunman-appears-court/story?id=12580344
Looked at seperately, these photos appear almost identical. Despite different cropping, one could mistake them for exactly the same unaltered photo. However, if one looks at the photos side by side, the New York Times photo (which I gather from its widespread appearance in other news sources is the original mugshot of the suspect) has a more wan, yellowed tint, and looks slightly out of focus, as if an amateur mugshot photographer took the picture. The ABC photo, however, has some Photoshopped post processing that turns down the yellow and brings out the more natural color in Loughner's face. Why would ABC choose to spend time editing a mugshot photo? ABC's photo looks more adroitly crafted, and appears sharper and more crafted than the New York Times photo, so perhaps ABC wanted to put forth a more polished image to subtly draw in news watchers. However, this slight alteration in the photo significantly skews interpretation in that the yellowed, sickly, out-of-focus look of the Times picture gives the reader a less human sense of the suspect, whereas the focussed, sharp construction of ABC's picture adds a tad of dignity to the suspect's maniacal grin. This slight difference has a subtle effect on the reader, and might be completely dismissed or ignored if the reader did not have external knowledge on modern photography outside of that with which Sontag provides us about Talbot's quote. In this subtle way, I felt that Sontag (through Talbot) somewhat misleeds her reader.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Photos
Like many kids, I used to believe that the world before 1950 or so was a black and white world, as evidenced by the grayscale photographs I routinely saw from that time period. Things looked drab in this "Pleasantville" or "Giver" world without color, and in my little boy way, I rejoiced in the fact that people discovered color before my lifetime began. As I have grown older, I have of course shed my amusingly naive beliefs. Yet I am often surprised at how my interpretation of pre-color photograph life remains the same. While intellectually I understand that the world of that time mirrors the world of today in a multitude of ways, my view of life and culture is skewed by the colorlessness of the photographs through which I connect to that previous time period. Adding to my interpretation is the rigidity of many photographs from the early 20th century. People look serious, almost somber, even in family portraits and summer camp staff photos. I find it difficult to imagine that people sent pictures of their unsmiling families to each other as christmas cards. I still find it awkward to picture that time period in color, as I have attained my entire perspective from a colorless collage.
While photography has been an essential piece of the media and of my exposure to the unknown, I find that it somewhat bounds my ability to imagine. I have seen photographs of awe inspiring mountain landscapes, and beautiful sunsets over snow speckled conifers in the upper reaches of Canada's Rocky Mountains. Amid all this access to nature, can anything remain untouched by the human eye? I sometimes wonder if it would be possible for me to travel to a place on earth that no person could just as easily travel to on google images. Of course, I appreciate the ability to so easily stand a few hundred yards from the summit of the Matterhorn without leaving the safety of my desk chair. However, this ease of access to such stunning photographs is a double edged sword, as experience in the flesh becomes a comparison to the impressiveness of the photographs I have witnessed. I hope that photographs do not have this same effect on all people, but I fear that they do.
While photography has been an essential piece of the media and of my exposure to the unknown, I find that it somewhat bounds my ability to imagine. I have seen photographs of awe inspiring mountain landscapes, and beautiful sunsets over snow speckled conifers in the upper reaches of Canada's Rocky Mountains. Amid all this access to nature, can anything remain untouched by the human eye? I sometimes wonder if it would be possible for me to travel to a place on earth that no person could just as easily travel to on google images. Of course, I appreciate the ability to so easily stand a few hundred yards from the summit of the Matterhorn without leaving the safety of my desk chair. However, this ease of access to such stunning photographs is a double edged sword, as experience in the flesh becomes a comparison to the impressiveness of the photographs I have witnessed. I hope that photographs do not have this same effect on all people, but I fear that they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)