I found this an insightful, well-written and timely article on how journalists in the Western media, knowingly or unknowingly, report the news and events in the Middle East and the Arab world mostly from the perspectives of the powerful and the institutionised. In the process, Rosen argues, the Western mainstream media perpetuate stereotypes and misconceptions, and justify oppression. Rosen calls into questions the notion of "objectivity" and "neutrality", which are still often cited, sincerely or insincerely, as the goals of Western journalism. One particular relevant and timely example is the dramatic difference in news stories on Osama bin Laden between the Arab and the American media.

This is a passionately argued editorial piece, which details how some left-wing critics, who criticised Tony Blair and George Bush on the war in Iraq, now support the attack on Libya as a "humanitarian" war. The author's main contention is that "humanitarian" wars are often, in fact, MORE dangerous, unpredictable and ill-considered than "traditional" wars of conquests and dominations. This is an interesting contention that has some merit, in my opinion. However, I think the article mistakes the "humanitarian" rhetorics of the American and other western governments as the true motivations of the war-maker, whereas, in reality, humanitarianism is at best a relatively minor motive.

Greg Pallast reports on many aspects of the nuclear disaster in Japan that are not discussed at all in the US media, such as the companies which built the reactor, duplicitous practices of some US nuclear reactor companies that he witnessed, as well as how the Obama Administration is about to approve new reactors in the Gulf of Texas. Pallast's style is outraged (which suits the piece fine) and somewhat lacking in rigor. I recommend this piece because of the timeliness and potential importance of the topic.

The report looks at multiple aspects of the relationships between Libya and other countries, including Italy, US, Turkey and Britain. This kind of wide-ranging (as opposed to US-centric) coverage is rare in the English-speaking media. The segment on the relationship between Turkey and Libya, which is based on the construction business, is particularly refreshing.

I found the piece over-emphasises, apparently, the seeming conflicts between Sarkozy and the French media; the piece does not give much details in terms of how the two sides presumably must also work together, at least occasionally, for their mutual benefits. Nevertheless, it is nice to read a piece on politics and media about a non-Anglo-Saxon but developed country, which may be particularly valuable for the primarily US-centric audience of NewsTrust. Hence my strong recommendation.

I found it difficult to evaluate this piece. The video and transcript appear to be disturbingly authentic; at the same time, the one-sidedness (no official response from any US authorities is presented) of the piece, as well as the fact that the actual video originates from a site outside of Al Jazeera, gave me some pause about the video. I personally think the journalists could have done a better job trying to authenticate the video themselves (however incompletely).

In my opinion, this is as good as this kind of news analysis could get, given the limitation on space and the complexity of the subject. The article did seem to make a genuine effort to present the different arguments and issues, and then to follow through with some counterfactuals. Some related context and background information, esp. on the panchayats, is included and is very useful. One could detect a certain sympathy/bias on the part of the article in favor of the bill, but I found the article informative.

An interesting article indeed. The central thesis is that the healthcare coverage by many aspects of the media has, in fact, been good. The article seems to focus on the obviously good parts (none of which were reporteds done on TV) and rather casually passed over the truly dreadful coverage done by many bad journalists.

An interesting if cursory interview of Jaswant Singh of India's main opposition party BJP, who has recently been expelled from the BJP for his sympathetic portrait of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. His distinction between "theocentricity" (life centered on religion) and "theocracy" (rule by religious elites) is well articulated and an important one for the Western mind to grasp.

A fascinating description of one Iranian woman's journey of learning, forgetting and re-learning dance, in Iran and then in Canada, told in her own voice.

Calm in tone, analytic in content and clear in reasoning, with a good supply of quotes, evidence and historical context. This is a reasonably detailed survey over what the Obama administration has achieved and failed to achieve so far, and an analysis on its legislative styles. In my opinion, the writer is a bit overly sympathetic to the Obama administration, though.

This short report points out how the original report of a poll, which was later used by Ballen and Doherty in an often cited Washington Post OpEd, explicitly states that "The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi, is likely." I checked the original poll report myself and confirmed that this was indeed stated in the report. So this would seem to be a case of poll numbers being manipulated and re-interpreted after the fact. Question: for what purposes? The alleged links to right-wing conservatives in the US are suggestive, but ... More »

The writer states, without any evidence or argument, that "It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged". There is little in terms of detailed analyses or balanced viewpoints.