Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 673)
TV review: Christopher and His Kind

Sex and the rise of Nazism in 30s Berlin provided a resonant backdrop for Christopher Isherwood’s story of self-discovery Two things were going on in Berlin in the early 1930s. First, it was the sex tourism capital of Europe, a paradise of hedonism particularly favoured by gay young English gentlemen of a literary persuasion. And second, Nazism was gathering momentum, inexorably. The two didn’t always sit comfortably together. Imagine it, one minute a handsome young man called Caspar is doing press-ups for you on the jetty, bulging rather splendidly in his tight trunks. And the next time you see him he’s in a flipping SS uniform! True, he does look simply marvellous in it, but it is all rather worrying. Christopher and His Kind (BBC2, Saturday) follows a young Christopher Isherwood, played by Matt Smith, from the starchiness of his domineering mother and the greyness of 30s Britain to join his friend and sometime lover WH Auden in Berlin. Isherwood is there to decide who and what he is. And for the boys, which Kevin Elyot’s adaptation of Isherwood’s own memoir doesn’t shy away from – there’s an awful lot of Wie geht’s Deinen Vater going on in the cellar bars and clubs. Blimey. I was worried about it to start with – the drama, not the sex (which I’m obviously totally fine with). On the train through Europe, Isherwood meets a seedy gentleman who turns out to be Gerald Hamilton. “Are you going all the way?” he asks Isherwood. “Excuse me!” says Christopher, taken aback. Are you going all the way? What is this – Carry On Up Gay Berlin? I needn’t have worried, that was an uncharacteristic lapse into saucy postcard innuendo. Christopher and His Kind is much better than that, a lot of which has to do with Smith’s mesmerising performance. As his Doctor Who predecessor David Tennant has done, Smith shows here that his range stretches way beyond time travel. Excellent as he is as the Doctor, that is a strangely asexual role. There’s nothing asexual about this one. But it’s more than pure smut; Smith is appealingly rakish, thoroughly disreputable, charming, posh, clever and funny – there’s something of John Hurt’s Quentin Crisp about him, a lovely portrayal. Smith’s isn’t the only fine performance here. Toby Jones is a fabulously pervy Hamilton. The sardonic Pip Carter has the best lines (“I do loathe the sea, it’s so wet, and sloppy”), as he should do, being Auden. Lindsay Duncan is formidable as Isherwood’s mum. Young Perry Millward is great as his awkward, twitching younger brother (extraordinary hair he’s got – side-parted, high and solid, almost like a geographical feature). And Imogen Poots is simply marvellous darling as luvvie Jean Ross, the inspiration for Liza Minelli’s Sally Bowles character in Cabaret. It’s a long time since I saw Cabaret, but I think I like this better; there isn’t all that infernal singing. Well, Poots does do a couple of songs – rather well – but it doesn’t intrude. I’m not good with musicals. What Christopher and His Kind does do as well as Cabaret did in 1972 is to capture a place and a time – an extra-ordinary place at an extraordinary time of transition, between the dying embers of the bohemian Weimar Republic and the fascist fist of the Nazis. And set against that ominous backdrop is a tender, touching, personal story of self- discovery. Brilliant, top drama, well done. Niall Ferguson also knits the small in with the big, the personal with the momentous, in his Civilization: is the West History? (Channel 4, Sunday). Through the stories of poor English settlers in North America, and conquistadors and then liberators in South America, he explains how it came about that the United States is now the dominant force in western civilisation. And it all comes down to what he describes as his “killer app” number three: property. In the South, after the land was snatched from the indigenous people, it was owned by the king back in Spain, then by a few greedy noblemen such as this Jeronimo de Aliaga dude. Even liberation from Europe didn’t lead to democracy, and land is still the big issue in much of Latin America today. In North America, settlers such as Abraham Smith and Millicent Howard worked to earn the right to both land and suffrage, freedom through property. And that’s how the American Dream started, though it’s not a untarnished one because freedom was possible only if you were white. Ferguson’s is a no-nonsense approach: here’s how it is, you better believe it. It’s not especially charming, but it certainly isn’t boring – it’s a a rollicking roller-coaster ride through time, so much fun it doesn’t even feel like school. Television Christopher Isherwood Niall Ferguson Sam Wollaston guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Lindsey Graham: ‘Thank God for Strong Women in the Obama Administration’

Click here to view this media Is anyone else as tired of this sort of bloviating from the likes of Lindsey Graham? He and his BFF’s McCain and Lieberman have been pushing for weeks now for us to get involved in Libya and now that they’ve gotten their wish, the carping continues. Heaven forbid we got an actual coalition together before going in there. We can’t have that or other countries might think we’re “weak.” Hey Lindsey, maybe it’s because our military is already overextended and that’s putting it mildly. Just how many tours of duty do you think those soldiers should be doing before they’re allowed to go home? God I’m so sick and tired of this cowboy, go it alone, war mongering chest beating out of neocons. And as I wrote in my other posts on this, of course there was not a single mention of how we’re going to pay for this when the Republicans keep saying the country is ‘broke.” Chris Wallace was terribly concerned about our budget not long ago but today that topic seemed to elude him. Amazing how that works isn’t it? The only jobs program our politicians seem to think we can afford is the one that keeps our military industrial complex going. Transcript via Fox News . WALLACE: Joining us now are two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. From his home state of South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham, and here in the studio, Democrat Jack Reed. Senator Graham, let me start with you. What do you think of the military operation in Libya so far and the support role that the U.S. is going to be playing? GRAHAM: Well, I’m glad we are finally doing something. We — I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration. I don’t know what finally got the president to act, but I’m very worried that we’re taking the backseat rather than a leadership role. The British and the French have been great. Prime Minister Cameron said this action is necessary, legal and right. President Obama is talking about limited action of days. Qaddafi is not the legitimate leader of Libya. He is an international criminal. He should be investigated by Attorney General Holder for actions in Pan Am. We should isolate this regime. We should order all troops back to their garrison. We should knock out his radio and TV ability to communicate with his own people. We shouldn’t pay Qaddafi’s forces any money when it comes to Libyan oil. Isolate, strangle and replace this man — that should be our goal. WALLACE: So, I just want to make clear I understand — are you saying that the problem is the definition of the mission or the fact that we’re letting the French and the British take the lead? GRAHAM: The definition of the mission, we used to relish leading the free world. Now, it’s almost like leading the free leader is an inconvenience. I want to be a good partner. I want the Arab world, young Arabs and young Iranians, see us as a strong, effective partner for their hope and dreams of being free. And I think the president caveated this way too much, it’s almost like it’s a nuisance. This is a great opportunity to replace a tyrannical dictator who is not a legitimate leader, who is an international crook. And we should seize the moment and talk about replacing him, not talking about how limited we will be. WALLACE: We are running out of time and I want to talk about a couple of other things. But let me get to this, Senator Graham. Do you think you can negotiate Muammar Qaddafi out of power? GRAHAM: No, I think he should be branded for what he is. I think our government should investigate the role he played in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. I think he’s an international criminal. We should isolate his regime, as Jack said. We should knock off his radio and TV stations. Any military units in Libya that come to his aid should be destroyed. We should not pay him or anybody on his side of the ledger any oil money. And let me just put it simply; this is the best chance to get rid of Qaddafi in my life. If we don’t get rid of him, we will pay a heavy price down the road. The Obama administration owns Libya with Qaddafi. Get rid of this man. Don’t be uncertain in your statements. Be bold. Be effective. Work with the international community. Replace this international outlaw sooner rather than later. WALLACE: Let me take you to a couple of other quick issues — and I’m going ask you both to be brief about it. Senator Graham, President Obama went to the U.N. Security Council to get approval, authorization for this use of force. Should he go to Congress? GRAHAM: I don’t believe he needs to come to Congress. I’d gladly vote on what he did. I think it’s inherent within the authority of the commander-in-chief to take such action. We have been overly cautious, unnervingly indecisive. This thing melted down. I wish we would have acted sooner. I don’t feel a need to bless this action before he took it. I’d be glad to vote on it afterwards. One word of caution; the U.N. Security Council has not been used every time we’ve had force. If you are going to take the freedom agenda and turn it over to the Russians and the Chinese, that would be a huge mistake. I’m glad we have international support but I don’t want the model to be that you have to go to the U.N. to deal with tyranny. Those Russians and China are going to be less than friendly to getting rid of dictators, because in many ways, there are countries run by dictators. WALLACE: Finally, we have a minute left. And we are taking this action ostensibly to prevent Qaddafi from brutally attacking — repressing and killing his civilians, protesters in his country. Meanwhile, our allies in Yemen and in Bahrain, they have been doing the same to protesters in their country. In fact, 47 were killed by the government in Yemen on Friday. Question — each of you have 30 seconds. Senator Graham, should we be intervening in those countries? They are all our allies. But should we be intervening? GRAHAM: We should stop the — we should push back against using live ammunition against people who are protesting. This whole deterioration in the Mideast is because of indecisive leadership. The people in Yemen and Bahrain do not believe there’s a downside of shooting their own people because we let Qaddafi come back and get stronger not weaker. So, if we deal with Qaddafi decisively, we’ll have better leverage in Bahrain and Yemen, and the Iranians will think twice. But if we don’t deal with him decisively, all hell is going to break loose in the Mideast because nobody is going to follow a weak America.

Continue reading …
Census religion question flawed

Secularist organisations claim data is used to justify religious privilege in state policy on public services Humanists have attacked the religion question in the 2011 census for being “fatally flawed” because it is “highly misleading” and does not help with the planning of public services. In a British Humanist Association poll, 61% of 1,896 adults in England and Wales said they belonged to a religious denomination or body. When asked in a subsequent question if they were religious, only 29% of the same people said yes. It also showed that 48% of the people interviewed who said they were Christian believed that Jesus was a person. Asked how often they went to a place of worship for religious reasons, 63% of respondents said they had not done so in the past year, while 20% said they had never visited a place of worship for religious reasons. The BHA poll comes days ahead of the 2011 census on March 27, which has estimated costs of £480m and a workforce of 35,000. Secularists and humanists oppose the voluntary question on religion – featured for the first time in the 2001 census – because they claim the data is used to “justify” religious privilege in state policy on public services. Today BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said its poll was “further evidence” the census data was “highly misleading” because it gave an inaccurate representation of religiosity in the UK. “We urge people who do not want to give continuing or even greater importance to unshared religions in our public life to tick ‘No Religion’ in the census.” Earlier this month its census campaign posters were banned from railway stations because the slogan – “If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so” – was deemed likely to cause serious and widespread offence. “We used to tick ‘Christian’ but we’re not really religious. We’ll tick ‘No Religion’ this time. We’re sick of hearing politicians say this is a religious country and giving millions to religious organisations and the pope’s state visit. Money like that should go where it is needed,” says one of the banned posters. The ban, initiated by companies that own advertising space in stations, followed advice from the Advertising Standards Authority. Religion Census Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US Army ‘kill team’ in Afghanistan

Commanders brace for backlash of anti-US sentiment that could be more damaging than after the Abu Ghraib scandal Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of “trophy” photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed. Senior officials at Nato’s International Security Assistance Force in Kabul have compared the pictures published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel to the images of US soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq which sparked waves of anti-US protests around the world. They fear that the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of the deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Kandahar last year. Some of the activities of the self-styled “kill team” are already public, with 12 men currently on trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians. Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after they staged killings to make it look like they were defending themselves from Taliban attacks. Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse. All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted. The case has already created shock around the world, particularly with the revelations that the men cut “trophies” from the bodies of the people they killed. An investigation by Der Spiegel has unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men. The magazine, which is planning to publish only three images, said that in addition to the crimes the men were on trial for there are “also entire collections of pictures of other victims that some of the defendants were keeping”. The US military has strived to keep the pictures out of the public domain fearing it could inflame feelings at a time when anti-Americanism in Afghanistan is already running high. In a statement, the army said it apologised for the distress caused by photographs “depicting actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States”. The lengthy Spiegel article that accompanies the photographs contains new details about the sadistic behaviour of the men. In one incident in May last year, the article says, during a patrol, the team apprehended a mullah who was standing by the road and took him into a ditch where they made him kneel down. The group’s leader, Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, then allegedly threw a grenade at the man while an order was given for him to be shot. Afterwards, Gibbs is described cutting off one of the man’s little fingers and removing a tooth. The patrol team later claimed to their superiors that the mullah had tried to threaten them with a grenade and that they had no choice but to shoot. Last night many organisations employing foreign staff, including the United Nations, ordered their staff into a “lockdown”, banning all movements around Kabul and requiring people to remain in their compounds. In addition to the threat from the publication of the photographs, security has been heightened amid fears the Taliban may try to attack Persian new year celebrations. Tomorrow could also attract attacks because Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is due to make a speech declaring which areas of the country should be transferred from international to Afghan control in the coming months. One security manager for the US company DynCorp sent an email to clients warning that publication of the photos was likely “to incite the local population” as the “severity of the incidents to be revealed are graphic and extreme”. Afghanistan Nato US foreign policy United States Jon Boone guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
David Gregory Asks About Humanitarian Double Standard Justifying Libyan Attacks but Not How We Can Afford it

Click here to view this media David Gregory did actually ask Admiral Mike Mullen about the double standard we have when it comes to justifying our military getting involved in Libya’s civil war, but ignoring what’s going on in Bahrain. What he failed to ask him about is how we can afford to be starting another war when as John Boehner says, “We’re broke.” If we can’t afford to pay our teachers and trash collectors and firefighters, where are we getting the money to drop more bombs on people’s heads? True to form, Gregory didn’t mention it. GREGORY: Is this in our vital interest as a country? MULLEN: It’s– I think the President’s made it very clear that– our national interests– are tied to a country that is so close– to us– in the Mediterranean, that borders Egypt– and Tunisia, two countries that are also undergoing significant change as we speak. And– and clearly the focus on the humanitarian piece– in terms of– someone who has massacred his people in the past and preventing that. In that regard it is. GREGORY: But there are also questions about the double standard here. Why do we make a move on Libya and yet in Bahrain where Saudis send troops in to help a monarchy we stand back? MULLEN: Well, again, this mission is very focused– on– on Libya. And we’re payin’ a lot of attention to what’s goin’ on in Bahrain and– and in the Persian Gulf as well. And the other thing is each one of these countries– I think is different. We’ve tried to focus on it in a different way. We’ve had a great friendship with Bahrain for– for many, many decades so– we’ve got– one of our main Naval base– bases are there. And– we’re workin’ hard to– to support that in a way. To certainly– see a peaceful outcome there in terms of how it evolves when– the Bahraini people are asking for change as well.

Continue reading …
Lecturers to strike over reforms

Protest planned against introduction of Lord Hutton’s pension reforms and will affect a third of universities in England Lecturers at a third of English universities will go on strike over changes to their pensions. Thousands of academics at 47 universities and higher education colleges will form picket lines to protest against changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme pension fund. From next month, the retirement age for academics will be raised from 60 to 65 and there will be an end to final salary pensions for new members. An even bigger strike is planned for Thursday when tens of thousands of lecturers from 63 universities are expected to stop work over what academics say is a growing sense of insecurity over their jobs, as well as anger at their pay and the pension changes. Lord Hutton has recommended that public sector employees retire later with pensions based on average pay over their career, rather than their final salary. The academics’ pension scheme is private, but some qualify for public pensions. Lecturers from Bradford, Essex, Liverpool, Oxford and Birmingham universities are among those taking part in the strike. The University and College Union (UCU) said some institutions were wrongly warning academics that they had to tell the heads of their faculties if they wanted to take part in the strikes. An email sent to staff at City University, from the institution’s director of human resources, states that colleagues will have their pay deducted if they go on strike and will be breaching their contract if they do not fulfil all their work duties. It asks staff to inform their dean or director if they intend to go on strike. UCU said academics were under no obligation to inform management. However, the union has told its members that if their managers ask after the strike whether they took part, they should answer truthfully. The Employers’ Pensions Forum said the retention of a final salary pension was an “exceptionally good benefit” and the changes were “in line with what looks to become the norm in all sectors”. Brian Cantor, the forum’s chair, said UCU had repeatedly failed to engage in the established process for agreeing scheme changes. But the union’s general secretary, Sally Hunt, said employers were refusing to talk to the UCU. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said employers had forced lecturers towards strike action by not agreeing to negotiate. “Huge cuts to university budgets ideologically imposed by this government pose a massive threat to jobs and education. “NUS has worked closely with UCU throughout our campaigns to oppose government cuts and stands in solidarity with their strike action next week.” Meanwhile, graduates are giving in record numbers to UK universities, a survey has found. A poll conducted by university fund-raisers of 172 universities and colleges found more than 185,603 people or organisations had given to a higher education institution in the academic year 2009-10. In total, they gave £506m in cash and £94m in pledges. The previous year – 2008-09 – 165,682 people and organisations donated a total of £526m in cash and £22m in pledges. Joanna Motion, vice-president for International Operations at the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, which conducted the survey with a network of university fundraisers called the Ross Group, said there were early signs of a culture shift towards higher education philanthropy. Donations to US universities and colleges have only increased by 0.5% in the last year and are down to 2006 levels. Lecturers Higher education Lecturers’ pay Pensions Pay Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Coalition attacks wreak havoc on ground troops

Air strikes hit Gaddafi’s forces hard, but revolutionary leaders appeal for more The dozen or so men clustered behind the last smouldering tank looked as if they had died while they slept. Their blankets bore no burn marks so perhaps it was the force of blasts – powerful enough to rip the turrets off the Russian-made tanks and toss them 20 metres or more across the open field near Benghazi – that killed Muammar Gaddafi’s soldiers. The air attack came at 4am , after the tanks pulled back from a day-long assault on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. The crews chose to rest in a field about 10 miles from the de facto capital of the anti-Gaddafi revolutionaries. It must have seemed safe to the soldiers. The rebels were far away and the tank crews would have seen any threat approaching by road. They gathered to eat and sleep behind the tank furthest into the field. But it was no protection from the threat in the sky. The tanks and their operators were sitting ducks in the open and probably never heard the planes. The French pilots did not even have to be concerned about the risk of harming civilians. Within moments, three of the four tanks in the field were shells. What was not immediately incinerated was mangled, thrown into the sky and dumped in bits on the earth. Machine guns twisted into grotesque shapes, broken engine parts and flattened shells lay among the wreckage. Four hours later, two of the tanks were still smouldering. A flatbed lorry used to haul them to the edge of Benghazi was on fire. A handful of pickup trucks, one carrying tins of food for the troops, had been burned out. Scavengers were picking over the corpses of Gaddafi’s dead soldiers. Wreckage was strewn in similar scenes along nearly 15 miles of road beyond Benghazi, the result of air strikes on targets across the country that turned the struggle between Gaddafi and Libya’s revolutionaries on its head in a moment. The barrage of attacks led by France, Britain and the US on Libya’s army, air bases and other military targets drew threats of a prolonged war from Gaddafi himself. But on the ground many of his forces were in disarray and fleeing in fear of further attacks from a new and unseen enemy. The air assault halted and then reversed the advances by Gaddafi’s army on Benghazi and other rebel-held towns. But the revolutionary leadership wanted more. On Sunday it appealed for an intensification of the air assault to destroy the Libyan ruler’s forces and open the way for the rebels to drive him from power. The first of the decapitated tanks sat just three miles outside Benghazi. Its turret lay flipped over a good distance away. The missile had torn out the heart of the armoured beast. But perhaps its crew was luckier than others. There were no bodies to be found and from the boxes of dates and long life milk lying on the ground a short walk across the field, it appears they may have been far enough away to survive the blast and flee. Another seven miles farther on lay a larger tank graveyard, at al-Wafia, and beyond that many more miles of destruction on the road toward Ajdabiya. Eight tanks, brought up to Benghazi to continue the terrifying assault on the city that began on Saturday, were destroyed altogether. More than a dozen other armoured vehicles of various kinds were wrecked, their remnants scattered on the scorched tarmac. A couple of multiple rocket launchers sat at the road side. One appeared to have no damage at all. Perhaps it broke down, or maybe its driver decided to get away from it fast – part of the intended effect of the air strikes to break the will of Gaddafi’s army to fight. Scattered among the ruined armour were thousands of bullets and empty tank shell boxes. Young rebels, known as shabab , danced on the armoured carcasses. They fired guns and chanted: “Here come the shabab. Gaddafi is finished”. Western powers leading the air assault said again that the attacks are about protecting civilians from Gaddafi, not regime change. But many of the revolutionaries see the coalition forces as fighting on their behalf. The air bombardment is regarded among rebel military commanders as creating a more level battle field by removing Gaddafi’s advantage of heavy armour. “There must be more attacks, to destroy his forces and heavy weapons,” said Kamal Mustafa Mahmoud, a rebel soldier on the edge of Benghazi. “Then they can leave Gaddafi to us. We know how to fight him but we are afraid of his heavy weapons. I want them to destroy the ground forces of Gaddafi.” A rebel commander in Benghazi, Ahmed al-Diwani, said that the air strikes open the way for the rebels to retake the towns they have lost in recent fighting and then continue their campaign toward Tripoli. But he acknowledged that it would be wrong to assume that the government’s army is a spent force because of the air strikes. “Gaddafi’s advantage was tanks and rockets. That was what was defeating us. When we did not face them we were winning. Now we can go forward again. We will still have to fight, but when they see that they cannot win, it will be over,” he said. As Gaddafi’s soldiers fled from around Benghazi after the air assault, the rebels seized the advantage to move back toward Ajdabiya, a town the two sides have battled over for nearly a week. Late today, people in the town said Gaddafi’s forces could no longer be seen. The revolution’s political leadership shares the fighters’ view that the air assault is about regime change. Salwa el-Deghali, of the national transitional council, said: “I’m happy the air strikes have started, but at the same time I’m worried that the international community will not keep up the attacks long enough to remove Gaddafi. There must be more attacks on Gaddafi’s forces, and fast. We need these attacks until he is crushed.” Asked if she thought the goal of the air attacks was regime change, she replied: “Yes, it’s to push him from power”. Deghali said that the revolutionary leadership is counting on the air assault to destroy Gaddafi’s army, either by killing its soldiers or encouraging them to desert. She said that when the threat of violent repression is removed, the council plans to call on Libyans to rise up in cities across the country. “When Gaddafi’s forces are destroyed, he will have no power. It will be easy to press forward,” she said. Essam Gheriani, a spokesman for the national council, said that with the air strikes destabilising Gaddafi, the revolutionaries would organise fresh popular uprisings in cities still under the Libyan leader’s control, in the belief that it will be difficult for him to find the forces to put them down. However, beyond the broad plans to blend popular uprisings with armed resistance, the revolutionary council does not appear as yet to have decided how to take advantage of the shift in the military situation. Some of its members fled Benghazi during the government’s assault on Saturday. Others remain trapped in Gaddafi-controlled areas. For all the revolutionaries’ appeals for foreign help, there are limits. Deghali reiterated the condition laid down since the beginning of the uprising: the air assault is welcomed, but foreign troops will not be accepted on Libyan soil. The country’s history of occupation by the Italians and strong views about the invasion of Iraq have created a deep-seated suspicion of foreign armies. “We don’t want what happened in Iraq with international intervention,” she said. “Foreign troops on the ground, no. Just the air strikes.” Middle East Libya Muammar Gaddafi Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Bill Kristol calls for U.S. ground forces in Libya

Click here to view this media The operation to create a no-fly zone in Libya has just begun, but already conservative Fox News pundit Bill Kristol is wishing the U.S. would send in ground troops “sooner rather than later.” Fox News Chris Wallace asked Kristol Sunday if it was a mistake to limit the mission in Libya. “Let’s talk about the mission,” Wallace began. “You heard Admiral Mullen, earlier in the show, say his orders are clear: protect the civilians, don’t overthrow Gaddafi. That’s not the point. Is that a mistake? Can we live with Gaddafi in any sort of power? He can create a lot of trouble.” “No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power,” Kristol agreed. “And we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.” “The immediate military mission, Admiral Mullen correctly described but the political goal is to remove Gaddafi and ultimately military assets will serve that political goal.” “First we protect civilians and destroy his military capability. And then we help other remove him indirectly, presumably. Though I, unlike the president, would not rule out ultimately having to go in with peacekeeping and nation stabilizing forces. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we do that at the end of the day,” he added. The neoconservative pundit held up the Kosovo conflict as a model for action in Libya. “President Clinton ruled out ground forces in Kosovo. And finally, the threat of ground forces caused Miloševic to capitulate and we ended up sending in peacekeeping forces and we eventually got rid of Miloševic.” “I hope that happens sooner rather than later here. We need to get rid of Gaddafi,” he said.

Continue reading …
BBC World Service signs US deal

Low six-figure investment will aim to help combat censorship of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China The BBC World Service is to receive a “significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China. In what the BBC said is the first deal of its kind, an agreement is expected to be signed later this month that will see US state department money – understood to be a low six-figure sum – given to the World Service to invest in developing anti-jamming technology and software. The funding is also expected to be used to educate people in countries with state censorship in how to circumnavigate the blocking of internet and TV services. It is understood the US government has decided the reach of the World Service is such that it makes investment worthwhile. The US government money comes as the World Service faces a 16% cut in its annual grant from the Foreign Office – a £46m reduction in its £236.7m budget over three years that will lead to about 650 job cuts. The money will be channelled through the World Service’s charitable arm, the World Service Trust. The deal, which is expected to be formally announced on International Press Freedom Day, 3 May, follows an increase in incidents of interference with World Service output across the globe, according to its controller of strategy and business, Jim Egan. BBC Persian television, which launched in early 2009 and airs in Iran and its neighbouring countries, has experienced numerous instances of jamming. The BBC Arabic TV news service has also been jammed in recent weeks across various parts of north Africa during the recent uprisings in Egypt and Libya. “Governments who have an interest in denying people information particularly at times of tension and upheaval are keen to do this and it is a particular problem now,” said Egan. Another area in which the BBC World Service is expected to use the US money is continuing its development of early warning software. This will allow it to detect jamming sooner than it does currently where it relies on reports from users on the ground. “Software like this helps monitor dips in traffic which act as an early warning of jamming, and it can be more effective than relying on people contacting us and telling us they cannot access the services,” said Egan. The BBC also expects to use state department money to help combat internet censorship by establishing proxy servers that give the impression a computer located in one country is in fact operating in another, thereby circumnavigating attempts by repressive governments to block websites. “China has become quite expert at blocking websites and one could say it has become something of an export industry for them – a lot of countries are keen to follow suit,” said Egan. “We have evidence of Libya and Egypt blocking the internet and satellite signals in recent weeks.” Egan added that the battle against jamming is likely to be an ongoing one because repressive countries are likely to develop methods to counter any anti-censorship technology that is developed. “It is a bit of a game of cat and mouse,” said a BBC source. BBC World Service Television industry BBC Radio industry United States US politics Censorship Internet Ben Dowell guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Connecting the Stream with Action: Media Embraces Real Time

SXSW: By the numbers from CNN on Vimeo. This is the second installment in our conversation about the themes or trends at SxSW 2011. To build on the framework created by technology and humanism, because of the fragmentation and speed of digital, the opportunity for media is to connect people to real time. Thanks to the ubiquity of media with digital, the newsreel becomes both the thread of what is happening… Broadcasting platform : Vimeo Source : Conversation Agent Discovery Date : 19/03/2011 15:38 Number of articles : 3

Continue reading …