What's going on in Egypt?
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
Oh so because the exact specifics are unique therefor it not going to end up like most revolutions? Little hint here ever revolution is unique, take for example the growing differences between Tunisa revolution and the standoff that is the Egyptian revolution, yet your so sure of the same outcome?
The USA cares about many things, I don't think Arab rebelling matters much with all the external and internal problems Obama has to deal with to cause him to hit him self, heck I don't even see why he should.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Those assholes in Egypt attacked the sexy Anderson Cooper and his crew.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/02/02/ac.egypt.crew.hit.cnn?hpt=T1
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/02/02/ac.egypt.crew.hit.cnn?hpt=T1
Shit, is Egypt about to enter total pandemonium, even civil war.
You're right, he IS sexy.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
I raise you two Irans.
K
keith1
Guest
Egypt is already a Muslim country.
Hungry unemployed people kick out failed religion leadership, they don't embrace them.
Hungry unemployed people kick out failed religion leadership, they don't embrace them.
He got off easy. The US bombed the al Jazeera station in Kabul.
Saw this on mondoweiss today:
And read this immediately after - in the pro-Zionist NYT, no less!
Account from an Egyptian woman on Tahrir square:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSBJwsjakcg&feature=player_embedded
When Truth Is Dangerous
I would only note that, in the United States, we sometimes (often?) draw a distinction between the news and editorial pages of a newspaper.
To wit, The Wall Street Journal is a very good newspaper for news. It's editorial pages, though, are insane.
The New York Times, often denounced as a bastion of liberalism, is still a worthy paper of record when it's not plagiarizing. It's editorial pages, though, are clearly more liberal than the WSJ; still, though, they're hardly flaming.
And speaking of that editorial page, I would note a June offering from its editorial board, regarding the Gaza flotilla:
I'm not certain just how that one would contribute to its "pro-Zionist" reputation.
Even Tom "Suck On This" Friedman, a regular NYT columnist whose intelligence I recognize but whose outlook I find dubious, can't miss the writing on the wall:
You will never find a purist pro-Palestine outlook in American major media. It's not necessarily cultural bigotry (e.g., racism, religious supremacism); much of it is market-driven. To wit, you and I might agree on certain aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict that seem absolutely true. And even if they are, the fact is that in the American marketplace, those outlooks are anathema. Sure, you can say those things if you're a free, weekly tabloid that draws advert revenue from nontraditional sources, including prostitutes. But if you're a major daily? It's a huge risk.
This market dynamic isn't just an Israel-Palestine thing. It's all over the spectrum of what we call news, the boundaries of which are market-generated. NYT, Washington Post, the former Seattle Post-Intelligencer? If they came out and editorialized according to what you and I might recognize as truth, the market would punish them severely.
And, yes, walking that balance between truth and falsehood might seem disingenuous and greedy, but it's how things work in this country. Maybe the San Francisco Chronicle could get away with it, but one or the other of Chicago's dailies once killed a story about the differences between organic and industrial milk because the tri-state dairy board threatened to pull its lucrative advertising from the paper. Redbook once argued with its "Woman of the Year" about the photographs because cosmetics companies threatened to pull its advertisements; the Woman of the Year didn't routinely wear makeup, and didn't see the need to put any on for the photo shoot—which, of course, offended the hell out of Revlon at least.
The New York Times and Israel? That could crush the paper entirely. Few, if any, issues and associated lobbies have so much market force in the United States. So they try to walk the line. It's not about bigotry per se, although that might sometimes seem the outcome. Rather, it's about the marketplace, because that's how the United States of America works.
____________________
Notes:
Editorial Board. "Israel and the Blockade". The New York Times. June 2, 2010; page A24. NYTimes.com. February 2, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02wed1.html
Friedman, Thomas L. "B.E., Before Egypt. A.E., After Egypt". The New York Times. February 2, 2011; page A23. NYTimes.com. February 2, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02friedman.html
S.A.M. said:
I would only note that, in the United States, we sometimes (often?) draw a distinction between the news and editorial pages of a newspaper.
To wit, The Wall Street Journal is a very good newspaper for news. It's editorial pages, though, are insane.
The New York Times, often denounced as a bastion of liberalism, is still a worthy paper of record when it's not plagiarizing. It's editorial pages, though, are clearly more liberal than the WSJ; still, though, they're hardly flaming.
And speaking of that editorial page, I would note a June offering from its editorial board, regarding the Gaza flotilla:
There can be no excuse for the way that Israel completely mishandled the incident. A commando raid on the lead, Turkish-flagged ship left nine activists dead and has opened Israel to a torrent of criticism.
This is a grievous, self-inflicted wound. It has damaged Israel's ties with Turkey, once its closest ally in the Muslim world; given the Hamas-led government in Gaza a huge propaganda boost; and complicated peace talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank ....
.... On Tuesday, President Obama expressed his "deep regret" over the flotilla incident. He is doing Israel no favors with such a tepid response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown time and again that he prefers bullying and confrontation over diplomacy. Washington needs to make clear to him just how dangerous and counterproductive that approach is.
Mr. Obama needs to state clearly that the Israeli attack was unacceptable and back an impartial international investigation. The United States should also join the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — Britain, France, Russia and China — in urging Israel to permanently lift the blockade.
This is a grievous, self-inflicted wound. It has damaged Israel's ties with Turkey, once its closest ally in the Muslim world; given the Hamas-led government in Gaza a huge propaganda boost; and complicated peace talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank ....
.... On Tuesday, President Obama expressed his "deep regret" over the flotilla incident. He is doing Israel no favors with such a tepid response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown time and again that he prefers bullying and confrontation over diplomacy. Washington needs to make clear to him just how dangerous and counterproductive that approach is.
Mr. Obama needs to state clearly that the Israeli attack was unacceptable and back an impartial international investigation. The United States should also join the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — Britain, France, Russia and China — in urging Israel to permanently lift the blockade.
I'm not certain just how that one would contribute to its "pro-Zionist" reputation.
Even Tom "Suck On This" Friedman, a regular NYT columnist whose intelligence I recognize but whose outlook I find dubious, can't miss the writing on the wall:
I'm meeting a retired Israeli general at a Tel Aviv hotel. As I take my seat, he begins the conversation with: "Well, everything we thought for the last 30 years is no longer relevant."
That pretty much sums up the disorienting sense of shock and awe that the popular uprising in Egypt has inflicted on the psyche of Israel's establishment. The peace treaty with a stable Egypt was the unspoken foundation for every geopolitical and economic policy in Israel for the last 35 years, and now it's gone. It's as if Americans suddenly woke up and found both Mexico and Canada plunged into turmoil on the same day.
"Everything that once anchored our world is now unmoored," remarked Mark Heller, a Tel Aviv University strategist. "And it is happening right at a moment when nuclearization of the region hangs in the air."
This is a perilous time for Israel, and its anxiety is understandable. But I fear Israel could make its situation even more perilous if it succumbs to the argument one hears from a number of senior Israeli officials today that the events in Egypt prove that Israel can't make a lasting peace with the Palestinians. It's wrong and dangerous.
That pretty much sums up the disorienting sense of shock and awe that the popular uprising in Egypt has inflicted on the psyche of Israel's establishment. The peace treaty with a stable Egypt was the unspoken foundation for every geopolitical and economic policy in Israel for the last 35 years, and now it's gone. It's as if Americans suddenly woke up and found both Mexico and Canada plunged into turmoil on the same day.
"Everything that once anchored our world is now unmoored," remarked Mark Heller, a Tel Aviv University strategist. "And it is happening right at a moment when nuclearization of the region hangs in the air."
This is a perilous time for Israel, and its anxiety is understandable. But I fear Israel could make its situation even more perilous if it succumbs to the argument one hears from a number of senior Israeli officials today that the events in Egypt prove that Israel can't make a lasting peace with the Palestinians. It's wrong and dangerous.
You will never find a purist pro-Palestine outlook in American major media. It's not necessarily cultural bigotry (e.g., racism, religious supremacism); much of it is market-driven. To wit, you and I might agree on certain aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict that seem absolutely true. And even if they are, the fact is that in the American marketplace, those outlooks are anathema. Sure, you can say those things if you're a free, weekly tabloid that draws advert revenue from nontraditional sources, including prostitutes. But if you're a major daily? It's a huge risk.
This market dynamic isn't just an Israel-Palestine thing. It's all over the spectrum of what we call news, the boundaries of which are market-generated. NYT, Washington Post, the former Seattle Post-Intelligencer? If they came out and editorialized according to what you and I might recognize as truth, the market would punish them severely.
And, yes, walking that balance between truth and falsehood might seem disingenuous and greedy, but it's how things work in this country. Maybe the San Francisco Chronicle could get away with it, but one or the other of Chicago's dailies once killed a story about the differences between organic and industrial milk because the tri-state dairy board threatened to pull its lucrative advertising from the paper. Redbook once argued with its "Woman of the Year" about the photographs because cosmetics companies threatened to pull its advertisements; the Woman of the Year didn't routinely wear makeup, and didn't see the need to put any on for the photo shoot—which, of course, offended the hell out of Revlon at least.
The New York Times and Israel? That could crush the paper entirely. Few, if any, issues and associated lobbies have so much market force in the United States. So they try to walk the line. It's not about bigotry per se, although that might sometimes seem the outcome. Rather, it's about the marketplace, because that's how the United States of America works.
____________________
Notes:
Editorial Board. "Israel and the Blockade". The New York Times. June 2, 2010; page A24. NYTimes.com. February 2, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02wed1.html
Friedman, Thomas L. "B.E., Before Egypt. A.E., After Egypt". The New York Times. February 2, 2011; page A23. NYTimes.com. February 2, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02friedman.html
One of my earliest thoughts on flipping through news channels in the US was: where is the news?
Its true that much of what passes for "reporting" in US media are actually opinion pieces rather than news
Compare for example, the headlines about the latest violence in Egypt - I'm randomly picking the article on Cairo from the websites of the respective papers:
The Times of India:
Al Jazeera English:
The New York Times:
Do you note the difference? One is reporting, the other is - well I don't know what you call it in the US
Maybe, but is it the marketplace that drives the media or the media that drives the marketplace?
It's a big freaking mess
I promise you, m'lady, we have not yet answered that question satisfactorily. Best answer I could possibly give you is that real news doesn't sell in this country.
Indeed. It's not quite personal journalism; I sometimes use the phrase narrative journalism.
In the United States, they used to teach students various kinds of nonfiction writing. But what has emerged from that is the persuasive. At the heart of persuasive writing is the question, "How does this relate to the audience? What does it mean to them?"
This has been going on for at least twenty-five years. We have an entire generation now that thinks of persuasive rhetoric as the point of nonfiction writing. The "self-centered" question—What does this mean to me?—which is fundamental to individual existence has become nearly the whole of the market demand.
Thus, escalating violence or a body count doesn't necessarily mean anything to Americans. How does Egypt relate to us? Well, now the Arab world (e.g., the center of our geopolitical outlook for the last nine years) faces an uncertain future. For Americans, the only real question about uprisings in Tunisia or Egypt is, "How does this affect us?" That is the core of the American narrative regarding international events and politics. It's why grotesque labor practices barely register acknowledgment among Americans, but the solution is anathema: Fair, living wages paid abroad would raise the price of goods in the United States. That's how it affects us. That's what people want to know. And, as a result, that's a big part of why Americans will never do jack shit for the Hondurans who stitch my underwear, or Pakistanis who make my hand towels.
And because this core is so closely associated with persuasive communication, it's why we're so ambivalent. Really, we like the idea of freedom around the world, but how will it affect us? Is it inconvenient? Then we need to be careful about supporting it.
It has the appearance of a symbiotic relationship. It's a complicated go-round. We clamor for something better, but continue to reward failures to deliver that. It's a messy psychological state that I have a hard time explaining.
S.A.M. said:
I promise you, m'lady, we have not yet answered that question satisfactorily. Best answer I could possibly give you is that real news doesn't sell in this country.
Indeed. It's not quite personal journalism; I sometimes use the phrase narrative journalism.
In the United States, they used to teach students various kinds of nonfiction writing. But what has emerged from that is the persuasive. At the heart of persuasive writing is the question, "How does this relate to the audience? What does it mean to them?"
This has been going on for at least twenty-five years. We have an entire generation now that thinks of persuasive rhetoric as the point of nonfiction writing. The "self-centered" question—What does this mean to me?—which is fundamental to individual existence has become nearly the whole of the market demand.
Thus, escalating violence or a body count doesn't necessarily mean anything to Americans. How does Egypt relate to us? Well, now the Arab world (e.g., the center of our geopolitical outlook for the last nine years) faces an uncertain future. For Americans, the only real question about uprisings in Tunisia or Egypt is, "How does this affect us?" That is the core of the American narrative regarding international events and politics. It's why grotesque labor practices barely register acknowledgment among Americans, but the solution is anathema: Fair, living wages paid abroad would raise the price of goods in the United States. That's how it affects us. That's what people want to know. And, as a result, that's a big part of why Americans will never do jack shit for the Hondurans who stitch my underwear, or Pakistanis who make my hand towels.
And because this core is so closely associated with persuasive communication, it's why we're so ambivalent. Really, we like the idea of freedom around the world, but how will it affect us? Is it inconvenient? Then we need to be careful about supporting it.
It has the appearance of a symbiotic relationship. It's a complicated go-round. We clamor for something better, but continue to reward failures to deliver that. It's a messy psychological state that I have a hard time explaining.
Last edited:
What kind of boom?
Egypt, Israel, and the U.S. of A.
Matt Frei of the BBC's World News America offers some insight into the American view of events in Egypt:
Yes, I know I said, "American view of events in Egypt".
Yes, I know the excerpt is largely about Israel.
This discussion is at the heart of the American inquiry, "How do events in Egypt affect me?"
____________________
Notes:
Frei, Matt. "Storms rage at home and abroad". American Frei. February 2, 2011. BBC.co.uk. February 3, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mattfrei/2011/02/should_israel_batten_the_hatch.html
Matt Frei of the BBC's World News America offers some insight into the American view of events in Egypt:
Israel is right to feel lonely and nervous, especially at a time when the region is in danger of going nuclear. In today's New York Times, Tom Friedman makes an excellent case for why Israel should - no, must - use this crisis as an opportunity finally to make a peace deal with the Palestinians before any new government in Cairo might change its mind about being friends with Israel.
Such a deal would, among other things, give the Israelis the cover they have never had in the region. If they can make peace with the Palestinians, the only reason for other Arab states not to is naked enmity.
At a dinner on Monday night I put this thesis to General Brent Scowcroft, a wise Washington veteran who has served and advised five presidents on national security.
He thought about it for a few seconds and then said that, sadly, the Israelis could be relied upon to do the exact opposite and batten down the hatches in stormy times like this.
Such a deal would, among other things, give the Israelis the cover they have never had in the region. If they can make peace with the Palestinians, the only reason for other Arab states not to is naked enmity.
At a dinner on Monday night I put this thesis to General Brent Scowcroft, a wise Washington veteran who has served and advised five presidents on national security.
He thought about it for a few seconds and then said that, sadly, the Israelis could be relied upon to do the exact opposite and batten down the hatches in stormy times like this.
Yes, I know I said, "American view of events in Egypt".
Yes, I know the excerpt is largely about Israel.
This discussion is at the heart of the American inquiry, "How do events in Egypt affect me?"
____________________
Notes:
Frei, Matt. "Storms rage at home and abroad". American Frei. February 2, 2011. BBC.co.uk. February 3, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mattfrei/2011/02/should_israel_batten_the_hatch.html
ka-boom.
Thanks for the insight. I see now why the form of journalism is what it is in the United States. Just a cursory look at the differences in the World segments of the TOI and NYT is not sufficient in itself to show the different approaches to information in the two socities - we have a tendency to look for the what happened? where? how? why? in the first paragraph or so of the article, while the rest is simply reading for leisure and greater insight. While often, this information has to be garnered with great difficulty even after reading entire articles in the US. Sometimes, I find articles in the NYT so incoherent, that the headlines convey one information while the article itself is two or three or even more different aspects of an entirely different focal point of view. Its as if simply focusing on what is intended to be conveyed is extremely difficult to ascertain.
Funny thing is, I don't even consider the TOI as indicative of excellent journalism, simply good journalism. The Deccan Chronicle, for example, or even The Indian Express [which is an anti-establishment paper] both do much better jobs with reporting what happened [in their individual styles] than TOI. But in India, we depend much more on the televised media for our news, so I tend to judge media in other places by the standards set by our television media here. Not that we don't have our own biases in what we are "allowed" to watch, but we have more options as to how to access the less popular media centers
Can you get Press TV Sam?
It is the channel sponsored by Iran.
I'm listening to it today.
Compared with Al J it is complete dross.
They are desperate to find some US plot behind the whole thing.
They are obsessed with America.
Re your question about why the US newspaper reports are so verbose.
Payment per word.
We have the same thing in the UK.
Our Sunday Newspapers, especially but not exclusively, are full of over-effusive drivel.
The US article was sympathetic and heartfelt at least, so maybe some leeway should be allowed.
It is the channel sponsored by Iran.
I'm listening to it today.
Compared with Al J it is complete dross.
They are desperate to find some US plot behind the whole thing.
They are obsessed with America.
Re your question about why the US newspaper reports are so verbose.
Payment per word.
We have the same thing in the UK.
Our Sunday Newspapers, especially but not exclusively, are full of over-effusive drivel.
The US article was sympathetic and heartfelt at least, so maybe some leeway should be allowed.
We get Press TV in some parts of India, although it has been knocked off the air in Kashmir
Its not the verbosity I object to in US papers, its the lack of objective info. If you take a paper and pen and compare the information - factual, which can be checked - between the article in the NYT and the article in say, the Deccan Chronicle, you'll understand what I mean. It seems to me most Americans lack the ability to separate factual information from unsupported assertions primarily because of the way that news is presented to them.