Stuff in the News that Annoys Me
Apr. 8th, 2004 01:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rain_gryphonGold Teeth:
This is kind of stupid, but it bothers me anyway. First, the President of Turkmenistan is an obvious control freak. No-one doubts this. He's succumbed to that peculiarly Balkan folly of trying to require his people to appear outwardly Western, in the hope that this will somehow cause the country to modernize. Peter the Great did it, Kemal Attaturk did it, now Niyazov's at it. It's just one of those things that they do in that part of the world.
He gave a speech the other day at a school, in which he made the statement that it's better to have white teeth than gold teeth. Now if you read any of the speech excerpts at all, it's obvious that he was talking about the need for good dental care. He talked about the desirability of keeping one's teeth, gave some questionable advice on dental health (gnaw on bones for strong teeth), and made reference to the fact that his Minister of Health is a dentist.
All of the major news outlets are reporting this as a 'news of the weird' type story, giving it the spin that this is some sort of edict against the having of gold teeth. Interestingly, if you read the attached stories, you can usually make out the truth of the matter, but if you just read the headlines, you'd come away with the idea that it was some deranged anti-gold tooth campaign based on a personal quirk of Niyazov's.
Why is this? I can't believe that there's some sort of widespread media conspiracy to deliberately discredit the man. It's just about as hard to think that there's some sort of herd mentality among newspaper editors that causes them all to give the same misleading angle on a story's headline. It's a mystery to me.
Rwanda:
Ten years ago the Rwandans went collectively apeshit. Even by the usual standards of Third World civil wars, this one was bad. YOu might recall this from the news at the time - dead people everywhere. People chopped apart with machetes, people locked in buildings that were set afire, people chained together and thrown in the river to drown, etc. It went way past anything needed to beat the other side, and just turned into a frenzy of killing for its own sake.
This week is the tenth anniversary of the start of the war. Not unsurprisingly, Rwanda's pretty much come to a standstill for commemorative ceremonies. Now the thing that's caught my attention here is that most of the news stories seem to lead off with the fact that the rest of the world hasn't come to a halt along with Rwanda. Most of the stories seem to affect a tone of surprise when reporting this fact.
Most of them also go on to put the blame for the massacre squarely on the United States, or Britain, or France, or the UN. Just about anywhere except Rwanda. Apparently everyone else in the world is guilty of not stopping the Rwandans from killing one another, while the Rwandans themselves are to be seen as collective victims, free from blame for their own actions.
I'm unsure if this is paternalism (Africans are helpless to avoid this kind of thing, so it's up to the West to stop them), or if it's the 'tragedy' meme (there's been a 'tragedy', so everyone with any connection to it becomes a 'victim') that seems so depressingly common these days. I'm guessing some blend of the two. Either way, it's annoying.
"Condi":
The Bush administration has suddenly begun referring to Condoleeza Rice as 'Condi', apparently in the belief that this will make her seem more sympathetic to the public. It'd be funny if it weren't an implied insult to one's intelligence.
This is kind of stupid, but it bothers me anyway. First, the President of Turkmenistan is an obvious control freak. No-one doubts this. He's succumbed to that peculiarly Balkan folly of trying to require his people to appear outwardly Western, in the hope that this will somehow cause the country to modernize. Peter the Great did it, Kemal Attaturk did it, now Niyazov's at it. It's just one of those things that they do in that part of the world.
He gave a speech the other day at a school, in which he made the statement that it's better to have white teeth than gold teeth. Now if you read any of the speech excerpts at all, it's obvious that he was talking about the need for good dental care. He talked about the desirability of keeping one's teeth, gave some questionable advice on dental health (gnaw on bones for strong teeth), and made reference to the fact that his Minister of Health is a dentist.
All of the major news outlets are reporting this as a 'news of the weird' type story, giving it the spin that this is some sort of edict against the having of gold teeth. Interestingly, if you read the attached stories, you can usually make out the truth of the matter, but if you just read the headlines, you'd come away with the idea that it was some deranged anti-gold tooth campaign based on a personal quirk of Niyazov's.
Why is this? I can't believe that there's some sort of widespread media conspiracy to deliberately discredit the man. It's just about as hard to think that there's some sort of herd mentality among newspaper editors that causes them all to give the same misleading angle on a story's headline. It's a mystery to me.
Rwanda:
Ten years ago the Rwandans went collectively apeshit. Even by the usual standards of Third World civil wars, this one was bad. YOu might recall this from the news at the time - dead people everywhere. People chopped apart with machetes, people locked in buildings that were set afire, people chained together and thrown in the river to drown, etc. It went way past anything needed to beat the other side, and just turned into a frenzy of killing for its own sake.
This week is the tenth anniversary of the start of the war. Not unsurprisingly, Rwanda's pretty much come to a standstill for commemorative ceremonies. Now the thing that's caught my attention here is that most of the news stories seem to lead off with the fact that the rest of the world hasn't come to a halt along with Rwanda. Most of the stories seem to affect a tone of surprise when reporting this fact.
Most of them also go on to put the blame for the massacre squarely on the United States, or Britain, or France, or the UN. Just about anywhere except Rwanda. Apparently everyone else in the world is guilty of not stopping the Rwandans from killing one another, while the Rwandans themselves are to be seen as collective victims, free from blame for their own actions.
I'm unsure if this is paternalism (Africans are helpless to avoid this kind of thing, so it's up to the West to stop them), or if it's the 'tragedy' meme (there's been a 'tragedy', so everyone with any connection to it becomes a 'victim') that seems so depressingly common these days. I'm guessing some blend of the two. Either way, it's annoying.
"Condi":
The Bush administration has suddenly begun referring to Condoleeza Rice as 'Condi', apparently in the belief that this will make her seem more sympathetic to the public. It'd be funny if it weren't an implied insult to one's intelligence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:49 am (UTC)It's laziness. they don't consider that country to be at all important, and the subject of his speach (even when interpreted correctly) to be a bit bizaare for a president. So, the first journalist either misinterpreted what was said and didn't bother to get the context (Why bother? It's only Turkmenistan.) or else just thought it odd for the sitting president of a country to be giving a public speach about oral hygiene. Some subsequent journalist, reading the account will misinterpret the original, since the original was written with an obvious smirk ("Look what this idiot is talking about.") and then report the misinterpretation. Subsequent journalists then report the story without checking the background.
Regarding Rwanda: Political correctness forbids making blacks anything but victims. After all, if it had not been for the evil whites from Europe and America influencing Africa, Africans would all be happy and living as Kings and Queens in a glorious civilization that extends back in time to the beginning (I actually heard someone spout this line in a college English course). The other reason, obviously, is that in order to make the story hit home, they have to show why America should even care about Rwanda.
As far as Condoleeza goes, it's probably an attempt to help out journalists who have been mangling her name for a while.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:55 am (UTC)*snerk* The BBC had her as "Condonleezza" for a while last night. I looked twice, just to be sure. They're corrected it now :D
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 08:23 am (UTC)I rest my case.