Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2007, 11:15 AM   #101
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Interesting Post fom Mike

leaving aside the fact that he is ignoring Neil's points and going onto another rant.
Yeah, he typically does that when his supply of strawmen runs out. It's his usual pattern...highly entertaining.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2007, 07:02 PM   #102
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,025
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Since this is the kind of topic that is open-ended and really doesn't have any actual resolution, it's just a matter of endurance. I'm envisioning two guys lying prostrate on the floor, panting and gasping, while still weakly lifting a hand to try and slap the other guy in the head.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2007, 01:11 AM   #103
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
I'm envisioning two guys lying prostrate on the floor, panting and gasping, while still weakly lifting a hand to try and slap the other guy in the head.
I'm envisioning one guy, driving a joke into the earth's core...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 10:27 AM   #104
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Back to the thread topic. Here's a pretty good video (I grabbed a feed that wasn't being dragged down by too much usage-- this is a very popular vid at the moment) that discusses a lot of the media involvement in "global warming". Go to the URL and scroll down to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and click the player. This show just came out in the UK and asks some pretty tough questions about the way the media has been pushing something that is scientifically shaky.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 10:54 AM   #105
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Trouble is that programe has already been discredited

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 11:11 AM   #106
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Trouble is that programe has already been discredited

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.
Oh, stoppit. You read an article in the liberal "The Independent" where they claim an investigation done by them proves something scientific? And "Steve Connor's" credentials in the scientific world are what?????? You worry about some simplifications in some graphs (for clarity, not substance) but don't dispute anything... while saying all has been "discredited"? You're exactly the sort of person the film talks about, Chalk. Down to a fine point. Dispute the science, not the filmmaking.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 11:39 AM   #107
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Mike

I take you didn't like the article - maybe that's why you didn't read it properly. (although I concede that maybe there were too many big words)

After all a liberal Newspaper must be wrong it couldn't possibly a programme you agree with that was inaccurate.

After all if i was to dispute the science i might look at whether the evidence came from a reputable source like NASA or somewhere else.

"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank".

Funny how you missed that

Still it's nice to see you try to argue a point. Even if you do still cling to the apparent belief that personal abuse actually counts as rational argument.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 11:56 AM   #108
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Great.... they mislabelled a graph. Where is the "discreditted" that applies to the facts and figures on CO2, David? Where is the "discreditted" to atmospheric warming? To CO2 increases lagging global warming by 800 years (which essentially destroys Gore's whole argument)? Certainly you're smart enough to realize that "The Independent" is a well-known liberal rag and that they didn't "discredit" anything... they nitpicked in an effort to discredit. What I see over and over again is people make low, passive-aggressive attacks, and then moaning out loud that someone who responds to attacks is somehow the aggressor. The way to avoid even the appearance of attacks, David, is not to make oblique attacks under the guise of "not attacking". Let's play a more intelligent game.... you recognize when you're arguing the issues (not the petty side issues) and I'll respond in kind.

Remember you tried to do this same discreditting/trivialization about the BBC being biased.... you trivialized as a response. The same thing here. Try to respond to the facts, please.

The press has been heavily behind the CO2 idea and within the last 6 months, more and more people have begun to realize that the theory is crumbling. That film about the "great swindle" was actually OK, but appeared to me to simply be jumping too quickly on some of the recent solar research.... research that has nothing to do with the film other than being mentioned in it. The data is causing heart attacks in the "sky is falling" community. Argue that data. ((Reminds me... the "Independent" article got its facts mixed up about the solar/sunspot issues and misrepresented it).

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 12:18 PM   #109
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Mike

Let's start - you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE and see if you can come up with something better that it must be wrong because you don't like it. (I appreciate you believe that to be an objective argument - i don't)

Stage two - Try to accept that being what you describe as liberal has no relevance to objective evidence (that's a posh way of saying liberal = wrong is not a valid argument) - Again I accept that this is something you will have a huge challenge with.

By the way your 'argument' that the BBC was biased from what I remember was that - there was a report that criticized them for what was in fact accurate reporting. Yes my response was simple enough for you to understand. (That's not the same as trivialising)

As far as attacks are concerned - the difference between us is that I do not pretend to be 'above' personal attacks and then perpetrate them whereas you do.

And finally the programme claimed to discredit global warming - but the basis for claiming it was inaccurate.

BTW - I take it you also believe that demonstrating that arguments and evidence fail to adequately support a position - it doesn't count as discrediting - something else I disagree with.

Anyway I'll be back either Sunday or Monday. Looking forward to your next post
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 12:35 PM   #110
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

And now we see the Mike Sigman SoP damage-control come into play.

First he tries to downplay the significance of the source...usually by ignoring significant critiques and findings...

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Great.... they mislabelled a graph.
(Just going on what I read here, they seem to do a lot more, than simply "mislabel" a graph...)

Quote:
A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.
So, to try to "prove" that Climate Change is a lie...the doc-makers lie, themselves.

Quote:
Where is the "discreditted" that applies to the facts and figures on CO2, David? Where is the "discreditted" to atmospheric warming? To CO2 increases lagging global warming by 800 years (which essentially destroys Gore's whole argument)?
Where is the documentation for these terse, one-word assumptions? Where are the legions of scientists, to counterpoise the legions of scientists who stand up to verify that climate change is most likely affected by man?

And, why are you so intent on arguing such a nonissue? The way I see it: the people most virulent against climate change are the ones who are profiting the most by the status quo...i.e., Bush, corporations, and oil.

Clearly, you like to leave out issues like this, in your declarations:

Atmosphere of Pressure: Union of Concerned Scientists Finds Widescale Political Interference in Global Warming Research

Quote:
The issue of global warming has been in the news a lot recently. Just yesterday, an international team of scientists declared the global warming debate over and presented a detailed report to the United Nations to combat global climate change. The panel recommended pouring billions more dollars into research and development of cleaner energy resources and stated that failure to act would produce turbulent 21st century weather extremes as well as spread drought and disease, expand oceans and displace costal populations.
The report - the result of a two- year study- was compiled by an eighteen-member group of scientists representing eleven nations. It comes just weeks after the world's leading body of climate scientists- the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Environmental Climate Change -- concluded that global warming was most likely caused by human activity and may be impossible to stop.

Also yesterday, a group of developing nations known as the Group of 77 said wealthy countries must take responsibility for causing climate change instead of laying the blame on others. Munir Akram, Pakistan's UN ambassador and chairman of the Group of 77 said that though emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants are increasing in booming Asian countries like China and India "most of the environmental degradation has historically been caused by the industrial world."
(We can now expect a brief defamation of the Union of Concerned Scientists, how "liberal" they are, etc, ad nauseum...followed closely by a "reputable" source that will, no doubt, present more fake evidence).

Other countries and nations are starting to realize the danger of climate change, while the debate is muddied by corporate and political interests.

Meanwhile, you present discredited doc's to "discredit" climate change.

And who said that Conservatives don't understand irony? Certainly not me...

Quote:
Certainly you're smart enough to realize that "The Independent" is a well-known liberal rag and that they didn't "discredit" anything... they nitpicked in an effort to discredit.
Yeah...the filmmaker himself, coming forward to admit his errors, with a solid distancing of Channel 4 (overall a pretty good TV network, BTW, from the bits and pieces I've seen of it) from the doc...yeah, sure: it was all the Independent, doing the nitpicking on the poor, poor doc that presents falsified data.

Quote:
What I see over and over again is people make low, passive-aggressive attacks, and then moaning out loud that someone who responds to attacks is somehow the aggressor.
What I see over and over again are people who are making LOTS of money (Exxon is now regularly breaking its own records, in quarterly and annual reports), protecting their investments. Life is very good for oil right now...why stop the money train now??

Quote:
The way to avoid even the appearance of attacks, David, is not to make oblique attacks under the guise of "not attacking". Let's play a more intelligent game.... you recognize when you're arguing the issues (not the petty side issues) and I'll respond in kind.
You, respond directly to issues?

Quote:
Try to respond to the facts, please.
I'm thinking about adages that involve preaching, and practicing the stuff that you admonish others to do.

Quote:
The press has been heavily behind the CO2 idea and within the last 6 months, more and more people have begun to realize that the theory is crumbling.
From where I sit, the theory is gathering more steam. Just look at the recent items in the news. In Great Britain (Tony Blair's recent speech about being the first nation to deal with climate change); in the US, W. Governors (AZ, CA, NM, OR and WA) agreeing to work together to reduce greenhouse gases; the IPCC (the leading body of climate scientists) has concluded global warming is "very likely" caused by human activity and may be impossible to stop.

Funny, but to me, the opposite of what you're claiming, seems to be happening. Ppl are starting to wake up to the dangers of climate change, in spite of attempts of corporate damage-control, to muddy the waters (or should I say, muddy the oil?).
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 12:39 PM   #111
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Mike

Let's start - you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE and see if you can come up with something better that it must be wrong because you don't like it. (I appreciate you believe that to be an objective argument - i don't)
Er.... excuse me, but you're trying to change the discussion from the accuracy of the facts claimed in the movie to disputing whether an article in "The Independent" is an accurate article, regardless of the fact that The Independent doesn't address the basic issues. Pass. You didn't study debate, did you?
Quote:
By the way your 'argument' that the BBC was biased from what I remember was that - there was a report that criticized them for what was in fact accurate reporting. Yes my response was simple enough for you to understand. (That's not the same as trivialising)
Well, a report from within the BBC said it was indeed biased. Period. I posted the URL to it.
Quote:
And finally the programme claimed to discredit global warming - but the basis for claiming it was inaccurate.
Which "basis" was inaccurate? The major point they hung their hat on was that solar radiation correlation synchs accurately with climate change; CO2 levels do not synch because of historical lags in correlation. What part of that have you or The Independent shown to be wrong... or even bothered to discuss? Show me any factual rebuttals? There are none, because at the moment the solar-radiation and cloud-formation data are in the vogue, embarrassingly for the IPCC and the pro-alarmists. But perhaps that will change.. who knows?

The original point was that the press have favored the pro-alarmist side of the argument and have been caught out because of it. All the attacks shy away from discussing the solar-radiation data or the cloud-formation data. So do your "factual arguments". Neil's arguments don't even come close to discussing it.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 04:24 PM   #112
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Wooly mammoths and smilodons don't exist any more because the planet got too warm for them. The same might hold true for the polar bear...

...and us.

We should try to pollute less, much less, but I think that this change is inevitable. Plenty of species have died out without any help from our carbon emissions.

Megalodon's (big, prehistoric shark) main food source was whales. When the latest ice age started, whales moved north and adapted to cold climates. Megalodon couldn't follow, and died out. What's gonna happen if the seas keep gettin' warmer?

The sharks are gonna get bigger.

Everybody out of the water!

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 12:13 AM   #113
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Show me any factual rebuttals?
Please. When presented with a point-by-point factual rebuttal to your posted source: you cut and run (see post #96).
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 01:44 AM   #114
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Mike,
I read Science, Science News, and occasionally Nature; these are high-level, pure science publications. The scientists publishing in those periodicals agree that global warming is a problem and that man-made CO2 (and other man-made gasses) is contributing to the problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 01:46 AM   #115
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
The sharks are gonna get bigger.
Everybody out of the water!
Oh, this won't make a difference. The sharks are already big enough to eat us.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 10:20 AM   #116
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Lorien Lowe wrote: View Post
Oh, this won't make a difference. The sharks are already big enough to eat us.
Yeah, but now they'll want the boat too.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 01:31 PM   #117
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Moving on with the topic of media coverage, vs. national ignorance...

There's the sad case of Kevin, aged 9, son of Majid and Masomeh, a family of Iranians stuck in substandard and prisonlike conditions in the Hutto Detention Facility, in Texas.

Family detained in U.S. granted permit to enter Canada

Quote:
Kevin's parents, Majid and Masomeh, (they've asked that their last names be withheld) first arrived in Canada 10 years ago seeking asylum, but were unsuccessful and were deported to Iran in December 2005. Kevin was born as they lived in Canada.

The parents said they faced torture in Iran and made another attempt to seek refuge in Canada with the use of stolen Greek passports.

But on a flight to Toronto from Guyana on Feb. 4, a passenger suffered a heart attack and died, causing the plane to be diverted to Puerto Rico.

U.S. officials discovered their false documents and detained the family for five days before sending them to the T. Don Hutto detention centre near Austin, Texas, a converted medium-security prison that has been condemned by human rights groups and is the subject of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Apparently, the conditions in Hutto are very bad. Kevin's not allowed to play with the other kids; he sleeps right next to an open toilet; and he has asthma.

But, the interesting thing, from a media perspective, is the coverage this story is getting. It's big news in Canada...even provoking this thoughtful editorial about the injustice of the current immigration policies:

Keeping The Bad, Throwing Out The Good

Quote:
The centre is run like a high-security prison for dangerous offenders, and little Kevin, now aged 9, sent a heart-breaking letter to prime minister Stephen Harper, begging him to bring his family back to Canada.

The problem is that the Canadian government can help Kevin, because he is a Canadian citizen, but his parents have no legal status and are therefore beyond the reach of Canada.

The fact that Majid was tortured upon his return to Iran should be sufficient proof for another refugee application. It also shows how wrong the Canadian authorities were to deport the family in the first place.

It boggles the mind. Just when you thought that Canada's immigration and refugee authorities cannot possibly be any more stupid, they deliver ready-made evidence to the contrary.

This Iranian family fled a terrible regime and sought a new home in Canada. Majid and Masomeh never broke the law and earned an honest living. When they first came to Canada in 1995, they played by the book, filed an application for political asylum, and did everything possible to be good Canadians.

They were deported in 2005 because the authorities did not believe their story about life in Iran. Those are the same authorities, however, that buy some of the most blatant lies from bogus refugee applicants, such as that Mexican who now claims to be gay and says he has to fear for his life in Mexico.

Then, of course, we have several people in Canada with known terrorist connections, who are allowed to stay in Canada. The infamous Khadr family even brags about its connections with Osama bin Laden, with the mother saying once how proud she would be if her sons could die as martyrs.

But decent and hardworking people like Majid and Masomeh are treated like garbage and sent back to Iran, where Majid was tortured.

You separate the wheat from the chaff, the old saying goes. You keep the wheat and discard the chaff. In Canada, however, it seems, we are more interested in the chaff than the wheat.
On our side of the border, a vigilant media would give this coverage its due: and I imagine that there would be a much-needed and healthy debate over the (in)effectiveness of private, corporate-run prisons, and the injustices apparent in OUR detainment procedures.

But of course, we're far away from that reality. Maher Arar's name is STILL on the "no fly" list: and the MSM has given his case little attention.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 03-16-2007 at 01:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 10:31 AM   #118
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Reply to Mike

No I didn't study debate - I did however study advocacy and mooting, so I never had the luxury of assuring that the criteria for relevance was my own personal convenience

Nor do I have the luxury of saying that the the 'basic issues' are what I want them to be. (I do appreciate that this is a difficult and frightening concept for you Mike - as pretty much all rational debate appears to be)

So let's go through it slowly

1. The TV programme allegedly put forward an argument that humanity was not responsible for the climate change the planet is now experiencing.

2. The newspaper article put forward information that the evidence that purported to show this was, out of date, inaccurate, and misrepresented.

3. I stated that the programmed had been discredited

4. The basic issues for this are did the newspaper article discredit the programme?

Your argument appears to be - all it showed was that the argument and evidence put forward by the programme was all unreliable. but that doesn't mean it was discredited.

You then, as usual, sidestepped the issue and claimed that it must be about the actuality of global warming.

So perhaps instead of resorting to your usual rant - that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - you go and invest in the purchase of a dictionary - I am sure your chances of success in discussions will improve if you actually know the meaning of the words you are using.

Now moving onto more immediate Human concerns

If Canada is anything like the UK - it's a numbers game - you need to refuse as many as you can get away with to appease the right-wing media mob.

In the UK an IND (Immigration & Nationality Directorate) stated "if you can't find a reason to refuse them - you should allow".

Still at least Canada has independent review of such decisions.

It also appears to be a disgraceful fact of life that all Western countries appear to be doing all they can to avoid fulfilling their freely accepted responsibilities under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The shocking thing is unlike the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Australia - Canada has a relatively good reputation on asylum issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 10:43 AM   #119
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
The shocking thing is unlike the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Australia - Canada has a relatively good reputation on asylum issues.
Part of that reason, I imagine: is that they have a healthy debate on immigration.

Here, we have a bunch of yahoo's call themselves "Minutemen," threaten minorities around the border and get cheered on, by the California Governor...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 10:47 AM   #120
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

I think you are probably right - here in the UK the Minister in charge has set his priority as 'no bad headlines' - just keeping the right wing media happy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 05:37 PM   #121
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
here in the UK the Minister in charge has set his priority as 'no bad headlines' - just keeping the right wing media happy.
Now that brings on an interesting question...is there a "rightwing media?" Here in the US, the answer is no (with the exception of Fox...but Rupert Murdoch was deliberately copying the style of British tabloids when he created Fox).

In other countries (Venezuala, Haiti, to name a few), there is certainly a rightwing media, and it affects how the world views certain internal crises.

In the US, the MSM is all owned by big corporations, and subject to a mercantile slant to everything. If it sells, is good for big business and can be put into a trivializing soundbite...run that sucker at 6!

Any thoughts on the rightwing media in other countries (GB, Canada, etc)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 03:35 AM   #122
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Rupert Murdock actually wanted standards as low as the UK's Tabloid media?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2007, 11:57 AM   #123
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Rupert Murdock actually wanted standards as low as the UK's Tabloid media?
I think that he was less interested in "standards," than in loyalties. Certainly, you can see that in watching exposee's like "Outfoxed."

From the film:

Quote:
John duPre, fmr Fox reporter wrote:
"We weren't so much a news gathering organization, we were told, we were more a purveyer of a point of view."

Last edited by Neil Mick : 03-19-2007 at 12:01 PM. Reason: punctuation
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 02:00 AM   #124
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 688
Israel
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

First a question:

On Sunday I heard several news reports on the radio about France urging Israel to attack Syria during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer. According to the reports, the France promised Israel full diplomatic backing for a long time, in return for Israel attacking Damascus (note it would not be a first, in 1956 Israel launched an attack on Egypt at the request of France and England, the request supported the Israeli interests at the time to attempt and stop terrorist attacks from the Egyptian border and to derail the Egyptian arming process at the time).

Did any of you hear anything about this in your international news?

Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 02:24 AM   #125
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 688
Israel
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Now that brings on an interesting question...is there a "rightwing media?" Here in the US, the answer is no (with the exception of Fox...but Rupert Murdoch was deliberately copying the style of British tabloids when he created Fox).

In the US, the MSM is all owned by big corporations, and subject to a mercantile slant to everything. If it sells, is good for big business and can be put into a trivializing soundbite...run that sucker at 6!
I have a question, or perhaps some point to think about, something that does trouble me at times:

In the last 20 years or so, we have all seen civilian economy, related to peoples consuming non-necessary products, has bloomed (just don't stop buying those, I will be out of a job in no time). In fact, the incomes and profits the large corporations create from prospering peace are much larger then those they gained from war related economy.
Given the above agreement that the media is owned by the big corporations, and they have significant control over it. Is it not possible that they actually affect the public opinion to increase the peoples feeling of safety and prosperity, even regardless of actual needs.
Can you trust your media to support a necessary preventive military action before a crisis blooms way out of proportion?
Or would the media today automatically criticize any military action on account of it reducing the peoples feeling safe and secure?

I do not believe all military actions are required to improve the actual security, and I do believe some military actions actually reduce the security. I also believe that in some cases, a military\forceful action can improve security, even the latter type of action may be worthy of some criticism, regarding the manner of execution and preparation and the possible alternatives (example for application related criticism: regarding the possibility of using stronger forces for a smaller task or vise versa).

Unlike some M.A. situations, in wars perception and public opinions plays a major part, and if the media truly chooses their side based on the corporations economic interests, it could affect real wars too.

Amir
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate