A newspaper published a story once, " The Bombay Stock Exchange is being used to fund terrorism". The stocks have crashed multiple times this year, does that mean the terrorist's kitty is than than gopal?? (empty)
Tell tell...
Sep 25, 2008
Sep 24, 2008
Larry King Live with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Larry King Live has been a popular show, with interesting guests. Few hours back, I happen to watch the skilled interviewer question the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Most of the questions were on the stiffened ties between Iran and US. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clearly stated, " US has broken all ties with us unilaterally." He also went on to say that Iranian people do not have any problems with American people, in fact Americans should come to Iran, and learn about our culture and way of life. According to him Bush lost an opportunity to develop friendly ties with Iran, on questioned whether he would like to rekindle diplomatic relations with the US, the President said he is open to it. He also referred to Israel as a 'zionist' state, and condemned homosexuality. He made it clear that Iran will not encourage being bullied by anyone, and that US should not interfere politically beyond it's geographical means.
So, what does one conclude from this interview. Well, it is hard to say. On one hand, there are a few things which one could agree with the President, like how the US could not interfere with another nation 's policy, but is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself a popular leader, has Iran benifitted under his leadership?
Iran has been accused of creating nuclear weapons by US and Israel, and the mounting tension between them is only going to lead to another political crisis.
It is easy to point fingers, but I cannot create an opinion unless I know what goes on in Iran. All I have heard and read in recent times is the stepping up of moral police, women and men being arrested for indecent dressing, which has resulted in wide spread agitation among young Iranian women.
But again, moral policing, code of conduct become an internal issue, it isn't fair to judge them on that? or is it?
It will be interesting to watch how this diplomatic tie shapes up when Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama takes over the White House.
Most of the questions were on the stiffened ties between Iran and US. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clearly stated, " US has broken all ties with us unilaterally." He also went on to say that Iranian people do not have any problems with American people, in fact Americans should come to Iran, and learn about our culture and way of life. According to him Bush lost an opportunity to develop friendly ties with Iran, on questioned whether he would like to rekindle diplomatic relations with the US, the President said he is open to it. He also referred to Israel as a 'zionist' state, and condemned homosexuality. He made it clear that Iran will not encourage being bullied by anyone, and that US should not interfere politically beyond it's geographical means.
So, what does one conclude from this interview. Well, it is hard to say. On one hand, there are a few things which one could agree with the President, like how the US could not interfere with another nation 's policy, but is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself a popular leader, has Iran benifitted under his leadership?
Iran has been accused of creating nuclear weapons by US and Israel, and the mounting tension between them is only going to lead to another political crisis.
It is easy to point fingers, but I cannot create an opinion unless I know what goes on in Iran. All I have heard and read in recent times is the stepping up of moral police, women and men being arrested for indecent dressing, which has resulted in wide spread agitation among young Iranian women.
But again, moral policing, code of conduct become an internal issue, it isn't fair to judge them on that? or is it?
It will be interesting to watch how this diplomatic tie shapes up when Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama takes over the White House.
Sep 23, 2008
Of watching FIVE news channels...
As usual I have forgotten about my blog, but once or twice a year I have a panic attack, and I publish a new post, I usually make false politician promises, like how I will continue to write, and how much I like writing...etc etc etc. But this time, I am just gonna write something, and not plan for tomorrow, if I am upto it, I will.
I have transported myself to West Africa, for a while. Accra, Ghana , yeah that's where I am living now, and what am I doing? No one knows.
Anyway, being in this part of the world teaches you a lot of things. Like, how much a cinema theatre means to you, that's right people, no movie halls here, no no I ain't kidding, I actually cannot see a film on the big screen here! So people watch everything on DVDs. Also, I have been recently informed, that there is no copyright law in Ghana! This probably explains the absence of cinema halls.
Ghana is also the main stop for all the aid coming in from non governmental organisations. Lots of volunteering work taking place in and around Ghana.
Keeping yourself busy is probably the biggest challenge one could face here, so I joined Alliance Francaise, but even that is on a break now. I would say the television selection is far superior, I am only emphasizing on the television news channels selection. There is BBC world, CNN, Sky News- another Brit enterprise, Euro News- pays special attention to developemental stories in Europe, and last but not the least- Al Jazeera English. It's simply brilliant. The coverage, the perspective, and for the first time not just a western perspective, thank you very much!
They broadcast from London, Washington DC, Doha and Kuala Lampur. I am guessing out of the four mentioned cities, only Doha recieves the telecast of Al Jazeera English. Reason being, it's HQ is in Doha, and Al Jazeera Arabic and English are the primary source of information in the Arab world. So Washington DC and London miss out on a great source of news broadcast.
One could wonder what is so exceptional about the channel, for starters, it has an amazing programming, shows like 'Inside Story' telecasted everyday after the World news. It is a discussion on a certain topic involving a news anchor, and two experts on the topic, who are usually telecasted from other parts of the world. The recent episode on US troops leading the militant hunt into Afgan- Pak border, which resulted in civilian casualties was fantastic. They had a representative from the Pakistani ministry and one from the American foreign policy. The questions were to the point, with no streak of diplomacy. Questions which made the representatives truly uncomfortable.
Then we have the famous Riz Khan, if you have seen him, you would know what I am talking about, catch him on youtube, so what if the Indian I & B ministry is not open to telecasting the channel, catch it on the web. Riz Khan had a show recently, where the topic was Iraq after five years, thats probably the most uncomfortable place you can put the experts in. It's not that Al Jazeera is anti -west, it just poses questions which the western channels prefer not to raise, and I believe this process is extremely important. For example, one never gets to hear about the American point of view, along with the other side of the argument. Because, the argument ends up being ONE sided. If you go to Iraq, I assume you would read opinions which could be anti west in nature, and if you go to America, you will read opinions which could be justifying the Iraq situation. Finding out an in between route is almost impossible and often leads to controversy. But when such a debate is actually carried out, it gives the masses an opportunity to gain a new perspective. Being a global news channel is anything but easy, your commercial interests are positively going to affect your coverage, and commercial interests are most often carry a strong political influence.
Having said that, I would like to point out another example, the Beijing Olympics 2008. A breath taking opening ceremony, followed by a almost perfectly organised 15 day event. Top notch amenities, high quality judging, and an enthusiastic crowd, proved that China could do it, and has done it. They set a bench mark for future games. Now, lets get to the main point- the coverage-
BBC was more or less neutral. CNN and Sky did their best to prove that Beijing is the most polluted city and a huge risk for the athlete's health, even when the IOC health committee officially measured the amount of pollutants in the Beijing air, and made a statement that it was safe. Euro News was not aggressive either, and Al Jazeera, did the similar stories, but with a different twist, they went on to show the problem and then the solution. Now, readers could say I am being biased about this, but the truth is Al Jazeera did not carry out stories which were out to sabotage China's capability, on the eve of the summer games. The question I ask is- had the games been in London, Paris, Moscow, Sydney, New York, Madrid , would the media have reacted the same way?
I guess no, because no one expected China to do so well. Also, obviously because China is a communist state, they have a bad human rights record, and primarily because of the Tibet situation which took place in March 2008. But give it to them, they were brilliant, Olympics is about celebration, and they sure know how to do it!
I will keep posting more examples now and then, and this is not a politician promise!
I have transported myself to West Africa, for a while. Accra, Ghana , yeah that's where I am living now, and what am I doing? No one knows.
Anyway, being in this part of the world teaches you a lot of things. Like, how much a cinema theatre means to you, that's right people, no movie halls here, no no I ain't kidding, I actually cannot see a film on the big screen here! So people watch everything on DVDs. Also, I have been recently informed, that there is no copyright law in Ghana! This probably explains the absence of cinema halls.
Ghana is also the main stop for all the aid coming in from non governmental organisations. Lots of volunteering work taking place in and around Ghana.
Keeping yourself busy is probably the biggest challenge one could face here, so I joined Alliance Francaise, but even that is on a break now. I would say the television selection is far superior, I am only emphasizing on the television news channels selection. There is BBC world, CNN, Sky News- another Brit enterprise, Euro News- pays special attention to developemental stories in Europe, and last but not the least- Al Jazeera English. It's simply brilliant. The coverage, the perspective, and for the first time not just a western perspective, thank you very much!
They broadcast from London, Washington DC, Doha and Kuala Lampur. I am guessing out of the four mentioned cities, only Doha recieves the telecast of Al Jazeera English. Reason being, it's HQ is in Doha, and Al Jazeera Arabic and English are the primary source of information in the Arab world. So Washington DC and London miss out on a great source of news broadcast.
One could wonder what is so exceptional about the channel, for starters, it has an amazing programming, shows like 'Inside Story' telecasted everyday after the World news. It is a discussion on a certain topic involving a news anchor, and two experts on the topic, who are usually telecasted from other parts of the world. The recent episode on US troops leading the militant hunt into Afgan- Pak border, which resulted in civilian casualties was fantastic. They had a representative from the Pakistani ministry and one from the American foreign policy. The questions were to the point, with no streak of diplomacy. Questions which made the representatives truly uncomfortable.
Then we have the famous Riz Khan, if you have seen him, you would know what I am talking about, catch him on youtube, so what if the Indian I & B ministry is not open to telecasting the channel, catch it on the web. Riz Khan had a show recently, where the topic was Iraq after five years, thats probably the most uncomfortable place you can put the experts in. It's not that Al Jazeera is anti -west, it just poses questions which the western channels prefer not to raise, and I believe this process is extremely important. For example, one never gets to hear about the American point of view, along with the other side of the argument. Because, the argument ends up being ONE sided. If you go to Iraq, I assume you would read opinions which could be anti west in nature, and if you go to America, you will read opinions which could be justifying the Iraq situation. Finding out an in between route is almost impossible and often leads to controversy. But when such a debate is actually carried out, it gives the masses an opportunity to gain a new perspective. Being a global news channel is anything but easy, your commercial interests are positively going to affect your coverage, and commercial interests are most often carry a strong political influence.
Having said that, I would like to point out another example, the Beijing Olympics 2008. A breath taking opening ceremony, followed by a almost perfectly organised 15 day event. Top notch amenities, high quality judging, and an enthusiastic crowd, proved that China could do it, and has done it. They set a bench mark for future games. Now, lets get to the main point- the coverage-
BBC was more or less neutral. CNN and Sky did their best to prove that Beijing is the most polluted city and a huge risk for the athlete's health, even when the IOC health committee officially measured the amount of pollutants in the Beijing air, and made a statement that it was safe. Euro News was not aggressive either, and Al Jazeera, did the similar stories, but with a different twist, they went on to show the problem and then the solution. Now, readers could say I am being biased about this, but the truth is Al Jazeera did not carry out stories which were out to sabotage China's capability, on the eve of the summer games. The question I ask is- had the games been in London, Paris, Moscow, Sydney, New York, Madrid , would the media have reacted the same way?
I guess no, because no one expected China to do so well. Also, obviously because China is a communist state, they have a bad human rights record, and primarily because of the Tibet situation which took place in March 2008. But give it to them, they were brilliant, Olympics is about celebration, and they sure know how to do it!
I will keep posting more examples now and then, and this is not a politician promise!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)