Media

There are generally three types of people who read the news.  I guess “read” may also mean hear/overhear and watch. These all being forms of getting information. We will disregard those who dream about the news.

The first type or category of people is the one that media people love. It is this group who readily suck up every little bit of information being fed as being holier than the gospel. They cannot or will not discern what is written and will not consider what is being written as perhaps biased, sensationalist and/or twisted. The journalist will no doubt argue that what is being written is the truth and they are not lying. You are thinking that perhaps I am contradicting myself. And maybe I want you to think that. But really what I want you to consider the way in which the story is being presented, be it in print or audio or visual newsclips. Presentation is such that the desired outcome is achieved by being selective and/or economical with the truth.

The second group of people are those that are phlegmatic in their approach. They are agreeable to what is being presented will not at first question a news article unless confronted by someone who object to the same article. These people have no clear views or perhaps have a problem making their views known. They too help sales and viewership because they are unlikely to challenge the status quo.

It is this third category which treats the main media with at least scepticism but most likely find it revolting. These people have an alternative media and sources. Do they not also have their own agendas? We live in a time where everything is an agenda item so it is perhaps derogatory to question their motives in the same light. But they too have an obligation to publish the truth. Unfortunately the world populace are like sheep and are gullible to the bigger money spent by mainstream media to get their point across and the bigger propaganda machine. Thus whatever is presented by the alternative media is viewed as conspiracy theory. So instead of the case being made for a conspiracy, the word theory is added as if it unlikely that a certain “crime” could have been committed.

I remember in the lead up to the Gulf war or what we more commonly call the “Iraqi invasion” how many backed a war to topple Saddam Hussein. For the record, none of these people looked at the bigger picture but gulped up everything that was fed to them of propaganda. They certainly believed every word and there was no alternative or to put it more accurately their sense of justice failed them. One cannot have a complete picture from a few printed words or a few visual clips. So in accepting everything from the media, one assumes that the media is fully informed and is the torchbearers for justice.

Each one has a choice to make, and if you believe blindly then that is your choice. Apathy is a choice. Whatever choice you make regarding the media, unless it is informed by more than just the media, it is best to keep quiet for truth in all probably will evade you.

 

 

Iran / Newt Gingrich

Iranian Sanctions

It is often that one’s view can be clouded by rhetoric and propaganda. This is rather relevant in the case of Iran. Without necessarily going into the detail of the propaganda, even it if it held any truth, the measures to deal with it must still be ethical and respectful. Sadly, the US and the EU have puffed up their chests in an apparent show of strength in taking action against Iran. Rather, this is a show of arrogance which no doubt starts to polarise the world. Other countries may “fall in line” for whatever fears of the US and EU they may have.  

South Africa should not be swayed in all of this. We have seen the wrong done when the US and its allies attacked Iraq without a semblance of evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This lends itself to declare the views on Iran and its potential for nuclear armaments as lacking credibility.

Let’s not yet place an embargo on Iran. Lets but their oil.

Newt Gingrich views on Shari’ah

The Democratic Party in the USA is considered liberal while the Republican Party more conservative. It is election year in the US and with Barak Obama being the Democratic incumbent, the Republicans are set to choose someone who will oppose him in the presidential election. Newt Gingrich is one the Republican contenders. Republicans are known for their strong conservative views on national security, and it therefore has slammed Barak Obama for being soft on the issue and that he has been lax since the last Republican president, George W Bush. So what about national security? Well the easy enemy to create are the Muslims. And so Newt has set about airing his concerns about Shari’ah. So what about Shari’ah? The simple reality is that he paints every Muslim who adheres to Shari’ah -Islamic Law – (and every Muslim should) as radical. This may either be an election plot or pure ignorance.

How would we know? Perhaps the last Republican president’s stance can give us some insight. We have seen what has happened over eight years of Republican rule. While Obama was not much better, can one imagine what lies in store should Newt Gingrinch be the next American president. Can we expect more wars and more profiling when entering America. Simply, will their very stance radicalise individuals?

Shari’ah teaches us that when in a foreign country we have to comply with the laws of that country. The best, when a Muslim feels his/her religion is threatened, is obviously to migrate to a Muslim country, but people, for whatever reason may end up living in non-Muslim countries like the USA. This does not mean that they should not uphold Shari’ah as far as possible including praying, fasting, dress-code, how they earn their income, etc. Muslims who live in America, a “free democracy”, should therefore have the right to lobby particular issues of relevance and present these as solutions to various levels of government and/or communities.

One cannot have one set of laws for a group of people who were once themselves immigrants from Europe and others for a newer set of immigrants who may hail from the East (or Middle East).

We have seen the scare mongering in South Africa during the 1980’s with the “rooi gevaar” (Red/communist danger) and even more racially labelled “swart gevaar” (the black danger). Why is it that one wants to sway a group of people to does one have to resort to exaggerate issues/dangers or, more accurately, create the danger that does not exist. Probably worse is that people fall for this hype and propaganda.

I don’t really care about the American elections, but the world is on the brink with the Iranian issue. Will a Republican president take us over the brink or will some sense prevail and make diplomacy victorious.

So help us God!