Thursday, April 27, 2006
Even Jon Steward Nods......
Jon Stewart appeared to be genuniely apologetic to a Wall Street Journal analyst last night, rather unecessarily I felt, for not understanding why oil companiesare making so much profit with oil at $70/barrell.
The real answer is that, pretty much, many oil companies with access to substantial land based oil resources are probably producing oil for about $10 or $15 a barrel or so, I would guess. When I worked in the oil industry about 5 or 6 years ago, when oilwas trading at about $10-20/barrel and oil executives were gloomily reporting thatthe world of "$10 oil is here to stay", we aimed to get the cost of producing a barrelof oil down to between $7 and $12 per barrel.
Of course from field to field, country to country, tax regime to tax regime, whetheryou are producing on land or at sea, there are plenty of other varaible costs that take chunks of profit out of the barrel - for example many regimes will take a massive chunk of oil as it's produced at the well head. E.g.Saudi Arabia takes most of the oil produced there in taxes, whereas if you can produce hydrocarbons off the cost of Ireland, the government takes almost no tax from that to make it ecomonically viable. But these additional costs were ones that were already being dealt with before oil pricestrebled!
Regarding Bush's address to the US Renewables Fuels Association, and this whole bru-ha-haabout how shockingly high gasoline prices are, not only are the measures Bush announced to combat high gas prices nonsense, it's mostly his fault they are so high!
First, suggesting that the use of ethanol can put some slack back in the oil/gasoline markets. About 10% of all US corn went to make ethanol in 2004/2005 according to the USDA(http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf). Ethanol makes up a very small
percentage of US fuel supplies, and the Federal govenment provides subsidies of up to 50c per gallon to produce ethanol (http://www.distill.com/berg/). There's also a protection tarriff on imported ethanol of about 60c per gallon. Lifting that tarrif would be a good way to get cheap ethanol into the country and create some slack, but then all those enormous agri-companies that produce the corn that produces the (subsidised) ethnaol would miss out wouldn't they? Oooh, which special interest will I serve today - oil, agri-business or petrochemical?
In addition, many studies have shown that it costs more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than can be extracted from it (see http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm and references therein). Admittedly there are some studies, most recently one published in "Science", so reputable, that show the opposite, but the point is it seems controversial at least.
Another measure Bush announced, suspending deliveries into the US Strategic Petroleum reserves, is also nonsensical. This has no impact because such tiny amounts are involved in adding to the now almost full Strategic Reserves (700 million barrels as at August 2005 relative to it's maximum capacity of 727 million barrels, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve).
To put it in perspective, the US consumed 20.03 million barrels of oil PER DAY in 2003 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) and imported 10 million barrels of oil in the week ending 21 April 06 (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm).
Bush blames increased demand for oil from China and India for pushing oil prices higher. Very unfair on India, which consumes about one thirtieth of the oil per capita that the US does (at 2003 figures, see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.htmland http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html).
Of course probably the main reason that oil prices are being sustained at their current high, (apart from refining capacity limitations), which Bush conspicuously ignored, and dare not speak it's name in the mainstream media, is the geopolitical uncertainty that his Administration has created i.e. uncertainty about interruptions to oil supply from countries like, oh I dunno, Iran and Iraq and possibly even Venezuela.
And as for Iraq, the oil ministry recently produced a report detailing the catastrophic neglect of Iraq's oil infrastructure, mainly due to one war and invasion, years of US and UK imposed sanctions, and, most recently, one illegal invasion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4944814.stm).
The real answer is that, pretty much, many oil companies with access to substantial land based oil resources are probably producing oil for about $10 or $15 a barrel or so, I would guess. When I worked in the oil industry about 5 or 6 years ago, when oilwas trading at about $10-20/barrel and oil executives were gloomily reporting thatthe world of "$10 oil is here to stay", we aimed to get the cost of producing a barrelof oil down to between $7 and $12 per barrel.
Of course from field to field, country to country, tax regime to tax regime, whetheryou are producing on land or at sea, there are plenty of other varaible costs that take chunks of profit out of the barrel - for example many regimes will take a massive chunk of oil as it's produced at the well head. E.g.Saudi Arabia takes most of the oil produced there in taxes, whereas if you can produce hydrocarbons off the cost of Ireland, the government takes almost no tax from that to make it ecomonically viable. But these additional costs were ones that were already being dealt with before oil pricestrebled!
Regarding Bush's address to the US Renewables Fuels Association, and this whole bru-ha-haabout how shockingly high gasoline prices are, not only are the measures Bush announced to combat high gas prices nonsense, it's mostly his fault they are so high!
First, suggesting that the use of ethanol can put some slack back in the oil/gasoline markets. About 10% of all US corn went to make ethanol in 2004/2005 according to the USDA(http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf). Ethanol makes up a very small
percentage of US fuel supplies, and the Federal govenment provides subsidies of up to 50c per gallon to produce ethanol (http://www.distill.com/berg/). There's also a protection tarriff on imported ethanol of about 60c per gallon. Lifting that tarrif would be a good way to get cheap ethanol into the country and create some slack, but then all those enormous agri-companies that produce the corn that produces the (subsidised) ethnaol would miss out wouldn't they? Oooh, which special interest will I serve today - oil, agri-business or petrochemical?
In addition, many studies have shown that it costs more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than can be extracted from it (see http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm and references therein). Admittedly there are some studies, most recently one published in "Science", so reputable, that show the opposite, but the point is it seems controversial at least.
Another measure Bush announced, suspending deliveries into the US Strategic Petroleum reserves, is also nonsensical. This has no impact because such tiny amounts are involved in adding to the now almost full Strategic Reserves (700 million barrels as at August 2005 relative to it's maximum capacity of 727 million barrels, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve).
To put it in perspective, the US consumed 20.03 million barrels of oil PER DAY in 2003 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) and imported 10 million barrels of oil in the week ending 21 April 06 (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm).
Bush blames increased demand for oil from China and India for pushing oil prices higher. Very unfair on India, which consumes about one thirtieth of the oil per capita that the US does (at 2003 figures, see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.htmland http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html).
Of course probably the main reason that oil prices are being sustained at their current high, (apart from refining capacity limitations), which Bush conspicuously ignored, and dare not speak it's name in the mainstream media, is the geopolitical uncertainty that his Administration has created i.e. uncertainty about interruptions to oil supply from countries like, oh I dunno, Iran and Iraq and possibly even Venezuela.
And as for Iraq, the oil ministry recently produced a report detailing the catastrophic neglect of Iraq's oil infrastructure, mainly due to one war and invasion, years of US and UK imposed sanctions, and, most recently, one illegal invasion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4944814.stm).
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 6:44 PM
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The BBC are at it again.....
RE: Father's tribute to dead soldier
Last Updated: Monday, 17 April 2006, 15:38 GMT 16:38 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915166.stm
The above article states:
“A British officer killed in Iraq felt troops were "making a difference, little by little", his father said. Brigadier John Palmer said the vast majority of Iraqis were better off because of people like his son, Lieutenant Richard Palmer, 27”
Last Updated: Monday, 17 April 2006, 15:38 GMT 16:38 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915166.stm
The above article states:
“A British officer killed in Iraq felt troops were "making a difference, little by little", his father said. Brigadier John Palmer said the vast majority of Iraqis were better off because of people like his son, Lieutenant Richard Palmer, 27”
Further quoting Brigadier Palmer:
“the vast majority, they were better off because people like Richard were there."
Apart from a grieving father’s word, what evidence does the BBC have for reporting these statements as fact?
A readily accessible survey from January 2006 [1] shows exactly the opposite i.e. that the “vast majority” of Iraqi Sunni’s look forward to the violent removal of the occupying forces, and “the majority” believe there will be a subsequent improvement in their lives.
In addition, one of the most recent, comprehensive, but not independent, studies of living conditions in Iraq [2], paints a bleak picture of life there: general healthcare, child health and nutrition, education and the position of women have all deteriorated dramatically since military intervention began in 1991, situations exacerbated dramatically by the most recent invasion. Child mortality rates have also escalated dramatically [3]. In fact, according to the WHO:
“In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.
It has now fallen to position 127, one of the most dramatic changes ever recorded [4].
The Brigadier’s statements, though understandable coming from a grieving father, have no basis in fact. BBC journalists have a clearly defined ethical responsibility [5] to moderate such comments with accurate information.
The article then quotes Brigadier Palmer as saying that: "Clearly there were lots of members of the population who didn't want them there”.
Again there is no evidence presented to either support or refute this statement. In fact, it is a calculated misrepresentation of the current situation, given that it makes no attempt to quantify what “lots of members of the population” means.
Evidence could be easily found in the BBC’s own reporting one way or the other for this [6]. An opinion poll for the BBC World Service shows not only that:
“there is a strong body of opinion in 20 of the 35 countries surveyed that believes US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months”
but that also in Iraq itself,
“opinion is evenly divided with 49% favouring an early withdrawal and the same number wanting US-led forces to stay”.
Most Iraqis favour a definite timeline for withdrawal of occupying forces, differing only on the length of time for that to take place, 6 months or 2 years [1].
Brigadier Palmer also states that: "On a daily basis they put their lives at risk as they endeavour to improve the security situation within the country."
If the understanding of US troops is anything to go by, the occupying forces in Iraq seem to have no real understanding as to why they are risking their lives. According to a poll of almost 1,000 US military personnel, from February 2006 [7] “85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks; 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq”, none of which, I hardly need remind anyone, is true.
Clearly, the BBC has failed the most basic standards of journalism ethics [5], in particular:
“A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation”.
The NUJ’s ethics also state:
“A journalist shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that correction and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised when the issue is of sufficient importance”
Given their history on this kid of thing, I'm not holding my breath for a correction.
An interesting aside to this is that according to Google News UK [8], a compendium of internet news resources, there are about 150 versions of this story hosted by nearly as many different news and other organisations on the World Wide Web. Many of them that I investigated reuse exactly the same text, with exactly the same themes, and exactly the same omissions. So in what way is the BBC regurgitating exactly what all other news outlets are issuing adding to the public interest and informing the public about the real nature of this story (as per there high minded charter) ? Well the obvious answer is that it isn't - it's just "easy journalism".
REFERENCES
[1]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2, which states that a “large majority of Iraqis…….favours setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years. Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of 10 Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave”.
On health care
“In the 1980s, Iraq was widely considered to have one of the region’s best health care systems, with advanced, technological specialist care, and an extensive net of primary health care. However, after years of war and sanctions, this situation has changed completely”.
On child health and nutrition:
“23% of children suffer from chronic malnutrition”.
“23% of children suffer from chronic malnutrition”.
On education:
“Iraq’s educational system used to be among the best in the region; one of the country’s most important assets remains its well-educated people…….However, over the past two decades, wars, sanctions, and harsh economic conditions have taken a toll on the educational system”.
“Iraq’s educational system used to be among the best in the region; one of the country’s most important assets remains its well-educated people…….However, over the past two decades, wars, sanctions, and harsh economic conditions have taken a toll on the educational system”.
On the position of women
“After improvement in women’s position in the Iraqi labour market and education in the 1970s, there have been several setbacks during the last 15 years”.
“After improvement in women’s position in the Iraqi labour market and education in the 1970s, there have been several setbacks during the last 15 years”.
[3] http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html. Iraqi infant mortality rates have only been increasing (from 50/1000 in 1990 for under 5’s to 125 in 2004; and from 40 in 1990 to 102 in 2004 for the under 1’s).
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 9:41 AM
Monday, April 10, 2006
The Things you see in Grand Central Terminal (#1)
Vanderbilt Hall, the great advertising annex of Grand Central Terminal plays host to such auspicious occasions as New York's Tartan Week (promoting Scottish Tourism), the World Women's Squash Finals, Bride of the Year and many others. None is more pretigious however, than the bazaar of the bizarre that constitutes it's Christmas Fair.
Passing though late last December, of an evening on the way home from work, I happened to note a large burly security guard, standing to post, guarding the rhubarb of sundry assorted paper weights, novelty ties, music boxes, geodes, scarves, string puppets, glove puppets, puppet puppets and you get the picture.
So anyway, I was wandering through and threw a friendly jerk of the head at this security guy, and noticed that his badges of office indicated he worked for, and I kid you not, Troy Security.
So I approached.
"How come you guys are still in business after that fiasco with the wooden horse then?", I inquired. He denied all knowledge while looking over the top of my head and not acknowldgeing me. "You know", I insisted in a pally, conspiratorial fashion. "Not a very good advert for your firm is it? I mean getting duped by a large wooden horse right outside the gates? Seems a bit obvious?". At that point he cricked the considerable bulk of his neck to his shoulder radio: "Control, we have a bogey in sector alpha-phi", and the next thing I know I'm spending 3 months in Guantanamo.
When I got out, I decided to look into the investigative findings of the "Troy Wodden Horse Commission", an enormous tome produced by the Senate Protected Un-Trojan Activities Comission, or SPUTaC, as it's known. Let me tell you the findings both shocked and shocked me. It was a trip through the looking glass into a murky world of myth, half myth (which is 150% myth if your counting), butterscotch rum flavour rippling, and the murky shadowy underworld of intelligence services and counter intelligence.
Well it turns out that the whole debacle resulted from a failure of the inter-operability of the intelligence agencies that handled security inside and outside of the Gates. The intelligence services and military where withall of one of the most ruthless and brutal empires the world had ever seen was simply taken aback at the sheer simplicity and callousness of the whole hide-in-the-belly-of-the-beast-and-pop-out-later idea.
Ands there was I thinking all along it as because they'd swiped Helen's behind out from under the greeks before there king could pork her. Yet again my overly simplistic world view has failed me miserably.
Passing though late last December, of an evening on the way home from work, I happened to note a large burly security guard, standing to post, guarding the rhubarb of sundry assorted paper weights, novelty ties, music boxes, geodes, scarves, string puppets, glove puppets, puppet puppets and you get the picture.
So anyway, I was wandering through and threw a friendly jerk of the head at this security guy, and noticed that his badges of office indicated he worked for, and I kid you not, Troy Security.
So I approached.
"How come you guys are still in business after that fiasco with the wooden horse then?", I inquired. He denied all knowledge while looking over the top of my head and not acknowldgeing me. "You know", I insisted in a pally, conspiratorial fashion. "Not a very good advert for your firm is it? I mean getting duped by a large wooden horse right outside the gates? Seems a bit obvious?". At that point he cricked the considerable bulk of his neck to his shoulder radio: "Control, we have a bogey in sector alpha-phi", and the next thing I know I'm spending 3 months in Guantanamo.
When I got out, I decided to look into the investigative findings of the "Troy Wodden Horse Commission", an enormous tome produced by the Senate Protected Un-Trojan Activities Comission, or SPUTaC, as it's known. Let me tell you the findings both shocked and shocked me. It was a trip through the looking glass into a murky world of myth, half myth (which is 150% myth if your counting), butterscotch rum flavour rippling, and the murky shadowy underworld of intelligence services and counter intelligence.
Well it turns out that the whole debacle resulted from a failure of the inter-operability of the intelligence agencies that handled security inside and outside of the Gates. The intelligence services and military where withall of one of the most ruthless and brutal empires the world had ever seen was simply taken aback at the sheer simplicity and callousness of the whole hide-in-the-belly-of-the-beast-and-pop-out-later idea.
Ands there was I thinking all along it as because they'd swiped Helen's behind out from under the greeks before there king could pork her. Yet again my overly simplistic world view has failed me miserably.
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 10:36 AM
TV Ninny Series
I'm currently working on a number of TV projects, that I'm quite excited about. I think you will be too:
First there's my series about a private detective that lives in a mobile home near the beach in LA. Generally he gets roughed up once per episode, has a lot of shady friends in the past that he can't refuse a favour to, that generally wind up causing him a lot of hassle. Many of these cases relate to dairy products and cheese related incidents. It's going to be called the Roquefort Files.
Then there's my new hard hitting gritty New York crime drama, about the crack squad of elite New York detectives who solve the nastiest and the grimmest of the 5 borough's brutal large vehicular related crimes. That's going to be called Law & Order: SUV.
Following on the insatiable public appetite for hospital programs, I'm working on an idea set in the Accident and Emergency room of a major hospital in Leeds, in the UK. In this one we see the complicated and inevitable sequence of events that lead up to each and every accident, getting involved in the lives of the people, and of course the lives of the A&E department staff. In particular, we'll be focussing on the sequence of events that go into each and every accident. That's going to be called "Causality".
Also, there's a new series which is a remake of an old one. Starring Edward Woodward, it's about a lone knight in a gritty modern urban setting, who, if you're lucky, you may be able to get a hold of to resolve some problem you have. He usually does this by making extremely articulate speeches at key moments in the show. The working title for this one is "The Eloquiser".
On a lighter note, going for the comdic angle, I have an idea for a laid back, relaxed sitcom set in the A&E department of a major hospital where the only thing anyone does is sit around and consume hearty beverages while disparaging patients and colleages. That's going to be called "Casual Tea".
Move over reality TV, the new wave is approaching.
First there's my series about a private detective that lives in a mobile home near the beach in LA. Generally he gets roughed up once per episode, has a lot of shady friends in the past that he can't refuse a favour to, that generally wind up causing him a lot of hassle. Many of these cases relate to dairy products and cheese related incidents. It's going to be called the Roquefort Files.
Then there's my new hard hitting gritty New York crime drama, about the crack squad of elite New York detectives who solve the nastiest and the grimmest of the 5 borough's brutal large vehicular related crimes. That's going to be called Law & Order: SUV.
Following on the insatiable public appetite for hospital programs, I'm working on an idea set in the Accident and Emergency room of a major hospital in Leeds, in the UK. In this one we see the complicated and inevitable sequence of events that lead up to each and every accident, getting involved in the lives of the people, and of course the lives of the A&E department staff. In particular, we'll be focussing on the sequence of events that go into each and every accident. That's going to be called "Causality".
Also, there's a new series which is a remake of an old one. Starring Edward Woodward, it's about a lone knight in a gritty modern urban setting, who, if you're lucky, you may be able to get a hold of to resolve some problem you have. He usually does this by making extremely articulate speeches at key moments in the show. The working title for this one is "The Eloquiser".
On a lighter note, going for the comdic angle, I have an idea for a laid back, relaxed sitcom set in the A&E department of a major hospital where the only thing anyone does is sit around and consume hearty beverages while disparaging patients and colleages. That's going to be called "Casual Tea".
Move over reality TV, the new wave is approaching.
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 9:23 AM
Friday, April 07, 2006
Mathematical Musings
The thing I could never figure out about Fourier series was: what are they Fourier than?
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 5:03 PM
Chant of the Toy Story Barbie Dolls
How low can you go?
Dear Mr Rugman,
Re your report of March 27th on Chavez in Venezuala: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2046
The overall impression this report carefully crafts is of a slightly crazy,
paranoid President tending towards dictatorship, bent on keeping power by
rearming and ingratiating himself to the population by giving handouts to,
for example cooperatives that are 'haemorraging money'.
I would contrast your report with that of Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain.
Their wonderful documentary shows a courageous Chavez returned to power by
sheer popular demand after 48 hours of a coup attempt. Who knows for sure
if the US was behind this coup, but it was clearly welcomed by them, as the
clips of the Whitehouse spokesmen at the time show. 'Chavez: Insdie the
Coup' is particularly interesting from a media point of view because it
shows both the extradordinary level of control of the media by Chavez
opponents and also the freedom that they have to do that. There is a clip,
for example, of a serious looking commentator who rasies the question 'Is
the President mad ?'. In addition they show what is actually happening on
the ground during the coup. This documentary constitutes a real life
experiment in how a business dominated media mis-reports reality to push the
population in a certain direction. Thankfully, this coup attempt failed,
despite the massive media propaganda.
So not only is Chavez not paranaoid, but he has every right to consider how
he should defend himself in the future! Let alone the general context of US
intervention in Latin America.
You protray him as making kind of limp gags. But his offer of cheap oil to
poor comunities in the US (which has been taken up by some) is, if you wish
to evaluate in those narrow terms, a stroke of PR genious.
What I see in Chavez is a courageous man doing a great job for his people in
the face of significant pressure from elite interests at home and abroad.
What I see in your report is an attepmt to throw dirt, an attepmt to smear
this man. It's true that in your report you do allow Chavez supporters to
speak, but the tone of the narrator is deeply condecending and patronising,
a constant tone of sneering running through it as if saying 'Just look at
this guy, why should we believe anyhting he would say ?'. I read this
report as the compliant mainstream media taking it's cues from the powers
that be to assist softening up the publics view of Chavez in preperation for
the day when the US eventually gets around to attacking him. Paranoid ? Might I remind you of tre recent similar case of media passivity in the face
of irrational build up to war in Iraq ?. Not to mention, I repeat, the very
well documented US interventions in Latin America. You provide none of
thisfactual context that would show Chavez's concerns about US agression to
be perfectly reasonable.
Sometimes I wonder whether journalists like yourself are just, as Dylan
wrties 'only a pawn in their game', or rather active manipulators. I think
though a better anthem for you all would be the chant of the Barbie dolls in
'Toy Story': 'How low can you go ? How low can you go ?' as you limbo your
way downwards, towards ever lower journalistic standards.
yours,
Robert Byrne.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Dear Mr Rugman,
Re your report of March 27th on Chavez in Venezuala: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2046
The overall impression this report carefully crafts is of a slightly crazy,
paranoid President tending towards dictatorship, bent on keeping power by
rearming and ingratiating himself to the population by giving handouts to,
for example cooperatives that are 'haemorraging money'.
I would contrast your report with that of Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain.
Their wonderful documentary shows a courageous Chavez returned to power by
sheer popular demand after 48 hours of a coup attempt. Who knows for sure
if the US was behind this coup, but it was clearly welcomed by them, as the
clips of the Whitehouse spokesmen at the time show. 'Chavez: Insdie the
Coup' is particularly interesting from a media point of view because it
shows both the extradordinary level of control of the media by Chavez
opponents and also the freedom that they have to do that. There is a clip,
for example, of a serious looking commentator who rasies the question 'Is
the President mad ?'. In addition they show what is actually happening on
the ground during the coup. This documentary constitutes a real life
experiment in how a business dominated media mis-reports reality to push the
population in a certain direction. Thankfully, this coup attempt failed,
despite the massive media propaganda.
So not only is Chavez not paranaoid, but he has every right to consider how
he should defend himself in the future! Let alone the general context of US
intervention in Latin America.
You protray him as making kind of limp gags. But his offer of cheap oil to
poor comunities in the US (which has been taken up by some) is, if you wish
to evaluate in those narrow terms, a stroke of PR genious.
What I see in Chavez is a courageous man doing a great job for his people in
the face of significant pressure from elite interests at home and abroad.
What I see in your report is an attepmt to throw dirt, an attepmt to smear
this man. It's true that in your report you do allow Chavez supporters to
speak, but the tone of the narrator is deeply condecending and patronising,
a constant tone of sneering running through it as if saying 'Just look at
this guy, why should we believe anyhting he would say ?'. I read this
report as the compliant mainstream media taking it's cues from the powers
that be to assist softening up the publics view of Chavez in preperation for
the day when the US eventually gets around to attacking him. Paranoid ? Might I remind you of tre recent similar case of media passivity in the face
of irrational build up to war in Iraq ?. Not to mention, I repeat, the very
well documented US interventions in Latin America. You provide none of
thisfactual context that would show Chavez's concerns about US agression to
be perfectly reasonable.
Sometimes I wonder whether journalists like yourself are just, as Dylan
wrties 'only a pawn in their game', or rather active manipulators. I think
though a better anthem for you all would be the chant of the Barbie dolls in
'Toy Story': 'How low can you go ? How low can you go ?' as you limbo your
way downwards, towards ever lower journalistic standards.
yours,
Robert Byrne.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
# posted by Flann O'Brien @ 1:02 PM
