Sunday, October 31, 2004


TV can be rubbish shocker

Urged on by the ape, I've just caught by the tail end of Jonathan Dimbleby's two-part ITV series, "The New World War". It would be unfair to pass judgment on the basis of the last five minutes, but I'm sorely tempted. Perhaps next time. Or never.

Now Terry Christian's trying to stir up a pointless argument about "war" with a studio audience. Right now he's talking to a WWII veteran who's wheezing about the defence of democratic values while the man in a cheap suit sat behind him nervously opens and closes his legs. Oh Terry, can't you make them eat a bowlful of toenails or something instead?

Strength 3

only saw about 45 mins after switching over from dimwitted panorama election special but i thought the dimbleby was excellent. and a triple surprise in that a) it was on itv who, the occaisonal pilger aside, gave up on this kind of thing at rougly the same time as 'tales of the unexpected'; b) so did everyone else, pretty much; and c) a current affairs heavyweight not doing the usual thing of getting two opposing talking heads to argue, taking it turns to side with each (= objectivity) but just teling you what he thought. talking heads used to further argument and analysis not as a substitute - i will show you two minutes of perle talking and now spend five explaining with the aid of facts why he is wrong.
or were you angry that the south bank show had been replaced? dammit, I MUST see their ninth profile of lesley garrett.
no - i thought the program was excellent. On Richard Perle's particular point - that the actual 9/11 hijackers were generally well-off and well-educated, I don't think they addressed it directly at all. (not that it couldn't have been addressed).

I expected Perle to take a 'good vs evil' line (very enlightening!.. 'some girls are bigger than others') but what he did say made more sense.

People who speak on talkradio should have "understanding 'doesnotequal' excusing" tattooed on their forehead.
perle's was a pretty fatuous pub row point anyway* and demolished by thirty seconds of palestinian refugee footage. a question i did think was ducked was that of why things are quite so awful for those people in camps in the lebanon - that they're not allowed to work and will get their passports confiscated if they ever leave the camp was presented as a regrettable natural fact, but it can in fact only be the result of the policy of the lebonese government towards them - i'd have liked to have heard what the story was. it may just be as a result of the other thing i'd like to have heard more about - the general poverty of the region. the stat about the entire arab world (pop 300m) having the same GDP as spain (pop 22m, and pretty poor by european standards anyway) was intructive - that's pretty disasterous and even if oil money suddenly got shared 'fairly' no one's much better off...

*not that that means he didn't believe it
Yes - ive told that stat. to about 4 people already! That was the big message.

Zionists often mention casually that it is 'Arab' countries that do most to oppress Palestinian refugees whilst offering no help.

Perhaps more on the sources of corruption (briefly mentioned) would have been relevant here.

The message of the economics would surely appeal to the neocon 'making the world safe for business' angle.
It's true that the Arab states that host Palestinian refugees have tried to prevent their assimilation and prolong their suffering in part to exert pressure on Israel. But it's also because Palestinian refugees, for better or worse, do not want to renounce their status as refugees.
not much wrong in 'making the world safe for business'. unfortunately neo con agenda seems to be more 'making the world dangerous for [my arms] business'
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?