Slashdot Mirror
Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding
Red Leader. writes "This Thomas Friedman op-ed entitled "Global Village Idiocy" and this article by George Packer, entitled "When Here Sees There," both touch on some interesting observations regarding technology's impact on tolerance and understanding. My favourite quote from Friedman's piece is "the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."" We've previously posted the Packer piece, but combined with other story, I think it's worth a retread.
I wish I could say something about this, but I can't get to the story with out giving my life history to the nit wits at the paper....
Guess I just have to go buy the pulp version of the fiction that they call news now at the times.
;-)
What OS do you want to abuse today?
The Bush administration did nothing for Enron because it was too late (therefore too dangerous). However, when you look at the past history of Enron, it is closely entertwined with that of the Bushes. The Republicans are just mad at Clinton because he stole their program. But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
BTW, if the media were so liberal, then the liberals wouldn't complain about it being so pro-conservative. The fact is, most media are private corporations, and they follow a pro-corporate bias. For example, NBC never presented news reports of anti-nuclear demonstrations when it was owned by General Electric (who built the motors that powered cruise missiles). Also, a TV network that counts McDonald's as one of its major sponsor would be hard-pressed to run a story critical of McDonald's and risk to lose that account. It's pretty simple, really.
At best, the major media are centrist with a pro-corporate agenda, and at worst (like Fox) they are clearly right-wing. Of course, if you're to the right of them, then you'll find them "liberal", but that's only relative to your own point of view. Bernard Goldberg's book is itself a pretty biased text - for a better-written counterpart (which gives a lot more sources to prove its point), try Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Reminder: find a new sig
The fact that Israel has been practicing ethnic cleansing on the Palestinians for many decades is a fact documented by may scholars, non-Jewish and Jewish alike. The Internet simply makes it easy to bypass mainstream media and get the word out. This is what upsets Friedman. He fears the democratization effect of the Internet. Arab viewpoints don't become magically invalid simply because they are expressed over a powerful medium such as the Internet.
To further the point, the Palestinians have no army, are manginalized, killed, tortured, have no hope, etc., thus, as guaranteed by international law they fight back against an occupying army in the only way they can, with suicide bombs. It IS deplorable, but it is also deplorable that Israel practices ethnic cleansing. Somehow Israeli atrocities get whitewashed or not reported in U.S. mainstream media. In Europe the news is more balanced, but then they get criticised for anti-Semitism.
When Arabs worry that they will be killed by Jews and Christians, this *IS EXACTLY* what is happening -- at least in Palestine. The U.S. sends military equipment to Israel and Israel carries out it's 100 year old Zionist goal of an Arab-free Israel. It IS a reality. It isn't hard to see that Arabs are worried about what will happen next. Thus the great sin committed by the Arabs is that while they once worried privately, not they are worrying publicly using new Internet technology.
The "4,000 Jews not showing up to work" story may very well be a lie -- it's not entirely clear at this point because of allegations of the interception of instant messages coming from Israel -- but the fact that the rumor exists -- even if false -- points to the suspicion many have of Israel and the fact that they have acted as an agent provoceteur in the past to achieve their goals.