« August 2009 | Main | October 2009 »
September 21, 2009
Obama on journalism
Here's Obama in a recent interview about the state of journalism: "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."
Would it be considered ironic that blogs and online news outlets then proceeded to take him out of context and start shouting at each other across the void? Or is that too expected?
When Obama was asked what he thought about a bill introduced in the Senate that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks, he responded, "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."
The headline being used everywhere from the Drudgereport to Huffingtonpost: Obama Open to Newspaper Bailouts. Being open to looking at a proposal isn't really the same as being open to the proposal. Out of context: Check.
From that out-of-context headline the story has devolved into accusations about more big government bailouts and a socialist takeover of the media, followed by the usual frothing. Again, based on a willingness to read legislation. So, shouting across the void: Check.
Journalism is dying, and we really need to have a discussion about the media's future. Should consumers start paying for online content? Can a nonprofit news organization maintain its independence and stay afloat? Etc.
But how do you have that conversation when there's no medium for mutual understanding and honest debate?
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
How to win at Scrabble
Play defensively, wage psychological warfare. I probably shouldn't be sharing this video with my opponents...
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 18, 2009
Bribe the Pashtuns?
Fareed Zakaria thinks he has a solution for Afghanistan:
The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan.
Zakaria is normally a thoughtful guy, but if Pashtuns not feeling empowered was Afghanistan's central problem then it would be in a lot better shape than it is. Being one of the poorest nations in the world, lacking a centralized and corrupt government, and having its infrastructure and population decimated by 30 years of war are all candidates for Afghanistan's "central problem." Pashtun disenfranchisement? Not so much.
But then, Zakaria and I have different goals:
A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 16, 2009
Afghanistan's police force
Anup Kaphle from The Atlantic is in Afghanistan and has an interesting piece up on its police force (the article is a bit old by Internet standards, but I've been traveling):
Unlike most police forces, Afghanistan's 77,000-strong national police deals less with civilian law and order, and more with an insurgency that has engulfed most of the southern part of the country and the tribal areas bordering Pakistan. From dawn to dusk and dusk to dawn, the policemen contend with one of the most fanatical and militant groups in recent history--all for a monthly salary of around $110 (about 7,000 Afghanis). While this is an improvement over the average monthly Afghan income of $25, it is nearly two and a half times less than that earned by the Afghan National Army (whose training is admittedly more rigorous, and whose missions are considered more involved than the routine but dangerous patrols carried out by the police). In light of this, one might imagine that everyone would simply sign up for the army instead of the police, but the army has quotas, which makes it more difficult to get into.
It's amazing how many of the current problems in Afghanistan boil down to basic economic security. The lower turnout rate in the most recent election was partially due to security concerns, but I've also read several interviews in which Afghans essentially say their worries about day-to-day financial struggles outweigh opinions about who should lead the country. Democracy will struggle until average Afghans can see some sort of correlation between their votes and their economic security.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 3, 2009
"The stones and the trees of this country know how much fraud there was"
That comes from Abdullah Abdullah, who says he will not accept a Karzai victory after thousands of fraud claims have slowed the vote counting process. Karzai leads 47.2% - 32.5%, with about 60% of the votes counted, but the lead doesn't really matter as long as neither candidate breaks 50%, because it will go to a runoff.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack