Comment of the day

Over at Hullabaloo, in a comment thread discussing the Jameil Hussein clusterfuck, commenter Bob makes a good if depressing observation:

[…] It seems to me that you don’t need biased news organizations to control the news, you merely need overworked reporters working for companies who don’t really care about the quality of their product. Once you have that, the political organizations who work hardest at framing (message discipline, etc) can control the stories that get told.

There are obviously many problems with this as the fundamental mechanism for informing society, but I’ll just point out one: Groups that are more strongly organized (top-down, disciplined, anti-democratic) will probably do a better job of framing stories than groups where everyone thinks and speaks for themselves.

Read more about:
, ,

“The results of philanthropy are always beyond calculation.”

If you’re looking for an in-depth informative read this morning you could do little better than not to bother with the Sundays and read yesterday’s LA Times investigative article on Bill Gates’ essentially sham philanthropy.

It lays out in devastatingly thorough terms the way the Gates’ Foundation charitable giving is funded by billions invested in the very drug companies and energy industries whose effects in Africa his much-publicised charity spends so much on visibly treating.

The reporters give chapter and verse on Gates Foundation investments in companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell, happily polluting away virtually unrestricted in Nigeria, and drug manufacturer Abbott, whose lobbying of industry-friendly intellectual property rights law has priced many AIDS drugs out of the reach of the very sufferers the Foundation aspires to help.

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

By Charles Piller, Edmund Sanders and Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writers

January 7, 2007

Ebocha, Nigeria ? JUSTICE Eta, 14 months old, held out his tiny thumb..

An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it “the cough.” People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Justice squirmed in his mother’s arms. His face was beaded with sweat caused either by illness or by heat from the flames that illuminate Ebocha day and night. Ebocha means “city of lights.”

The makeshift clinic at a church where Justice Eta was vaccinated and the flares spewing over Ebocha represent a head-on conflict for the Gates Foundation. In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

In Ebocha, where Justice lives, Dr. Elekwachi Okey, a local physician, says hundreds of flares at oil plants in the Niger Delta have caused an epidemic of bronchitis in adults, and asthma and blurred vision in children. No definitive studies have documented the health effects, but many of the 250 toxic chemicals in the fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer.

“We’re all smokers here,” Okey said, “but not with cigarettes.”

The oil plants in the region surrounding Ebocha find it cheaper to burn nearly 1 billion cubic feet of gas each day and contribute to global warming than to sell it. They deny the flaring causes sickness. Under pressure from activists, however, Nigeria’s high court set a deadline to end flaring by May 2007. The gases would be injected back underground, or trucked and piped out for sale. But authorities expect the flares to burn for years beyond the deadline.

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France ? the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

Gates’ charitable vehicles own so much stock in these companies that by socially responsible proxy voting in shareholders meetings the Foundation could have a significant effect on companies’ policies – if they chose to – which would tackle some of the health issues they champion at source. But they don’t choose to, because that would not be good for the markets or for Microsoft.

It’s fashionable these days, (and I’m as guilty as the next blogger) to decry the major papers as festering backwaters of old media, but every now and then there are still twitches of life and good reporting gets a prominent position.

That despite its own troubles balancing the conflicting demands of capital and news reporting, the LA Times is willing to take on Gates and Microsoft, the oil industry giants and the pharmaceuticals to show the public exactly what their respected household names are doing to the world has to be a good thing.

Read more: Media, Politics, Development, Charities, Investment Social Responsibility, Bill Gates, Microsoft

I am The Egg Man, He Is The Walrus

Can’t say I’ve been mistaken for Jeff Goldstein lately but I know what Blood & Treasure means.

The long-entrenched media gatekeeprs don’t like it constantly getting it shoved up ’em and it so it pays them to classify bloggers as The Mob.

not in my etc, etc

I wish people would stop talking about blogging as though it was some kind of coherent movement. I don’t want to be associated with assorted rightwing hacks and propagandists just because I happen to use the same means of electronic vanity publishing. Blogging is developing as a means for professional media to find better and cheaper commentary, which is why so many opinion mongers don’t like it. It’s also a means of expanding the beachhead for the world of propaganda and private facts. In the first instance, it’s the writing, knowledge and research that counts. In the second, you get recourse to pseudo egalitarian reasoning: I must be right because I am part if the brotherhood of the blog. As a rule of thumb, anyone who justifies their arguments or motives at any stage by referencing themselves as a blogger is almost certainly talking shite.

That’s my justification for sitting here in pyjamas and dressing gown at 4 o’clock in the afternoon up the spout then.

Read more Media, Blogs, Blogging, Internet, Domestic wibble

Magical Negroes and Visiting Blondes

For movie lovers heartily sick of the sight and sound of bloody Renee bloody Zellweger and her breathy brand of self-centered cultural bloody imperialism, this is my comment thread of the week.

When I read this Joe Queenan article on the movie Blood Diamond I had a feeling Steve Gilliard would have something to say about it and he certainly did.

The comments thread to his post turned into one of the most interesting cultural discussions I’ve read in a while ; not only well-informed and written but wide-ranging, civil and virtually troll-free. Here’s a snip:

“Subtly brainwashing?” Nothing subtle about it. But it is also true that as someone pointed out above there is a strong tendency in *all* american films and sit coms as well to americanize, masculinlize, white-ize and “familiarize” characters and settings as though the universal viewer they are aiming for is a single, fat, white, suburban guy who has never gotten out of his barcalounger to even peek out the window. They moved the g-dMN “Little Princess” to New York, for g-d’s sake, because, what, London wasn’t both exotic and homey enough?

But no one has brought up the “tragic mulatto” motif which bleeds nicely into the MLK motif in which the main non white character *never reaches the promised land* so the remaining “real” white characters can grieve and move on. That might be bagger vance, which I couldn’t stop gagging enough to even try to buy a ticket for. Isn’t “the green mile?” another one of these. In addition to black-guy-as-buddha we’ve always had a rash of “cute black kids in white families” and, of course, “cute midgets playing black kids in white families” and, of course, saintly retarded people revealing meaning of life to harried white guys in hospitals who are forced to rethink their priorities when they meet saintly retarded or black people.

So I think the ideal message movie would be white guy/woman comes to teach at a school entirely composed of midget, retarded, black kids and whips them into a basketball team of surprising strength that comes together and beats the nazis before expiring and leaving behind no trace of their victory but the white characters looking longingly at the trophy.

aimai

Mem to Hollywood: in addition, please, no more mining our British childhood heritage for star-vehicle biopics or safe Christmas blockbusters. CS Lewis, Virginia Woolf… what’s next, Johnny Depp does Postman Pat? George Clooney as Roald Dahl?

Oohh, I know, Paris Hilton as Princess Diana….

Read more: Films, Movies, Hollywood, Race, Culture

Unfair & Unbalanced

Whilst we’re on the subject of nasty attacks on prominent women, Fox News has referred to US antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan (who let us not forget, lost her son to the Bush Iraq disaster that the Fox channel pushed for so desperately) as “The Infamous Cindy Sheehan” .

Even from the abyssal depths of an umpty-years-old law degree I’d call that actively defamatory.

Infamous:

  • Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious.
  • Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed.
  • Law.
    • Punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights.
    • Convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment.

infamous adjective

Known widely and unfavorably: common, notorious. See knowledge/ignorance. So objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve condemnation: abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, loathsome, lousy, low, mean2, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched. See good/bad.

I think we can be reasonably sure that word was not chosen by accident. How long before it becmes a regular appendage to Sheehan’s name on rightwing media outlets?

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is also available in the UK, where libel laws are notoriously easier to negotiate than in the US.

Is there an ambitious young legal team somewhere who’d like, given Sheehan’s permission, to take Fox to court for libel and a peace-loving billionaire who’d like to fund them? It could make the lawyers’ career, a la the McLibel trial, and the philanthropist would have the eternal gratitude of the world’s population for giving media megalomaniac Murdoch a big poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Read more: US media, Fox News, UK courts, Defamation, Cindy Sheehan