Better Know a Noble

2008-04-10T00:56:00.008-04:00

Wedding of
Naomi Boyarsky
and
Yoni Noble
May 26, 2008
21st of Iyar, 5768

We dedicate our wedding to Hashem and to our parents, without whom we would not be.

B”SD
Our Dearest Loved Ones,

We are so excited to be able to share with you this very special moment in our lives! Each of you has played a crucial role in our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth, and we respect you greatly for it. We are thrilled to have you in our lives and pray we will continue to share many more monumental moments together, please God.

A Jewish wedding is full of meaningful rituals and customs. It is our hope that by reading this pamphlet you will better understand and appreciate our wedding.

There are three major components to a Jewish wedding as we practice it today: the kabbalas panim/reception hour, the Chuppah ceremony, and the festive meal.

Kabbalas Panim/Reception Hour

Kabbalas Panim literally means “greeting of faces.” This is the time when guests arrive at the wedding and greet the bride and groom. Since the groom (chosson) and bride (kallah) are compared to a king and queen, a reception is held in their honor on the day of their wedding. Jonathan is seated at the head of the table and Naomi on a throne-like chair, as relatives, friends, and honored guests come to greet us and offer their good wishes. Since Naomi and Jonathan do not see each other the week before the wedding, these receptions are held in separate rooms. We are anxiously waiting to greet you, so please do come over and say “hello”. Both of us would absolutely LOVE to hug and kiss everyone, but in accordance to Jewish law, Jonathan can only hug and kiss men, and Naomi can only hug and kiss the ladies. After you greet us, be sure to have something to eat from the two rooms, although the food is usually better where the bride is.

During Kabbalas Panim, Jonathan signs two Jewish legal documents: the tennaim and the ketubah. The tennaim, lit. “conditions,” is a legal document that became customary to write during an engagement in Europe in the Middle Ages. It traditionally contained conditions agreed upon by the two families that were joining. Nowadays, we sign a similar version promising to be open with each other financially. After it is read and signed, Ma Boyarsky and Mom Noble will break a china plate, tempering this moment of great joy with a reminder of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Also, just as this plate is irreversible, so too should be the engagement.

The second document is the marriage contract, the ketubah, an agreement in which the groom obligates himself to cherish, support, and sustain his bride. In it, Jonathan promises to support Naomi in various ways, including to provide her with food and clothing and to redeem her in case she is captured by bandits! The ketubah is the original premarital contract. The rabbis ordained that a man may not remain married without giving a ketubah to his wife as a means of security for her. It is therefore read to Jonathan at the beginning of the wedding, in the presence of two witnesses who will sign it, so that he may give it to Naomi as soon as they commit to their marriage under the chuppah.

The tennaim are read aloud here, but the ketubah will be read aloud to the couple under the chuppah. In addition, it is customary for the groom to deliver a short Torah discourse, or dvar Torah, at the Kabbalas Panim.

The Bedeken- “To Check”

After the dvar Torah, family and friends dance to accompany Jonathan as he goes to greet Naomi and perform the bedekin ceremony, the veiling of the bride. Jonathan lowers the veil over Naomi’s face, reminiscent of when Rebecca saw her husband-to-be, Isaac, for the first time, she took the veil and covered herself (Genesis 24:15). This is the Biblical allusion to the Badeken. The tradition also symbolically infers that by covering Naomi’s face, her physicality, Jonathan shows that he wishes to marry her for her whole being. Once Naomi is veiled, she receives blessings from her father.
The men then dance Jonathan back out and the guests proceed to the chuppah where the ceremony will take place. Men and women are seated separately on either side of the aisle, both enjoying clear and equal visibility of the chuppah.

Chupah (“Canopy”) Ceremony

The Chuppah is a canopy, representing the future home that Naomi and Jonathan will build together, please God. It is open on four sides to reflect the Jewish home being open to all. Just as Abraham welcomed guests from all directions, you are all always welcome to our future home (or apartment)!

Naomi and Jonathan are both escorted to the chuppah by their parents to represent the unification of the two families. The candles the parents hold are symbolic that Jonathan and Naomi’s marriage should be one of light and happiness, please God.
When Jonathan reaches the Chuppah, he dons a kittel with the help of Mom Noble. A kittel is a white robe worn to represent the purity one attains on his wedding day. This is because the Talmud teaches us that on a person’s wedding day, all of his sins are forgiven. In addition, a small amount of ashes is placed on Jonathan’s head, as a sign of mourning for the loss of the temple.

When Naomi arrives at the chuppah, she circles Jonathan seven times, figuratively building the walls of their new home. This circling has its origins in Kabbala and has been explained as a re-enactment of the revolutions of the world in the process of creation. This is to show that marriage is also a new process of creation. Additionally, seven alludes to the dimension beyond the physical, into the realm of the spiritual. Just as Shabbos (the 7th day) infuses the week with holiness, so too does the spiritual bond between husband and wife infuse their relationship with holiness. A singer will simultaneously bless their marriage through a song.

Following the song is one of the most important parts of the ceremony: the kiddushin. Kiddushin, which literally means “consecration,” refers to Jonathan’s consecration of Naomi to be his wife. First, two blessings are made over a full cup of wine, a traditional symbol of joy. The blessings are made to express thanks to God for the sanctity of marriage. The consecration occurs when Jonathan places a ring that he owns on Naomi’s finger and recites the Hebrew phrase:
“Behold you are sanctified to me through this ring in accordance with the religion of Moses and Israel.”
According to Jewish law, at this point Jonathan and Naomi are married! (Yay!!!)

One honored guest is called to the chuppah to read the ketubah aloud. The ketubah is read aloud to separate between the kiddushin (betrothal) and nissuin (marriage). Nissuin literally, “to carry/lift”, is the ceremony of spiritually lifting the chosson and kallah into the married state. Jonathan gives the ketubah to Naomi, who hands it to Ma Boyarsky for safe-keeping.
During the nissuin part, a number of honored guests are called up to the chuppah to bless the bride and groom according to the traditional sheva brachos or “seven blessings.” This is in line with the Talmudic adage, “a bride without a blessing is forbidden to her husband.” That is, before any new couple starts life together, we bless their endeavor so that it should be successful. The chuppah ceremony is concluded when Jonathan breaks the glass to remind us of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred about 2,000 years ago.

Cheers of “MAZEL TOV!” and “Hurray!” echo through the crowd, as Naomi and Jonathan are escorted down the aisle by singing and dancing guests.

Naomi and Jonathan are danced down the aisle to the yichud (seclusion) room, where they are alone for their first moments as husband and wife. In Jewish law, a man and woman may not be alone together in a secluded location before being married. Naomi and Jonathan now enter the yichud room to show that they are officially married. During this time, the wedding party will commence and food will be served.

Festive Meal

Feel free to start the meal right after the chuppah. We will be taking [quick] pictures, so please do not wait for us to start eating. When we return, expect to dance with us on the dance floor! Although the seating at the reception may be mixed, the men dance with Jonathan on one side of the partition, while the women dance with Naomi on the other side of the partition. It is a great mitzvah to dance before the bride and groom, so guests generally attempt to entertain the couple with funny tricks and jokes. Feel welcome to bring silly props to dance with- the funnier and wackier, the better. We fully endorse a good time for all!

In between dancing, try to have a bite to eat. At the end of the meal, birkas hamazon or “grace after meals,” is recited. This includes another of the sheva brachos, the seven blessings recited by some of our guests.

The seven days after a wedding are considered a festive time for the couple. Whenever they have a formal meal during these seven days, the sheva brachos are recited at the meal’s conclusion. One new person who was not present at the wedding or other sheva brachos must be present at each meal. This custom of continued celebration follows the example of Jacob and Leah’s celebration that lasted one week.

Finally, we want to express our sincere thanks to you for your respect. We understand that some of the customs at our wedding may seem unusual for some, and it means a great deal to us that you are so accommodating. We hope our wedding will be a new and exciting experience for all!

We CANNOT wait to celebrate with you!

With love and respect always,
Naomi and Jonathan (Yoni)

2006-12-11T00:11:00.000-05:00

China and Google

In a way, Dan Gilmor’s discussion of China’s crackdown on internet accessibility touches on many of the themes of this course. If you were a young Chinese teenager in 2003, you may have groaned when that annoying “Page Cannot Be Displayed” banner appeared in place of your favorite website. That year, China had flipped the switch on thousands of politically sensitive websites, establishing what’s known as "the Great Firewall of China" (read the terrific NYT Mag article). Early this year, Google launched a new Chinese version of their popular search engine with a built-in blacklist of keywords like “democracy” or “human rights” (profit-seeker model of the Media at work). Seriously, I invite you to type in the words “Tiananmen Square”, first on Google.cn, then on Google.com, and compare the difference. After Google’s recent acquisition of YouTube, I wouldn’t be surprised if that clip we watched in the beginning of the semester of the student protest is blocked also.

Is the Chinese government delusional, or just out of touch? If President Hu Jintao had read the first ten chapters of Dan Gilmor’s book, he’d recognize the futility of his efforts. The collective ingenuity of mankind hungry for information is practically unstoppable. If a computer hacker in Sweden can crack a company code, then surely millions of Chinese will find their way around the Great Firewall’s ramparts. Let’s say I threw in one line about Tiananmen on a Yao Ming message board. Even better, let’s say I repeated my comment on every single Yao Ming message board in the country (an ambitious task, no doubt). Would the government have the courage to firewall Yao Ming from China?

Notwithstanding devious tactics, the Net’s democratizing power is just as threatening to Communist rule. Millions of Chinese can now discover new information outside of the State-controlled schoolhouse. Tiananmen Square might be off the list, but the West’s rich traditions of liberty and hope permeate everything we read and see. How can you read of a new breakthrough in cancer research and not marvel at how what people can accomplish under a democracy? Last I’ve checked, authoritative information concerning the Orange and the Rose Revolutions are allowed on Google.cn. How can you learn of a popular uprising and not be convinced of man’s capacity for change?

Try as they might, I’m sure that China will lose its battle against New Media, just as the Music and Movie Industry will ultimately succumb to Peer-to-Peer technology. The diffusion of ideas brought about by the Net is the death knell for authoritarian regimes everywhere.

2006-12-05T23:18:00.000-05:00

Strength in Numbers

Scrolling through the class blogs, I came across a particularly trenchant blog entry by The New England Patriot. He claims that someday soon the master bloggers of the Net will join the ranks of mainstream Media, trading in their independence for greater visibility and credibility in an otherwise chaotic environment.

My hope is that this never comes to pass. Blogs of all sizes and influence draw their strength from the democratic outpouring of millions of wired people. A blog is only as good as the comments that accompany it. Notwithstanding the growing presence of trolls, pesky miscreants that disrupt online discourse with non-constructive input, participation is a key ingredient to a blog's success. If certain blogs ever attained MSM status, the blogging community as a whole will shrink. Why start a blog if people are going to read the DailyKos anyway?

I can empathize with the effort to establish trust and journalistic integrity on the Net. But I am cautious to endorse any policy or course of events that will subject the Net to the same hierarchical structures as found on the radio and television. To me, this short-term gain cannot outweigh the inevitable chill it will place on creative blogging. Lets keep growing, even at the expense of some journalistic integrity.

2006-11-30T18:29:00.000-05:00

Fetch my Blog, Spot!

For the first time in nearly a century, professional journalists face a formidable challenge to their dominance in the news industry: the Blogosphere. On any event, topic, or study, blogs can offer just as much valuable, insightful information as the best newspapers. Given the options, how should the average news consumer proceed?

My suggestion would be to choose depending on the type of story being covered. What are the advantages of professional journalism? One is the training to observe an event without becoming emotionally engaged. Zayed, an Iraqi blogger from the heart of Baghdad, reports on the daily condition of Iraqis in his blog Healing Iraq. He is an incredible eye witness to the Gulf War experience. Yet, does he have the emotional fortitude to exclude himself from the scene and report objectively? More likely, the experienced journalist can handle the task better than an embedded participant.

There are other types of stories, however, that the blogger can offer much more thorough coverage. Dan Gilmore, writer for The San Jose Mercury News, admits often that his readers have a much better grasp of the high-tech field than he does. He can relate what Steve Jobs actually said at the conference and still miss the important implications because he lacks the requisite techy background. Most journalists are trained in Grad school to be generalists, not specialists. A tech blog, therefore, might be a better source of useful information than a general article in a major newspaper.

Whereas professional journalists offer skills, bloggers can offer area-specific expertise. For coverage of an event, such as a catastrophic hurricane, I would first consult established media. For a highly specific topic or a hyper-local concern, blogs are my pick.

2006-11-29T00:37:00.000-05:00

A YU Blog? Why Not!

Why do I sit at this desk pounding out yet another blog posting? Do I delude myself into believing that more than a very small group of people will ever read these words? Will my post incite millions to throng the streets tomorrow, triggering massive social upheaval?

The chances of any single blog enjoying that kind of influence are slim. Far more than other mediums, the Internet approaches democracy in its literal sense: It takes the combined force of many bloggers to wreak havoc on corporate corruption, scandal, and government malfeasance.

The power of bloggers united has matured into a formidable force in today’s political climate. As Dan Gillmor illustrates in his book We the Media, bloggers were partly responsible for ousting Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 2002. At first, major news outlets found the remarks innocuous. The story was buried deep into The Washington Post, and ABC News had barely mentioned it. It was the swarms of angry bloggers that forced the issue into the national scene (for further analysis, read a Harvard study).

Ironically, blogs can also serve the needs of the corporate elite. For the potential candidate and the corporate executive alike, maintaining a timely, open blog is an excellent way of engaging your targeted audiences and putting a human face on a product brand. You can read Blog Maverick, written by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Just be sure you don’t delegate blog writing.

A more difficult question to answer is whether blogs can be classified as communities. Sure, bloggers network to build active discussion groups on topics of relevance to them, from DVD players to Yoga dancers. Bloggers have even developed a system of typing etiquette, such as a disdain for capitalized lettering, which is the electronic equivalent of shouting. Yet if communities are defined in the strictly traditional sense, neighbors meeting at a county fair, then something is lacking in the blogsphere. Bloggers tend to form communities with those they already agree with, spurning exposure to diversity for an echo room. If diversity is considered to be a necessary component of a community, then most blogs are not communities.

Perhaps, if Richard Joel were to start his own blog, a la Mark Cuban, a YU blog-based community could possibly develop. In time, the blog would engage the diverse YU denizens in issues that affect us all, satisfying my diversity requirement. For all the talk of “building the community”, I’d imagine that this one’s a no-brainer. Check out the existing alumni blog on the YU site, it's pathetic! This "blog" merely lists off the recent headlines that have graced the front page of the website, no more.

President Joel, if you are reading this, could you please respond with a comment?

2006-11-26T19:57:00.000-05:00

Life After Wikipedia

I can’t remember where I first heard it, but a particular childhood story came to mind when I read Chapters One and Two of Dan Gillmor’s We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People:

Once upon a time, a young king of some distant land desired to master all areas of knowledge. He proceeded to commission a team of learned scholars to prepare for him an authoritative book on every subject. Years past and the scholars weren’t even close to finishing the monumental project. The king then relented, asking for at least a compendium. When that wasn’t enough, the king knocked it down to a digest. Unfortunately, just when the scholars had completed chapter one, the king had past away.

Until recently, creating the penultimate repository for all knowledge was a librarian’s fantasy. No encyclopedia could hire enough experts to submit enough articles to cover all areas. At best, we had to allow the experts an incredible amount of power to triage knowledge for us.

Such undemocratic and ineffective methods of information collecting were symptomatic of the Dark Ages before Internet. Today, however, Wikipedia has revolutionized the way we gather knowledge and even the definition of truth itself. It’s a giant encyclopedia written and edited by thousands of average people. Over the summer, I read an absolutely fascinating article on the history and impact of Wikipedia in The Atlantic Monthly. Marshall Poe, the author, claims that truth has now become what most people, not the experts, say it is:

The power of the community to decide, of course, asks us to reexamine what we mean when we say that something is “true.” We tend to think of truth as something that resides in the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is written in the stars—we merely discovered it. But Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth. Just think about the way we learn what words mean. Generally speaking, we do so by listening to other people (our parents, first). Since we want to communicate with them (after all, they feed us), we use the words in the same way they do. Wikipedia says judgments of truth and falsehood work the same way. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it decides what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.

Wikipedia’s critics warn that the new technology will wrought absolute destruction on authoritative knowledge. Poe, I believe, would counter that Wikipedia has instead entrusted the knowledge of mankind to mankind itself. What belongs to us should be returned to us.

2006-11-21T22:49:00.000-05:00

Lapdogs or Watchdogs?

Eric Boehlert's new book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush makes a few bold assertions.

The national press failed miserably in its role as the public advocate to question President Bush's motives to wage war in Iraq.
Press coverage of the Bush Administration, at least until Katrina, was far more positive and supportive than of the former Clinton Administration.
Moreover, the press marginalized Cindy Sheehan's peace movement, favoring the Christian Right's Terry Schiavo crusade instead.

These events are neither incidental nor coincidental, Boehlert would claim. In the past thirty years, the conservative donors, think tanks, media watchdog groups, and press have quietly consolidated and streamlined a powerful right-wing media cartel, penetrating national political discourse as never before. Their favorites (Bush) get kid-glove treatment, their enemies (Clinton) get boxing-glove treatment.

Boehlert is probably right, though without reading his book, I'd need a few points clarified. First, he notes how Whitewater and the various sex scandals persistently followed Clinton throughout his presidency, but Bush's drinking and coke-sniffing escapades were quickly disregarded. True, but Clinton’s scandals were ongoing, while Bush is coke-free for almost thirty years. How is that relevant anymore?

Also, “conservative media cartel” probably isn't the only storyline here: Aren’t we forgetting 9/11? That fateful day had a chilling effect on an otherwise feisty media. Supporting the president became popular again, especially during a military campaign in Afghanistan.

When the dust settles, even a cursory overview of recent political history would finally debunk the myth that the media swings to the left.

2006-11-19T22:02:00.000-05:00

Give me Liberty...

Today’s topic, “Freedom of Speech during War Time”, is one of the great Constitutional debates of our history. Inevitably, most people will assert that free speech is sacrosanct barring a serious emergency. At issue are the two distinct and, at times, contradictory roles of the Executive: The prime law enforcer and the vanguard of national security. What if defending our country requires abrogation of the law? Who’s to say one of the Executive’s Constitutional duties takes precedence? (For a fuller discussion, watch a 2005 debate on the topic at Harvard Law School.)

Perhaps the roles of the President are not as distinct as we had suggested. Granted, the Constitution allows the Executive significant latitude to protect the nation. Yet how can we be sure that the power is being used responsibly? Is he/she tapping our phone conversations or jailing Americans without a trial behind our backs? That’s why even national security needs to be governed by law: to provide Congressional oversight and public accountability. FISA, FOIA, and other legislation were created for this very purpose.

Our beloved former President, Richard M. Nixon, brought these issues into sharper focus when The New York Times leaked the ultra-classified “Pentagon Papers”, detailing much of the blatant lies propagated by successive administrations about Vietnam. As punishment, Nixon ordered his staff to decline interviews from all Times reporters: “Under absolutely no circumstances is anyone on the White House staff on any subject to respond to an inquiry from The New York Times unless and until I give express permission (and I do not intend to give such permission in the foreseeable future).” The decision was taken “because of national interest” and “is not subject to appeal or further discussion unless I bring it up myself (Marilyn B. Young, The Vietnam Wars 1945 – 1990).”

To this inexhaustible debate I offer but one contribution: Those who advocate unbridled executive power must consider the lessons of the past. Freedom of Speech made the First Amendment for a reason: It’s the first line of defense protecting our other liberties. When liberty is discarded, we may never regain it.

2006-11-15T00:05:00.000-05:00

CNN? Nah, I watch Al Jazeera

At 12:00 AM tomorrow, Al Jazeera will launch its much-anticipated international news station in English, Al Jazeera International (AJI) which is expected to reach an unprecedented 30 to 40 million homes immediately. Their intentions are evident: to challenge the BBC-CNN monopoly on world news coverage and invite stratification of opinion in political discourse. Wadah Khanfar, the director-general of Al Jazeera network, confidently touts the English station as proof of Al Jazeera’s burgeoning strength:

This is unprecedented in the broadcasting industry - no other international news channel has launched with such a high number of homes across the world. We will continue to build on this figure after launch and will be looking to expand our reach significantly. This is another reflection of the strength of Al Jazeera brand.

What will Al Jazeera’s surging prominence mean for U.S. Foreign Policy? Will they undermine our fight against Islamic terrorism with aggressive propaganda, or will they instead pander to a new English-speaking audience by shifting its notorious media bias? I predict that the new market forces accompanying the expansion will necessarily encourage more journalistic professionalism, objectivity, and candor than ever.

While videotapes of Osama bin Laden are featured regularly on Al Jazeera’s Arabic station, the network is decidedly independent-minded (read Hugh Miles's article in Foreign Policy). Bankrolled by the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera has assumed a neutral, dispassionate position in the terror debate. Blood-thirsty terrorists as well as open critics of Islamic extremism receive air-time on Al Jazeera (watch a virulently Anti-Islamic clip appearing on AJ television this year). The network provides the forum for all political discourse, no matter how extreme.

Despite its popularity in the Arab world (and Israel), Al Jazeera has consistently lost money due to its failure to garner Western advertising. A balanced international network recruiting respected journalists, minus the Osama tapes, may be just the gamble Al Jazeera needs to finally turn a profit. After all, the Emir’s treasury is not inexhaustible. Professionalism will be accentuated, extremism curtailed.

2006-11-12T22:40:00.000-05:00

The "Big Lie"

Unfortunately, the one topic that Jews of all backgrounds can discuss together is the Holocaust. In any exploration of the development of the Nazi Party, the effective use of propaganda figures prominently. Though government propaganda was commonly used in both authoritarian and democratic regimes alike, the Nazis had elevated the craft to new, frightening heights. They not only perfected existing propaganda methods, they also devised wholly new means of persuasion.

One example is the use of the “Big Lie”. Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf that Germany’s loss in World War One was actually a big lie propagated by Winston Churchill with the help of the Jewish owned press. If it was indeed a colossal lie, asked Hitler, how were the German people so badly duped? He explains that sometimes a huge lie is more believable than a small white lie. People reasoned that the press would never willfully destroy its reputation by printing such an overt lie, so it must be true. Ironically, Hitler employs the very same tactic by instead blaming the war on the greedy Jews.

When you think about it, Hitler was on to something. The New York Times has a greater capacity to fabricate lies than, say, the New York Post, because they assume airs of credibility. Our most trusted news sources and government officials could also be the most egregious liars (think Bush and the Iraq-9/11 connection).

2006-11-09T23:55:00.000-05:00

A Word About Wal-Mart

As we explained in a previous blog, the very notion of propaganda implies deceptive manipulation. The art of political persuasion, forged over the centuries, predictably contains three salient features: Rhetoric, symbols, and myths. Politicians continue to use them precisely because they are so effective at stimulating an emotional response and mitigating the need for empirical proof, the ultimate means of propaganda.

Rhetorical tactics such as powerful speaking skills and a careful choice of language serve to delight us and brand us with a memorable image. Who can forget the passionate soliloquy, the closing arguments in the Scopes Trial, or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address? These memories live on in the collective consciousness of mankind, their evocative power still formidable long after the events. Through effective speaking, one can make a factually weak argument appear sound. The better the speaker, the more he/she can get away with.

A myth, in its strictly scientific definition, refers to the cherished stories and values of a group, whether true or not. Compared to our current surroundings, the myths tend to be comforting, warm, and pristine. Ronald Reagan was a pro at weaving in classic American imagery into his vision for the future (Watch some of Reagan’s ads from the 1984 election and you’ll see what I'm getting at).

A symbol is a speech or event distilled down to a single word or phrase. They evoke the intended emotional response immediately, though they should be used sparingly. Just mention the word “Munich” or “Vietnam” as an apt comparison to the Iraq War, and the message is clear.

One example of rhetoric, symbol and myth in propaganda is the opposition to Wal-Mart. The long-beleaguered labor unions have cast Wal-Mart is the new face of greedy corporatism. Finding or creating an arch villain is a popular rhetorical device, for people have a greater capacity for hate then for affection. The symbol of Wal-Mart’s disregard for local distinctiveness has become the Aztec pyramid of Theotihuacan, a Mexican source of pride being eclipsed by a giant Wal-Mart. Finally, any good critique of Wal-Mart will invoke a popular myth that Wal-Mart has eradicated the Main Street commercial centers of America. They will wax nostalgia about the Mom & Pop stores and the vibrancy of civic activity that was lost forever.

2006-11-05T21:56:00.000-05:00

Onus on Mr. Bush

Fascinating clip. A sharp departure from the bland diet of political meekness we've gotten used to from mainstream media. Hat tip to "Uncle Cool".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

What does the C-Doc think of this?

2006-11-05T15:19:00.000-05:00

Propaganda and Education

The topic of this blog posting is the pervasiveness of propaganda in contemporary America. Generally speaking, people exhibit a harsh reaction to the use of propaganda, for any purpose. Many would suggest that the dramatic rise in cynicism and the declining levels of political participation in this country can be partly attributed to an overall disgust with the government’s use of communication tactics saturated with propaganda.

In order to explain the phenomenon of propaganda, we must first define it. As usual, delineating the contours of propaganda, what circumstances fall within the penumbra of propaganda, is subject to heated debate among social scientists. Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, in his 2004 book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons if Mass Seduction, does a nice job in his first chapter of identifying, at least, the elements necessary to generate propaganda. First, propaganda implies deception, either in the core message or in the way the message is presented. Multiple viewpoints or a complex treatment of issues are likewise unthinkable in a message of propaganda. Second, propaganda requires intention on the part of the purveyor as well as the intended response of the recipient. Is unintentional propaganda theoretically coherent? If the audience fails to recognize the underlying message of a piece of propaganda, is it still propaganda? O’Shaughnessy would answer negatively to both.

Persuasion through some form of deception or oversimplification is, to a significant degree, the foundation of our education system. Our teachers tell us that democracy is correct, our parents tell us that sugary cereals rot your teeth, and our religious leaders tell us that God rewards the righteous. Is this education, or indoctrination? I’m not suggesting that any of these traditional orthodoxies are untrue. Rather, I am suggesting that the manner in which we learn information as a child is a form of propaganda. Only a student of great intellectual integrity can hope to shuck off his/her educational baggage to investigate the truth, often in spite of external pressure to accept the status quo.

2006-11-02T22:22:00.000-05:00

Rate Your President!

Arguably, presidential approval ratings are the most well-known poll in America. Initiated by George Gallop in 1936, the presidential poll is seen as a thermometer for gauging the zeitgeist of American politics. Practically every polling agency weekly conducts such a poll, a summary of which can be found on Polling Records. Perhaps also, the approval rating best exemplifies an inherent weakness in mass polling. Can a thoughtful, engaged citizen reasonably answer the question “In general, is the president doing a good job?” with a yes or no? Political dialogue should not resemble a game of “Twenty Questions”; serious topics usually cannot be reduced to a one-word answer.

Presidential approval polls are taken far more often than the average American may realize. Characterized as a “voracious consumer of polls” by NYT writer Josh Green, Karl Rove takes presidential polls for his own private consumption constantly. For Rove, public opinion is not his interest. By carefully rephrasing upcoming policy agendas in the form of poll questions, Rove can devise the president’s latest spin. Through polls, Rove had discovered that “Stay the Course”, as a slogan, was a huge drag on Bush’s popularity. Overnight, Bush had deleted it from his vocabulary (see the hilarious video).

How does Mass Media use presidential approval ratings, aside from covering them as if they were actually news (such as recent NBC interview)? Perhaps newspapers with a generally critical opinion of the president will use his sagging approval ratings in a way that will harm his party in the upcoming elections. By including presidential approval ratings in the same article covering a House or Senate race, readers will make the unconscious connection between all Republicans and an incompetent President. In a brief study, I found a few articles that could support this theory: One from Denver, one from the NYT, and one in the New York Times Magazine. More research should be dedicated to this important question.

2006-10-30T16:49:00.000-05:00

Poll Fatigue

With the November Midterm elections fast approaching, it behooves us to better scrutinize the usefulness of polling as a tool to assess popular opinion.

Since the 1936 elections, public-opinion polling has emerged as a mainstay in American politics. Founded on a commitment to provide an accurate snapshot of public opinion, the science of mass polling has been perfected over the decades to discount external factors. Pollsters know well, for example, that approval ratings for Democrats tend to slip on the weekends because young, educated singles, reliably Democratic, are out partying (see Michael Schwartz’s The Opiate of the Electorate). An earthquake in Pakistan, a significant day on Wall Street, or a recent House scandal can likewise distort the findings of a poll. The difficulties in effective polling, in fact, are emblematic of the larger challenge in Social Sciences to subject human behavior to rigorous scientific research.

To cite but one example, a recent poll conducted by the Rasmussen Reports shows Bob Corker (R) leading his Democratic opponent, Harold Ford Jr. (D), by a single point in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. Most experts consider this race a “Toss-Up”.

Some experts, however, suggest that Ford may not enjoy the support the polls imply. David Bositis, a Senior Political Analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, spoke today on NPR’s Morning Edition about a tendency for respondents to rate favorably a black candidate over a white candidate in order to appear socially tolerant. Known as the “Sociable Desirability effect”, some people express an intention to vote for the black candidate while planning to do otherwise. Bositis cited a 1989 exit-poll survey showing Doug Wilder, the gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, held a ten percent lead over his opponent among voters. He won, however, by less than one-half a percent, prompting an automatic recount. Ford’s recent gains in the polls may partially reflect voters’ impressions, not their intentions.

Mass polls are reliable for measuring broad trends in public opinion, but not for specific predictions, especially during an election season.

2006-10-25T14:51:00.000-04:00

Orwellian Logic

Prima facie, an apparent contradiction emerges between the Orwell’s Politics of the English Language and his magnum opus, 1984. In Politics, Orwell deplores the use of excessive language that obscures meaning, like dead platitudes or hackneyed metaphors. He advocates a return to a simpler, more direct form of communication. Yet 1984 seems to offer a very different argument. In Orwell’s dystopia, an adulterated form of English, Newspeak, is in the process of permanently replacing Oldspeak as the spoken language of Oceania. Newspeak lacks complex syntax structures and unnecessary vocabulary. Is this not the revolution of language Orwell supported in Politics, albeit in its most extreme application?

With close scrutiny, the reader will discover that Newspeak wreaks the same devastation on the English language as dead platitudes. Both distort the true meaning and intent the speaker. While never perfect, language is a powerful tool for communication, even for abstruse concepts. Modern English fails in this regard because it’s littered with meaningless phrases. Newspeak actually impairs the language to the point where high-level communication is impossible. Either way, the results are the same.

2006-10-24T15:14:00.000-04:00

Internet for America

As I reflect on the blinding speed of technological proliferation in the past decade, I am reminded of my fifth grade teacher asking the students with personal computers at home to raise their hands. Barely ten hands shot up in the room of over twenty-five. If she were to address the class today, she would have instead asked “how many computers?”, or “how often do you check your Gmail account a day?” Increasingly, the internet has not only entered our daily lives, but it has profoundly shaped our lives, especially for the young.

How have the giants of the corporate media industry, such as Viacom and News Corporation, coped with the emergence of this new medium? Do they feel threatened by the internet’s democratic elements, or excited by new opportunities for growth and profits? Robert McChesney, in his 2004 book The Problem of the Media, contextualizes the Internet Age as simply the most recent in a series of technological epochs. Whether it be the telegraph, the radio, or television, each new medium unleashed a new forum for democratic expression, and all of them were quietly conquered by greedy media corporations with the help of strong support from Washington. Considering such an abysmal track record, will the Internet prove to be the exception that breaks the mold? McChesney maintains unqualified skepticism. With time and lobbying, McChesney argues, the Internet will eventually assimilate the classic mores of mainstream media: uninspiring, low-quality news coverage, hyper-commercialism, and a penchant for the sleazy.

Just as in the early days of radio, starting a website or blog is cheap and easy for most Americans. You’re all reading my blog, and I didn’t pay a cent for it either! Unlike radio broadcasting, the sheer volume of distinct websites is limitless. Monopolization of the Internet is not even a coherent possibility. So why should I fear a corporate takeover of the Internet while the gates to access remain wide open?

The answer is that the Internet cannot erase the challenges of generating an economically viable alternative media outlet. I can start a blog to comment on already existing media, but I cannot create my own news source for public consumption. A true democracy requires informed debate on matters of concern to the republic. Yet as long as news coverage continues to be a costly endeavor, the media giants can still direct the contours of political debate with the way it covers stories and their choice of stories to cover. The relevant quip is “Media can’t tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to think about.”

One solution suggested by economist Dean Baker is the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which allows citizens to divert $100 of their taxes to any nonprofit media outlet. The policy would weaken the corporate stranglehold on media content and invite antagonistic viewpoints in news for the first time in generations

2006-10-18T00:19:00.000-04:00

Democracy in Peril

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate to choose the latter.”

-Thomas Jefferson

An oft-quoted line from one of America’s founding fathers, yet it still retains much currency today. Jefferson, as well as others, understood the important role newspapers play in the functioning of democratic institutions. Our system of government is predicated on the active involvement and participation of all citizens. In the absence of a watchful eye, government tends to slide into sloth and corruption. At its best, Media can “grease the wheels” by keeping citizens informed and giving them a voice to participate.

Yet recent studies have convincingly demonstrated that today’s Americans are woefully ignorant in basic political knowledge, strangers to the voting booth, and pessimistic about the future. In no small way, the kings of the media industry have contributed to this abysmal state by explicitly manipulating the content of the news to suit their interests. Relaxation of media ownership regulations by the 1980’s has enabled large conglomerates to build vast media empires rivaling the great oil companies of the Gilded Age. In order to maintain and augment their power, these media magnates exert pressure on their editorial staff to cover the news in a way that reflects their pro-business, pro-trade, rightist views. The result is either bland, one-sided news coverage, or no coverage at all. Democracy is in serious peril when ordinary citizens are effectively left out of the political debate.

This summer, a proposed Free Trade Agreement with Peru was signed by President Bush, to be ratified by the House and Senate. The FTA would open Peru's market far more to U.S. goods, which face a weighted average tariff of 9% and much higher on some products. The scant coverage the proposed agreement has received in mainstream media has been, without exception, emphatically supportive. Eric Farnsforth of the Chicago Sun-Times writes that “Unless a program is put in place to bridge the gap between the expiration and implementation of free trade agreements, real damage could be done to U.S. interests.” A Dec. 8th, 2005 article in the Washington Post quotes four free-trade supporters and no opponents. For the Miami Herald, Pablo Bachelet warned that rejection of the FTA with Peru “would not only be a victory for Chávez but a blow to other allies in the hemisphere that aspire to closer ties with Washington.” “Peru’s Path to Prosperity” was the title of an Oct. 11th editorial in the LA Times.

At Congressional committee hearings, the Agreement is hotly contested over it's possible negative impact on organized labor both in Peru and the United States. That debate, however, is noticibly absent from the daily headlines. The opinion of organized labor, once respected as an authoritative voice of working-class America, has been either trivialized or ignored in the Media. Why the change? Because the corporations that own the papers stand to profit greatly from trade liberalization and hence shield the story from the public. The Pew Research Center survey of three hundred journalists released in 2000 found that nearly half of them acknowledged sometimes consciously engaging in self-censorship to serve the commercial interests of their employer or advertisers, and only one-quarter of them stated that this never happened to their knowledge. In the interests of greed, the media has weakened democracy rather than fortifying it.

2006-09-26T23:19:00.000-04:00

Media and Politics: An Epic Struggle

In our representative democracy, candidates for any elected office need to find a viable means to communicate its policy positions to a large number of people. Before the popularity of television and the radio, nomination and endorsement by a large political party was crucial, for only a party had the bureaucratic and organizational capabilities to reach millions of Americans at once. Since the 1950’s, however, aspiring politicians of all stripes have gradually embraced mainstream media as a cheaper and more direct method of mass campaigning (see footnote 2, Chapter Eight in Leighley).

Relying on the media as your prime communication channel is not without its risks. While candidates try to use the media as an unobstructed conduit to convey their policy positions to the public, reporters have a very different agenda. With the goal of maximizing profit, mass media eschew extensive coverage of political issues, the information most relevant for voters, in favor of negative stories that excite and tantalize without requiring prior knowledge of the issues. Most stories the media covers predictably resemble a popular Greek tragedy: stories of prominent politicians at the height of their power brought to public humiliation by a familiar character flaw. Stories about the strategic environment of the campaign such as who’s winning in the polls are also common since they require no political background for comprehension.

The tension between the interests of politicians and reporters are manifest in the ’06 Senate race in Virginia. Two months ago, Republican George Allen was leading his opponent, Jim Webb, by a wide margin in the polls. Allen’s public relation team had a fairly firm handle on the type of coverage reaching the public. That aura of control dissipated quickly when Allen was caught on tape insulting a cameraman using a racial slur on Aug 14 (see Washington Post article). In short order, local and national media outlets swarmed to the story like flies to carrion, swiftly putting Allen on the defensive. In the ensuing weeks, stories surfaced about Allen’s past connections with white supremacists, an alleged affinity for Confederate ideals, bigotry as a college football player, and even his Jewish ethnicity. At the same time, Jim Webb, his Democratic opponent, has faced his share of controversy. He has been criticized for sexist remarks he made in 1979, rebuffing Nancy Reagan over a political ad, and anti-semitism.

In addition to besmirching their public images, both Allen and Webb have suffered in their ability to communicate their policy positions. In the past six weeks, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published fourteen articles on scandals pertaining to both candidates, four on the polls, and only six on policy positions. Coverage in national newspapers like the New York Times reflected this trend. Against juicy scandals, serious policy debate holds scant attention.

Regaining control of the media has driven both candidates to pursue opportunities to speak directly to the camera. Both appeared on September 17th edition of “Meet the Press” to emphasize their distinct policy differences in person. Allen and Webb have attempted to reshape the pubic debate with poignant political ads to the same effect (see body armor ad). Their websites are dedicated entirely to policy debate.

While mass media has magnified the power of political campaigns, it has also complicated it.

2006-09-20T14:43:00.000-04:00

Government Secrecy & the Constitution

This Monday, Yeshiva University invited Steven Aftergood, a leading expert on government secrecy, to discuss his work with Prof. Pimpare’s Media and Politics class. Aftergood heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, a watchdog group whose mission is to check excessive secrecy in government affairs and generate public awareness of current secrecy issues. To those ends, Mr. Aftergood is also the chief editor of Secrecy News, an email newsletter, and a blog.

The lecture began with a description of security classification, the process by which the government shields sensitive information from public dissemination. He then went on to provide specific examples in American history of how and with what frequency classification has been applied. From the outset, Mr. Aftergood was eager to convey his own opinion on the subject: With exceptions, government officials should seek to create an environment of openness and transparency where the American public can hold their elected representatives fully accountable to their actions.

The first slide was a Daily Brief, declassified in 2004, delivered to the President a week before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Strike the United States.” Perhaps, Mr. Aftergood admitted, broadcasting this message on every major media outlet would have proved ineffective or even counterproductive. Yet that consideration cannot justify the Administration’s decision to hoard and dismiss the brief. Had the Administration shared the information with certain security officials with the intention of alerting the relevant airports, the Twin Towers may still be standing today.

Mr. Aftergood understood the incident as indicative of two disturbing trends in government secrecy, one endemic to the system and the other fostered by the Bush Administration. An attitude of laziness and risk-aversion contributes to a general tendency on the part of government bureaucrats to classify whatever appears to be somewhat sensitive, without giving serious thought to its significance. This bureaucratic ineptitude has been rewarded and vindicated by the Bush Administration’s preference for secrecy and trust over openness and accountability. Both trends, according to Mr. Aftergood, can precipitate a dangerous shift from democratic norms in an era where freedom and civil liberties are threatened on every continent.

Following the lecture, several students remarked over pizza wheels how Mr. Aftergood seemed to evade questions with open-ended responses. When asked how the government can responsibly release only some information without presenting a distorted picture of the issue, Mr. Aftergood ambiguously replied, “Withholding all information would create more problems then it would potentially solve.”

To my fellow students, I would counter that heady issues such as secrecy and accountability hinge on key Constitutional debates, debates that aren't amenable to definitive answers. What methods are available for a democratic government to protect its citizens? Must a citizen be appraised of every foreign policy decision before its implementation? These are questions that the Constitution itself leaves open, spurring scholars to constantly reevaluate American ideals in light of current situations.

2006-09-13T01:38:00.000-04:00

A Journey to Blogsphere

As the internet continues to penetrate greater segments of our cultural existence, the already-burgeoning power of the blog in American politics has finally been recognized. Ned Lamont’s improbable victory over veteran Senator Joe Lieberman was characterized as a war fought and won by a dedicated army of bloggers (see New York Times).

You may be asking yourselves whether blogs adhere to the timeless standards of journalism such as serious investigative research, unbiased accounts, and a commitment to professionalism. Undoubtedly, your average blog boils down to an angry man in pajamas venting to a screen. Yet a good blog has the ability to spark meaningful discussion about important issues with substantive entries.

For example, read Kos’s scathing critique of the Democratic Party’s traditional campaign strategies entitled Building a Narrative. He makes the argument that appears difficult to refute: People will vote for the candidate with the better story, rather than the one with the best record. In other words, Democrats will often present their case in the form of statistics, “appeal[ing] to voter's brains”, while the Republicans are experts at building a narrative about their candidate that people can easily digest. By way of illustration, Kos writes that the Republican narrative of the 2004 presidential election was “1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper.”

Comments to the blog posting ranged from the hasty “Right on!” to the thoughtful “good point, but inadequate evidence cited.” LihTox agreed with Kos’s suggested changes, but dismissed his unstated assumption.

Most Americans aren't stupid, but they are distracted.
With the terrible economy, they're working more than full-time, then
coming home to raise their kids. They don't have time to read
Congressional bills (and educate themselves to the point where they can understand what the densely-worded bills are saying), and they certainly don't have the energy. They don't extensively research the candidates they vote for, because there are other things that are more important to them: making a living, raising their kids, having a little fun.

On a similar note, another blogger believes that Kos has created a false dichotomy: Narratives needn’t replace useful information. If used correctly, facts can provide the meat to a compelling story.

I myself am not entirely convinced by the evidence, notwithstanding the argument’s logical appeal. Kos uses two presidential elections to build his case, not exactly representative samplings.

Secondly, I need to see more evidence that Democrats actually campaign this way. The statistics on Kos’s entry come from the unofficial Ford-for-Senate website. What does Ford say on his official website? How would it compare to the content on the website of his Republican opponent Bob Corker? In my estimation, Democrats tell plenty of good narratives, they just don’t descend to the level of deploying fear tactics like Karl Rove and the Republicans will do. One line from Kerry’s 2004 debate, “You can be certain and wrong”, was a terrific narrative, in my opinion.

The blogsphere can never take the place of news, but it could evolve into a vibrant new forum for public debate, a modern-day agora.

2006-09-10T23:05:00.000-04:00

Driving it Home

The fifth chapter of our course’s textbook, Mass Media & Politics, scrutinizes the complex relationship government maintains with the media. Is the relationship necessarily adversarial in nature, or congenial? To what extent do politicians embrace the familiar channels of mass media to purport their crafted message? To what extent are they successful?

Perhaps we can begin to explore these questions by focusing our attention on a Sept. 8th Press Briefing by Tony Snow, a complete transcript of which is available on the official White House website. Snow set the mood and theme of the briefing with the President’s 9/11 itinerary: a memorial ceremony in New York followed by wreath-laying ceremonies in Shanksville, PA, and the Pentagon. Noteworthy was how Snow clearly articulated the apolitical nature of these events:

“This is not a political speech; there is not going to be calls to action for
Congress. It will be a reflection of what September 11th has meant to the
President, and to the country; the realities it has brought to all of our
attention and how we can move forward together to try to win the war on terror.”

The statement was to become Tony Snow’s overarching message animating most of his responses: 9/11 will not be used as an opportunity to shame Congress into legalizing the NSA wiretapping program or the CIA's worldwide torture cells.

The White House Press Office, in communicating the goals and intentions of the President, generally operates on the proposition that “less is more.” Each day, the Press Office will choose a singular message to project. Regardless of the content of a particular question at the briefing, the Press Secretary will often return to this theme time and time again. Economizing on political discussion allows the government to better control the direction of the discourse, as well as ensuring that the Tony Snow is never required to answer a difficult question; he just recycles the same answers.

Reporters, for their part, attempt to lure the Press Secretary into making unintented, revealing remarks in the interests of unearthing a newsworthy story. At this particular briefing, questions were raised such as "Does the President believe that if the Democrats control one House or another of Congress, security for America will be somewhat compromised?" Snow casually dismissed the question with the evasive rejoinder "we don't think the Democrats are going to win." Snow deflected the question rather than allow it to obscure his crafted message.

2006-09-05T00:38:00.000-04:00

Network (1976) - A Critical Review

Sidney Lumet’s cult-classic Network (1976), as seen from the eyes of a jaded 90’s teenager, may seem redundant and manifest. The prospect of our hallowed media establishments, guardians of free speech and public accountability, kowtowing to corporate demands and caving in to public interests is, to most, a foregone conclusion. Yet the film’s contribution to our understanding of mass media is the way it adroitly tracks the gradual decline of a television network’s moral standards in careful, calibrated steps. Hackett’s decision to murder his erstwhile star Howard Beale, albeit chilling, came with little shock as a fit ending to a well-developed plot. Reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the plot’s logical progression guides its viewers to a climax far-removed from its starting point, yet completely credible and coherent.

Network grapples with a number of salient issues concerning today’s media, most principally, the economic pressures that influence the final news product. Who decides the evening’s nightly news? The film offers several possibilities, but ultimately leaves this complex question unanswered. Diana Christensen (Dunaway) represents the “profit-seeker” characterization of mass media: Large media corporations, pursuing ever-higher profits in the form of wider newspaper subscriptions and television ratings, will peddle the most entertaining, digestible news stories available. In Network, comprehensive coverage of foreign and domestic politics is gradually replaced with programs starring soothsayers, Communist guerrillas, and “the mad prophet of the airwaves,” Howard Beale. Beale himself denounced the trend on his show:

This company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communication Corporation of
America. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most
awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what s**t will be peddled for truth on this network. So, you listen to me! Television
is not the truth. Television is a goddamned amusement park. Television is a
circus. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off and leave them off!
(Courtesy of Philosophical Films)

This “bottom-up” pressure propels Christensen to insane ends, cutting deals with unsavory criminals and orchestrating an assassination. To a far lesser degree, television has followed this degenerative path in the face of across-the-board decreases in revenue share.

Another growing influence on the media is corporate capitalism, as portrayed by Arthur Jenson, the CEO of CC&A, of which USB is a subsidiary. In a truly memorable piece of stellar acting, Jenson takes Beale into the darkened conference room and strongly “convinces” him to herald the ascendancy of capitalism over democratic institutions on his show. Dramatizing the “propagandist model”, Director Sidney Lumet explains how media outlets are used as tools for exploitation by those with economic or political power. Analogously, media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch allegedly attempt to sway public opinion by airing political shows with somewhat slanted news coverage.

Humor aside, Network is about these two powerful forces sandwiching the media today. The result is the erosion of the traditional standards of journalism endemic to the industry. One clear loser is the vitality of American democracy, incidentally the very message Howard Beale conveys to his audience before his untimely death.

2006-08-30T14:22:00.000-04:00

Mad Mel and the Media

Mel Gibson's well-known confrontation with a Malibu County police officer affords a valuable example of how best to cover a scandal.

While racing down the Pacific Coast Highway at 80 mph in a 45 mph zone, Hollywood star Mel Gibson was pulled over by the police and charged with driving under the influence. Thoroughly inebriated, Mr. Gibson compounded his guilt by letting loose a litany of Anti-Semitic remarks, claiming that "Jews are responsible for all the world's wars." He has since apologized publicly for the embarrassing incident and explained the remarks as an unfortunate consequence of too much alcohol.

Coverage of the story in national newspapers differed according to the paper's aims and mission. Judged on the basis of newsworthiness, the actual details of the event were completely insignificant. Mr. Gibson is neither an accountable politician nor a prominent corporate mogul. He is a man that entertains us, not a man who represents us. Those newspapers that chose to cover the story as news tend to prize profit and sensationalism over substance and quality. Disturbing is the fact that The New York Times's account of the arrest closely resembled the one found in The New York Post, a paper rated as the "least credible" media outlet in New York according to a 2004 Pace University Survey.

Several editorialists, however, demonstrated how the story did touch on timeless themes such as deception, bigotry, and forgiveness. As the subject of a clever editorial, the misteps of a Hollywood actor could achieve newsworthiness. Zev Chafets, writing for the LA Times, critisized Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League for exploiting the opportunity to vilify Mr. Gibson on the same day an Arab gunman shot six women in a Seattle Jewish Federation office. Shmuely Boteach stressed the need for Jews to forgive a sincerely remorseful man in an August 1st op-ed in The New York Sun.

With the skill of an artisan, editorialists took an otherwise irrelevant story and reframed it to discuss current societal values. What started as a news story became a modern Aesop fable.

2006-08-27T16:33:00.000-04:00

Al Jazeera's Lowly Tactics

This morning, I happened to come across a remarkable video clip in Al Jazeera's online Magazine section. The clip was the first of a four-part Fox news investigation on the possible presence of a large Israeli spy-ring operating in the United States prior to 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Faljazeera%2Ecom%2F

According to the Fox News report, approximately 60 Israelis have been detained for allegedly accessing classified information from dozens of government agencies such as the DEA and FBI in an effort to track suspected Arab terrorists. Brit Hume, the host of the show, added that "these Israelis may have turned up information on the planned terrorist attacks back in September that was not passed on."

Shortly following the airing of this series in December, 2001, Fox permanently removed the incendiary story from its website. The video lives on today in transcripts found on various hate blogs and Youtube.com.

The decision of Al Jazeera's editorial staff to dredge up a dated 2001 video disowned by the very network that created it and post its link on the front page of its website casts serious doubt on its journalistic integrity. While its anti-Israel agenda has always been a matter of little dispute, this story highlights the great lengths to which Al Jazeera will pursue its aims.

2006-08-25T12:46:00.000-04:00

A Winnable War on Terror

In an Aug 21st press conference at the Center Briefing Room, President Bush reiterated for the hundredth time America's core objective for entering the war in Iraq:

"The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

Yet, I wonder to myself whether such a noble vision of peace and democracy is even conceivable in the Middle East. The Middle East is far from a region hospitable to the clarion call of freedom, liberty, and justice. Perhaps the Bush Administration should treat the Mid East for what it actually is: a region continually on the verge of breakdown, a patient in need of emergency care. Democracy-building should be the key policy of some future administration capable of first restoring at least some semblance of order.

My suggestion for the Bush team would be to direct their resources towards a region long neglected and easily winnable: Central Asia.

In the War of Ideas against Islamic extremism, Kazakhstan stands out as an oil-rich, secular Muslim regime forging its way towards greater democracy by its own volition. Together with Georgia, Kazakhstan unabashedly advocates for American interests in the anti-US Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Yet the US has neglected to repay this kindness by not embracing a plan to build a trans-continental oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to Europe bypassing Gazprom. The pipeline would enrich our friends like the Kazakhs, Turks, and Georgians, while loosening Russia's tight grip on Europe's economy.

Note to Bush: Here's a battle against extremism and terrorism that we can actually win.