Being a victim isn't the monopoly of one group, no matter
how much US media is leveraged to make us believe that.
Hrant, you should have made the comma a full stop. The rest doesn't make sense.
Edit: Although I can say U.S. media is more pluralistic and reliable than BBC news.
Only if you're Irish.
Assume I am not. How does it affect the equation?
Like I commented on Flickr recently, it's pretty hopeless to try to counter decades of rich-media brainwashing with some comments on a forum. Not to mention countering outright deceptive propaganda amongst us.
I agree! The BBC is richly funded from the public purse -- probably more than any other network in the world -- and engages in deceptive propoganda that may brainwash some.
But if this forum is inappropriate, perhaps you could be less cryptic, or refer us to the right place?
I will not, because I don't want to be
persecuted for exercising free speech.
"and engages in deceptive propoganda that may brainwash some."
Propaganda or a point of view? Honest question.
Admittedly, the difference is often a fine line.
If you think the BBC is lopsided, then you need to watch some American news channels. ;o)
The point is that you can watch SEVERAL American channels. The bias is explicit, and the the money is private. The BBC is public, but selective ints coverage and dishonest about its agenda.
The BBC is not just a British problem. Thanks to British taxpayers, it is the world's biggest and most lavishly funded news organization. No other station broadcasts so extensively in dozens of languages, on TV, radio and online. The BBC's radio service alone attracts over 163 million listeners. It pours forth its world view in Persian, Arabic and Turkish, Macedonian, Albanian, Azeri, Uzbek, ...
Get the picture?
Thanks God in China is blocked ;)
A lot of things are blocked in China...
As a former UK tax payer, I am happy about every penny I gave to the BBC trhough the TV license. Are you telling me that all these "several" american channels give different points of views? They are all the same bollocks with different names! I hope you don't think this is real diversity...
Was this thread meant to be about type or was it just an excuse to diss the BBC?
Simon, who started the thread, placed a key
question-mark, so he can't be accused of that.
Regarding the BBC, any media corporation that produced both the original and revamped Doctor Who series is well worth every penny it gets! ;-)
Univers Thin (whatever number that is these days) All Caps, tight-but-not-touching -- is that the built-in kerning Dan?
The content referred to "displaced persons", not media skew.
But perhaps even mentioning this could be considered skew, i.e. how the issue is "cut". That onvolves timing, also. So it's interesting that German-Polish WW2 issues are emerging, in the light of the two Polish-born stars on Germany's World Cup team, and Gross' revelation about being in the SS, as well as this. Could be that there's a consensus that the issue is cool enough to handle, and negotiate reparations?
Reparations seem to be recognized more widely as a realistic prospect with political appeal, -- Hezbollah, for instance, yesterday promising financial support for those recently bombed out of their homes in Lebanon.
But I dunno, while reparation is one way to atone for past grievances, it would be terrible if it was institutionalized as an acceptable cost of "solving" political problems with bombs.
>Univers Thin (whatever number that is these days) All Caps, tight-but-not-touching
>— is that the built-in kerning Dan?
I don't think so… looks rather tight to me. I can't tell everything from the photos… but if they keep the tight-but-not-touching treatment to the headline areas only the design might be OK overall.
The BBC article is interesting. The German media coverage of the exhibition that I have seen has focused on how little the exhibition focused on Germans who were dispersed from Poland. It was supposed to be an exhibition on refugees in gerneral.
I saw interviews with several political and cultural figures from Poland who had visited the exhibition and who seemed quite relieved about the actual focus. They thought that it was a perfectly good exhibition. But I also remember a counter point made by a woman from Prague, though. She thought that the exhibition didn't focus enough on "why" the Germans were forced out of Eastern Europe, referring to the level of enthusiasm for Hitler in the Sudetenland before 1938, etc.
Of course, I saw these interviews on German state TV, so there is certainly the possibility of bias in the opposite direction of any BBC bias…
Nick, but how else could it be, under Capitalism?
BTW, Hzballa has always had that policy in place.* That's why they're so popular, and attacking them only increases grassroots support. They even applied that policy to the Christians who collaborated with Israel during the civil war; these were the people who carried out the Sabra-Shateela massacres (with Israeli help) no less. And when was the Jewish golden age? In Spain, under the Muslims. This is not a war of religions, it's a war of global financial domination versus human decency. Faith is simply leveraged to motivate the peon masses.
* Which makes me wonder if that's why Israel destroyed so much: maybe they're trying to bankrupt Hzballa! Collateral human damage? Those in power don't care a cluster bomb cluster about that. However, soon enough the world will rebuild Lebanon again... while Israel remains mired.
And when was the Jewish golden age? In Spain, under the Muslims.
And what happened to the Jews once the Muslims were forced out of Spain? They were killed by the Inquisition, or forced to convert—only to continue to be killed over the next few centuries because the Inquisition didn't believe their conversions to be genuine enough!
The Jews prospered in Spain under Islam intellectually, while forced to pay a head tax: a rule of Islam. Then they prospered in Iraq until they were massacred and forced to flee with nothing but the shirts on their back.
As for Israel destroying much in Lebanon: you're obviously watching/reading too much al-BBC. This was the impression they intended to create, by reusing images, some of which were doctored. The New York Times was also surprised to realize that the same man shown dead in the rubble one day, was seen a few days later in another photo mourning the destruction. If Israel wanted it could raze Beirut. Fact is it was selective.
Make no mistake, Israel's actions are not all justified; but no other government in the world would respond more discriminately if attacked -- and you know it.
Hrant, you can keep ignoring thbe religious dimension. By reading BBC you wouldn't even know the latese arrests shared a "faith" (in what? not in Marx or in humanity). But if this IS about money, then if Israel+Britain+Canada+US = capitalism; and Hezbollah+Syria+Iran=socialism, then I'm giving up my Canadian NDP membership and going capitalist.
>And when was the Jewish golden age? In Spain, under the Muslims.
This is a very complex story. During some periods, the Muslim rulers were more tolerant and enlightened than those in Europe. This led to a flowering of culture, both Muslim and Jewish. In other periods, fanatical Muslim rulers forced conversion of both Jews and Christians under threat of death.
The whole story, which I haven't studied, had a big impact on the history of both the Muslim and Christian worlds. The Muslim scholars of the tolerant periods revived Greek learning, which when transferred to the West contributed to the Renaissance. The fanatics I believe helped cause the decline of the Morrocan kingdoms and their eventual military defeat on the European continent by Christians in the areas of Spain and Portugal.
>Was this thread meant to be about type or was it just an excuse to diss the BBC?
Actually in posting this I wasn't interested in the BBC. I could have linked to any media story on the exhibition. I noticed that the exhibit looked typographically well designed, but the subject material appeared to be controversial. So was really interested in the juxtaposition of good design and difficult subject material.
Like I said, you can't reverse industrial-strength brainwashing with ASCII.
Just to make things clearer the BBC is not funded by taxes, rather everyone (under 75) who owns a television in Britain has to pay for a licence the money goes direct to the BBC and not through any government hands, precisely to avoid any form of agenda being imposed by the government of the day.
The Grass story is a bit of a shocker.
How little prodding it took:
First: "Being a victim isn’t the monopoly of one group, no matter
how much US media is leveraged to make us believe that."
Second: "I don’t want to be persecuted for exercising free speech."
And then your true colours: "And when was the Jewish golden age? In Spain, under the Muslims. This is not a war of religions, it’s a war of global financial domination versus human decency."
There's no need for you to be cryptic anymore. Be explicit, no one will persecute you for your free speech and human decency.
He that LIES with dogs wakes up with fleas ;-)
[ Dan: And what happened to the Jews once the Muslims were forced out of Spain? They were killed by the Inquisition, or forced to convert—only to continue to be killed over the next few centuries because the Inquisition didn’t believe their conversions to be genuine enough!
As an aside: the complete term 'Spanish Inquisition' should be used in this context, since as an institution and in its operating method it was unique and not related to the Roman Inquisition which had jurisdiction only over baptised Catholics and operated under episcopal oversight. The Spanish Inquisition was a secular creation established by Ferdinand and Isabella and remained under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. As such, it was used to give bogus legal justification to the theft of Jewish property by the state and by the monarchs' favoured supporters. ]
>The Spanish Inquisition was a secular creation
According to the history I am looking at the Spanish Inquisition was authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, and later authorized extensions of it.
I elect you as official Drama Queen of Typophile. Ye shall litter the land with Vagueness, Haughtiness, Anger, and Intellectualism! Now be gone from my sight! Poof!
Dylan - who wonders why he bothers...
Oh, the sarcasm! Hrant, I love ya — ya militant bastard! ;)
But I gotta ask, "so where's the type?" :)
You know Hrant is one of the most prolific and important contributors on type here, and a well-loved member. You can tolerate a little drama...
* sigh * I know, I know...it's just that my Typophile union contract states that I'm allowed one barb per quarter.
the juxtaposition of good design and difficult subject material.
Are you saying that the design is refined and polished, whereas the content is raw?
The typography is appropriate to the distancing provided by the objectivity of the institution mounting the exhibit, in which case the typography represents the cool analytical institution, juxtaposed against the issue which is still emotional. So it's appropriate, whereas rough grunge typography, more representative of pain, anger and war, would be inflammatory.
Just to clarify one thing, though..."prolific" is about abundance. Nothing more (by definition, anyway). "Important"...hmmm. I'll be nice and not argue that one. "Well-loved" . . . ?
EDIT: Just realized that I'm beating a carcass by bringing any criticism of Hrant. Reading through this old thread spoke volumes:
Now back to the billable work.
Bill: According to the history I am looking at the Spanish Inquisition was authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, and later authorized extensions of it.
Yes, authorised by Sixtus IV, but managed by the crown. Ferdinand & Isabella wrote to the Pope requesting permission to establish the Spanish Inquisition and for it to operate in a unique way that differed significantly from the inquisition that developed during the Middle Ages. The latter was remarkably strictly regulated from an early period precisely because the scholastic Churchmen understood the potential for abuse and had no illusions about the temptations of secular power. The use of an institution intended to uncover theological heresy as a tool of state repression emerges in the early modern period with the strengthening of the aparatus of secular authority. In Spain, this coincided with the defeat and expulsion of the Moors and the subsequent efforts to consolidate a Christian national identity, of which the Spanish Jews were victims.
Interesting though, that when my ancestors (Central/Eastern European) were clearing feces and rubbish from town streets, bathing infrequently, and possessed of as much learning as the animals they milked, the Muslims of the time were by far our social and cultural superiors.
Macksood Aftab writes that:
Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and Cordoba were the centers of civilization. These cities were flourishing and Muslim scientists made tremendous progress in applied as well as theoretical Science and Technology. In Europe, however, the situation was much different. Europe was in the Dark Ages. It had no infrastructure or central government. To the Muslims, Europe was backward, unorganized, carried no strategic importance and was essentially irrelevant. This considering the time period was in fact true. Nevertheless the Catholic Church (which at the time was the strongest institution in Europe) successfully convinced Christian Europe that the Muslims were infidels. This caused Europeans to think that Muslims were culturally inferior to Europe and thus Europe was unable to benefit from the new scientific discoveries being made in the Islamic lands before the 1100's. By doing this Europe kept itself in the Dark Ages while from China to Spain Islamic Civilization prospered. During the Crusades there was limited contact between Muslims and Christians and not much was transferred. As A. Lewis explains, "The Crusaders were men of action, not men of learning."
Which appears to be just as true today. Maybe America's "left-wing" scholars (labels, labels) will one day feel comfortable asking the rest of us in the west to look in the mirror and consider the possibility that our own prejudices - and thus, our propensity to *allow* western governments a free hand in wrong-headed foreign adventurism - have caused the kind of "terrorism" (response?) we see today. Instead, individuals who are able to think freely and ask the hard questions are either censured or simply ignored.
The tragedy of our century (this one and the last) is that the beast rages because it cannot (or will not) see its own face in the mirror.
No: Occam's razor.
John, as a Catholic I would not be so enthusiasthic about defending the inquisition, I know it was wrong and it can't be justified saying that things where that way everywhere on those days because it went against the actual spirit of a true christianity.
It was a mistake.
>Are you saying that the design is refined and polished, whereas the content is raw?
Yup, pretty much. Was hoping some folks in Europe might have chipped in - I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition ;-)
"Just to make things clearer the BBC is not funded by taxes, rather everyone (under 75) who owns a television in Britain has to pay for a licence the money goes direct to the BBC and not through any government hands, precisely to avoid any form of agenda being imposed by the government of the day"
Thanks Tim, that was clear to me, I should have underlined "through the TV license"..I assumed it was clear to everyone how BBC operates. Apparentely is not...
John, as a Catholic I would not be so enthusiasthic about defending the inquisition, I know it was wrong and it can’t be justified saying that things where that way everywhere on those days because it went against the actual spirit of a true christianity.
Did I suggest that the inquisition was justified because 'things were that way everywhere on those days'? That isn't the sort of argument I employ.
I think there are entirely legitimate moral and theological criticisms to be made of the Roman inquistion and, more specifically, of some of the methods employed by the inquisition. But at the same time I think it is very necessary to talk accurately about what the inquisition was, how it was organised, how it operated, what its aims were, etc. So this is why I think it is important that the distinction between the Roman inquisition and the Spanish inquisition be recognised, because the latter was distinct in several respects with regard to both its organisation, its mandate and its methods.
> Just to make things clearer the BBC is not funded by taxes, rather everyone (under 75) who owns a television in Britain has to pay for a licence the money goes direct to the BBC....
That's taxation. It's just not funded by the general public purse or by income taxes (rather, it's more regressive than an income tax).
"Vote with your wallet."
"No taxation without representation."
Yes, put money at the heart of society, and continue thinking
that democracy can work... Just look at the wonderful results!
>Just look at the wonderful results!
Domestically, the liberal democracies are far more productive and prosperous, as well as having far more individual choice and personal liberty.
International relations are still to a great extent anarchic and break into violence, either between autocratic states, or between democratic and autocratic ones. Democratic states do not attack one another, so far.
I tell ya, ain't the Official Party Line just grand?
Genocide, shmenocide. Except the Special One of course.