Fact x Importance = News

[Serebii]

Indeed. I believe it's what Wilkinson called a "symbiotic relationship". The fact that terrorists can rely on the media always reporting on terrorist incidents has often meant that terrorist attacks have become so spectacular for lack of a better word. By this I mean terrorists have to actually make their attacks so incredible just so that the media will pay attention, so yes, I certainly concur.

 

In a way it's kinda not the media's fault - ideally, the media would just ignore terrorism and not report on it, thus making it highly ineffective in terms of communicating a legitimate grievance. However, would that count as not appropriately informing the public? But, as you imply, it's really down to the way in which it's presented to us - why does the media so intently focus on trying to scare us with terrorism, when in reality, it's not that big a deal (it kills a ridiculously insignificant amount of people in comparision to other much deadlier events).

It reminds me of an interview with an American on one of the news channels, can't remember which, back at the times of the tsunamis in 2004. The american getting interviewed stated that the tsunami was a disaster so bad it was second only to 9/11. Not to disrespect the memory of the innocents lost at 9/11, but you have about 3,000 casualties there compared with the 230,000 casualties with the tsunami...and people agreed with him. The media lost all credibility to me at that point.

[Emasher]

To be honest the two aren't really comparable. One was an act of terrorism, the other, an act of nature. While less people died in the 9/11 attacks, you could argue that it was more significant because of the aftermath it caused.

[Serebii]

To be honest the two aren't really comparable. One was an act of terrorism, the other, an act of nature. While less people died in the 9/11 attacks, you could argue that it was more significant because of the aftermath it caused.

Almost all of which was media incited.

[Pookiablo]

Almost all of which was media incited.

 

True, to a certain extent. I think it's more to do with a political transformation. The state is becoming less and less of a central actor as other sub-state, non-sovereign actors are capable of challenging its power. Globalization has facilitated transnational terrorism, to the point where Western technology can be turned against itself (Islamic fundamentalists may despise Western values but they certainly love using our technology to kill us in new and inventive ways). 9/11 for me, signifies a pretty big wake-up call - you can be the most powerful military force on the planet, but a small, determined non-state actor was able to cause significant havoc, disruption and at high cost (to paint a very real picture of this, consider the fact that the US military is as powerful as the next 14 states' military forces COMBINED).

 

Furthermore, it's estimated that it cost Al-Qaeda approximately $400,000-$500,000 to carry out the 9/11 attacks, whereas the result of said attacks cost the US around $500 billion in resulting costs, etc. It goes to show that the state, despite being very powerful, no longer possesses a monopoly on the use of force and resources.

 

The point here is that, yes, the 2004 Tsunami was far deadlier and it's a shame that we didn't pay it the attention it truly deserved, but 9/11 is not just about the loss of life, it's about the context in which it finds itself. I do strongly agree about the media's slant/take on things - the way in which it presents these events as news is disturbing, purely because it gives them the very attention that they so crave. Plus, the news footage of the 9/11 attacks was incredibly shocking and regardless of the CNN factor and how it approaches the subject, that imagery is gonna stick in your mind and be far more memorable than the Tsunami purely because it was so downright shocking. One thing I would argue that you can be grateful for with regards to the media, is that it often forgets to focus on the grievances of terrorist groups when they attack, choosing rather to focus on the nature of the event itself. The "plus side" to that? It ignores the political nature of the attacks and thus doesn't necessarily help promote a terrorist group's message.

 

Hence, (as a result of the media's take) why Islamic terrorist groups (if not all terrorist groups) such as Al-Qaeda are interpreted by us as being a band of madmen, hell-bent on killing and destruction. The fact is, they're more often than not, a group of intelligent people, with a variety of different upbringings and educational/social backgrounds who rationally opt for terrorism in order to advance their goal.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Pookiablo

[Dan_Dare]

Almost all of which was media incited.

 

That's pretty hyperbolic. When a bunch of psychotics fly full passenger jets in to the tallest, most iconic buildings in the world and murder around 3,000 people in the process, that shit is scary. It doesn't matter how it's told.

 

the political climate following wasn't helped by the media, though. It's interesting to go back and see how damaging the lack of investigative journalism was to the situation. Media groups largely accepted and ran the government rhetoric coming out of the White House (Axis of Evil etc) without doing their own leg work. It compromised their autonomy and, as such, their authority. It's no wonder public misinformation reigned supreme around Saddam- something like half of Americans believed he was directly linked to 9/11. If the press had been in any kind of shape at all after 9/11 that shit wouldn't have stood.

[Pookiablo]

That's pretty hyperbolic. When a bunch of psychotics fly full passenger jets in to the tallest, most iconic buildings in the world and murder around 3,000 people in the process, that shit is scary. It doesn't matter how it's told.

 

the political climate following wasn't helped by the media, though. It's interesting to go back and see how damaging the lack of investigative journalism was to the situation. Media groups largely accepted and ran the government rhetoric coming out of the White House (Axis of Evil etc) without doing their own leg work. It compromised their autonomy and, as such, their authority. It's no wonder public misinformation reigned supreme around Saddam- something like half of Americans believed he was directly linked to 9/11. If the press had been in any kind of shape at all after 9/11 that shit wouldn't have stood.

 

Much like how none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan either.

 

Also, I strongly disagree with the bit in bold.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Pookiablo

[Emasher]

Psychotic isn't the right word. Religious brainwash is probably more appropriate. Either way, it doesn't matter if the actual hijackers were from Afghanistan. They were acting on behalf of a group that was based in Afghanistan, they're the ones who needed to be persecuted.

[Pookiablo]

Psychotic isn't the right word. Religious brainwash is probably more appropriate. Either way, it doesn't matter if the actual hijackers were from Afghanistan. They were acting on behalf of a group that was based in Afghanistan, they're the ones who needed to be persecuted.

 

Well the group is actually a global network, but yes, the Taliban were providing a sanctuary for the operations in that area.

 

And religious brainwash as a term I can agree with but not if people argue that that's why they flew planes into buildings. Another media folly is to suggest that religious terrorism is the main cause of suicide attacks. It's not, and a very small percentage of suicide attacks have been conducted by religious groups. I don't think they hijacked those planes because they were out of touch with reality or had a mental disorder per se, and rather it's because it's an incredibly effective tactic. Nevertheless, maybe some brainwashing did influence their decision although you can't say that for a certainty.

[Emasher]

I'm not talking about the organizations motivation, but the motivation of the people who they actually get to carry out the attacks.

[Dante]

Titan: Nasa Scientists Discover Evidence 'That Alien Life Exists On Saturns Moon.

 

Researchers at the space agency believe they have discovered vital clues that appeared to indicate that primitive aliens could be living on the planet.

 

Data from Nasa's Cassini probe has analysed the complex chemistry on the surface of Titan, which experts say is the only moon around the planet to have a dense atmosphere.

 

They have discovered that life forms have been breathing in the planet’s atmosphere and also feeding on its surface’s fuel.

 

Astronomers claim the moon is generally too cold to support even liquid water on its surface.

 

The research has been detailed in two separate studies.

 

The first paper, in the journal Icarus, shows that hydrogen gas flowing throughout the planet’s atmosphere disappeared at the surface. This suggested that alien forms could in fact breathe.

 

The second paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research, concluded that there was lack of the chemical on the surface.

 

Scientists were then led to believe it had been possibly consumed by life.

 

Researchers had expected sunlight interacting with chemicals in the atmosphere to produce acetylene gas. But the Cassini probe did not detect any such gas.

 

Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at Nasa Ames Research Centre, at Moffett Field, California who led the research, said: “We suggested hydrogen consumption because it's the obvious gas for life to consume on Titan, similar to the way we consume oxygen on Earth.

 

"If these signs do turn out to be a sign of life, it would be doubly exciting because it would represent a second form of life independent from water-based life on Earth.”

 

Professor John Zarnecki, of the Open University, added: “We believe the chemistry is there for life to form. It just needs heat and warmth to kick-start the process.

 

“In four billion years’ time, when the Sun swells into a red giant, it could be paradise on Titan.”

 

They warned, however, that there could be other explanations for the findings.

 

But taken together, they two indicate two important conditions necessary for methane-based life to exist.

[Ashley]

How conveniently timed. Apparently Hollyoaks is introducing an alien character.

 

(according to some rag but I wouldn't put it past them)

[Ashley]

How conveniently timed. Apparently Hollyoaks is introducing an alien character.

 

(according to some rag but I wouldn't put it past them)

[Dan_Dare]

Interesting stuff. I like the idea that when Earth goes in a red giant that will kick start life elsewhere.

[Cube]

Titan: Nasa Scientists Discover Evidence 'That Alien Life Exists On Saturns Moon.

 

You have to love newspapers.

 

The headline: ALIEN LIFE EXISTS ON SATURN'S MOON!

 

The article: There's slightly more evidence for the possibility of life then there was a while ago, and life could possibly thrive in a few billion years time.

[Dan_Dare]

Apparently: Loaf faced popular tv critic Charlie Brooker has been a bit of a stealth player and is engaged to Blue Peter hormone trigger of yesteryear, Connie Huq.

 

Well done that man. There's hope for us all if he can bag a smokin hot classy lady like Huq.

[dan-likes-trees]

Apparently: Loaf faced popular tv critic Charlie Brooker has been a bit of a stealth player and is engaged to Blue Peter hormone trigger of yesteryear, Connie Huq.

 

Well done that man. There's hope for us all if he can bag a smokin hot classy lady like Huq.

 

Read this on twitter, couldn't believe it. Good on him indeed!! Hope this doesn't detract from his general grumpiness in his columns...

[D_prOdigy]

Good on him, indeed. And yes, hopefully it won't make him any less jaded.

 

Kinda weird though to see the mainstream media report on a marriage NOT involving a pair of brushed-up aluminium cyber-prick celebrities.

 

-----------------------------

 

Anybody else catch this surreal encounter between Sir Patrick Stewart and James Twat?

 

Comedian James Corden and Sir Patrick Stewart became involved in a bizarre on-stage spat at the Glamour Awards on Tuesday.

 

Sir Patrick criticised Corden - host of the event - for standing with his hands in his pockets, adding: "From where I was sitting, I could see your belly."

 

Corden responded: "You could see my belly. I can see you dying right now."

 

The pair continued to trade insults, and several prize-winners remarked on the quarrel as they accepted awards.

 

After the show, Corden said: "I found it quite disappointing. You should ask him about it but I'm certain he's left."

 

Sir Patrick presented the film actress of the year prize to Avatar star Zoe Saldana.

 

Accepting her award, she said to Corden: "I like your belly but I'd like to see Sir Patrick Stewart dying on stage any day."

 

Corden then said: "I feel bad for people who haven't seen my belly."

 

To huge applause, the Gavin and Stacey star lifted his T-shirt, revealing his tummy.

 

Referring to Sir Patrick, he said: "OK can we get a taxi really quickly please. There's an old man going home."

 

Several stars commented on the verbal tussle.

 

It's a quite a train-wreck of an altercation, so let's watch it together!

 

[Raining_again]

I saw that on tv, awkward hilarity!!

[chairdriver]

James Corden is the biggest cunt living in England.

 

I hate him the most of anyone. Just a fat sack of crap.

[Ashley]

Yeah I hate the media love for Corden lately. Fuck off already will you?

[chairdriver]

He is the king of Shit People.

 

No, that would give him too much credibility.

[The Bard]

I have never agreed with anything anyone has ever said more.

[ipaul]

Corden annoys me but I'm not sure why...it's not because he's fat. I don't think.

 

I love Patrick Stewart's voice

[The Bard]

That guy registers even higher on the choad index than Simon Cowell.

[Cube]

I'm more puzzled as to why Zoe Saldana is picking up an award for Avatar. I don't recall anyone in Avatar who could act. Unless she forgot how to after her good performance in Star Trek.

 

Still, that video shows how awesome Patrick Stewart. Even when he's nit-picking he sounds unbelievably epic.