Today was the launch of the Scotsman’s data blog within the newspaper’s political website The Steamie.
The first two posts are both maps:
I will be mapping, visualising, and otherwise processing data for the site. Datasets and ideas very much wanted.
Israel’s ban on journalists in the Gaza Strip has led to skewed information on both sides in the crisis
Martha Gellhorn, the legendary American war correspondent, had little faith in the power of her writing to change the sometimes wretched lives of those she encountered.Indeed, she said that journalists had but one redeeming role to play: “If he can do nothing positive, to make the world more liveable or less cruel or stupid, he can at least record truly, and that is something no one else will do, and it a job that must be done. It is the only revenge that all the bastardised people will ever get: that somebody writes down clearly what happened to them”.
One could never accuse her of hypocrisy. Gellhorn reported compulsively, continuing to write well into her eighties, even as she progressively lost her sight. Her career spanned five decades, encompassing the Spanish Civil War and Vietnam, as well as various Central American conflicts. She was one of the first to report on the horror of Dachau after its liberation.
Her words are just as pertinent today. As the escalation between Israeli forces and Hamas continues without the watchful eye of the international press pack, her belief in the importance of someone “writing down clearly what happened to them” is at stake.
There are journalists inside Gaza, notably from Al-Jazeera, but Israel’s refusal to allow the press inside to report fully on conditions for civilians is preventing the proper scrutiny of events. The effect of this is twofold.
Firstly, we simply do not know what is happening inside Gaza at any one time. We are ignorant, for example, of the reasons for the bombing of a UN school packed with civilians which left 40 dead. The rumours of a text message which indicated Hamas leaders were hiding out in the building show that hearsay is not an excuse when the phrase ‘war crimes’ is being used by the UN.
Brave journalists who are willing to put their own safety at risk to tell the world what is really going on in Gaza cannot do their job, ostensibly over concerns about safety.
The Israelis are of course aware that war zones are always dangerous, and that danger is clearly not the first priority of the Jeremy Bowens and Kate Adies of this world, for whom reporting the facts amid hazardous conditions is a right and a privilege.
Secondly, Israel’s blockade on information has led to skewed coverage of both sides. The Israelis have had statements from Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak representing them across media platforms, as the journalists stuck on the border are forced to interview the only sources of information they have access to: the Israelis.
Hamas issue statements as best they can, but with some of the leadership hiding in Damascus, and the bombing of their government buildings and TV station by Israel, a media offensive is difficult at best. This means that Hamas is lacking in the most important currency in international opinion: good PR.
From Twitter to TV, Israel have dominated the information streams which have such a huge role to play in the resolution of this kind of conflict. Ha’aretz commentators have been far more widely quoted in this conflict than any Palestinian publication, and at best Hamas has managed one article in the Guardian by the leader of their political bureau, Khalid Mish’al.
If any more proof were needed of the absolute necessity of war correspondents, we need only look at those who believe the press shouldn’t have a role to play during conflicts. Joe the Plumber, the tradesman used by John McCain as a prop against Barack Obama’s tax plans, has weighed in as Pajamas Media’s new war correspondent.
His view is that: “Media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, ‘Well look at this atrocity’ well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.”
That the media’s responsiblity is to find the “whole story” is, of course, the point. If unchecked ignorance is allowed to take the place of reporting, the result is that atrocities like the ones Joe so astutely points to get missed.
There is one aspect in which the Israelis are losing this PR war, despite their best efforts. The photographs of dead children lying in the streets outside overflowing hospitals have appalled the world. The images of screaming mothers and weeping fathers will not be wiped from the public consciousness as easily as Israel would like, especially as the IDF protest they are doing “all they can” to prevent civilian suffering.
We need objectivity and a calm, informed explanation of what is happening in Gaza. Martha Gellhorn put it this way: “The lousier the world, the harder a writer should work.”
This situation seems lousier than most, so all we can do is hope that the reporters willing to put their lives on the line can push Israel hard enough to give the people of Gaza a chance to be heard.
Posted in Opinion, The First Post
Tagged Al Jazeera, Gaza, Ha'aretz, Israel, Media, The First Post
OK, so it’s not over yet, but come Wednesday morning, the more obsessive americophiles among us will feel a giant void of time and energy swell painfully open.
What has become a way of life will end all too abruptly. No longer will I wake up to read Michael Tomasky’s blog, check poll numbers, and occasionally see what zany misadventures Palin is inflicting on the Republican ticket for comic relief. These activities will cease to make daily life a stumbling between updates on the election, and for that I am sad (in both senses of the word).
This election has made us realise, if nothing else, how terribly dull British politics has become in comparison, with only the occasional Russian billionaire or Mark Oaten figure to shake things up. What is it about this contest that has captured the nation’s attention so acutely?
I think the answer is hopefully the same one as will be announced as the winner on November 4th. Obama has energised people, regardless of their age, race or background into a reaffirmation of their belief in politics to make a difference. Already, through voter registration, the persuasion of people that small donations can make a difference, and the ability to make people believe that a politician can be honest and really make change, Obama has irrevocably changed the face of world politics.
He has set the bar so high, especially for himself, that world leaders will no longer be able to make mundane noises about growth and prosperity. They will have to look like they mean it.
A President Obama can only be better than what has come before him, but he will need to remain the calm and fiercely intelligent man of principle we have seen during this campaign, and a lot more besides. Part of McCain’s weakness is his unpredictable temperament in a world that needs a solid leader to guide it through economic turbulence, and Obama is facing challenges unprecedented for twenty years.
However, I for one believe that he will achieve the change for which he is currently seeking a mandate, and even on a symbolic level, Obama cannot fail to give Americans their dignity back. Shame about my post-election depression, but maybe his win will make that just about bearable.
Has the media’s obsession with blood and gore really bred a generation of savage delinquents? Jenny O’Mahony asks whether violence is the new pornography.
Last month, the new souped-up hyper-violent film from Tarantino and Rodriguez Grindhouse was released in America. According to The New York Post’s review: “In one scene, a cute, topless girl is roughly tied down on a table by evil female Nazi experimenters who begin draining her blood and, as she screams in agony, they brand her like livestock with a coal-hot steel swastika.” This was just one of the many spoof trailers.
We are increasingly confronted with the argument that the saturation of violence on our television screens, cinemas and computer games has bred a generation of violent delinquents who see nothing but economic gain, or social notoriety, in harming or even killing. Take, for example, the most recent gun massacre in the USA. The manner in which the 32 killings were carried out was thought to be inspired in part by the violent South Korean film Oldboy. Similarly, the Columbine High School killers re-enacted scenes from two other films: The Matrix and The Basketball Diaries. The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech has led many to ask if the media was responsible, just as Cho Seung-Hui’s taunts of “You did this to me” begin to fade from our ears.
Grindhouse is two films tacked together to imitate double bill B-movie features, Rodriguez’s Planet Terror and Tarantino’s Death Proof, neither for the faint-hearted. The garish poster plastered on billboards around the nation depicts Rodriguez’s heroine Cherry, played by Rose McGowan, with a semi-automatic machine gun where the bottom half of her left leg should be. While critics have lauded this new cinematic adventure, the public have sent out a clear message by staying at home. The film bombed in its first week, and takings have dropped by 65% since then. However, whether it was the violence that put people off remains to be seen; especially considering the massive success of ‘torture-porn’ films such as Saw and Hostel.
Should film directors be held accountable for injecting our society with such unashamedly unadulterated violence? Grindhouse’s website contains lengthy interviews with its two directors, and it is immediately clear that they do not concern themselves with notions of social responsibility. They look ridiculously pleased with themselves at all times, smiling and nodding as Rodriguez gleefully asserts that he had to “melt anything good” out of his version of a grindhouse film; a sleazy ‘70s genre that the two have shrewdly capitalised on for a wider audience. But one must ask: why should they care about society? They are artists, not politicians or teachers. Some would argue that it is their duty to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and our duty as the consumer or audience to discern what we should and shouldn’t watch. Particularly as in America the film has been rated ‘R’, meaning that any child can see the film, so long as they are accompanied by someone over 21. The film’s release in the UK has been postponed indefinitely.
Films, as a whole, are seen for what they are: fantasy. But what of the minority in society who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality? The majority of people garner a particular cathartic pleasure from watching a film, treating it as an escape of sorts. Whether you abhor directors such as Tarantino and Rodriguez as tasteless, or congratulate them for facing society’s perverse obsession with blood and gore head-on is, in a sense, beside the point. The question is, are the people who take such images to heart already beyond our help? It is easy to make the media a scapegoat for the deeds of the psychopaths of our society; it is altogether much harder to examine our own actions, and our role in what is shown to us day to day. Maybe such people will always seek to cause harm, leaving us with little option but to try and understand them in order to limit the damage they could inflict.
Oldboy
This 2003 South Korean gore-fest, directed by Park Chang-Wook, was praised by Tarantino. It tells the story of a man who is unexplainedly imprisoned for 15 years and his attempts to discover the reasons behind his ordeal.
A Clockwork Orange
The 1971 adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s novel was withdrawn from UK distribution by director Stanley Kubrick after being linked to a series of crimes, including a rape during which the attackers sang ‘Singin’ in the Rain’.
The Passion of the Christ
Mel Gibson’s interpretation of the events surrounding Christ’s crucifixion drew accusations of anti-semitism, deviation from the New Testament and excessive violence. None of these prevented it from being nominated for three Oscars.
