BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


I'm a typically ignorant American. Enlighten me.

 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
02:35 / 02.05.05
I was watching some of the pathetic news coverage on our Cable channels here, and realized that the imaghe I have of Tony Blair after watching an hour or so is that he will easily win re-election because he's Bush's friend.

The ONLY other international news was that there had been attacks on soldiers in Iraq, but no video of that story though, since we Americans are too sensitive to see what Iraq looks like any more. They have all the lights on, kids in the schools and a Government, so our time on the news is done.

I also see where Canada is having a messy scandal, but even my Sunday paper give no information on the details, just says there is a scandal.

So, as a typically overly busy, not very well informed internationally and overly propogandized American, what stories should I be paying attention to?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:09 / 02.05.05
the image I have of Tony Blair after watching an hour or so is that he will easily win re-election because he's Bush's friend.

That's a little odd... if anything, that seems to be the one reason he would not win re-election (not that that's actually going to happen).

One news story/study I loved recently was one gauging people's reactions to news stories. A group of UK volunteers were given little dials with which they could register their feelings about things on the TV screen as they went along: if they had a positive reaction, they could turn the dial to the right, if a negative reaction, to the left.

... And every time Bush and Blair were shown on the screen together, the dials all plummeted. It seems that to voters over here, Bush is completely toxic.

... Aaanyway... your actual question: reliable news sources? I think it'd probably be difficult to find anything you could receive on your airwaves, but the British (broadsheet) newspapers tend to be pretty good for accuracy compared to their American counterparts: The Grauniad, The Independent and, I suppose, The Times and The Torygraph.
 
 
Jack Fear
11:30 / 02.05.05
There's always the BBC, too. And many PBS and NPR stations carry BBC World Service newscasts, even out in the hinterlands.
 
 
Nobody's girl
11:52 / 02.05.05
As I have a transatlantic family I use the
Beeb news website to stay basically informed about international news. In the sidebar you can choose your news by continent and area of interest. What I tend to do is get the basics on the Beeb and if something piques my interest I'll check out other news sources for more in depth coverage. That said, I have been finding the Beeb a bit vanilla of late and will check out Channel 4 news if the Beeb is looking like it's toeing the government line a bit too much.

I have to agree with Pingles that when Tony wins his 3rd election (no two term limit here, more's the pity) it wont be because of his alliance with Dubya, it'll be in spite of it. Blair's election campaign has only addressed the Iraq issue when forced to because they are more than aware how poorly it played to the electorate. I suppose we'll find out on Friday how many seats in Parliament Tony has lost to the Iraq issue.
 
 
Baz Auckland
12:00 / 02.05.05
For Canada, there's the CBC, although I usually just go to the World section in Yahoo News, which usually has a good pile of international news...

...and don't feel ignorant; after listening to the news about the Scandal in Canada for the better part of a year, I still have no idea what happened or what's going on. Someone threw away a couple of hundred millions to their friends?
 
 
sleazenation
13:01 / 02.05.05
I'd agree with pretty much all of the news sources cited here apart from the Times - the paper's reputation as a reliable news source has been considerably tarnished by being part of News International and subject to its editorial policy...
 
 
pacha perplexa
15:49 / 02.05.05
Where I live, you can't escape information no matter how hard you try. People talk, TVs are on all the time, there's plenty of newspaper ads around. Mostly, though, it's because people talk.
I'd like to escape information (for neuro-psychological reasons), but since I can't, I try to refine the news by looking for versions of them on websites like The Grauniad, Z-Net and Carta Capital or Caros Amigos (both brazillian). If you can read in French, I strongly recommend Le Monde Diplomatique.

I must confess one thing, though: my main source of info, besides people talking, are people's weblogs (and lists). They choose what's important to know and post news, sometimes synthetizing several features from various sources. It's very practical, since most weblogs I read are from people whom I know personally and have the same interests that I do.
 
 
Hieronymus
16:47 / 02.05.05
Mind you, Solitaire Rose, I'm as stateside as you are.

But I prefer Google News for all the global news I can eat.

And The Daou Report for one helluva snapshot from the political blogs. You might have to endure their Site Pass ads but it's worth it to get an idea of what the left, right and center perspectives are on the news of the day.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
19:01 / 02.05.05
Politics is Big Business so the Financial Times is worth a look.

The Left Business Observer gives great background.

And iraqbodycount shows the civilian death toll so far.
 
 
Cherielabombe
19:40 / 02.05.05
I am an American who's been living in the UK for almost 3 years (holy moley!), and I can tell you that the news here has a much more international feel to it. Now that I've been away from the U.S. for a few years, I really strongly sense the US-centric feel of the news when I'm home.

ANYhoo, I too am a fan of google news, the Guardian and just about all the sites that have all ready been mentioned. I do like sites like The Progressive and Salon for a more American perspective on international news, but those sites do tend to have more American news items than anything else.

And yeah, Blair being Bush's friend is probably the last thing that would get him elected. It seems to me the slogan for his party is "Vote for me IN SPITE OF Iraq."
 
 
sleazenation
19:58 / 02.05.05
Oh and to explain the jokes in the first reply - The Guardian is often referred to as The Grauniad because it is notorious for the amount of typos that creep into it and The Telegraph is sopmetimes called the Torygraph because personal links between the editorial team and the leadership of the Conservative Party (the Tories). However despite this, the paper's news is renowned for its quality and accuracy...
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
15:43 / 03.05.05
So how about the other hand?
Are there any pressing issues in the USA that are national news that may not get international coverage?
 
 
sleazenation
17:50 / 03.05.05
Don't think so (Although, If i'm wrong, how would I know?) - even the foolish girl who claimed she had been kidnapped because she couldn't face her wedding made it over here despite a honking great general election in two days time...
 
 
grant
20:33 / 03.05.05
Well, there's generally something going on in Florida that we really don't want the rest of the world to know about.

Latest fun: Department of Children & Families sues to prevent pregnant foster kid from getting an abortion.

Because if overburdened state child protection agencies need anything, it's more 13-year-old mothers.

I suppose this is an oblique way of saying "state news more than national news."

Although now that I look, BBC got this one already. Lovely picture of Jeb.

So, yeah -- y'all got better journalism.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
21:32 / 03.05.05
Thanks for all the info. I have been upset far beyond what I shoudl be when I see the US coverage on our cable news channels. "Coverage" now consists of a person on the right giving their spin, a person on the left giving their spin and an anchor thanking them...there aren't any facts in our news any more, and it baffles me that "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central does more actual reporting than a similar hour of Prime Time News Coverage.

We have the BBC here, but it's only on the air from midnight to 4 AM, and even our National Public Radio station has become nothing but call in shows through most of the day, which are so uninformative as to be worthless, and "All Things Considered" has been repeating spin so much, I can't rely on it any more. I listen to Air America (primarily Al Franken and Randi Rhodes), but I also realize that they are just reinforcing my previously held beliefs, so I'm having to search to find out facts.

I even did a little experiement today and asked people if they knew about the "Runaway Bride" that was the top story over the weekend, and they did, but not a single one of them knew how many American soldiers died in Iraq since Friday.

Are there any pressing issues in the USA that are national news that may not get international coverage?

I don't know if the assualt on US courts is getting international coverage, but the way the right wing has been working to try and shift how judges are appointed is a big story that needs a lot of reading to understand what is being done. I also think that President Bush's attempt to devalue Treasury Bonds (as part of his Social Security plan, he's calling them "worthless IOUs, and his long term plan is to default on them according to some economists) could be disasterous for the worldwide economy, as it portends the US solving it's debt problem by simply destablizing the dollar and making the debt worth less to those holding it.
 
 
Scrubb is on a downward spiral
03:34 / 05.05.05
To add my bit as a Brit who's been living in LA for the past 3 months - the US media (especially TV-based) is incredibly US-centric. I've found that the city papers (eg. Los Angeles Times, New York Times) do give better coverage over both domestic and foreign issues than the national papers (eg.USA Today) but are still lacking. I've also picked up some interesting radio political debates on NPR (KCRW here). But the news reports seem to be geared around Quick! Scary! Stories! Fast! Without! Much! Depth! (although not madly dissimilar to Channel 5 and ITV stuff, so I shouldn't bitch).

I've been relying on the BBC news websites for my stuff. I'd be interested in knowing how much the "nuclear"/filibuster stuff is getting covered back home as that (along with Social Security) seems to be the main issues I've picked up here.
 
 
astrojax69
06:03 / 05.05.05
not that we should really matter, but the australian newspaper on-line gives a good account of news here, but also has excellent coverage of foreign affairs. because we have been so far away, historically, from the rest of the world, our reporting of news abroad has generally been pretty good in oz.

did you hear there is a new pope?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
14:26 / 11.05.05
U.S. news is U.S.-centric because what happens in the rest of the world doesn't affect us nearly as much as, say, events in Germany affect other members of the EU. Some might argue that if the U.S. newspapers or TV stations increased foreign coverage it would be an act of intellectual curiousity more than a necessity and really, who wants to learn?

The Financial Times does a great job of covering a wide breadth of stories from around the globe. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't seem to follow up on its own articles and it suffers from a lack of depth.
 
 
Nobody's girl
15:17 / 11.05.05
U.S. news is U.S.-centric because what happens in the rest of the world doesn't affect us nearly as much as, say, events in Germany affect other members of the EU.

Johnny, you don't mean that. Or are you the only person in the world who missed the whole 9/11 thing? How about the whole war in Iraq, thousands of Americans being wounded and killed thing? And, yes, US news coverage still vaguely extends to these issues but has the lesson been lost already? You know, the lesson about how the US ignores international issues at its own peril?
 
 
grant
16:03 / 11.05.05
Well, I don't think you can argue that a new Secretary of Labor (or whoever runs trade) in the German government is going to affect the US nearly as much as it will, like, Belgium or Turkey.

We're basically like a big island, sharing space with two other large countries. It's *real* easy for us to turtle up and stop looking over the oceans. Not wise, but easy.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:41 / 11.05.05
grant said it better than I did. The U.S. does not NEED to pay the same amount of attention to international issues as other nations do. However, it would be a good idea to do so in order to operate better in a global environment.
 
 
sleazenation
22:15 / 11.05.05
I think we all agree that For the US to ignore events in the rest of the world is unwise, counter-productive and possibly even dangerous to it's own interests.

I would like to know if anyone here from the US reads foreign affairs the US's most prominent journal on events around the world of importance to the US.
 
 
Pappa Cass
07:42 / 12.05.05
Well, I think that you might want to pay attention to the British memo that was uncovered and the fallout from that. Even though this is getting short shrift in the US news it is actually a much bigger deal than the media makes it out to be. Right now there is a letter going around Congress which has 89 signatures, just over 20% of the House of Reps asking Bush to answer to this. I'm encouraging my friends to write their Congresscritter to get their signature on this as well. Below is the CNN link, and if you do a search on Tony Blair memo, that will produce results as well.

Article from CNN.
 
 
grant
15:33 / 12.05.05
To my shame, I'm not even sure I've ever heard of Foreign Affairs, and I thought that Blair memo thing had blown over months ago.
 
 
Pappa Cass
08:15 / 13.05.05
Nahh, the memo is just now picking up speed. From what I've read it was a factor in the recent UK elections(though to my shame I can't say how much) and it's picking up steam in the States, though it's doing so rather slowly. Some of the articles I've been reading have put that memo as one of the factors(but not THE factor) to why Blair may not be able to make it through his full term as PM.
 
 
sleazenation
08:54 / 13.05.05
The legal advice the British government recieved as to the possible legality of the war in Iraq is available here in PDF format from the 10 Downing street website.

It is notable in its insistence that regime change would not be a sufficient legal basis for Britain taking part in invading Iraq. What it appears to boil down to is that Britain's action in going to war in Iraq would be legal if there had been a material breach of UN resolutions. Blair is convinced there was.

The Blair government was adamant that the legal advice would not be published, claiming that to do so would set a dangerous precident. However, in the last weeks of the election campaign so much of it was leaked to the press (by persons unknown) that Blair decided that it was all going to come out anyway and published the advice in full. What effect it eventually had on the general election is debatable. Certainly much of the population is angry at Blair over his conduct over the war and the decision to go to war itself, but they were angry before the advice was published - whether or not it had a direct effect on the election is difficult to guage....
 
 
Pappa Cass
10:16 / 13.05.05
I think I can go with that SN. Myopic American that I am, the thing that intrigues me most about the memos(and why I'm going to stop this threadrot and start a new thread on just this) is how it was big news in the UK even though it had, at it's most extreme, a medium to kinda heavy effect on Blair and the elections.

In the US, however, where technically this is pretty clear cut evidence that Bush intended to go to war before going to Congress and was making plans to that effect(and this is technically well within the category of high crimes and misdemeanors, though the Christian Right will collectively convert to radical Wicca before he gets brought up on charges for it), there is very little mention of it outside of one article about the response to it in CNN, some squaking about it on Michael Moore's web site and a few other progressive and left leaning websites(and not a lot of them).

I mean, a 28 year old computer support tech with a strong interest in politics and about 5 hours to kill on the internet got the scoop on about 1/2 of the major US publications(I posted it on my journal about 24 hours before CNN came out with their article)?

That's very much not right.

Very interesting indeed.
 
 
astrojax69
01:16 / 17.05.05
the primary reason americans should be taking an interest in politics and events in all corners of the world (where did that phrase come from, if spheres don't have any??) is because their government -so they themselves, by extrapolation - have a massie influence on what happens and what ramifications those happenings have.

if you are going to have an influence, you are morally obliged to consider the consequences, no?

who before last week, for instance, was making any noise at all about an american presence in the totalitarian uzbekistan? is there much in the us press about this now? indeed, how many americans (same goes for brits and australians, i guess!) even knew uzbekistan was a real country, or where it was?

an interesting article here from one of australia's most prescient commentators, on the psychology of a nation's influence...
 
 
Jack_Rackem
22:23 / 25.05.05
Well there is the disafuero in Mexico which has been pretty much ignored in most papers.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/p01s04-woam.html
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:26 / 26.05.05
(where did that phrase come from, if spheres don't have any??)

(Offtopic)

Maps, I imagine.

(/offtopic)
 
 
Slim
03:21 / 30.05.05
I would like to know if anyone here from the US reads foreign affairs the US's most prominent journal on events around the world of importance to the US.

Although I don't read it currently, I've read many an article from Foreign Affairs in school. I'd go so far as to say that it's found in my courses more than any other journal. A top-notch publication, as far as I'm concerned.
 
 
astrojax69
05:21 / 30.05.05
(off topic)

haus, thanks... probably right.

but just out of curiosity, i just did what i ought to have done earlier - googled it - and i found this:

[the 'morris' noted is the author of a book called The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (1984) and the site i took this from tries to discredit him, accusing him of reading modern science back into biblical texts and this purports to be an exegisis of terms morris wrote on...]



Isaiah 11:12 - "The four corners of the earth"

Morris (p.248) goes through the trouble of trying to show that the earth really does have four corners:

55 N, 10 W (near Ireland)
50 S, 48 E (near South Africa)
15 N, 140 E (near the Philippines)
18 S, 80 W (near Peru)

Isaiah was not thinking about these locations when he penned the book of Isaiah (Meyers 1989, 80-2). Morris seems to be bound and determined to force some scientific truth out of literal words that were meant to be taken figuratively.

In Isaiah 11:12 the Hebrew word for "corners" is knp which BDB lexicon translates as "the extremities of the earth." The root of the word means "winged" which the Septuagint translates as pterygon which is used in the New Testament in Matthew 4:5, "the pinnacle of the temple."

The four corners of the earth are also mentioned in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8. The Greek word is gonia. Thayer’s Lexicon says this word means "the four extreme limits of the earth" (Thayer 1962, 123). This word can also mean "angle" or "corner." The Vulgate translates this word with angulos. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, "The four corners of the earth or land are therefore simply the extremities of land in the four cardinal directions" (Orr 1939, 887). When gonia refers to a building it means corner, but when it refers to land it means the extremity. For example in the Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library (II 130,9) it says, "in the area of Euhemeria in the division of Themistes at the corner" (Moulton and Milligan 1976, 134). The phrase "the four corners of the earth" is a common ancient expression (Grayson 1972, 105). One example of this is found in the legend of Keret which says, (3) sb. Lqsm. `ars. (4) lksm. M`iyt, meaning "they go around to the edges of the earth, to the limits of the watery region" (Gibson 1978, 98; Herdner 16:3,3-4). I do not think these ancient writings meant the four compass points that Morris mentioned above.

Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote a book called Christian topography around 547 AD (McCrindle 1987). One of the basic purposes of his book was to refute from scripture and common sense, the impious pagan belief that the earth was a sphere. Cosmas believed the earth was rectangular in shape because he took literally the verses that say the earth has four corners. He saw the Hebrew tabernacle as a microcosm of the universe. The table of show-bread with its waved border represented the earth surrounded by the ocean. Since the table was twice as long as it was wide, and was placed lenghtwise from East to West twice as long as it is wide. From Isaiah which says that the heaven is His throne, and the earth is His footstool, he deduced that the earth must be at the bottom of the Universe. Just as Cosmas’ deductions look silly today so also does Morris’ scientific deductions from figurative language.


for interest, here is the site

(/off topic)
 
  
Add Your Reply