Hubbard,+Madeline

=Debate in Israel over Espionage Gag Order= Young Israeli anat Kamm is scheduled to go on trial in Israel in mid-April. The former soldier is being accused of committing espionage and serious security offenses and said to have leaked over 2,000 military documents to journalist Uri Blau of Haaretz newspaper. It is suspected that Blau used some of these documents as the basis of a report he wrote in November of 2008. The article was on an incident in June 2007, when two militants were shot and killed in the West Bank. Blau said that Israeli forces breached a 2006 ruling made by the supreme court stating that an attempt to arrest militants must be made before a soldier could shoot to kill. While the military’s defense at the time was that their forces were fired upon, it is suggested that several militants were targets of assassination, and the IDF used the attack as a cover. A gag order was placed over the media during Ms.Kamm’s case, preventing from the media from reporting on the lawsuit. Unable to even say that a gag order was in place, Israeli news media was only able to make cryptic references tot he case. The Seventh Eye, an electronic journal on media affairs by the Israel Democracy Institute, ran a small report stating that Ms.Kamm was going on unpaid leave from Walla!, a Hebrew website that she worked as a journalist for. It did not specify why. Eight days later, the popular Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot suggested to its readers that they search “Israeli journalist gag” to learn about what the NYT called “an affair of interest to Israelis that could only be reported on abroad.” The same paper later ran a translation of an article by Judith Miller, a former NYT reporter, in which all details of the case that violated the gag order were blacked out. According to the Ministry of Justice, the gagging order was put in place to help follow all leads ensuring the return of the documents and prevent obstruction f the investigation. The documents, they say, could “endanger human life” and “reach hostile elements and thus would cause hard and continuous damage to state security” if released. The Ministry also claims to be making a deal with Blau, who has left Israel and is publishing under a London dateline, and is believed to still be in possession of the military documents. Both the BBC and the NYT articles detail the supposed espionage of Anat Kamm, including that the documents that she copied were leaked to a journalist and resulted in accusations of the IDF. Both articles covered the subsequent reports as well, including the 2006 Supreme Court ruling and the breaching of such rules by the military in 2007. Both articles also describe the gag order placed over Ms.Kamm’s case, and the subsequent uproar at a national level and international level. The BBC article focuses more on how absurd the case against Ms.Kamm is, as well as the IDF loosening regulations. The NYT puts the most focus onto the gag order, detailing both the reactions of the local news and international reporting on the event. BBC presents more of an inside, national view, while the NYT projects an image of an international perspective. The BBC mention’s the gag order’s defense by the Ministry of Justice, while the NYT does not. The NYT talks about a specific response from news media in the country, while the BBC does not. The bottom line is that the Israeli military sees to be attempting to dodge a bullet, and the justice system is allowing it to do so. It is a combination of this and the fact that the gag order was put into effect in the first place that has so may people, especially Israelis, riled up over the entire thing. Seeing such a strong reaction from the Ministry of Justice, while inappropriate, is understandable. The report written by Blau throws the IDF, a well respected military power, into a very bad light. having respect lost and setting a standard for shoddy military regulations is the last thing any country wants. But dealing with it by blaming it on a journalist, then placing a gag order onto her case, doesn’t help either. It’s as if the school administration punished a student for reporting the offenses of a teacher, then told the remaining students and teachers that they were banned from talking about it, and couldn’t even say that a ban was in place. It just reeks of foul play. I had absolutely no idea for some time why the BBC and NYT were radically different in perspective. Not that I was complaining of course. I felt as if I was getting and insider’s perspective and an outsider’s perspective. The insider’s perspective allowed me to consider the reasoning behind Ms.Kamm’s actions, as well as the anger from Israel. The outsider’s perspective, on the other hand, emphasized the need to consider the implications of the gag order, and led me into thinking about eh censoring China has on the Internet, and what one meant if it was considered similar to the others. But I still could not figure out why the two articles were so dissimilar. That is, until I realized that one had been written before and the other one after the Gag order had been put into place. Oh well... Sources: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8609196.stm NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07israel.html?ref=middleeast

=“Dead” Palestinian Teen Returns Home Alive= Palestinian teenager Muhammad al-Farmawi returned home on Friday after going missing in clashes between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli forces along the Gaza border, near Rafah. al-Farmawi had been declared dead by health officials, who said that he had been left “bleeding for hours” before being able to receive medical attention. However, the reports of the event are unclear, and unnamed Palestinian sources in medical reports said that the boy’s ‘death’ “may have been an internal matter.” There were no further details on the subject. al-Farmawi escaped through smuggling tunnels to Egypt, where he was later detained by a security guard and held with several other teenagers. al-Farmawi received a gunshot wound to the head in 2002, which has reportedly affected his mental abilities. Both the NYT and the BBC articles discuss the anomaly of this experience. They identify Muhammad al-Farmawi, discussing his involvement in Palestinian protests when he was allegedly killed, how he and several other teenagers escaped to Egypt, and that they were detained soon after reaching the country. They also mention how happy his family is to have him back, and how confused many people are over his “death.” The NYT and the BBC articles, however, have some very alarming differences. The NYT calls al-Farmawi 14, while the BBC article calls him 15. The NYT says that he snuck into Egypt with sixteen other teenagers. The BBC article says that 17 total Palestinians were detained, but only identifies 12 of them as minors. The BBC article focuses more on the strangeness of the event than the NYT, including speculation that the fake death was actually the result of violence from an inter-Palestinian dispute. The NYT article mentions a gunshot wound to the head that al-Farmawi received eight years earlier, while the BBC does not. This entire thing smells rotten to me. And I live thousands of miles away. First of all, how do you say that a person’s dead when they’re not? Especially if you can find their body? I don’t care if there was confusion, you shouldn’t say anyone is dead until you’re poking at their dead, cold corpse. Otherwise it’s just stupid speculation that gets the families riled up. Second, the reason why al-Farmawi was pronounced dead, even without his body, was because of faulty medical reports. My respect for theses guys goes down less and less as I keep reading. Yes, these are mistakes that happen to the best of us (Well, maybe not. I’ve never fudged a medical report. How do you even do that so that it’s totally wrong?!), but seriously? Bad reports? C’mon, you guys, think up a better excuse! And finally, there was speculation from multiple sources about how they thought that the attack could have possibly been the result of inter-palestinian violence. And then the records of this proceed to give no other evidence. No proof, no comments, no details, no nothing. Just vague statements from unnamed sources. Like I said. This entire thing smell rotten to me. I am not sure that I like the fact that the NYT does not say anything about the faulty reports or the suspicions over and inter-Palestinian attack. Though, considering that the NYT is most likely working from different documents and sources than the BBC, since the two did not have the same facts on two occasions, one of which was al-Farmawi’s age. But still. I don’t think I like that NYT didn’t bring up the strangeness of the event, and instead focused on the joy the father had over his son’s return, and the fact that he had been shot in the head was he was six or seven. Sources: NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/world/middleeast/04gaza.html?ref=middleeast BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8601925.stm

=Google Stops Censorship of Chinese Websites= Google has decided to stop censoring search results on its Chinese browser Google.cn, despite heaving opposition from the Chinese government. Instead, it will redirect users to its uncensored Hong Kong site. The shut down comes after several months of tension between Google and the country, much of it over the cyber attacks that were traced back to the country in January of this year. Some of the company’s source code was stolen, and the hacking was also used to spy on the GMail accounts of several human rights activists. The government has repeatedly warned the company about the consequences of not complying to its censorship laws, and has stated that Google has violated a “written promise” and is “totally wrong” to end the censorship of the Chinese language. Google expects that it will soon loose Google.cn over the dispute. While this is not a severe short term loss (only a small portion of the company’s several billion dollar annual revenue comes out of China), in the long term it affects both Google and China. The size and possible market in China is a massive opportunity for Google, and loosing it would affects its plans for globalization. And the Chinese government will most likely enforce even stricter policies after this, considering the number that have gone into affect over the years since Google formed Google.cn. Both articles go over the ending of the censoring in China, including the redirecting to the Hong Kong site, the anger from the Chinese government, the hacking from China, and the likelihood of the site being banned all together. Both articles also consider what this means about the progression of China, focussing on how the government is moving the country backwards, instead of encouraging it to move forward. Both sites also compare Google to its main competitor in China, Baidu.com The titles of the BBC and the NYT article are very different. The NYT article says that Google “shuts China site,” suggesting that it is being shut down completely instead of redirecting its users to other sites. The BBC article says that Google “stops censoring search results,” the more accurate of the two titles, though not nearly as exciting. The BBC article does not go into as much detail as the NYT article over the other companies that have been affected by both the hacking and the competition several companies have in China as a result of strict government regulations. The NYT article mentions the schools that the hackers came from, and that both the schools and the government deny knowledge. The BBC does not. First of all, who could have called this. The day we start looking over Tiananmen Square and the consequential censorship of the Chinese Internet, Google announces that it will stop the censoring. That’s crazy. Second of all, I am going to do something completely expected and say that I support the removal of the censorship. However, while I do not necessarily disagree with China’s choices on control of what information the public knows (its an effective strategy in discouraging inspiration for an uprising), it’s disgusting that the students of China do not know the history of their own country. According to the Frontline video “Tank Man,” man students in China know nothing about what happened in Tiananmen Square. Those that do know are scared to say anything, out of a fear that the government will punish them. The actions of the government are pushing the country backwards, not moving it into modern times. By limiting the knowledge the the generations that will eventually have control over the State, you disable the academic community of the country, thereupon unconsciously corrupting the members of the system that will be setting the next chapter in a history book. Both articles have an pro-Google view on the event. This is understandable, considering that both newspapers are based in countries that would consider it an “atrocity” to censor information about a country’s history or limit a person’s freedom of speech. ...Well, we’ve been told this, anyway. But is it truly unfeasible to think that a state would gloss over or leave out information that would throw respected people or entities that hold power in our minds into a negative light? And wouldn’t it also be feasible that these states would not tell anyone that this was occurring, since it would throw the state into a negative light as well? Sources:


 * NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html?ref=asia
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8581393.stm

=Protests in Thailand Continue= Protesting in Thailand has continued over the past few months, but methods are becoming stranger. On Wednesday, plastic bags filled with gallons of blood were hurled at the house of the Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, as well as at the Government house gates and the headquarters of the Democratic party. The protestors, called Red Shirts, went on to picket the US embassy. They claim that Mr. Abhisit’s government was elected illigitemtly, and that a reelection should occur. They also accuse the US of spying on Thaksin Shinawatra, the previous Prime Minister who was ousted in a Military coup led by the Yellow Shirts, the opposition to the Red Shirts. The Red Shirts hope to have Thaksin back in office if a reelection occurs. Political turmoil has been raging in Thailand since 2006, when Yellow Shirts began to protest in the streets in an attempt to upset then Prime Minister Thaksin. He was eventually ousted in a military coup in September of that year, but was reelected in December 2007. Yellow Shirts protested heavily, occupying Bangkok government buildings and clashing with Red Shirts in September of 2008. In November of 2008, they occupied Bangkok’s airports, causing the cancellation of hundred of flights in and out of the country. The Thaksin-allied government fell in December, and rival Abhisit Vejjajiva took over. Red Shirts marched through the city in protest, storming the Asean sumit in April of 2009 and launching further demonstrations this year in an attempt to bring the current government down and Thaksin back into power. Red Shirts are mostly made up of farmers and members of the lower classes, and believe that Thaksin will bring them out of poverty. They have repeatedly asked Abhisit to quit and call elections, but he has refused to all requests. Both sides seem determined to keep violence that is caused by their forces from occurring; the Red Shirts because they know that protests are not effective when they turn violent, the Yellow Shirts because they recognize that confronting the demonstrators in such ways could possibly result in coalation partners becoming rankled* and louder calls for the dissolution of Parliament and new elections, which the group is sure they could win. So far, police have been highly lenient with protestors, allowing them to pour blood onto the buildings and such. However, they still stand ready to force the protestors, whose numbers have reached 100,000 in the past week, to return to their homes. Both the NYT and the BBC articles describe the increase in protesting over the past month, and give details over the protests, including the picketing of the US embassy and the blood that was thrown at the various buildings. Both articles also mention previous Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and current Prime Minister Abhist Vejjajiva. The fact that both sides are trying very hard to keep the protests nonviolent is gone over as well. The NYT and the BBC have very different articles. The NYT tells the story from the perspective of the Yellow Shirts, focussing more on the military involvement and the issues that violence could possibly raise for the current government. The title of this article (“Thai Protests Continue, bit Scale Is Diminishing”) is also very pro-Yellow Shirts. The BBC, on the other hand, seems to have taken sides with the Red Shirts, supporting the movements for a better government and focussing on the ongoing efforts. It includes a quote from a Red Shirt leader, as opposed to the NYT quote from a police officer, and a timeline detailing the clashes between the two political groups over the past few years. The BBC title (“Thai blood protest at PM’s house”) seems to put an emphasis on the blood of the protests, give a very graphic, very pro-Red Shirts image. The two articles also give two different answers on the diminishing number of protestors: the NYT says that it dropped from 100,000 to 20,000, while the BBC states that it went from 100,000 to 90,000. I dislike it when large groups of people argue for something when they have no idea of what they are talking about. This situation is a perfect example, and highlights the flaws of a grassroots movement that is spawned out of the lower class. While I am sure that the lower classes have very good reasons to have Thaksin back in office, I have yet to hear them beyond, “He will help the lower class.” Instead, it has only been how the current government and the US are at fault for everything that has happened to Thaksin. I would like to know how a man, who was prosecuted for crimes that would have had him removed from office anyway (see Thai Court Seizes $1.4 billion from Thaksin), would help the lower classes of his country, especially considering that, to my knowledge, he has still not returned to Thailand. In fact, I would like to know why a man who illegally obtained billions of dollars would care at all about the people of his country, beyond the fact that they would pay him. It is entertaining to see that you can judge the political and diplomatic relationships of various countries by reading the articles produced by each. It is very obvious that the New York Times, and consequently most likely the US, is supportive of the Yellow Shirts. It is also very obvious that the BBC, and consequently most likely Britain, is supportive of the Red Shirts. Thus, when you read both at the same time, you receive a sort of boxing match between two groups who are allied with opposing sides. If it were two people arguing, I would be hearing, “So and so did this!” quickly followed by, “Well that’s stupid, because so and so is this and that and so and so did this instead,” which would be met by something very similar from the original. I cannot take a side on this. On one hand, I find myself wanting to support the grassroots movement. On the other hand, I do not see any reason why Thaksin should be elected back into office beyond the people like him. Sources: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8573762.stm NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/asia/18thai.html?ref=asia

= = =Indian Party Members Approve Women’s Bill = The upper house of India’s parliament, the first of four hurdles a bill must cross to be approved, validated a bill that reserves a third of all seats in the national parliament and state legislature for women. This ensures that 181 seats in the Lok Sabha and 81 seats in the upper house will be held by women. There are currently only 59 women in the Lok Sabha and 21 women in the upper house. The passage of the bill was met with great joy. Supporters of the the Congress Party could be seen celebrating outside the home of Sonia Ghandi, the party’s leader, and member Jayanthi Natarajan said, “Women have been waiting for 62 years for this moment.” However, the bill was met with heavy opposition, called “one of the most shameful moments in India’s parliamentary democracy,” by opposition Bharatiys Janta Party (BJP) leader Arun Jaitley. Seven Members of Parliament (MPs) had to be forcibly removed from the upper house by security guards, after refusing to leave upon being suspended for disorderly conduct. The MPs, all of whom were from parties who opposed the bill (The Samajwadi Party (SP), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and Loktantric Janata Party (LJP)), were shouting slogans, grabbing papers from VP Hamid Ansari’s table, tearing them up and throwing them back at him. The main concerns over the bill is that it will dilute the input of members of the lower castes and Muslims by lowering the number of free party seats. Several of the regional caste-based parties that are fiercely against the bill also argue that it would diminish their influence in the parliament. Both the BBC and the NYT articles go over the bill that was passed Tuesday, including the number of seats that would be promised to women. They also detail the political chaos that ensued, and much of the severe protesting that was given by small, caste-based socialist parties. Both articles give quotes taken from various members of various parties over the past few days, as the controversy has increased in vocalization. The NYT is significantly more negative over the event than the BBC. The title is all about the “uproar” over the bill, not it’s approval the the parliament. The NYT then goes on to list several negatives, including the possible disruption of the governing coalition led by the Congress Party, as well as what the bill means for representation of the lower castes and Muslims. It also spends slightly more time discussing the protests of opponents in parliament. The BBC, on the other hand, regards the entire thing as a positive event. It discusses how many members support it, and gives quotes from several people on the importance of the bill. The article lists out how the percent of women in the parliament is very low (just 10%), and focuses very little on the arguments of the opposition. Such an advancement in the India makes me want to leap up and shout “YESSSSS!!!!!!!” The fact that women have less than 10% of input where it really counts is both a challenge to the prosperity that is presented by the idea of modern times and an insult to women and men. However, the fact that there is action being taken to lessen this extreme imbalance of power is encouraging on so many levels, especially considering the harsh opposition the bill was met with in the upper house. It says that times are changing. This NYT article confuses me. Normally, I’m presented with a generally liberal argument, supporting the underdog or the oppressed members of society. However, I have been thrown an odd ball. The NYT article is extremely negative, especially considering that the bill was on women’s rights. The best reason I can see as to why is the fact that the bill wouldn’t support lower class women or women in minority. The other is that this bill could severely disrupt the normally stable coalition government. And while I admit that these two reasons do warrant a level of concern, there is basically no celebration in the NYT article, compared to the BBC, which is loaded with joy over the occasion. Sources:
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8557237.stm
 * NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/asia/10india.html?ref=asia

=Stampede in India Kills 60+=

Thousands of villagers who visited a popular ashram (a secluded building, often the home of a guru, used for religious teaching and retreat in Hinduism) in northern India were caught in a stampede for a free meal on Thursday. 60 people died in the charge that began after the gate collapsed, and it is reported that many women and children are among the dead. Kripalu Maharaj, the ashram’s religious leader, has a huge following in India, and runs four ashrams in India and an ashram and a temple in Texas. Stampedes like this one are common in India, with several hundred deaths occurring in recent years. Indian officials are currently investigating whether organizers of the free meal are guilty of criminal negligence. Both the NYT and the BBC articles mention the ashram that the stampede occurred in, as well as a ballpark number as to how many people were killed. They also give the name of the spiritual leader who runs the ashram and the location of the ashram in India. Each article details the reasons as to why thousands of people were swarming to the ashram, and how the stampede was started. The BBC article takes a much more negative view on the stampede, discussing accusations against the organizers of the feast and possible incompetency. The BBC also details many more charges that have happened in previous years during religious events or festivals in India. The NYT details the huge following of Maharaj, and his connections to other ashrams in India and an ashram and a temple in Texas. The BBC calls the free meal a feast, while the NYT article calls it a community lunch. It is sad that members of a community must fight their way towards a free meal. It is alarming that this kind of poverty exists in countries that were colonies of countries whose total population under the poverty line is 40% less. Britain determined the economic course of India at a very early point in the colonization of the country under the East India Company. And while I do realize that I am running off of on a tangent, it is important to remember that situations would not be as severe as they are today is external influence had had a different effect on the countries they had influence in. Similar to the war in Sierra Leone, India is in a position that may or may not have been a result of the influence of its colonizer, Britain. Would the poverty level be the same had Indian not had the detrimental control of the East India Company? Would there be fewer people so desperate for a meal if the area had been split into smaller countries with more manageable populations? We are unable to say. I find it highly interesting that the BBC so negatively describes the stampedes in India. It’s almost as if they are trying to make up for the past by saying, we don’t at all condone the poverty and hunger that is in India. It may have been partially or completely our fault, but we don’t support it anymore. I also find it interesting that the NYT considers the event so lightly, especially considering that the religious teacher of the ashram also runs an ashram and a temple in Texas. Sources: · BBC: [] · NYT: []

=Thai Court Seizes $1.4 billion from Thaksin= The Thailand Supreme Court ruled that $1.4 billion of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s $2.3 billion fortune. The money was obtained illegally by Thaksin while he was still in office, though the assets are currently frozen. Thaksin was not allowed to hold shares from his telecommunications company Shin Corporation while he was prime minister, and instead said that the shares were being transferred to family members. Shin Corporation was sold to Singapore state investment firm Temasek in January 2006, which caused uproar and most likely catalyzed a coup that was staged nine months later. The trial has caused an extreme level of political turmoil within Thailand, further pitting the nation’s poor and lower classes, who side with Thaksin, and the established upper and ruling classes against each other. Thaksin supporters, called “red shirts” due to their tendency to wear red garb, gather outside of the courthouse and around the area. While peaceful at first, the group soon became angry as the verdict was released, shouting obscenities and chanting, “Thaksin, fight! Fight!” While no violence resulted from the mob, thousands of police were put on alert around Bangkok, and riot police officers surrounded the courthouse to protect the justices inside. Both articles give information on Thaksin, including his time as Prime minister and information on his telecommunications company. The quoted court ruling is also included, as well as the negative reactions and consequential police activity in Bangkok. It is mentioned that the political party that supports Thaksin did not plan on demonstrating in the city on the day of the ruling, though whether or not this can be trusted is unknown. The political uproar that has been going on in Thailand since the coup that overthrew Thaksin in 2006 was covered in a good detail in both articles, which makes sense since that is setting up for what is most likely the actual topic of the article: current political unrest in Thailand. The BBC article mentions slightly more on the fact that Thaksin sold his company to an investment firm in Singapore shortly before his was overthrown than the NYT article, as well as details on whether or not Thaksin unfairly promoted a loan to neighboring Burma that would have benefited a satellite communications company that is also owned by the family. The NYT article says that thousands of police officers in Bangkok were put on alert for rioters, while the BBC article says that it was hundreds of thousands that circulated through the city and the surrounding area. The BBC article doesn’t mention riot police that apparently gathered outside the courthouse, or previous actions of protesters of Thaksin, called “yellow shirts.” What frustrates me about this event is that there is no winning verdict that would have limited the amount of chaos that would have followed. Had Thaksin been found guilty and has all of his frozen assets confiscated, there would have most likely been a riot throughout the city. It would have been claimed that the court was being discriminatory against Thaksin, and that it was being controlled by a military-bureaucratic elite who were bent on destroying him. On the other hand, had Thaksin been found innocent, then there would have been several hundreds or even thousands of “yellow shirts” rampaging through the city, claiming that the justice system was not being fair towards everyone, and was biased towards Thaksin. Neither option is ideal. What perhaps disturbs me the most about these two articles is that I read that two people had died in a riot, and I blew it off. I found myself thinking “two people aren’t a lot.” It’s frightening that we have become so used to deaths being reported with the nonchalance of an article from the sports section (or sadly, more nonchalantly than the sports section) that we have become tempered to the idea that thousands of people are dying every day. It has reached a point where we look at a fact and, instead of thinking, “Two people died, how awful,” we say, “Oh it’s just two people. Not a big deal.”

Sources: · NYTimes: [] · BBC: []

Feng Zhenghu was allowed to return to his home in Beijing after spending more than three months camped in Narita International Airport, as a protest of China’s refusal to allow him reentrance into the country. Zhenghu, who survived off of food and clothing provided by tourists and travelers passing through immigration, spent most of his time in the airport using his lap top and mobile phone to record his experiences of blogs and social networking sites, as well as to talk to supporters. Zhenghu had tried to return to China eight times, starting in June of the past year. Authorities refused him entry into China, most likely because he had angered the local government by supporting student protests and accusing local authorities of wrongdoings. Zhenghu spent time in jail from 2000 to 2003, and was detained for several weeks in early 2009. Both the NYT and the BBC articles list out the details of Zhenghu’s experiences, including why he was staying in the Narita International Airport and how he was surviving. Both articles include quotes from Zhenghu, detailing how he is glad to return to his home in China, and how he is glad that the Chinese government finally allowed for him to return home. Each one includes information on his previous encounters with the law, including incarceration for three years, detainment in early 2009, and monitoring and harassment from the local government. Both articles approach the event in a similar manner, painting a picture of a valiant hero returning home after months on the front lines. The BBC article only contains quotes from Zhenghu himself, while the NYT article also includes a quote from one of his supporters, Zhou Minwen. The BBC and the NYT give different dates for when Zhenghu was incarcerated (the BBC says three years in 2001, the NYT from 2000 to 2003). The BBC mentions that Shanghai police reportedly snatched away support signs soon after Zhenghu had landed, but the NYT offers reasons to why China didn’t allow him back into the country, including that he was a dissident writer and human rights activist and that he supported student protests and accused local authorities of various wrongdoings. I find it disheartening, though entirely believable, that China is limiting the freedom of speech its residence may have, punishable by detainment and exile. Many people consider freedom of speech to be an inherent right, something that people should have automatically. Maybe that’s true. I don’t necessarily disagree, but then I don’t agree either. I mean, after a while, you have to wonder how tired you would get of all the criticism, ‘you-work-sucks’ evaluations, and random empty death threats. Somehow, I can imagine why the Chinese government would be angry with Zhenghu for his liberal use of freedom of speech. However, the crackdown on activism is not something I agree with. Activism is completely necessary to both spread knowledge on an issue that is both relevant and prevalent, therefore making is an inherent characteristic in catalyzing change. The fact that China is prohibiting effective activism seems to suggest that they have grown very set in their views, and are not allowing for anyone to offer an idea of change. And if I sound like I’m contradicting myself, I’m not. Freedom of speech means that people get to protest, but they also get to spew random and annoying BS at you without a platform to support it with. Activism is protesting. Just protesting. I’m happy that the news can produce something that isn’t about someone dying, or a country in economic crisis, or a famine, or some other depressing event. I don’t know what to think about these articles, actually. There’s not much to tell, beyond the fact that neither seem to side with China. Both have issues with the country I guess. Sources: · NYTimes: [] · BBC: [] = Drone Kills Filipino Militant in Pakistan =
 * Chinese Activist Allowed to Return Home **

A Filipino militant with links to terrorist groups Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf was reportedly killed near the Afghan border by a US drone aircraft. Abdul Basit Usman has been called a bomb-making expert by the US State Department, and is held responsible for the deaths of 15 people in incidents ranging from 2006 to 2007. If reports are confirmed, then the attack will be considered a success for the US. It would also provide another indication that Pakistan’s tribal areas are becoming a hot spot for militants across the globe to use as a hiding spot and a location to link up with Al Qaeda. The two articles both mention the death of the Filipino militant, as well as his name and the connections he had to different militant groups, such as Jemah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf. Both articles also mention the details of previous drone attacks, and how the US State Department had a reward out for his capture. Both articles mention a previous drone attack was aimed at Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The titles of the NYT article and the BBC article are almost identical, except that the NYT article title contains the words “reportedly” and “in Pakistan.” The BBC article has a quote from the US State Department Website, and a quote from Lt-Gen Benjamin Dolorfino, military commander in the South-Western Philippines, obtained from the AFP news agency. The NYT article contains no quotes. The NYT article provides more information on US support in the Philippines, deaths allegedly cause by Basit Usman, a recent attack on a CIA base in Afghanistan, and how the increase of militants in the tribal areas of North and East Pakistan suggests that the regions are becoming a place of refuge for terrorists with connections to Al Qaeda. The attack on militants, while understandable, leaves me wondering how many civilians may end up being killed this way, and why our man power is being focused in an area where there is unlikely to be a large output of intelligence. Seeing that the number of CIA-operated drone attacks has stepped up since December 30, with a reported twelve in the past 29 (as of January 27, 2010) days, it is obvious that some form of intelligence must have been processed around that time. I suppose what I want to known is not really why our man (or drone) power is being focused in the area, but what spawned these attacks? Were they measures taken after the collection of a decent amount of solid evidence? Or did we use the “Leroy Jenkins” tactic again and jump the gun? Considering the articles, I find that, in the NYT piece, the US is only “reportedly” doing things. We are only “reportedly” killing terrorists, and “reportedly” stepping up our drone attacks on a possible militant hot spot. I think that this is especially funny considering that a majority of the NYT article is discussing the glorious actions of the US military, and our brave efforts to eradicate terrorism. It’s like saying, “We didn’t necessarily kill this guy. But if we did, that would be really really good.” I also think that the BBC is secretly mocking the US with the State Department quote in the third to last paragraph. Can you say “Unfortunate Hero Complex?” How about “Unfortunate and Often Ineffective Hero Complex?” Sources: > =Chinese Gay Pageant Shut Down= What was supposed to be the first ever Mr. Gay China pageant was shut down by Beijing police an hour before it was supposed to begin. Both audience members and contestants were extremely disappointed as work toward gay right was set back by the shut down. Homosexuality was illegal in China until 1997, and being gay was considered a psychological disorder until it was removed from the list in 2001. The winner of the pageant would have been able to participate in the Worldwide Mr. Gay competition in Oslo next month. The cancellation from the police is a huge disappointment to me, especially considering the recent problems involving gay right in areas such as Uganda. The freedom to be openly gay should be encouraged right now, not cracked down upon; else wise other countries will follow this example. This could also potentially result in conflict or violence towards gays and lesbians, similar to that which is in Uganda or was in Nazi Germany. Both articles mention the decriminalization of homosexuality and its removal from official lists of psychological disorders, as well as the cancellations that occurred at China’s first Gay Pride celebration last summer. Both said that the winner of the pageant would be able to compete in the Worldwide Mr. Gay competition next month. The NYT article mentions the name of the nightclub that pageant was supposed to take place in, though the BBC article includes its location but not its name. The BBC article mentions 3 people involved in the event, while the NYT only mentions 2. The NYT article seems to place more emphasis on the conditions of the gay community in China, while the BBC article includes multiple quotes from those involved. While it is good that news sources are making events such as this one known, I find myself disappointed in the response. Yes, the gay community is earning more freedoms. But is being considered legal for 12 years and sane for 8 really a step forward? These people can’t help the fact that they are not heterosexual, and they should be allowed to celebrate who they are. I would have expected a much more negative response to the event, especially from the NYT, being that it is based in a country that is often very liberal and excepting of various sexual orientations. Sources: =Somali Suicide Bomber was from Denmark= A suicide bomber killed 24 people last week at a university graduation ceremony, three of whom were ministers. The bombing took place at Benadair University in one of the few regions of the capital, Mogadishu, that is actually controlled by the government. The University was created in 2002 to train doctors to replace those who fled the country or were killed in the civil war. The bomber had reportedly joined the Islamist group al-Shabab, though they have declined involvement in the attack. What is most alarming about this event is that the man, who was identified from photos by his parents in Copenhagen, was most likely brainwashed in Denmark. The man, who was born in Somalia but moved to Denmark when he was very young, moved back to the country only in the past 18 months with his wife and children. Attacks such as this one are on the rise, and are mainly conducted by young Somalis who have grown up abroad and hold foreign citizenship. Because they may have had difficulty fitting into their adopted societies, the young Somalis experience alienation and have a poor knowledge of the Quran, making them particularly vulnerable to recruitment by jihadists. Sources: · NYTimes: [] (“Somali Minister: Suicide Bomber Was Danish-Somali”) · BBC: [] (“Somali bomber ‘was from Denmark’”) Both articles are remaining surprising neutral, considering that the article is on a suicide bombing. The BBC article focused more on the details of the bombing, such as who was involved, where it was, etc, than the connections the suicide bomber had to Denmark, and how they relate to other incidents of suicide bomber, the train of thought that the New York Times article took. The New York Times article pointed out the details of Somalia’s decent into anarchism, providing the date of the fall of the government, and who overthrew the socialist dictator, while the BBC article only says that “Somalia has had no effective government for almost 20 years.” Finally, the BBC article provides no information on how the suicide bomber was supposedly “brainwashed” in Denmark, while the New York Times article does, then goes on to point out how it may have been done. As far as I am concerned, Somalia can get away with a lot more than Denmark. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991, there are few regions in the capital that are controlled by the government, and pirates are currently ravaging the oceans east of the country. Denmark, on the other hand, has evolved into an economically sound and prosperous nation, and is part of both NATO and the EU. Considering this, I find it alarming that many of the suicide bombers came from foreign countries, many of whom probably originally lived in countries similar to Denmark, as the bomber in the article did. The many industrialized countries that exist are famous for “peace” and “prosperity,” but reality has shown us that our blissful ignorance to the brainwashing of an alienated demographic results in chaos in a country that is far to chaotic already for its own good. The BBC article also made me think about ignorance. Maybe I am paranoid, but the NYT article seemed more eager to report on the suicide bombers connections to Denmark than the BBC article. I have come to know the BBC as having a blunt, if not at times short, was of reporting events, but have not experienced an article that seems to deliberately avoid a subject that is very close to home. And while this brand of purposeful ignorance may seem far less severe than the blissful variety described above, is it not more dangerous to produce an uneducated public who will continue to ignore problems, than to have a current generation who will eventually be succeeded by one with a wider awareness of the problems on our doorstep? =Somali Pirates Seize Oil Tanker= Somali pirates seized an oil tanker bound for the US from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, about 800 miles (1,300 KM) off the coast of Somalia. The Greek-owned ship, loaded with about $20 million of crude oil, was one of many ships captured by the pirates in the past few years. The pirates attack patterns are different, occurring far from the coast and capturing large ships to use as sea-bases or ransom victims, with smaller, more agile boats. Sources: · NYTimes:[] · BBC: [] After several months of piracy, coupled with multiple incidents, both the BBC and NYT decided that it was about time for a recap. The BBC focused on present and past numbers, such as the crew on the Maran Centarus, the speed of the ship, and the number of hostages and ships held by the pirates, as well as quoting the EU Naval task force (NavFor) and Somalia analyst Rashid Abdi from the International Crisis Group. The New York Times, focused more on who and what, using facts on why the pirates act, who they are, and how they operate, as well as quoting Cyrus Mody, from the international Maritime Bureau in London, and Lt. Matt Allen, a spokesperson from the US Navy. In the past few weeks, the press has become rather blunt with its talk of the Somali pirates, today’s Jack Sparrow. However, the bluntness, while refreshing as a bucket of ice water, paints a picture far less glamorous than that which is shown by a Johnny Depp turned pirate. What it must be like to live in a country that has had not functioning government I cannot imagine, having lived my entire life governed by rules and routine. And while a series of reports on the piracy is keeping the events fresh in everyone’s mind, one must wonder how much longer the attention span of the press will last. =Ukrainian Man killed in Western Pirate Attack= A Ukrainian seaman on the Cancale Star was killed off the coast of Benin. The oil tanker was attacked by pirates, most likely from Nigeria, who killed the man, injured another, and stole the contents of the ship’s safe, a mere 18 miles (33 km) off the coast of Benin. While pirate attacks in the West Africa region are less common than those off the continent’s eastern waters, the attacks are on the rise, with 100 incidents in the past year. The International Maritime Bureau has also warned of heightened piracy risks along shipping routes in Nigeria and Ghana, to the east and west of Benin. Sources: · NYTimes: [] · BBC: [] I feel as if I am never satisfied with the news coverage I read, however on topic and informative it may be. But perfection to my eyes has been nearly found in two different coverings of a piece of breaking news. The articles seem to be written by the alter egos of their main news sources, to the point where I forget who I am reading. The New York Times takes on a very focused track, using quotes but very few statistics to express the NYT ideas on the Nigerian pirate attacks and only the Nigerian pirate attacks. And the BBC article uses approximately ½ the article to describe the Nigerian pirate attacks, and the other to compare it to the Somali pirate attacks, a negative approach to its short and sweet tendency. A pirate attack today is something very different from a pirate attack three hundred years ago. Gone are the pistols, the cannons, the wooden ships, and the terrified stereotypes that have translated into a three part series and a few straggling tales. And while a pirate attack today is equally terrifying today as it was three hundred years ago, it is replaced with a different sort of desperation. It is no longer mean of survival because the government shall not understand you. Rather, it has become an issue of survival because your own government is unable to, or refuses to, provide proper services for survival. And while attacks on innocent people are wrong, a problem such as this is solved like so many others; not by attacking each little ant as it straggles out, but going to the nest, and the cause, of the piracy. Considering that breaking news is often very bare minimum when it is first released, I am very surprised but pleased to find that there is more than three sentences to sate my thirst. =New Greenpeace Chief Takes Focus on Poverty= Kumi Naidoo, the first African to head Greenpeace since its founding in 1971, is currently pushing for actions on climate issues, and the relationship they have with impoverished nations. The South African has been protesting heavily, urging for a deal on climate change at next month’s UN conference in Copenhagen. Greenpeace has protested extensively in the past few months, such as dumping 18 tons of coal in front of the Swedish government headquarters and scaling the Parliament building in Britain to hang banners and flags, to spread awareness on the importance of action to address climate change. Sources: · Seattle Times: [] · BBC: [] It warms my cynic’s heart, to hear a story produced by our news system that doesn’t center on war, death, ore some medical anomaly that is about as lucid as a bad accent. Both news sources, The Seattle Times and The BBC, praise Greenpeace for its efforts to combat poverty, though the praise is indirect. Many of the same quotes, a majority of which come from Naidoo, are used, though facts in the BBC present a kind of past-to-present view, while the Seattle Times outlines more of a present-to-future kind of story. Do I think it’s wonderful that the news has managed to give birth to a cheerful story? Of course; I’m not a complete pessimist. But I also find it sad that, no matter how loud we cry for change, there is little listening going on at the top of the social hierarchy that we are living in. If poverty benefits no one, why do we do little to abate its grip on humanity? Considering the news coverage, such a happy piece has left me craving more. But if wishes were fishes, then I would be swimming in an ocean of cheerful fish. Sadly, cheerful fish earn less at the market than gloomy fish. =Somali Pirates Attack Oil Tanker= Somali pirates attacked the Hon-Kong registered BW Lion on Monday, though the oil tanker managed to avoid capture. Tha attack occurred 1,850 km off the coast of Somalia, and 741 km North-East of the Seychelles, far from the costal hunting ground normally prowled by the pirates. Ships from the EU, US, China, India, and Japan have been recently involved in anti-piracy operations, mainly in the Gulf of Aden, though this seems to have forced the pirates to move their focus further out to sea. The pirates currently hold more than 190 hostages, including a British couple seized from their yacht last month. Sources: · The NYTimes: [] · BBC: [] Ever reliable, both the BBC and the New York Times have produced news articles that provide adequate information on an event in a relatively short period of time. And while both articles have basically the same facts, the underlying messages are, again, radically different. The message offered by the NYT article focuses more on the positives and victories of the US and other countries battling with the pirates, accompanied by many page-filling or page-wasting, facts, quotes, and statistics. The BBC article, on the other hand, takes a more neutral stance, identifying the positives and negatives of the event and using fewer statistics and paraphrased quotes than the NYT article. For a country that has not had a functional national government for 18 years, it is not surprising that there are Somali pirates in the area. And while I do not support piracy and the holding of hostages in the least, one must remember that it is the government that provides food, clean water, and supplies to a stricken area. Considering this, is it truly surprising that a group of men would take drastic measures to survive? The news articles, however, have me on the brink of being disgusted. The news must be reported, and a news and media service must make money. I understand this. But how far will a news source go to make a buck? And when do these influences and useless supplies of information become inappropriate, and mask the facts that we actually need to know? =South Sudan President Urges for Independence=
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8473921.stm
 * NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/asia/22pstan.html?scp=1&sq=Drone%20Reportedly%20Killed%20Filipino%20in%20Pakistan&st=cse
 * NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/asia/16beijing.html?ref=asia
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8461643.stm

=
South Sudan leader Salva Kiir is making a strong case for independence from the Northern part of the country, something that shall be decided in a referendum due in 2011. While he supports his people’s right to choose, Kiir says that voting for unity would make Southern Sudanese “second class citizens” in their own country. The call for independence comes after a long and bloody war over ideology, ethnicity, and religion. One must also keep in mind that, while the majority of the oil exported from Sudan is drilled in the South, most of the refineries and the only port are located to the North.=====

=
As it has been observed in the past, the BBC article has taken a more short, sweet, and to the point approach, while the New York Times article has preferred to elaborate further on the subject. (Though whether this expansion is truly necessary has yet to be seen.) The choice in quotes in both articles supports the core ideas (quoting Kiir on his opinions in both articles, and one comment from a UN official in the NYT article), as does the use of number and date facts (dates of the elections and referendums, etc.). Over all, the articles take a position to support Southern Sudan, which is understandable, considering that most would blame Northern Sudan for its long and bloody.=====

=
The subject of the article creates a controversy in my mind. On one hand, an independent Southern Sudan is best for the rights of the Southern Sudanese. On the other hand, one must consider that a split from the North separates the South from a majority of its oil refineries and its one port. And while I am not saying that I support the people who massacred 2 million and displaced another 4 million on the basis of race, religion, and personal ideologies, I cannot fully support a move that will cause the main industry of a country to tank. Considering the articles, my only frustrations are that I heard little on the Northern part of Sudan, and that I would have liked to have heard more on the subject of oil.===== = Tunisian President Wins 5th Term = Tunisian President Zine El Abidire Ben Ali was reelected for a fifth term this October, with an 84% support, down from the 2004 95% support. And while many greatly respect the leader, there seems to be a lack of freedom of choice in Tunisia. Ben Ali has been in power for 23 years, and his ruling party (Constituional Democratic Rally (RCD)) holds 161 seats out of 214 available in the Chamber of Duputies. Sources: Upon first glance, the coverage from the New York Times seems much more complete than the coverage given by the BBC. However, I have found that the article written by the BBC is, in the end, more complete than the one from the New York Times. The mood given by the NY Times is very positive, with one of two quotes praising Ben Ali and a vast majority of the statistics portraying Ben Ali’s winning status. The only negative part of the article mentions how enthusiasm is muted because of the expected outcome. The BBC article, in contrast, portrays Ben Ali and his ruling party in a more negative light, with statistics and a quote that convey a lack of freedom to choose in the country. Both articles lack sufficient quoting, which they make up for in the statistics department. When considering the event, what chafes me the most (even if it doesn’t surprise me) is that a country that is mainly controlled by a democratic ruling party lacks a sufficient amount of democracy. And maybe I am an idealist, but shouldn’t a country with the right to vote also have the right to choose? The coverage also stands out as insufficient, providing little information on the President, his actions, and whether or not he was even opposed in the election, let alone who opposed him. ="La Familia" Drug Cartel Crackdown= Over the course of October 21st and 22nd, over 300 members of the Mexican drug cartel La Familia were arrested by United States police officers and federal agent, bringing the total arrests over the past 44 months up to 1,186 people. The cartel, called the most violent cartel currently active in Mexico, is said to have taken a massive hit from this attack, though this is undetermined due to the arrested having unknown statuses within the cartel. Along with the large amounts of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana that were seized, several illegal weapons, vehicles, and a large quantity of cash was found and taken by authorities as well. Sources: · [] · [] · [] Considering the “short, sweet, and to the point” nature of the event, as well as the fact that the three articles were published within one day of the crackdown, it is not surprising that two of the three articles I chose were merely a page long. However, the article taken from the //Houston Chronicle// left a little to be desired, devoting barely half a page to the topic. (Note: All three articles were found and printed October 22, though the article from //The New York Times// was listed as being published on October 23) All three articles included quotes from Attorney General Eric Holder, though the only article to uses quotes from a different authority figure (FBI Director Robert Mueller) was the one published by the BBC. And while there is a brief mention of the efforts of the Mexican Government in the BBC article, one has to wonder why an article would include little to no coverage on Mexico when the article in question is on a //Mexican// drug cartel. Overall, the articles that originated from within the US read as very pro-US, listing much larger, more promising statistics and using a much more positive word choice and ambience than the BBC article, which took a step back and used a slightly drier, more factual word choice and tone and included both positive and negative statistics, which is to be expected.
 * New York Times: []
 * BBC: []

While I won’t deny that the crackdown was definitely a success, one has to wonder how powerful our law enforcement is, considering that for every 45 troops deployed for battle with the cartel by the Mexican government, 11 people died in drug related violence, as well as the fact that it is unknown whether those arrested were simply free-lance dealers, or actually held a position higher up within La Familia’s chain of command, inspiring the question, “Am I in Gotham?” within me. And while the coverage satisfy’s a need for US related information, the lack to total absence of information on the efforts of the Mexican government is irritating to the point of making me angry. This is especially so when considering the fact that a majority of the heavy battle has been and will be fought on Mexican Battle.