Media Criticism

Everyone who has stayed up late to watch bad movies and old TV shows is familiar with ads from non-profit groups soliciting funds to feed the poor. These commercials use heart-rending images of children sleeping in streets, drinking dirty water and dealing with other hardships to guilt donations out of TV viewers. The negative stigma of infomercials and the deeper roots of starvation throughout the world make these commercials ineffective.

Foreign Policy’s interview with UN World Food Program director Josette Sheeran provides a good overview of the issues involved in feeding the world. Sheeran’s responses to questions about the scope of the looming food crisis show that bureaucratic inactivity and narrow-minded approaches to humanitarian aid are the primary culprits. I am sure that Sheeran and other experts on this issue could point out several other reasons for poor food distribution if given more space in public policy periodicals.

It is impossible to get food from point A to point B anywhere in the world without paved roads. The lack of roads and highways in many places throughout the world lead to gathering relief packets in airports instead of aid facilities. We need to offer significant portions of each relief package toward building highway systems and public transit networks that can facilitate economic stimulus.

The bigger issue lies in the massive boondoggle that is the ethanol and biofuel industry. These alternative fuels may seem attractive with the rising price of gasoline but they are draining food surpluses. The use of corn and consumable organic materials in the creation of gas-biofuel blends is an affront to the billions of people who may starve in the next century. We need to focus on clean electric, solar and wind power to achieve affordable fuel without placing our energy burden on the backs of the poor. There is no singular solution to the problem of starvation and malnutrition in the developing world. We need to heed the warnings of people like Josette Sheeran who have seen suffering communities in person.

The title seems draconian but the promise by President Pervez Musharraf that he will relinquish his military uniform (again) and open the presidency to the democratic process must be fulfilled. Coverage of the Pakistani situation has been rampant in the mainstream media as well as alternative media sources as this ambivalent ally in the war on terror turns to hell in a hand basket. We must look past the promise of democracy in the midst of chaos to begin earnest steps toward realizing democracy in Pakistan.

I don’t think regular readers will be surprised by my views on the war on terror. A war against an idea, a tool of oppression and anarchy is foolhardy. The only thing more foolish than fighting terror is using feckless thugs, authoritarians and incompetent bureaucrats as our allies. In the same way that America got into bed with all manner of politician to fight Communism in the Cold War, America is allying itself with anyone as long as they say the right things about terrorism.

The Bush Administration may be content by pushing Musharraf in November 2007 that may never happen in January 2008 but Americans concerned with foreign policy want more than that. I think that the media coverage of riots, the house arrest of political reformers like Benazir Bhutto and the pressure applied by the West on Pakistan has been outstanding. Media pressure will only do so much against a flailing dictator like Musharraf and Americans need to push their representatives for action.

We need to mobilize an international coalition with the assistance of India and the European Union to enforce Musharraf’s promised steps. The occasion of stabilizing Pakistan may offer America an opportunity to offer an olive branch to Russia. It is important to utilize the United Nations General Assembly to promote the idea of peace keepers and international election observers in Pakistan to make sure that every vote is counted and every ballot has more than the name Musharraf available.

Above all else, voters throughout the United States need to press the candidates in both parties to come out tough for anything but a legitimately elected government in Pakistan. If America is going to be an interventionist power, we must work within the bounds of international politics and ally ourselves with nations that support democratically elected governments. We cannot afford Pakistan to fall into chaos as the Asian continent becomes critical to 21st century political, economic and social development.

The world of news changed in 1980 when Ted Turner created the Cable News Network (CNN) to leave traditional media in the dust. CNN laid down the gauntlet for 24 hour cable news banality and without Turner’s work we may not have blowhards like Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. While his past holdings include the Atlanta Hawks (one of the worst franchises in the NBA) and TBS (one of the worst cable stations around), CNN and 24 hour news is Turner’s legacy.

In a recent interview with Foreign Policy, Turner took a few minutes to show off his credentials as a philanthropist. Turner helped found the Goodwill Games and his significant donations to the United Nations have strengthened the institution’s place in the United States. Wait a minute, his work has NOT strengthened the United Nations in America. Turner’s efforts to change his image from a wild-eyed Southerner into a poor man’s Al Gore are clearly failing.

I would recommend checking out the interview on the Foreign Policy website to see Turner weave his web of generalities about climate change, the United Nations and the state of media. Mr. Turner is still bent that CNN has not killed newspapers, print publications and other forms of media. He also name-drops Jacques Cousteau in speaking about hope. I admire Turner in the sheer amount of money he is willing to donate to a good cause but the United Nations is the wrong apparatus for change. I think Turner should work with other billionaires to lead the push for a new international organization that is more responsive than the United Nations to deal with today’s global issues.