| |
|
9. oktober 2003
|
|
The first action politician
When I read that occasional blogger Scott Rosenberg bad-mouthed Schwarzenegger's Last Action Hero, a movie I absolutely loved, I had to go googling for its hilarious one-liners. The one I was particularly looking for was this one:
Danny Madigan: You think you are funny, don't you?
Jack Slater [Arnold]: I know I am. I'm the famous comedian Arnold Braunschweiger.
Danny Madigan: Schwarzenegger!
Jack Slater: Gesundheit.
I also found another little dialogue, which is particularly funny in hindsight:
Nick: There are lots of things worse than movies: politicians, wars, forest fires, famine, plague, sickness, pain, whores, politicians...
Jack Slater: You already mentioned them.
Nick: I know I did. They are twice as bad as anything else.
Ouch. I think I just broke one of my own rules here.
7:29:00 PM 
|
|
Meet Razanne, a Muslim Barbie
 Some time ago, conservative Saudi clerics condemned the Barbie doll as culturally offensive, and it should be no surprise that many Muslims worldwide find the slim, scantily clad (mostly) and curvaceous beauty a bad role model for their children.
Enter Razanne (picture, with Jenna Debryn). The doll is created by Ammar Saadeh, a Muslim American woman, to be an good doll for Muslim girls worldwide. Apparently, the sale is picking up.
Its creator insists this is a modern Muslim woman (or girl).
Conservatives may prefer praying Razanne, but on the drawing board there is a Dr. Razanne and they're toying with the idea of an Astronaut Razanne.
Lest people think that she's all about praying, there's In-Out Razanne, whose wardrobe also includes a short, flowery dress she can wear inside the home, in view only of men in her family.
"Razanne represents to Muslim girls that they have options, goals and dreams and the ability to realize them," said Debryn.
As long as they never take off their headscarves.
5:38:53 PM
|
|
Poll: Is US newsmedia too liberal?
A Gallup poll has again asked Americans about bias in the newsmedia, and 45 % thinsk the newsmedia is too liberal, while only 14 % says too conservative. This has been quite unchanged over the last three years.
Slightly more than half has a great or fair deal of trust in the newsmedia. Thus, Americans trust the branches of government more than the media.
It is very difficult to perceive bias. People are naturally more sensitive to bias that goes against their own. It is also difficult to measure bias. A Norwegian study some time back measured airtime as an "objective" metric of bias, which is of course rather useless. Especially in print media (and webpages) bias can be revealed in who is quoted without contradiction, who gets the last word, and a lot of small words ("claims", "asserts" contra "points out", "demonstrates") that can either support or contradict specific points of view.
The most objective way to perceive bias is when we see factual errors and exaggarations, and when irrelevant negative information about a person is consistently dragged into stories about different subjects. See Bjørn Stærk for a very clear example.
It is also useful to look at which photographs are chosen by the editor to go along with the text. For example, the Norwegian press has been quite creative in finding less than flattering pictures of George Bush. However, perhaps the most (in)famous example of picture bias is the digitally darkened face of O. J. Simpson on the cover of Time magazine. Such tactics are propaganda, not journalism.
12:21:06 PM
|
|
Waiting for the Nobel Peace Prize
I have no high expectations for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament but working independently, has already made the decision, and it will be announced tomorrow Friday. There are no obvious candidates.
Tips for the 2003 prize include Pope John Paul, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chinese or Iranian dissidents, the European Union and former Czech President Vaclav Havel.
Pundits seem to think pope John Paul II is the top of the list of candidates. True, his opposition to the Iraq war will have endeared him to the committee (or most of it). But the Pope is also shamelessly reactionary, in strong oppisition to women's reproductive rights and an outspoken homophobe. I simply cannot believe he has a chance.
The most likely candidates are probably jailed or persecuted dissidents in China or Iran. Many tipsters suspect a Muslim will win. Vaclav Havel would surely be a popular choice, a hero of the quiet revolution that brought down the iron curtain, and also one who has fought against oppression and for human rights ever since. His recent criticism of Cuba's Castro will probably not be that popular among the Norwegian leftists, even though they are not as much pro-Castro as anti-US.
I can't possibly see the EU receiving the prize, but the Nobel committee has done many outragously stupid things in the past.
We can safely conclude that George Bush and Tony Blair is not going to get the prize.
After the Iraq war, I fear the committee will feel the need to make some sort of stupid "statement" about it. It is unlikely that the UN gets it again, so what about Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac? That would be a new low in the prize's history.
8:42:26 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 02.11.2003; 14:55:41.
|
|
|
