I really enjoy both American and Rest-of-the-World football, but this simple fact just brings home the reason why the former is seen as kind of a joke. American football, in spite of its bone-crushing violence and, perhaps, because of its imperative for precisely executed, scripted, team-coordinated behavior, can be pretty boring to watch on TV.
Out of the typical 2 hours and 54 minutes of the average NFL broadcast, a whole 11 minutes actually feature live game action. … The lion’s share of camera time, about 75 minutes worth, is devoted to players standing around on the field. … An unsurprising second is commercial breaks, making up about an hour of the broadcast. … Heck, even replays get a larger slice of the pie than actual game action; 17 minutes or so.
Foreign bureaus have been among the hardest hit by cost-cutting measures in print and television media alike. According to the Pew Research Center’s annual State of the News Media report, coverage of international events by American media fell by about 40 percent in 2008. Thus has a bizarre situation arisen: at the most interconnected time in history, accurate and comprehensive news of the outside world is disappearing — and with it an informed public.
“The mainstream American networks have cut their bureaus to the bone,” says Burman. “They’re basically only in London now. Even CNN has pulled back. I remember in the ’80s when I covered these events, there would be a truckload of American journalists and crews and editors, and now Al Jazeera outnumbers them all.” The channel plans to open ten new bureaus in the coming year, including one in Canada. “At the risk of sounding incredibly self serving,” Burman says, “that’s where, in the absence of alternatives, Al Jazeera English can fill a vacuum, simply because we’re going in the opposite direction.”
(via azspot)
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill aimed at shutting down media outlets accused of inciting violence against Americans. First introduced in May 2009, Resolution 2278 is mainly aimed at Arabic language satellite TV networks like Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar.
Its passage though House vote in December went largely unnoticed by the U.S. press, but it sent media watchers across the Middle East into an uproar over the bill’s implications. Arab information ministers convened in Cairo last month called the bill “an interference in the internal affairs of Arab states who regulate media affairs according to national legislation.”
Lebanese Information Minister Tareq Mitri added, “We insist on media freedom and reject any restrictions on it.”
Reporters Without Borders warned, “It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”
Mark Lynch, author of Voices of the New Arab Public: Al-Jazeera, Iraq, and Middle East Politics Today — a key inspiration of my SOAS Masters dissertation! — sounds equally concerned with the bill:
In short, H.R. 2278 is a deeply irresponsible bill which sharply contradicts American support for media freedom and could not be implemented in the Middle East today as crafted without causing great damage. … Hillary Clinton just laid out a vision of an America committed to internet freedom, and that should be embraced as part of a broader commitment to free and open media.
Communications technologies are enabling individuals to connect regardless of the physical distance and political barriers which separate them. I’ve always presumed this to be a good thing, although recently I’ve been led to question my presumptions and think hard about the what happens when traditional separation barriers — the ones designed to keep people from escaping — are broken down and replaced with new sorts of barriers (both virtual and physical) designed to prevent people from coming in.
The segregation of people is the reality of economic globalization, and many of the humanitarian crises that just seem to keep popping up all over the world — the ones we hear about in bullet point headline form, coupled with disheartening and brutal images, endorsed by celebrity personalities and philanthropists like Sean Penn, Wyclef Jean or Bill Gates who helping put out urgent appeals for charitable donations, these sorts of conflicts liberals love to espouse as driving mission in live — seem to have actually been caused by the very system that was supposed to prevent violence.
“In the much-celebrated free circulation opened up by global capitalism,” writes Žižek, “it is ‘things’ (commodities) which freely circulate, while the circulation of ‘persons’ is more and more controlled.” The violence we perceive with our own eyes constitute a “subjective” violence, and it is the very process of reproducing such violent images that masks the underlying causes of the violence. “Objective” violence, in other words, is rendered invisible while the traumatic, gut-wrenching, visible “subjective” violence dominates the airwaves.
Comments