Friend of Snoop Dogg who featured on hit record Regulate was recovering from two strokes he had suffered in recent years Hip-hop star Nathaniel Dwayne Hale, known by his stage name Nate Dogg, has died aged 41. The cause of his death is unclear but the Californian rapper had been recovering from two strokes he suffered in recent years. Hale began singing as a child in baptist churches under the care of his father, who was a pastor. At the age of 16 he dropped out of high school in Long Beach, California, and joined the US marine corps, where he served for three years. In 1991, he formed a rap trio with Snoop Dogg and Warren G, and first found fame as a guest on Dr Dre’s classic album The Chronic. With Warren G, he had a huge hit with Regulate, which reached No 5 in the UK charts in 1994. In total, he featured on four UK hits and also collaborated with Eminem, Ludacris, Tupac Shakur and Mark Ronson. “We lost a true legend n hip hop n rnb” Snoop Dogg tweeted. “One of my best friends n a brother to me since 1986 when I was a sophomore at poly high where we met. I love u buddy luv. U will always b wit me 4ever n a day u put the g n g funk u put the 1 n 213 n u put yo stamp on evrybdy u ever didit wit.” “I miss u cuzz I am so sad but so happy I got to grow up wit u and I will c u again n heaven cuz u know d slogan.” Snoop continued. “all doggs go to heaven yo homie n baby brotha bigg snoopdogg!!” Singer Erykah Badu also tweeted: “Nate Dogg … freshness period. rest in beats”. Comedian Dave Chappelle similarly wrote: “Moment of silence for a hip-hop legend; RIP Nate Dogg. You will be missed, G Funk Era forever. #natedogg.” Hale was left paralysed on one side of his body following a massive stroke in December 2007 and was struck by a second stroke in September 2008. Nate released three solo albums, 1998′s G-Funk Classics, Vol 1 & 2, 2001′s Music And Me, and a self-titled LP in 2004. He was Grammy-nominated four times, most recently in 2007 for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration for his contributions to the Eminem track, Shake That. Rap Urban music Snoop Dogg United States Caspar Llewellyn Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Labour leader pushes for electoral reform before AV referendum rally as shadow health secretary John Healey joins No vote Ed Miliband is pitted against a large number of his own MPs over a switch in the voting system as more than 150 Labour MPs and peers put their weight behind the “Labour No to AV” campaign in Westminster. A full page advert on the back page of the Guardian listing more than 100 Labour MPs and more than 50 peers in favour of retaining the first-past-the-post system was published on the same day the Labour leader prepares to make his strongest intervention yet in the referendum on the alternative vote when he addresses a Labour Yes rally. Miliband, will claim that AV “will restore the balance of power in favour of voters”. Labour had committed itself to a referendum on AV in its manifesto at the last election, though many were reluctant to support it. Labour MPs cheerleading the case for the existing system includes John Healey, the most senior shadow cabinet member against electoral reform. Writing in the Independent, Healey branded the alternative vote is “perverse”. Claiming that the momentum for a “No” vote is gathering pace ahead of the referendum on 5 May, Healey wrote that the referendum should be “a long way” down Labour’s political priorities. “The reason the number of Labour MPs in favour of a No vote runs into three figures is because we haven’t been persuaded that AV is an upgrade to the voting system. The arguments just don’t stack up.” He said AV could produce results “less fair and proportional than the one we have now” and would make Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, the “kingmaker” in any hung parliament. “Immediately after an election the parties would be scrambling to do coalition deals. They would feel free to jettison policies that had been firm pledges only a week earlier. This isn’t the new type of politics people have been calling for. They want politics that treats them with respect, not as fools.” He added: ” The last thing we should do is throw away what works in favour of an unfair, perverse electoral system. Politicians should be seeking the trust of voters, not encouraging them to move the goalposts.” Miliband will take the opposite stance at this evening’s rally when he will call on Labour supporters to look beyond Clegg’s performance in government and focus on the substantive issue of voting reform. Miliband’s speech comes as 17 former senior ambassadors write to the Guardian expressing support for AV, rejecting the argument that first past the post produces strong government. Labour figures addressing the rally in London include Neil Kinnock, Oona King and Ken Livingstone. In a sign of the high stakes involved, David Cameron reassured 60 Tory MPs that he is dedicating the resources necessary to ensure victory for the No campaign. Many MPs still say the outcome is too close to cool and that much will depend on whether voters make their decision on the basis of the substantive question or on Clegg’s popularity. Following a dispute this week with Clegg over sharing a joint platform, Miliband will say: “The arguments in this referendum have been framed around whether a Yes vote damages David Cameron or a No vote damages Nick Clegg. It is about something more. I want to take head-on the fear designed to appeal to Labour supporters: that a Yes vote in this referendum will be seen as a vindication of Nick Clegg. “I know this referendum is far harder to win because of Nick Clegg’s broken promises. But we can’t reduce the second referendum in British political history to a verdict on one man. The change to the alternative vote deserves our support because it is fairer and because it encourages a better politics. The British people know that the state of our politics is badly broken. Many see Westminster as remote and out of touch. Politicians should never feel safe or insulated from those they represent. That’s what I want to change.” However, Miliband will admit: “Let’s be honest: AV is no panacea. It isn’t perfect, but it would help to restore the balance of power in favour of voters. “So on May 5th, ask yourselves one simple question: are you happy with the state of British politics? If the answer is no, then seize this opportunity for change.” He will also attack Clegg by saying both Labour and the Liberal Democrats had campaigned for a fully elected second chamber, adding: “I will keep that promise.” Miliband will make those remarks in the knowledge that Clegg now favours an 80% elected Lords that keeps a small appointed element. Clegg says that the change is the only way to get the reform through parliament, seen as a way to keep the expertise that many see as the great virtue of the Lords. The ambassadors’ letter, also signed by Sir Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the EU, says: “First past the post is said to deliver strong government. Having worked for governments of every political colour, we are convinced that this strength is often illusory. Genuinely strong government needs a strong parliament and a flourishing democracy. Neither is helped by a voting system that is unfair and out of date.” AV Ed Miliband Electoral reform Labour Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Hélène Mulholland Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Labour leader pushes for electoral reform before AV referendum rally as shadow health secretary John Healey joins No vote Ed Miliband is pitted against a large number of his own MPs over a switch in the voting system as more than 150 Labour MPs and peers put their weight behind the “Labour No to AV” campaign in Westminster. A full page advert on the back page of the Guardian listing more than 100 Labour MPs and more than 50 peers in favour of retaining the first-past-the-post system was published on the same day the Labour leader prepares to make his strongest intervention yet in the referendum on the alternative vote when he addresses a Labour Yes rally. Miliband, will claim that AV “will restore the balance of power in favour of voters”. Labour had committed itself to a referendum on AV in its manifesto at the last election, though many were reluctant to support it. Labour MPs cheerleading the case for the existing system includes John Healey, the most senior shadow cabinet member against electoral reform. Writing in the Independent, Healey branded the alternative vote is “perverse”. Claiming that the momentum for a “No” vote is gathering pace ahead of the referendum on 5 May, Healey wrote that the referendum should be “a long way” down Labour’s political priorities. “The reason the number of Labour MPs in favour of a No vote runs into three figures is because we haven’t been persuaded that AV is an upgrade to the voting system. The arguments just don’t stack up.” He said AV could produce results “less fair and proportional than the one we have now” and would make Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, the “kingmaker” in any hung parliament. “Immediately after an election the parties would be scrambling to do coalition deals. They would feel free to jettison policies that had been firm pledges only a week earlier. This isn’t the new type of politics people have been calling for. They want politics that treats them with respect, not as fools.” He added: ” The last thing we should do is throw away what works in favour of an unfair, perverse electoral system. Politicians should be seeking the trust of voters, not encouraging them to move the goalposts.” Miliband will take the opposite stance at this evening’s rally when he will call on Labour supporters to look beyond Clegg’s performance in government and focus on the substantive issue of voting reform. Miliband’s speech comes as 17 former senior ambassadors write to the Guardian expressing support for AV, rejecting the argument that first past the post produces strong government. Labour figures addressing the rally in London include Neil Kinnock, Oona King and Ken Livingstone. In a sign of the high stakes involved, David Cameron reassured 60 Tory MPs that he is dedicating the resources necessary to ensure victory for the No campaign. Many MPs still say the outcome is too close to cool and that much will depend on whether voters make their decision on the basis of the substantive question or on Clegg’s popularity. Following a dispute this week with Clegg over sharing a joint platform, Miliband will say: “The arguments in this referendum have been framed around whether a Yes vote damages David Cameron or a No vote damages Nick Clegg. It is about something more. I want to take head-on the fear designed to appeal to Labour supporters: that a Yes vote in this referendum will be seen as a vindication of Nick Clegg. “I know this referendum is far harder to win because of Nick Clegg’s broken promises. But we can’t reduce the second referendum in British political history to a verdict on one man. The change to the alternative vote deserves our support because it is fairer and because it encourages a better politics. The British people know that the state of our politics is badly broken. Many see Westminster as remote and out of touch. Politicians should never feel safe or insulated from those they represent. That’s what I want to change.” However, Miliband will admit: “Let’s be honest: AV is no panacea. It isn’t perfect, but it would help to restore the balance of power in favour of voters. “So on May 5th, ask yourselves one simple question: are you happy with the state of British politics? If the answer is no, then seize this opportunity for change.” He will also attack Clegg by saying both Labour and the Liberal Democrats had campaigned for a fully elected second chamber, adding: “I will keep that promise.” Miliband will make those remarks in the knowledge that Clegg now favours an 80% elected Lords that keeps a small appointed element. Clegg says that the change is the only way to get the reform through parliament, seen as a way to keep the expertise that many see as the great virtue of the Lords. The ambassadors’ letter, also signed by Sir Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the EU, says: “First past the post is said to deliver strong government. Having worked for governments of every political colour, we are convinced that this strength is often illusory. Genuinely strong government needs a strong parliament and a flourishing democracy. Neither is helped by a voting system that is unfair and out of date.” AV Ed Miliband Electoral reform Labour Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Hélène Mulholland Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Labour leader pushes for electoral reform before AV referendum rally as shadow health secretary John Healey joins No vote Ed Miliband is pitted against a large number of his own MPs over a switch in the voting system as more than 150 Labour MPs and peers put their weight behind the “Labour No to AV” campaign in Westminster. A full page advert on the back page of the Guardian listing more than 100 Labour MPs and more than 50 peers in favour of retaining the first-past-the-post system was published on the same day the Labour leader prepares to make his strongest intervention yet in the referendum on the alternative vote when he addresses a Labour Yes rally. Miliband, will claim that AV “will restore the balance of power in favour of voters”. Labour had committed itself to a referendum on AV in its manifesto at the last election, though many were reluctant to support it. Labour MPs cheerleading the case for the existing system includes John Healey, the most senior shadow cabinet member against electoral reform. Writing in the Independent, Healey branded the alternative vote is “perverse”. Claiming that the momentum for a “No” vote is gathering pace ahead of the referendum on 5 May, Healey wrote that the referendum should be “a long way” down Labour’s political priorities. “The reason the number of Labour MPs in favour of a No vote runs into three figures is because we haven’t been persuaded that AV is an upgrade to the voting system. The arguments just don’t stack up.” He said AV could produce results “less fair and proportional than the one we have now” and would make Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, the “kingmaker” in any hung parliament. “Immediately after an election the parties would be scrambling to do coalition deals. They would feel free to jettison policies that had been firm pledges only a week earlier. This isn’t the new type of politics people have been calling for. They want politics that treats them with respect, not as fools.” He added: ” The last thing we should do is throw away what works in favour of an unfair, perverse electoral system. Politicians should be seeking the trust of voters, not encouraging them to move the goalposts.” Miliband will take the opposite stance at this evening’s rally when he will call on Labour supporters to look beyond Clegg’s performance in government and focus on the substantive issue of voting reform. Miliband’s speech comes as 17 former senior ambassadors write to the Guardian expressing support for AV, rejecting the argument that first past the post produces strong government. Labour figures addressing the rally in London include Neil Kinnock, Oona King and Ken Livingstone. In a sign of the high stakes involved, David Cameron reassured 60 Tory MPs that he is dedicating the resources necessary to ensure victory for the No campaign. Many MPs still say the outcome is too close to cool and that much will depend on whether voters make their decision on the basis of the substantive question or on Clegg’s popularity. Following a dispute this week with Clegg over sharing a joint platform, Miliband will say: “The arguments in this referendum have been framed around whether a Yes vote damages David Cameron or a No vote damages Nick Clegg. It is about something more. I want to take head-on the fear designed to appeal to Labour supporters: that a Yes vote in this referendum will be seen as a vindication of Nick Clegg. “I know this referendum is far harder to win because of Nick Clegg’s broken promises. But we can’t reduce the second referendum in British political history to a verdict on one man. The change to the alternative vote deserves our support because it is fairer and because it encourages a better politics. The British people know that the state of our politics is badly broken. Many see Westminster as remote and out of touch. Politicians should never feel safe or insulated from those they represent. That’s what I want to change.” However, Miliband will admit: “Let’s be honest: AV is no panacea. It isn’t perfect, but it would help to restore the balance of power in favour of voters. “So on May 5th, ask yourselves one simple question: are you happy with the state of British politics? If the answer is no, then seize this opportunity for change.” He will also attack Clegg by saying both Labour and the Liberal Democrats had campaigned for a fully elected second chamber, adding: “I will keep that promise.” Miliband will make those remarks in the knowledge that Clegg now favours an 80% elected Lords that keeps a small appointed element. Clegg says that the change is the only way to get the reform through parliament, seen as a way to keep the expertise that many see as the great virtue of the Lords. The ambassadors’ letter, also signed by Sir Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the EU, says: “First past the post is said to deliver strong government. Having worked for governments of every political colour, we are convinced that this strength is often illusory. Genuinely strong government needs a strong parliament and a flourishing democracy. Neither is helped by a voting system that is unfair and out of date.” AV Ed Miliband Electoral reform Labour Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Hélène Mulholland Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Kin, an audio project based around interviews with mothers, fathers and their adult children, transforms the mood in the waiting room Listen to an extract from the Kin project It was while she was sitting in a succession of health centre waiting rooms with one or other of her parents that Donna Rutherford first got the idea for an artistic collaboration with the NHS. Struck by the changing relationship between parent and child as both age, Rutherford, a 41-year-old Glasgow artist, developed Kin , an audio project based around interviews with mothers, fathers and their adult children, and broadcast via listening posts set up in health centres and hospitals around Glasgow. Rutherford conducted the interviews with the help of volunteers and edited them into a 37-minute programme that touches on issues of loss, guilt, love and memory as both generations find their roles and relationships beginning to shift. The conversations are often humorous, and at times heartbreaking. A father recalling his daughter dancing on his feet, a mother’s admission that she hopes to “erase” herself before her death so the impact on those
Continue reading …
The perception that selling ebooks by the agency model is unfair (consumers) and illegal (EU) is a big worry for publishing firms On Tuesday 1 March, several publishing offices in Europe were raided by inspectors from the European Commission. “They burst in like cowboys” said Francis Esménard, the president of French publisher Albin Michel, to journalists at 01net , even if “they were only going to find legal contracts”. Elsewhere, they seized smart phones and laptops from senior executives and no doubt ruined a good few lunches. No one likes to meet a Eurocrat at the best of times, but these ones may be beating the death knell of the publishing industry. The background to these raids is the agency model many big publishers have adopted to sell ebooks . Under this model, instead of selling the ebooks wholesale and allowing the retailer to set the price they charge the customers, the publisher itself sets the price of the ebooks and the retailer takes a commission. The potential problem with this arrangement is that it could, according to the EU commission statement explaining the raids, “violate EU anti-trust rules that prohibit cartels and other restrictive business practices”. The agency model is, in effect, a return to the net book agreement in electronic form. Publishers let that go in 1997 – and bitter experience has taught them to regret it . Losing the net book agreement did not lead to greater variety, customer choice, a better deal for producers or for shops (as those on the right claim unfettered competition should). It led to a three-way carve up of the trade between Waterstones, supermarkets and Amazon. Hundreds of viable publishers servicing thousands of shops were swapped for just over a dozen bloated giants with only a small number of effective outlet options. The stakes are even higher in the new ebook wars, at a time when even Waterstones branches are beginning disappear from our streets. The unspoken purpose of the agency model is to stop Amazon getting a monopoly and becoming pretty much the only effective ebook publisher around. Without the agency model, Amazon could easily discount everyone else out of contention. With it, publishers and other outlets stand a chance. But the law is a strange thing. When one company forces through a virtual monopoly, it is considered ‘competition’ and to be encouraged. When a group of companies try to get a good deal for everyone, it’s a cartel and to be destroyed. Hence the raids – and Esménard’s understandable conviction that “this operation is masterminded by Amazon”. At the moment, it seems that publishers are likely to lose the fight. It’s not only the law that’s against them, it’s the consumer. Publishers may see themselves fighting a noble fight against Amazon’s monopolistic evil, but consumers just see them notching up the prices. To give an example, just as all those raids were kicking off in Europe, a worldwide whinge was brewing up on a new site called Lost Book Sales . This is a place readers can go to complain if they’ve been unable to get hold of a digital edition of a book – or haven’t been able to buy it as cheaply as they’d like. Sample remark: “Too bad, so sad. You couldn’t get your shit together to let me GIVE YOU MY MONEY. Since you don’t want my money, I am going to pirate your work.” That’s 21st century morality writ large. Imagine a similar scenario involving being rude to a butcher and running off with a string of his sausages because you don’t like the prices he charges. Most of the rest of the site is similarly unpleasant; a further example of the impatient, right-here-right-now, screw-the-producer capitalism that’s so common on the internet. So far then, so yuck. But the editor of Lost Book Sales does make an important point: “The only reality we readers know is that we want to buy the book but can’t.” The customer may be unpleasant, but he or she is always right. It’s clear that publishers do need to up their game to accommodate the new demands. There’s also the fact that they’ve been pretty dreadful at digitising the backlists of their living authors, while those of dead authors are widely – and often freely – available. Publishers have to do something to win over people like those complaining on the Lost Book Sales, who, after all, represent pretty much everyone. The trouble is that Lost Book Sales ignores important realities in the book trade – such as the fact that digital editions still cost money to produce (and indeed that the physical costs of a printed book are only a small percentage of their price), that rights are hellishly complicated, and that authors fear losing out hugely if publishers start putting up their backlist digitally (since they would never go out of print and so never be able to escape their contracts). But the fact that customers have a distorted view of how much ebooks should cost is hardly the publishers’ fault. Especially since a new breed of “self-published” authors are starting to sell millions of the things at $0.99 or less on Amazon – which casts an interesting light on the recent declarations about ebooks outselling paper books. This perception that ebooks should cost next to nothing is a huge problem, especially if you’re a writer likely to sell anything under than 50,000 books a year, and hoping to have any kind of editorial support. Or if you’re a conventional publisher rather than Amazon. So when charging a reasonable price for ebooks is seen not only as unfair, but also illegal, it really starts to appear that publishers don’t have a hope. Publishing Ebooks European commission European Union Sam Jordison guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking evidence from RBS chief executive Stephen Hester and outgoing Lloyds Banking Group boss Eric Daniels Top bankers will be grilled by MPs today amid continuing anger over huge bonuses and restrictions on lending to business. The Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking evidence from RBS chief executive Stephen Hester and outgoing Lloyds Banking Group boss Eric Daniels. Hester was embroiled in controversy last week when it emerged that he and a raft of other executives at the state-owned bank are entitled to millions of pounds in long-term bonus shares for 2010 – not originally revealed in its Project Merlin deal with the government. The extra £4.5m in shares, deferred until 2014 and dependent on performance targets, mean Hester is in line for a total pay package of £7.7m for last year. Daniels, meanwhile, is quitting his role with a £1.45m bonus despite criticism of his stewardship of Lloyds – which is 41% owned by the taxpayer following the credit crunch. The American previously described his £1m salary as “relatively modest”. David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg have insisted they are watching banks carefully to ensure they honour Project Merlin commitments on boosting lending to firms. Executive pay and bonuses Stephen Hester Banking Royal Bank of Scotland Eric Daniels Project Merlin Lloyds Banking Group guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Gunfire was widely heard throughout the capital and at least five helicopters were circling scenes of clashes, amid widespread panic on the streets below Military troops have opened a large-scale assault against hundreds of anti-government protesters occupying a landmark square in Bahrain’s capital. The focal point for Bahrain’s demonstrators was again over-run by riot police in a nationwide crackdown aimed at crushing the two month anti-government uprising. Smoke was billowing for the landmark site, known as Pearl Roundabout, and the scent of tear gas wafted through many locations in Manama. Gunfire was widely heard throughout the capital and at least five helicopters were circling scenes of clashes, amid widespread panic on the streets below. Riot police entered Manama’s Salmaniya Medical Centre for the first time since the demonstrations began and doctors reported they were being prevented from reaching the hospital and treating patients inside. The police were also preventing casualties from reaching the facility. By 8am, they had closed its main gate and stationed forces outside. This morning’s events are a significant escalation in more than eight weeks of clashes that have threatened the legitimacy of Bahrain’s monarchy and stoked sectarian tensions throughout the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. They follow the arrival of more than 1,000 troops from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), invited to the kingdom by its beseiged rulers. One Amoured Personnel Carrier flying a flag of the United Arab Emirates was seen by bystanders this morning amid a column of troop carriers. Two people were killed during clashes with troops on Tuesday afternoon. Demonstrators are bracing for more pitched battles today, in the wake of a state of emergency declared for the next three months by the regime. Pearl Roundabout was first attacked by riot police in mid-February, forcing demonstrators to abandon the site for three days until troops surrendered it under the orders of Bahrain’s Crown Prince. That gesture was supposed to mark a watershed in the protests and the start of a national dialogue between the Shia majority, which accounts for 70% of Bahrain’s population, and the Sunni minority which rules them. However, the dialogue faltered almost before it began, with protesters claiming they could not trust the Government and being unable to agree on their demands. For the last four weeks the roundabout in the central city had been transformed into a hub of activism, with hundreds of tents, supplied food and a media centre. It had taken on almost a folk festival feel. However, the status quo had seemed untenable in the wake of increasing nervousness within the regime about the momentum of the demonstration. Bahrain’s fresh crackdown has the support of the Gulf states who are anxious to avoid the risk that demonstrations will spread their way. However, they had angered nearby Iran, which has supported Bahrain’s Shias in the past and also drawn a rebuke from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Bahrain Protest Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Netflix rumored to spend $100 million or more outbidding cable networks for one new TV show
March 15, 2011 No Comment
While Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has suggested the company would avoid getting into the content business, Deadline Hollywood reports it outbid cable channels like HBO and AMC for a new David Fincher drama starring Kevin Spacey called House of Cards . The post goes on to suggest that the deal is still being negotiated but Netflix will be on the hook for two season which could cost it more than $100 million. Right now Netflix is flush with the cash of its 20 million strong subscriber base, but so far it has focused on enhancing it’s $8 / month streaming package by spending on quantity, not necessarily quality new content even after deals with Relativity Media and Epix . A deal like this changes things completely and puts it directly in competition with the pay-TV biz, but we’ll wait and find out how much of the rumor is true before putting up a deathwatch for HBO, Showtime and the rest. Netflix rumored to spend $100 million or more outbidding cable networks for one new TV show originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:53:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …
enlarge Chernobyl – look strangely familiar? Click here to view this media With the latest set of ominous news coming out of Japan in the form of the Nuclear Power plant explosions and threatened and/or occurring meltdowns, I’m reminded of the Nucler Power Plant disaster at Chernobyl and the news that was and wasn’t given at the time. The accident, as we all know now, happened on the 26th of April 1986 – but as you’ll hear with these news excerpts from April 27-May 5, 1986, very little if any information was actually given regarding the severity of the disaster. I realize there is a conscious need not to set off widespread panic, and that is understandable. But sometimes the lack of truthful information can be as damaging in the long run. Ironically, even after the true nature of the disaster was disclosed, most news broadcasts chose to bury the disaster news into the third or fourth story. And that was disturbing in the months following Chernobyl. Fortunately, during this current crisis in Japan there is constant news and questioning. However, the non-disclosure of factual information seems very much apparent and that is something that one can only draw Chernobyl-like conclusions to.
Continue reading …