Evidently the latest form of Western imperialism takes the form of ridiculous news articles on some less developed countries (LDCs). The recent articles represent the height of irresponsibility, ethno-centrism, and tabloid journalism.
Bangla Nation must ask is the BBC nothing more than an American tabloid? In its drive to gain readers it must report the most ridiculous and outlandish topics from various countries?
Here are three articles, Bangla Nation will not give the links because it will NOT be responsible for promoting traffic to this sad degenerate of a former news powerhouse.
"Red faces as Bangladesh papers fall for US moon landing 'hoax'", BBC, 4 Sep 2009
"Dressing Down - Bangladesh suit ban to save power", BBC, 2 Sep 2009
"Bangladesh police an arresting sight after beautician's tips", BBC, 25 Aug 2009
To be fair, the BBC also ran 2 article on the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) mutiny case and 1 article on the awarding of hydrocarbon exploration rights to US and Irish firms.
"Bangladesh guards in fair trial plea", BBC, 27 Aug 2009
"Elusive truth", BBC, 27 Aug 2009
"Oil firms win Bangladesh rights", BBC, 25 Aug 2009
Bangla Nation finds it hard to believe that the BBC can find no other newsworthy items in the whole of Bangladesh. However, if Bangla Nation's allegation is correct, it is not that hard to believe that the correspondent never leaves Dhaka.
Bangla Nation believes that the heart of politics and economics may be the primate city, but the very soul of Bangladesh is in the hinterlands. That is where the "news" is.
Showing posts with label Weird. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weird. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Medal of Freedom or... Sixty Years in Prison?
In a rare moment of galactic symmetry, cynical politicking, or pure dumb coincidence, the 13th of August, 2009 encapsulated the United States' relationship with Bangladesh. On one hand is the field of development encompassing social, economic, and sustainable development. And on the other is violent extremism.
Today, US President Obama bestowed the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the US, to Nobel Laureate (2006) Mohammed Yunus. Yunus, who hardly needs an introduction, is the pioneer of micro-credit and the Grameen Bank. If my memory serves me correctly, Yunus begun the scheme with US $26. Since 1983, the bank has disbursed over US $8 billion (New Nation).
Yunus has share of critics, some contend that micro-credit programs have done nearly as much as people think. In fact, on Tuesday Finance Minister Muhith leveled this exact criticism: 'Why is the number of poor families still seven crore in Bangladesh if three crore families had benefited from it?' (Daily Star) A similar argument is that micro-credit does help the "poorest of the poor," the poor who are too sick or too old to start a micro-business in the first place. Moreover, micro-credit doesn't always address the underlying causes of poverty - poor healthcare, poor educational opportunities, or overt/subtle discrimination.
However, this is not to diminish the impact that Yunus has had on the world. His ideas have helped millions in many countries. His efforts deserve the Nobel Prize and the Medal of Freedom.
About 540 miles away (as the crow flies) there was a very different ceremony going on. A court in Atlanta convicted an American citizen (second-generation Bangladeshi) on terrorism charges. Evidently, he was arrested in Bangladesh after making questionable statements to US authorities a year earlier and combined with a number of other circumstances, videos of target selection, possession of "violent jihad materials," discussing attack plans with co-conspirators in Canada (whom he and his friend met on-line), and other significant allegations (Daily Star, US Department of Justice).
As the Star presents it, the young man almost seems like a misguided youth who let his machinations get the better of him. Taking your thoughts, your prejudices, your misconceptions too far.
This case should be appealed. If for no other reason than the US judicial system needs to clarify these items. Does simply communicating, possessing books, and taking video make one guilty of supporting terrorism? More succinctly, does every person who communicates with possible or confirmed terrorists, possessing books advocating "violent jihad" and "casing videos" ALWAYS become a terrorist or a supporter of one? One imagines that the jury was convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that this young man was going to provide material support to terrorists, hence the guilty verdict.
This is why the verdict should be appealed.
Today, US President Obama bestowed the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the US, to Nobel Laureate (2006) Mohammed Yunus. Yunus, who hardly needs an introduction, is the pioneer of micro-credit and the Grameen Bank. If my memory serves me correctly, Yunus begun the scheme with US $26. Since 1983, the bank has disbursed over US $8 billion (New Nation).
Yunus has share of critics, some contend that micro-credit programs have done nearly as much as people think. In fact, on Tuesday Finance Minister Muhith leveled this exact criticism: 'Why is the number of poor families still seven crore in Bangladesh if three crore families had benefited from it?' (Daily Star) A similar argument is that micro-credit does help the "poorest of the poor," the poor who are too sick or too old to start a micro-business in the first place. Moreover, micro-credit doesn't always address the underlying causes of poverty - poor healthcare, poor educational opportunities, or overt/subtle discrimination.
However, this is not to diminish the impact that Yunus has had on the world. His ideas have helped millions in many countries. His efforts deserve the Nobel Prize and the Medal of Freedom.
About 540 miles away (as the crow flies) there was a very different ceremony going on. A court in Atlanta convicted an American citizen (second-generation Bangladeshi) on terrorism charges. Evidently, he was arrested in Bangladesh after making questionable statements to US authorities a year earlier and combined with a number of other circumstances, videos of target selection, possession of "violent jihad materials," discussing attack plans with co-conspirators in Canada (whom he and his friend met on-line), and other significant allegations (Daily Star, US Department of Justice).
As the Star presents it, the young man almost seems like a misguided youth who let his machinations get the better of him. Taking your thoughts, your prejudices, your misconceptions too far.
This case should be appealed. If for no other reason than the US judicial system needs to clarify these items. Does simply communicating, possessing books, and taking video make one guilty of supporting terrorism? More succinctly, does every person who communicates with possible or confirmed terrorists, possessing books advocating "violent jihad" and "casing videos" ALWAYS become a terrorist or a supporter of one? One imagines that the jury was convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that this young man was going to provide material support to terrorists, hence the guilty verdict.
This is why the verdict should be appealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)