Thursday, August 21, 2003
News junkies anonymous
But first a bit of background. Since the end of April after completing my Cooperative XML editing project I have been a little bored at work.
Whereas I used to be an 18 hrs a day workaholic and regularly used to bring my sleeping bag into my office, I now bearly hold concentration for more than 20 mins a day in total and can't wait to leave at 5:30.
I ashamedly attribute alot of my recent distraction to my "news" addiction. My daily news ritual goes something like this:
(1) I arrive late to work.
(2) I shamefully rush to check the ever increasingly boring Guardian newspaper like someone who can't afford to miss a ransom demand.
(3) I have breakfast.
(4) Half an hour later I then begin checking a plethera of other online "news" sources.
I guess this interest began sometime in March but has now become an addiction thats included me reading news source I despise such as the BBC online, reuters, the independent and the NYtimes and more recently ananova.
Reading these leaves me with the feeling you get when you drink lots of cheap orangeade but despite not really likely it, you can't bring yourself to pour it down the sink.
This ritual is all the more bizzarre since I loathed most of these news sources, along with the ranting of most of their columnist and their editors.
For instance there is Mr Alan Rushbridger editor for the Guardian who I think showed incredible cowardice in turning his anti-war newspaper into a pro-war paper during the Iraq war. Whilst keeping up some pretence at fair and balanced journalism by now flashing a banner advertising "Iraq: the war we could not stop".
This charge which is not just some fantasy of mine but was confirmed to me by friends all around the world who read the guardian online. I guess Rushbridger probably justified such cowardice as being the need to show "fair and balanced" reporting.
Furthermore its list of columnists are getting ever more annoying and banal. Those who would win awards in this category are David Aaronovitch who I am convinced is Peter Hitchens from the Daily Mail writing under a pseudonym and Julie Bruchill. Mr Aaronovitch was pro-war and regularly got a column slot blurting his illogical rantings and the need to bomb Iraqis in order stop the world's greatest proliferator of nukes, and other super space-age WMD his mind could conjure up. As the evidence grew weaker he joined the group of "humanitarians" who saw the need to "liberate" Iraqis. He doesn't even seem capable of the eloquent deception some right wing columnists manage.
I no longer bother reading anything by Mr Aaronovitch.
The second columnist that baffles me is Julie Burchill. Although politically inept (but pro-war), my beef with her stems from her supernatural ability to be banal.
She either regularly states the obvious and then tries pass it off as her own unique social commentary or she simply writes about something no one could possible care about.
A prime example are her numerous articles claiming Madonna has no discernable talent. I think she has convinced herself by now that her viewpoint is cutting edge and radical. Upon first reading such obvious commentaries a year ago I first thought "Yes ! Someone is finally saying it !" until you realise the whole world is probably in agreement on this, so why say it.
I often get that feeling and I have learn't to be more critical of it. The feeling where you think someone is making a point that is good or "deep" only to realise it is recycled and you have actual encountered it times before.
For example I was recently reading Eleven Minutes by Brazilian author Paulo Coelho. In it he says, "What is more important in life, living or pretending to live?" It made me stop for about two seconds, I thought good question but then realised that is also the centre of Madame Bovary, that's also the centre of Anna Karenina, Heart of Darkness etc.
I guess my beef with such columnists in general is why the need for them ? Especially those who write articles that bears no relation to current events.
Suddenly the BBC Online (which I regarded as the Daily Mail's online representative) which never seemed particularly pressed to update its news page) became no less attactive than the guardian.
My beef with the BBC orginally stems from the fact it offers you news depending on where you live.
I thought nothing of this at first but soon began to realise that if you follow the "I am reading this from the UK" link, you would in effect be asking to be lied to.
Like BBC1's 6'O'clock news it is assumptive, overly-simplistic and knows its bounds. (None of us are fooled by the patronising smoke screen that is the Hutton Enquiry).
A report published by the University of Cardiff concluded that the BBC had infact been just as pro-war as FOX news.
A quote from the Guardian reads:
"A detailed study of peak-time television news bulletins during the course of the Iraq war shows that the BBC was more reliant than any of its rivals on government and military sources."
Consider then the fact that Greg Dyke then gave a lecture at University of London Goldsmiths College criticising FOX news for warmongering.
To make my argument one simply needs to observe the difference between BBC's Newsnight (targetted at a more political class) and the 6 O'clock news (which is weak in any rigorous journalism, assumptive and very patronising).
The question I ask is why the difference between both programs ?. Why does the delivery, tone and infererence have to change ?
To me the answer is simple. It allows the BBC to point to Newsnight (which is tucked away on BBC 2 at 10:30 pm) as evidence of its ability to be informative and to debate whilst feeding the majority junk "news".
The only good thing about the Independent are Robert Fisk articles, exclude these and you have another boring broadsheet. The independent can also boast its own group of banal commentators like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. (I am sure there are many more there).
You may be asking yourself why haven't I included other broadsheets like the Telegraph, Times and FT. Well maybe I should.
However the Telegraph under ownership by Conrad Black has now become dangerous. The Telegraph was a prime cheerleader for invading Iraq and has been so weakened by his influence its editor bows to regularly publishing Mrs Black's ill-though mantra.
Black's wife, Barbara Amiel, frequently writes for the Telegraph and has been described as "a zionist fanatic". (Read her work and make your own conclusions.)
The fact that the Telegraph, owned by Conrad Black, is part of the Hollinger group made the George Galloway "discovery" all the more miraculous.
What further adds to this tragedy is that Richard Perle is a director of Hollinger, and a friend of Black. Both are friends of Ariel Sharon. Conveniently Black also owns the Jerusalem Post, (a right wing Israeli newspaper.)
Considering the company Black keeps one shouldn't discount the possibility of a less reported "sexed up" dossier.
I have traditionally stayed away from the NYTimes because of commentators like Thomas Friedman but it is still a source for what is happening in the US.
I enjoy alternative news such as www.zmag.org, Le monde diplomatique and Indymedia. Although with regard to the latter I must admit it too can sometimes be over simplistic and patronising. Regardless of whether you are right you should still make some attempt at being objective. Maybe that is too harsh a criticism for a news outlet up against the odds in a corporate dominated arena but good journalism requires debate.
Anyway as with all other addictions they say the first step to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem and so I decided to seek help only to realise no group catered for my addiction.
And so it fell to me to set up the world's first NJA (News Junkies anonymous) meeting. I attended my first meeting today but didn't have to travel far, in fact I haven't had to travel at all because I resourcefully decided to convene this NJA meeting at my desk. I drew up a plan to ween myself off the drug and began by introducing myself.
"My name is Paul and I am a news junkie in recovery. My sobriety date is August 21, 2003. At the moment I'm just taking each day as it comes, I guess I'll have to see how I do tommorrow."
But first a bit of background. Since the end of April after completing my Cooperative XML editing project I have been a little bored at work.
Whereas I used to be an 18 hrs a day workaholic and regularly used to bring my sleeping bag into my office, I now bearly hold concentration for more than 20 mins a day in total and can't wait to leave at 5:30.
I ashamedly attribute alot of my recent distraction to my "news" addiction. My daily news ritual goes something like this:
(1) I arrive late to work.
(2) I shamefully rush to check the ever increasingly boring Guardian newspaper like someone who can't afford to miss a ransom demand.
(3) I have breakfast.
(4) Half an hour later I then begin checking a plethera of other online "news" sources.
I guess this interest began sometime in March but has now become an addiction thats included me reading news source I despise such as the BBC online, reuters, the independent and the NYtimes and more recently ananova.
Reading these leaves me with the feeling you get when you drink lots of cheap orangeade but despite not really likely it, you can't bring yourself to pour it down the sink.
This ritual is all the more bizzarre since I loathed most of these news sources, along with the ranting of most of their columnist and their editors.
For instance there is Mr Alan Rushbridger editor for the Guardian who I think showed incredible cowardice in turning his anti-war newspaper into a pro-war paper during the Iraq war. Whilst keeping up some pretence at fair and balanced journalism by now flashing a banner advertising "Iraq: the war we could not stop".
This charge which is not just some fantasy of mine but was confirmed to me by friends all around the world who read the guardian online. I guess Rushbridger probably justified such cowardice as being the need to show "fair and balanced" reporting.
Furthermore its list of columnists are getting ever more annoying and banal. Those who would win awards in this category are David Aaronovitch who I am convinced is Peter Hitchens from the Daily Mail writing under a pseudonym and Julie Bruchill. Mr Aaronovitch was pro-war and regularly got a column slot blurting his illogical rantings and the need to bomb Iraqis in order stop the world's greatest proliferator of nukes, and other super space-age WMD his mind could conjure up. As the evidence grew weaker he joined the group of "humanitarians" who saw the need to "liberate" Iraqis. He doesn't even seem capable of the eloquent deception some right wing columnists manage.
I no longer bother reading anything by Mr Aaronovitch.
The second columnist that baffles me is Julie Burchill. Although politically inept (but pro-war), my beef with her stems from her supernatural ability to be banal.
She either regularly states the obvious and then tries pass it off as her own unique social commentary or she simply writes about something no one could possible care about.
A prime example are her numerous articles claiming Madonna has no discernable talent. I think she has convinced herself by now that her viewpoint is cutting edge and radical. Upon first reading such obvious commentaries a year ago I first thought "Yes ! Someone is finally saying it !" until you realise the whole world is probably in agreement on this, so why say it.
I often get that feeling and I have learn't to be more critical of it. The feeling where you think someone is making a point that is good or "deep" only to realise it is recycled and you have actual encountered it times before.
For example I was recently reading Eleven Minutes by Brazilian author Paulo Coelho. In it he says, "What is more important in life, living or pretending to live?" It made me stop for about two seconds, I thought good question but then realised that is also the centre of Madame Bovary, that's also the centre of Anna Karenina, Heart of Darkness etc.
I guess my beef with such columnists in general is why the need for them ? Especially those who write articles that bears no relation to current events.
Suddenly the BBC Online (which I regarded as the Daily Mail's online representative) which never seemed particularly pressed to update its news page) became no less attactive than the guardian.
My beef with the BBC orginally stems from the fact it offers you news depending on where you live.
I thought nothing of this at first but soon began to realise that if you follow the "I am reading this from the UK" link, you would in effect be asking to be lied to.
Like BBC1's 6'O'clock news it is assumptive, overly-simplistic and knows its bounds. (None of us are fooled by the patronising smoke screen that is the Hutton Enquiry).
A report published by the University of Cardiff concluded that the BBC had infact been just as pro-war as FOX news.
A quote from the Guardian reads:
"A detailed study of peak-time television news bulletins during the course of the Iraq war shows that the BBC was more reliant than any of its rivals on government and military sources."
Consider then the fact that Greg Dyke then gave a lecture at University of London Goldsmiths College criticising FOX news for warmongering.
To make my argument one simply needs to observe the difference between BBC's Newsnight (targetted at a more political class) and the 6 O'clock news (which is weak in any rigorous journalism, assumptive and very patronising).
The question I ask is why the difference between both programs ?. Why does the delivery, tone and infererence have to change ?
To me the answer is simple. It allows the BBC to point to Newsnight (which is tucked away on BBC 2 at 10:30 pm) as evidence of its ability to be informative and to debate whilst feeding the majority junk "news".
The only good thing about the Independent are Robert Fisk articles, exclude these and you have another boring broadsheet. The independent can also boast its own group of banal commentators like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. (I am sure there are many more there).
You may be asking yourself why haven't I included other broadsheets like the Telegraph, Times and FT. Well maybe I should.
However the Telegraph under ownership by Conrad Black has now become dangerous. The Telegraph was a prime cheerleader for invading Iraq and has been so weakened by his influence its editor bows to regularly publishing Mrs Black's ill-though mantra.
Black's wife, Barbara Amiel, frequently writes for the Telegraph and has been described as "a zionist fanatic". (Read her work and make your own conclusions.)
The fact that the Telegraph, owned by Conrad Black, is part of the Hollinger group made the George Galloway "discovery" all the more miraculous.
What further adds to this tragedy is that Richard Perle is a director of Hollinger, and a friend of Black. Both are friends of Ariel Sharon. Conveniently Black also owns the Jerusalem Post, (a right wing Israeli newspaper.)
Considering the company Black keeps one shouldn't discount the possibility of a less reported "sexed up" dossier.
I have traditionally stayed away from the NYTimes because of commentators like Thomas Friedman but it is still a source for what is happening in the US.
I enjoy alternative news such as www.zmag.org, Le monde diplomatique and Indymedia. Although with regard to the latter I must admit it too can sometimes be over simplistic and patronising. Regardless of whether you are right you should still make some attempt at being objective. Maybe that is too harsh a criticism for a news outlet up against the odds in a corporate dominated arena but good journalism requires debate.
Anyway as with all other addictions they say the first step to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem and so I decided to seek help only to realise no group catered for my addiction.
And so it fell to me to set up the world's first NJA (News Junkies anonymous) meeting. I attended my first meeting today but didn't have to travel far, in fact I haven't had to travel at all because I resourcefully decided to convene this NJA meeting at my desk. I drew up a plan to ween myself off the drug and began by introducing myself.
"My name is Paul and I am a news junkie in recovery. My sobriety date is August 21, 2003. At the moment I'm just taking each day as it comes, I guess I'll have to see how I do tommorrow."
Comments:
Post a Comment
