The blog posts are uncomplicated, but do not focus on the core issues like why are rap music is said to be evil; why corrupt ministers are allowed do what they do; or why global warming is accelerating at such a speed. The blog posts mainly state the facts that have been presented already. They elaborate, but do not analyse or explain. Punctuation is mediocre. Most sentences are not properly constructed, and this makes reading the posts more difficult.
The layout of the blog is very attractive. It lures you to read the stories that are there. It is very uncluttered and organised. Bright pale colours are used to make this blog generally reader friendly. However, the font is small, so this might be a problem for those who are long-sighted.
This blog is perfect for those who cannot stand reading intensely analytical stories. It is for those who have simple minds, which cannot absorb in-depth and critical blogging.
My res mate shrieks out to me. “Ruth! What the hell are you doing?”“What does it look like?” I ask. “I am walking with a book on my head.”I groan inside. She is walking with a cute guy. I groan again. He probably thinks that I am a confused student who is having an identity crisis. “Are you working on your posture?” she asks. “No!” I vehemently deny. “It’s for journ. Can you believe it?” I sound so ludicrous. I continue to walk. A girl passes me with an amused look on her face. Another passes me without even batting an eyelid in my direction. It seems as if students who walk with books on their heads are normal to her. There is a puzzled look on another girl’s face. She probably did not expect such odd behaviour from me.
My body is tense and although it is not hot, I feel myself perspiring. I can feel…no, I can hear the blood rushing to my brain. My friend Yolanda passes me with some of her friends. She tolerantly looks at me and says like a mother would, “Ruth, I worry about you sometimes.” I chuckle uncomfortably, and carry on walking. The book nearly falls off my head, and intense devilish sniggers creep up from behind me. Two male students are obviously enjoying the free live comedy they are getting. I step into Eden Grove, swinging my hips, trying to look like an African woman who is practising her cultural obligation. It does not work.
When I get into the Eden Grove Blue lecture room, I quickly remove the book from my head, and I calmly settle in my seat. That was quite an experience. However, it is good to be back to my normal self, my normal, sane, composed and lady-like self.
“If your paper goes on the streets of Harare without a license I will send my boys to get you in your office.” This was George Charamba, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information and spokesman for President Robert Mugabe, shrieking at the owners of the independent newspaper News Day. Yes, Newsday does not have a license to operate, but does that mean you have to tyrannically threaten them? What happened to speech etiquette?
Spokespeople are supposed to be professional people who are cool, calm and collected. They know that they are representing who they are speaking for. They know that if they slip up, they will not be held accountable, but the person whom they are representing will be. Now that Charamba speaks like this, I understand the statements some of the government ministers (his bosses) say.
Robert Frost said that half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half of people who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. Charamba definitely belongs to the latter half. He seems to think that being called a media practitioner means you have to get militant about it. What kind of a spokesman has his “boys” who get people in their offices? Obviously one who does not know what being a spokesman is all about.
Spokespeople do make mistakes. US State Department’s press briefer, Christine Shelly screwed it up when speaking about Rwanda. But, her statements were nowhere near President Mugabe’s radical spokesman’s statements. Hitler had Goebbels and Robert Mugabe has George Charamba.
This is a questioning blog post. Entry in dictionary: a blog post that contains many questions.
I am all for telling it like it is. Call a kettle black, if it’s black. But reading Maya Angelou’s poem “Televised” made me stop to ponder. She poeticises (is there such a word?) about watching lunchtime news and seeing faces of starving children. Then she asks the question “Why are they always Black?” (Note capitalised B)
Black. That is a complicated word (apart from the fact that it’s a colour) I know all the stereotypical characteristics that are associated with being Black. I mean, if you love food you are Black. If you dig basketball and hip-hop you are sooo Black. All this is in an American context by the way. If you are an ex-con and you are unemployed you are most probably Black. Worse, if you are in jail there’s a big chance that you are Black. (Sigh!)
I know the scientific explanation given about being Black. I remember something from my bio lessons, when I was still a child. Those were the days. There was something called melanin that gives Black people the Blackness, although it is possible that some people have more melanin than others, ‘cause they are so dark they are nearly green.
When Barack Obama was elected president of the USA, he was called the first Black president of the USA. I’m sorry to be to be this daft, but why wasn’t Bush called the 43rd white president of the United States? Why was it so important to point out that he is Black?
So, if this word “Black” were to be entered into a dictionary, what would the definition be? If you are Black, what are you? Please don’t say being in jail; being out of jail; living in jail; dodging jail etc. It’s bad for my mental health. But seriously, is it about the dark skin? Is it a philosophy or a way of life? Is it a myth or a mystery? Is it about Africa? Is it a social construct that has been created to make out some people to be better than others? What does is mean to be Black?
Oh by the way I’m in denial (whisper: “I don’t think I’m Black!”) Just kidding!
If we are going to say someone is Black, then “Black” needs to have a definition. I just don’t want to be told about Obama or Bolt or some Black man who has made it in this dreary world. I’m an academic. I want it written and defined. I need something to refer to when I’m writing a linguistics essay.
What is “Black”? Does “Black” even exist?
One of the men involved in the Rwandan genocide was recently captured and is being tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha. Idelphonse Nizeyimana pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him.
There are many reports on his capture and subsequent trial. The Al-Jazeera news site explains his trial in much detail, and gives background information about the genocide. It gives extra information that other sites do not give. It tells the reader about the $5 million bounty for his capture, and how he has been on the run for 15 years. This is important because it shows that the genocide criminals are being brought to justice. Although the process of bringing them before the courts has been slow, it encourages the victims to know that justice is being achieved for them. Al-Jazeera, however, reports that the tribunal can only hear appeals until 2010. This is puts it under pressure to search for the remaining criminals, so that they can be arraigned before the courts.
Other websites report the basics of the story, and add little or no background information like the BBC and Reuters. The most nonchalant of the reports I read was on Bloomberg. It was a very short report on the trial, which does not say a lot about Nizeyimana and about the genocide. It is as if they don’t care about the genocide and that criminals are still being brought to book about it.
The melting Arctic ice cap recently made headlines with the release of the extensive Catlin Arctic Survey and WWF (World Wildlife Fund) data ahead of the UN’s climate summit, finding that the ice is too thin to survive next summer’s melt season.
Image: Arctic ice photograph by Paul Nicklen
This news was reported differently from one publication to the next, ranging from “Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years” to “Arctic ice will be completely gone in 20 years” and several other reports with more vague headlines like “Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'”
All the stories’ (I looked at) reliability lies in that authoritative (mainly on grounds of their histories) publications like BBC, AFP, National Georgrapic etc reported first hand on them, except for The Tech Herald. Most publications wrote informing pieces explaining the study and its findings in understandable terms to the average reader, while science publications went into greater scientific depth. The Tech Herald reported disappointingly little on the topic. In my opinion National Geographic was by far the best middle way read between a deeply scientific and a general explanation.
A flaw seems to occur with reference to “Wadhams said the results agreed… Recent changes in wind patterns in the Arctic have also contributed...,” as a reader would reason that “wind” itself is influenced by global warming – a possible reporter misunderstanding?
From all the reports it remains clear: Global warming is here and we urgently need solutions!
Reference: