Malala Takes a Stand

Malala Yousafzai recently made a trip to the United States. Along with countless interviews, Malala got  the chance to meet with President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. Malala is the youngest nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, at the young age of 16, after standing up to Taliban members and being shot in the head. Malala believes strongly in the power of education and this sentiment was what ultimately got her shot. The press heavily covered every step of Malala's trip to the US however it seems like one major statement by Malala has fallen through the cracks in mainstream media. 

During her visit to the White House, Malala praised Obama for his work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan but went on to urge him to end the Drone war. "I expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism" said Malala.  "Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact." 

Once again, anti-US sentiment has been stifled by the press. This statement should be making headlines across the country. If a 16-year old standing up to the President of the United States is not newsworthy than I am not sure what is.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/11/205176/obama-and-first-lady-meet-with.html#storylink=cpy

IC Student Turns to Kickstarter for Independent Documentary

We discussed the website KickStarter.com in class on Thursday and I was reminded of a current IC student that has her very own Kickstart page for her two documentary films on the Ancient Ecosystems of Vancouver Island. She has actually exceeded her goal of $2,000 and began filming this past summer.

I thought her page was very interesting in how it not only asked for donations from Kickstarter donors but asked page visitors to share the project on social media and get the word out.

I had first heard about Kickstarter in my senior year of high school from a close friend and I think the idea of community members coming together to fund important projects (that otherwise might not have the opportunity to be created) is fascinating and just another example of the power of the internet.

Russell Brand Speaks Up

Russell Brand was recently co-editor of New Statesman's just published revolution-themed issue. In this interview Brand harps on the current state of the political system and fights Paxman's attempt to trivialize the issue at hand. I think this is a great example of mainstream media attempting to belittle the work of independent voices within independent media.

Why has leftist become synonymous with radical?

As I sit here and write my paper on the legendary I.F. Stone Weekly the idea of bias in newspaper writing continues to be cited as a "problem" with Izzy's work and I can't help but ask myself the questions: How can a man with no political affiliation be accused of bias? How can a man who criticizes politicians and their policies irregardless of their political affiliation be accused of having a leftist slant?

More often than not I feel as though any publication that prints the truth or disproves the mainstream media are accused of being crazy left-wing advocates. Since when has the truth become 1) a bad thing and 2) negatively tied to the left-side of the political spectrum?

The best answer I can come up with is that the government and mainstream media (which today are really one in the same) have worked to create an image of the nut-job left-wing radical and now when there are ugly truths uncovered they merely chalk it up to conspiracies or exaggerations cooked up by these left-wing liberals.

Being from a largely republican town, I had one teacher (for International Relations) that was very clearly left-wing. Most kids chalked up his rants and teachings to crazy talk (mainly because they only knew how to regurgitate what their parents said and their parents were merely regurgitating the mainstream media). But as I continue with my college education I am realizing more and more that Mr. Jean wasn't some crazy long-haired hippy strung out on conspiracy theories but rather someone who actually knew what he was talking about.

What I'm getting at here is that people should be careful when they hear things being written off in the news because the news is often writing off the truth.

"Wealth Inequality in America"

This video utilizes great graphics to illustrate the true disparity of wealth in America.

"Journalism is literature in a hurry"

-- Richard Gere, Runaway Bride

Signature Strikes

Yesterday I found myself on Brave New Foundation, one of the many indy media outlets we’ve examined over the semester. I began watching the featured video on signature strikes and there were a few quotes that really stuck out to me.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff, speaks to the system with which we gauge the success or failures of war. As he draws parallels to the flawed system of measuring success by body count in the vietnam war he begins to evaluate the accuracy of drones in this capacity and poses this question: “Tell me how [we’re] winning if every time [we] kill one [we] create ten more?”

The sad reality of drones is that their accuracy is just not good enough. While it may seem to some Americans that this removed tactic of warfare creates minimal casualties on both sides of the fence, this is just not true. Civilian casualties are the norm in signature strikes. 

The video comes to a close with a very powerful quote from Philip Alston of the UN: “"We got to get out of the mentality that you can shoot your way out of a terrorist war.”

I think this sums up the entire issue of the mentality of Americans in wartime. I will disclaim what I am about to say by adding that this tactic is much easier said than done but still I hold strong in believing this is the only way to logically end any war.

Americans thing that guns can do the talking for them but violence will only create anger and more rebellion against our forces.

We need to communicate with our opponents in any war. We need to take the time to understand their culture, learn their ways and their societal norms and then make attempts at counterinsurgency (a strategy of war-fighting that actively seeks to contain an insurgency that intends to overthrow the authority of the defending militant forces, COIN calls for soldiers to be  on the ground and asks these soldiers become accustomed with civilians of the surrounding area). 

I know that there are ulterior motives in our wars in the middle east but I would like to think that if we really wanted to get out of the war counterinsurgency would be the effective means to take. Drones and signature strikes make accidental targets of civilians and create a larger uprising against the US, they are in summation doing more harm than good and we need to eliminate this method of warfare.

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to chose the latter."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Political Advertisements: Do Americans care about the truth?

On Thursday night I attended a Q&A session with Robert McChesney author of Dollarocracy and Digital Disconnect. The session covered a wide range of topics from the future of journalism to the surveillance state and how it has affected journalism as a field.

However, what struck me as the most interesting was the discussion on political Ads. McChesney mentioned that in countries like Norway and Britain political Ads were not only illegal but seen as a horrible instance of dirty propaganda. 

This was news to me. I thought, like the US, all countries legally utilized political ads to sway voters as the election came to a climax. Of course, I knew the reality of the these ads: they were negative, extremely partisan and interpreted the truth however they deemed fit. 

USA Today did a story on the 5 worst political ads of 2012. In this article they examine the failings of both Obama and Romney to produce a clean campaign. In fact, they go as far as to say that 2012 may have been the worst and most slanderous year for political advertisements. The sheer volume of political ads is astounding, according to the article it would take a single person watching ads 24 hours a day for three years to get through all the advertisements for the 2012 election cycle alone.

All statistics aside, I think that the existence of political ads in America speaks to a more critical issue. Political contenders are forced to air these ads for one sole reason in my mind: Americans believe them. I know for example, that my family members who are not as involved in politics as me, put some investment in what is said in these ads. On a few different occasions my brother and sister would mention something said in a political ad in passing as an absolute fact.

The point that I’m getting at here is that Americans seem to have lost interest in the truth which makes way for this type of political campaigning. If politicians know the majority (and I stress majority because I knew this by no means pertains to everybody) of Americans/potential voters won’t bother to fact-check then they won’t see the need to stop advertising things that are simply not true.

If we want to see change in how our presidential elections are run we need to become more active participants. We need to make it known that we won't stand for middle-school tactics of trash-talking opponents rather we want facts. We want to know about candidates views on the issues, we want to know where they stand and how they plan on maintaining that position. Just because scathing political ads make good television doesn't mean we should sit back and accept them.