Cross posted at Scoop44 and Daily Kos.
These past few months have made it abundantly clear that the financial crisis is being felt around the world. Countries that have seen unprecedented financial gains in the past two decades are now struggling to keep their economies afloat. Developing nations who were the beneficiaries of an open global economy are now bankrupt. The world's poorest nations are left with no one offering them a helping hand.
All of these problems have seen mainstream media attention, except only recently have international news publications started examining one country that the financial meltdown has hit particularly hard: Scotland. Back in the fall, many stories detailing UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's intervention in the United Kingdom's financial collapse appeared in numerous global news sources. However, few of these stories focused on Scotland.
Scotland has always been proud of its banking. However, these days, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is giving the country little to be proud of. RBS has undoubtedly seen some tough times during these past few months. Some of the bank's problems were out of the bankers' control, and some of them were directly related to the policies the bank's executives' supported. The Financial Times is quick to point out that Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin had to move quickly from leading RBS down the path of becoming a world financial powerhouse to adapting his methods to a global economic downturn, something that is clearly no easy feat.
However, many of these articles fail to note that there is a unique element to Scotland's banks: they must adjust to different governments' finance policies. Operating in a devolved country in the United Kingdom, Scotland's banks not only have to shift their policies to meet UK Government financial goals, they must adapt to suit the needs of the Scottish Government as well. This task is difficult in and of itself, and becomes even more challenging when there are two competing political parties involved. The Labour Party runs the UK Government, and the Scottish Nationalist Party runs the Scottish Government; the two parties are political adversaries, and disagree on many things, including tax policy and the question of Scottish independence. The consequences of both political debates have significant effects on Scottish banking, and it can be challenging for the private sector to make the best economic decisions in light of uncertainty in the political arena.
Back in September, when the UK Government provided funds to facilitate the Lloyds TSB and HBOS merger, Gordon Brown was quick to point out that the deal would not have been able to happen had Scotland been independent (a statement that directly challenged Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond's claims that Scotland would be able to ecomically thrive independently). Today, it was much of the same - Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray went toe to toe against the First Minister at First Minister's Questions on Thursday over the issue of RBS executive pension payouts. It is clear the bankers have made poor decisions across the globe, and Scotland is no exception - however, one must not forget the role that political parties play in framing these debates.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Venezuela Votes to End Term Limits
Cross posted at Scoop44 and Daily Kos.
On February 15, voters in Venezuela passed a referendum overturning the law that placed term limits on the country's president. Hugo Chavez, the current President of Venezuela, had lobbied aggressively on behalf of the referendum, and its passage was a major victory for him.
The New York Times emphasizes that many non-governmental agencies, particularly those that focus on election reform, have been critical of Chavez's reign. However, one might be skeptical of the United States mainstream media's coverage of Venezuela. Many news publications have painted Chavez as a indisputable dictator (despite the fact that he was democratically elected and remains extremely popular among the vast majority of Venezuelans, particularly in impoverished rural regions).
In 2002, when Chavez's government was overthrown in a military coup, many news accounts, including stories in The New York Times, implied that the interim government had support among Venezuela's population. Later news accounts disputed these claims and accused the Bush administration of being involved in the coup.
What many people do not know is that the coup was documented in a film called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." Americans might be unaware of the film because it was never released in theaters in the U.S. British filmmakers (who were in Venezuela to film Chavez prior to the coup) directed the film, and emphasize the media bias against Chavez's regime, particularly on mainstream news networks like CNN. The film can be seen on Google Video - watching it might make one rethink the recent coverage of the election referendum in Venezuela.
On February 15, voters in Venezuela passed a referendum overturning the law that placed term limits on the country's president. Hugo Chavez, the current President of Venezuela, had lobbied aggressively on behalf of the referendum, and its passage was a major victory for him.
The New York Times emphasizes that many non-governmental agencies, particularly those that focus on election reform, have been critical of Chavez's reign. However, one might be skeptical of the United States mainstream media's coverage of Venezuela. Many news publications have painted Chavez as a indisputable dictator (despite the fact that he was democratically elected and remains extremely popular among the vast majority of Venezuelans, particularly in impoverished rural regions).
In 2002, when Chavez's government was overthrown in a military coup, many news accounts, including stories in The New York Times, implied that the interim government had support among Venezuela's population. Later news accounts disputed these claims and accused the Bush administration of being involved in the coup.
What many people do not know is that the coup was documented in a film called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." Americans might be unaware of the film because it was never released in theaters in the U.S. British filmmakers (who were in Venezuela to film Chavez prior to the coup) directed the film, and emphasize the media bias against Chavez's regime, particularly on mainstream news networks like CNN. The film can be seen on Google Video - watching it might make one rethink the recent coverage of the election referendum in Venezuela.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Facebooking Gaza
Cross posted at Scoop44 and Daily Kos.
When looking for up-to-date news during an international war or conflict, one could turn to many different media sources. The traditional mainstream media outlets — The New York Times, The Washington Post and the BBC — all have online sites that provide breaking news updates. If one is unsatisfied with these outlets, one could turn to other media sources; many television networks run on-screen, breaking news updates, and some, such as CNN, publish up-to-date news coverage on their websites.
However, there is another source that people might not think to look at for up-to-date coverage of an international conflict: Facebook. Facebook has shown itself to be a legitimate news source through its coverage of the war in Gaza. However, its reporting is very different from the traditional media’s methods of reporting news updates. Facebook has at least two applications, QassamCount and War on Gaza that provide updates on specific attacks in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
It is important to note that both applications are biased. QassamCount only reports on the number of rockets fired into Israel from Palestine, giving a disproportionate image of who was committing the violence. War on Gaza, run by the anti-Isreali news station Al Jazeera, only reports on the number of Palestinians killed and ignores the Israeli civilian death toll.
Despite the fact that both applications are biased news sources, they are designed to engage people who might not otherwise pay attention to international conflicts. QassamCount asks users to “donate their status” to report on the conflict, and War on Gaza allows users to post a link to the application on their Facebook page and on Twitter, a social messaging site, at the same time. These innovative methods of news sharing connect with people who might not be watching cable news around the clock, but are checking out the new pictures their friends posted. Who knows? It might be the future of news reporting.
When looking for up-to-date news during an international war or conflict, one could turn to many different media sources. The traditional mainstream media outlets — The New York Times, The Washington Post and the BBC — all have online sites that provide breaking news updates. If one is unsatisfied with these outlets, one could turn to other media sources; many television networks run on-screen, breaking news updates, and some, such as CNN, publish up-to-date news coverage on their websites.
However, there is another source that people might not think to look at for up-to-date coverage of an international conflict: Facebook. Facebook has shown itself to be a legitimate news source through its coverage of the war in Gaza. However, its reporting is very different from the traditional media’s methods of reporting news updates. Facebook has at least two applications, QassamCount and War on Gaza that provide updates on specific attacks in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
It is important to note that both applications are biased. QassamCount only reports on the number of rockets fired into Israel from Palestine, giving a disproportionate image of who was committing the violence. War on Gaza, run by the anti-Isreali news station Al Jazeera, only reports on the number of Palestinians killed and ignores the Israeli civilian death toll.
Despite the fact that both applications are biased news sources, they are designed to engage people who might not otherwise pay attention to international conflicts. QassamCount asks users to “donate their status” to report on the conflict, and War on Gaza allows users to post a link to the application on their Facebook page and on Twitter, a social messaging site, at the same time. These innovative methods of news sharing connect with people who might not be watching cable news around the clock, but are checking out the new pictures their friends posted. Who knows? It might be the future of news reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
