So anyway, I promised and now I will deliver, my views on Fox News.
I had heard about Fox News before going to America, I was fully aware that it was a news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and that like his news papers (as oposed to his media operations generally) had a right wing bias. So I was not entirely ignorant. I was not quite prepared however for what I actually saw as I watched the news before going to bed.
the main topic being covered was the fall out from the televised debate between the democrats various contenders for next year's presidential elections. The rights and wrongs of the various arguments generally escape me, they're not really relevent to what I need to say. What struck me was the deep seated, and frankly personal, loathing that the presenters clearly had for the whole of the democratic party and, in particular, Hillary Clinton.
I understand why people want to vote for Hillary Clinton, if I was an American I would want to vote for her, hell I'd quite happily have her as the British Prime Minister. She is an articulate, intelligent, well travelled and well respected individual on the world stage yet at the same time has advocated policies that could have a profound effect on the lives of ordinary people, the biggest of these being universal health care. I recognise that many people disagree with her on policy grounds, and that is democracy, that is why we have elections. However what i cant bear is the personal issue that many republicans, backed by Fox News, seem to have with her. It's is a two edged thing, firstly she is a woman, and Fox seems to hate strong women, and secondly she is associated with Bill CLinton who is probably the most universerally liked US president ever.
And Fox news just went for her, it was clear and total loathing of her.
In the UK the news papers have their bias, we all know that, but the braodcast media, including Rupert Murdoch's Sky news, has a pretty neutral tac. Perhaps this is why I was so shocked.
The next issue that really has me foaming at the mouth was the way a court ruling was deliberatly misinterpreted by presenters to savage one of their studio guests. Here's the deal.
In one American state (not sure which, I think it was Idaho, but don't quote me) the police had, as part of a road safety campaign, erected crosses where their had been fatal crashes along a stretch of road. As it happens I think that's quite a good idea, but that's by the by. A number of individuals objected to this on the basis that under the US constitution the state and church are seperated. There is freedom both of and from religion. It may not always seem that way in certain parts, but constitutionally that's the way it is. These objectors said that the use of crosses by the police was effectively the state officially advocating Christianity. The case went to court, and the ruling was interesting. The court allowed the crosses to stay on the basis not that the state was legally allowed to advocate Christianity, but that the cross was so universally recognised as a symbol used as a grave that it was effectively a secular as well as a Christian symbol.
Now I agree with the court. Bear in mind here that I am a Christian myself, yet even I, if I see a cross in the middle of a field, will assume it represents a grave, it doesn't automatically figure in my mind that the inidividual may be Christian or not or even make me think of Jesus. See a cross on a church or a different context and I think of Jesus, not of a grave. It depends on the context.
Fox however took it differently! They twisted the court ruling to categorically state that the state was Christian and that the atheists and secular folks could just fuck right off and leave the rest of the world in peace. Again the attack they launched on the objector who had been called in to be interviewed was vile and personal and frankly outrageous. And lets be honest, what is more interesting? Why were they ebating the rights and wrongs of this? Surely a far more interesting story is how mind sets have changed and why even the likes of me think of the cross differently, is the psychology and symbolism of religion not a more interesting story? I think it is.
Pitty about Fox News though.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
So now I'm back and over the jet lag I thought I'd sribble a few thoughts on New York.
Firstly, the toilets. The toilets are too low to the ground. I know it's only a minor thing but to Akela's mind it's really quite annoying.
Secondly the size of the place. America is a big country with a low population density so they have plenty of space, so I suppose it's obviouse that everything is going to be big. Yet the scale of some of the building, roads, bridges etc is just absurd!
Impatients! In the Uk if one were to try the door of the toilet and find it wouldn't open one would assume that it was locked and simply wait for the occupant to leave. It's that simple. In New York that is not how it works. When the door doesn't open people simply rattle the door till you have to tell them that you're on there.
Lewis Black - total legend. If you haven't encountered this comedien yet then you really must, and soon. He's kind of a cross between Jack Dee bitterness and anger and Basil Fawlty's ranting. Very funny, very clever.
Over all it was a great fun trip although I have decided that long haul flying sucks, it really sucks. So there.
Firstly, the toilets. The toilets are too low to the ground. I know it's only a minor thing but to Akela's mind it's really quite annoying.
Secondly the size of the place. America is a big country with a low population density so they have plenty of space, so I suppose it's obviouse that everything is going to be big. Yet the scale of some of the building, roads, bridges etc is just absurd!
Impatients! In the Uk if one were to try the door of the toilet and find it wouldn't open one would assume that it was locked and simply wait for the occupant to leave. It's that simple. In New York that is not how it works. When the door doesn't open people simply rattle the door till you have to tell them that you're on there.
Lewis Black - total legend. If you haven't encountered this comedien yet then you really must, and soon. He's kind of a cross between Jack Dee bitterness and anger and Basil Fawlty's ranting. Very funny, very clever.
Over all it was a great fun trip although I have decided that long haul flying sucks, it really sucks. So there.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Sometimes I wonder why I do it to myself, I really do. I tell myself it’s all about know thy enemy and all that, but in reality I just seem to be winding myself up in the extreme. What I do is that I sometimes read the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, I never buy the things, I read them on line and then inevitably end up reading the comments.
My views on both these publications is well known and I wont repeat them now, however one article really touched a nerve today.
On the Daily Express site there was a debate on the “Have your say” section about giving the vaccination against the Human Papilom virus, which is a major cause of cervical cancer, to girls as young as 12. The introduction written by the paper was as ever as biased as they come, but not in the direction that I expected. I’d expected some rant about encouraging young girls to have sex too early, but actually no, it took another stance typical of the paper along the lines of the health risks that might arise from the vaccination itself. Stats were, as ever, used in a totally distorted manner, it is at times like this that I thank God for my degree in biology in that I can pick out the bad science and bad reporting that often accompanies such scare mongering. That however is even then by the by.
What wound me up the point of distraction was the views of the people contributing to the debate. They tended to come in a number of categories.
First the only one I can see as a valid argument, one I disagree with, but nevertheless is worthy of consideration. That was that a programme costing £300 million would save around 400 lives a year. Now the fact is that you cannot put a price on a human life. Ever. However it is also the fact that the National health service also only has a limited budget per year. Could more lives be saved by spending the money on something else? I honestly don’t have enough knowledge to answer that question and I will admit that it is an argument that scares me on more than one level.
The rest of the arguments varied from the absurd, to the misguided, to the just plane disgusting.
First the argument that it encourages girls to have sex under age. No it doesn’t. Could I just remind everyone that girls are vaccinated against rubella at the age of 11 in order to prevent damage to their un born child should they contract it during pregnancy? Does that encourage under age sex? Of course it doesn’t. So why should this vaccination? What encourages under age sex normally is an absence of education both in terms of sex education and in how to deal with relationships, coupled with under age drinking and the misogynistic attitude often handed down to young male teenagers that women are there to be conquered and another tick on the bed post rather than anyone to have a cherished relationship with.
Education that teaches young people the importance of stable relationships, the importance of self respect and most of all about safe sex is what is needed, but not a totally dogmatic approach. Yes sex in a stable loving relationship may be the best way (you may disagree with me!) but that does not mean that sex outside of this is wrong or shameful.
Next we have this idea, engendered by the intro to the debate, that this is harmful to our children’s health. There will always be risks and side effects with any drugs. Some people are allergic to penicillin, and tragically some people died finding this out. Of course that is a tragedy, but lets face it far more people are alive today because of penicillin than Have been killed by it. The trouble here is the inability for someone to understand the concept of risk. It is the same argument that says because “My Grandad smoked everyday and lived till he was 107 so smoking can’t be harmful”. It’s an absurd argument and so is this. I’ve said it more than once, the standard of education in terms of understanding the risk of such things has got to be sorted out.
Finally, and this took my breath away, I was utterly appalled. Several individuals argued that the problem with sexual health in this country was caused by, and I quote, “filthy immigrants and the germs they carry.” Yes, that’s right, these people were actually arguing that only foreigners have diseases and they should all be sent home.
Where do you even start when dealing with some one like that? I am an unashamed bleeding hearted liberal. I don’t believe in smacking some one round the head with a stick as a punishment, but in cases like this? It leaves me wanting to stand in the street screaming at passers by, words just cannot express how angry and frustrated it makes me feel. And for someone that wants to be a writer that is sickening.
My views on both these publications is well known and I wont repeat them now, however one article really touched a nerve today.
On the Daily Express site there was a debate on the “Have your say” section about giving the vaccination against the Human Papilom virus, which is a major cause of cervical cancer, to girls as young as 12. The introduction written by the paper was as ever as biased as they come, but not in the direction that I expected. I’d expected some rant about encouraging young girls to have sex too early, but actually no, it took another stance typical of the paper along the lines of the health risks that might arise from the vaccination itself. Stats were, as ever, used in a totally distorted manner, it is at times like this that I thank God for my degree in biology in that I can pick out the bad science and bad reporting that often accompanies such scare mongering. That however is even then by the by.
What wound me up the point of distraction was the views of the people contributing to the debate. They tended to come in a number of categories.
First the only one I can see as a valid argument, one I disagree with, but nevertheless is worthy of consideration. That was that a programme costing £300 million would save around 400 lives a year. Now the fact is that you cannot put a price on a human life. Ever. However it is also the fact that the National health service also only has a limited budget per year. Could more lives be saved by spending the money on something else? I honestly don’t have enough knowledge to answer that question and I will admit that it is an argument that scares me on more than one level.
The rest of the arguments varied from the absurd, to the misguided, to the just plane disgusting.
First the argument that it encourages girls to have sex under age. No it doesn’t. Could I just remind everyone that girls are vaccinated against rubella at the age of 11 in order to prevent damage to their un born child should they contract it during pregnancy? Does that encourage under age sex? Of course it doesn’t. So why should this vaccination? What encourages under age sex normally is an absence of education both in terms of sex education and in how to deal with relationships, coupled with under age drinking and the misogynistic attitude often handed down to young male teenagers that women are there to be conquered and another tick on the bed post rather than anyone to have a cherished relationship with.
Education that teaches young people the importance of stable relationships, the importance of self respect and most of all about safe sex is what is needed, but not a totally dogmatic approach. Yes sex in a stable loving relationship may be the best way (you may disagree with me!) but that does not mean that sex outside of this is wrong or shameful.
Next we have this idea, engendered by the intro to the debate, that this is harmful to our children’s health. There will always be risks and side effects with any drugs. Some people are allergic to penicillin, and tragically some people died finding this out. Of course that is a tragedy, but lets face it far more people are alive today because of penicillin than Have been killed by it. The trouble here is the inability for someone to understand the concept of risk. It is the same argument that says because “My Grandad smoked everyday and lived till he was 107 so smoking can’t be harmful”. It’s an absurd argument and so is this. I’ve said it more than once, the standard of education in terms of understanding the risk of such things has got to be sorted out.
Finally, and this took my breath away, I was utterly appalled. Several individuals argued that the problem with sexual health in this country was caused by, and I quote, “filthy immigrants and the germs they carry.” Yes, that’s right, these people were actually arguing that only foreigners have diseases and they should all be sent home.
Where do you even start when dealing with some one like that? I am an unashamed bleeding hearted liberal. I don’t believe in smacking some one round the head with a stick as a punishment, but in cases like this? It leaves me wanting to stand in the street screaming at passers by, words just cannot express how angry and frustrated it makes me feel. And for someone that wants to be a writer that is sickening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)