Gulf News (880g) today contains more commentary on the new draft media law of the UAE. In response to a petition from over 100 UAE academics, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and members of non-governmental organisations, the national media council's director general, Ebrahim Al Abed has asserted that the law is a good thing.
Interestingly, the piece (which is significantly cut in the online edition, for some reason. You'll just have to shell out Dhs3 for the full skinny) adds some new fact. The National Media Council will be charged with ascertaining whether a breach of the law has taken place and forwarding the case to the courts which, if I understand his words correctly, effectively makes the NMC The Media Police.
Do you think they'll get smart new uniforms with shiny peaked caps and mirror shades?
"The National Media Council will have the responsibiliy of determining whether a possible breach of the law has occured - but it will then be for the courts to determine whether the law has actually been broken and to decide upon the penalty, if any" Al Abed told GN.
Meanwhile, another worrying development comes from the UAE Journalists' Association, which is holding a two-day conference at Dubai's Al Bustan Rotana today and tomorrow according to GN. The conference will discuss many weighty matters related to journalism and ethics, including the role of online media. In fact, talking to Gulf News, the Association's head said that:
"...trends and challenges to the media will also be discussed, such as the role of citizen journalism and bloggers. He said it was difficult to accept bloggers as journalists because they did not fall under a framework of accountability and ethics that govern responsible reporting."
Which is all very well, if 'citizen journalists' (hate that phrase) and bloggers are involved in the discussion. I certainly didn't get an invite... anyone else out there get one?
And do you WANT to be seen as journalists? Either professionally or in the eyes of the law? I know that I, for one, sure as hell don't...
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Darwin
For those of you unlucky enough not to be on the mailing list, the 2008 Darwin Awards are now out. I shall treat you to one of the runners up before letting you follow the link to the winner.
The Darwin Awards are given annually to someone whose death was so utterly pointless that it considered thoughtful of them to have removed themselves from the human gene pool. Sure, it's cruel humour. But then we kill animals for sport, don't we?
2008 Darwin Award Runner Up: A ONE TRACK MIND Confirmed.
July 2008, Italy | Gerhard, 68, was queued at a traffic light in his Porsche Cayenne sportscar. Before one reaches the light, there is a railroad crossing, and Gerhard had not let the queue progress forward far enough before he drove onto the tracks. As you might imagine, given Murphy's Law, a train was coming.
The safety bars came down, leaving the Porsche trapped on the rails. According to witnesses, it took the driver awhile to realize he was stuck. Finally he jumped from the car and started to run--straight toward the oncoming train, waving his arms in an attempt to save his sportscar!
The attempt was partly successful. The car received less damage than its owner, who landed 30 meters away. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful.
The moral of the story? Momentum always wins.
The Darwin Awards website is here while this year's award winner is here.
The Darwin Awards are given annually to someone whose death was so utterly pointless that it considered thoughtful of them to have removed themselves from the human gene pool. Sure, it's cruel humour. But then we kill animals for sport, don't we?
2008 Darwin Award Runner Up: A ONE TRACK MIND Confirmed.
July 2008, Italy | Gerhard, 68, was queued at a traffic light in his Porsche Cayenne sportscar. Before one reaches the light, there is a railroad crossing, and Gerhard had not let the queue progress forward far enough before he drove onto the tracks. As you might imagine, given Murphy's Law, a train was coming.
The safety bars came down, leaving the Porsche trapped on the rails. According to witnesses, it took the driver awhile to realize he was stuck. Finally he jumped from the car and started to run--straight toward the oncoming train, waving his arms in an attempt to save his sportscar!
The attempt was partly successful. The car received less damage than its owner, who landed 30 meters away. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful.
The moral of the story? Momentum always wins.
The Darwin Awards website is here while this year's award winner is here.
Send to Kindle
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Snicketeers!
25°15'57.86"N
55°29'0.01"E
Have a lovely weekend folks! I'm going home - the short way...
55°29'0.01"E
Have a lovely weekend folks! I'm going home - the short way...
Send to Kindle
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
30 Days
"Hi. Thanks for coming in to see us."
"Well, I was coming anyway. My Shiny's going dull again."
"That was actually the reason we asked to see you."
"Oh, cool. You're going to respray it again like last time it went dull?"
"Umm, no, not in so many words. We want it back."
"What do you mean, you want it back? No. It's mine. I bought it from you in the first place."
"Yes, but we want it back. You have to leave now and we want the Shiny back."
"But I don't want to leave. I invested everything I have here when you sold me the Shiny."
"That's the rules. What can we do?"
"But you said the Shiny would be a dream for life. That it was my gateway to new possibilities. You said I could relax in an iconic oasis of calm and dare to believe in my prosperous future. You said that I could dream a dream of dreamy dreams!"
"That was before the credit crisis. Now we all have to face economic realities."
"You said the Shiny would be mine forever!"
"We didn't. It's here in the small print, under redundancy. See?"
"But you didn't tell me that."
"We did. It's your memory at fault, that's what it is. Unless you've got something in writing?"
"No, of course not. Nobody even thought about redundancy when you sold me the Shiny."
"Well, we don't like to lecture, but perhaps you'd be better off by planning for the future rather than wandering around with your head in the clouds dreaming."
"What am I going to do now?"
"To be honest, that's not really our problem. We only work within the law."
"What law?"
"Our law."
"You're making it up as you go along."
"Right. That's enough. You're having a negative impact on the economy now. Give it back and toddle off, there's a good chap."
"I'll go to the newspapers."
"Jolly good idea. That'll give you something to pack with. Don't forget to leave the car at the airport."
"Well, I was coming anyway. My Shiny's going dull again."
"That was actually the reason we asked to see you."
"Oh, cool. You're going to respray it again like last time it went dull?"
"Umm, no, not in so many words. We want it back."
"What do you mean, you want it back? No. It's mine. I bought it from you in the first place."
"Yes, but we want it back. You have to leave now and we want the Shiny back."
"But I don't want to leave. I invested everything I have here when you sold me the Shiny."
"That's the rules. What can we do?"
"But you said the Shiny would be a dream for life. That it was my gateway to new possibilities. You said I could relax in an iconic oasis of calm and dare to believe in my prosperous future. You said that I could dream a dream of dreamy dreams!"
"That was before the credit crisis. Now we all have to face economic realities."
"You said the Shiny would be mine forever!"
"We didn't. It's here in the small print, under redundancy. See?"
"But you didn't tell me that."
"We did. It's your memory at fault, that's what it is. Unless you've got something in writing?"
"No, of course not. Nobody even thought about redundancy when you sold me the Shiny."
"Well, we don't like to lecture, but perhaps you'd be better off by planning for the future rather than wandering around with your head in the clouds dreaming."
"What am I going to do now?"
"To be honest, that's not really our problem. We only work within the law."
"What law?"
"Our law."
"You're making it up as you go along."
"Right. That's enough. You're having a negative impact on the economy now. Give it back and toddle off, there's a good chap."
"I'll go to the newspapers."
"Jolly good idea. That'll give you something to pack with. Don't forget to leave the car at the airport."
Send to Kindle
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Snicket Watch - The Awful Truth
I had occasion to work from home this morning and so traversed the snicket at mid-day, relatively late for a meeting. But out of the corner of my eye, I caught the glint of a JCB's massive arm, raised above a section lower down the snicket before it plunged into the sand like a murderer's knife.
I hared over the soft, sandy hillocks to see, finally, who this gang of unprincipled bashi-bazouks were - the blockheads who are fighting with us all, and losing, as we try to make our daily way back and forth to work over a small sandy shortcut.
Who could it be? Who would be arrogant enough to think they could block an entire desert? Who would be daft enough to waste the enormous manpower and resources it takes to keep blocking the snicket for months on end? Who would be so implacable? Who would want to deny a few intrepid 4WD owners their little bit of relief from the hustle and jostle of the morning queues?
I stopped and asked them who they were. And they told me.
But you'll have to go to the comments for the terrible truth...
I hared over the soft, sandy hillocks to see, finally, who this gang of unprincipled bashi-bazouks were - the blockheads who are fighting with us all, and losing, as we try to make our daily way back and forth to work over a small sandy shortcut.
Who could it be? Who would be arrogant enough to think they could block an entire desert? Who would be daft enough to waste the enormous manpower and resources it takes to keep blocking the snicket for months on end? Who would be so implacable? Who would want to deny a few intrepid 4WD owners their little bit of relief from the hustle and jostle of the morning queues?
I stopped and asked them who they were. And they told me.
But you'll have to go to the comments for the terrible truth...
Send to Kindle
Relax
The Minister of Labour and chairman of the National Media Council, Saqr Ghobash, has written a piece in today's The National which seeks to clarify the aim and intent of the new media law.
In a piece titled 'Do not fear for press freedom', he says: "A rumour about collapsing property prices is insufficient information on which to base a story. A story based on a well-researched study by a leading bank or estate agent, however, is another matter entirely."
It's a sobering thought that this statement on how a journalist can 'stand up' a story could well be cited in a court of law in future as being definitive of the law's intent.
He notes that "Sadly, much of the comment (on the law) appears to have been misinformed or to be based upon a misunderstanding both of the current situation and of the contents of the proposed legislation." - Seabee deals quite neatly with our alarming propensity to wilfully misunderstand clear communication here.
The government is, apparently, to issue an appendix to the law over the next seven weeks that will clarify "vague provisions" according to the story in the print and digital, but not online, editions. The online (read 'most up to date') version of the story instead prefers to run instead with the comment from the UAE Journalists' Association, which is still not happy, it seems: “We asked for 40 things, not one or two.”
Worryingly, there's still no news on how the diverse and fast-moving world of online media will be treated under the new law - if, indeed, it is to be covered by the 'new' media law at all. And nobody appears to be asking the question of 'the concerned authorities', either.
In a piece titled 'Do not fear for press freedom', he says: "A rumour about collapsing property prices is insufficient information on which to base a story. A story based on a well-researched study by a leading bank or estate agent, however, is another matter entirely."
It's a sobering thought that this statement on how a journalist can 'stand up' a story could well be cited in a court of law in future as being definitive of the law's intent.
He notes that "Sadly, much of the comment (on the law) appears to have been misinformed or to be based upon a misunderstanding both of the current situation and of the contents of the proposed legislation." - Seabee deals quite neatly with our alarming propensity to wilfully misunderstand clear communication here.
The government is, apparently, to issue an appendix to the law over the next seven weeks that will clarify "vague provisions" according to the story in the print and digital, but not online, editions. The online (read 'most up to date') version of the story instead prefers to run instead with the comment from the UAE Journalists' Association, which is still not happy, it seems: “We asked for 40 things, not one or two.”
Worryingly, there's still no news on how the diverse and fast-moving world of online media will be treated under the new law - if, indeed, it is to be covered by the 'new' media law at all. And nobody appears to be asking the question of 'the concerned authorities', either.
Send to Kindle
Monday, 2 February 2009
Sign of the Times (Redux)
I can't even begin to match Seabee's world-straddling picture story scoop. But I did think that this was yet another sign of the times, albeit perhaps a little more creative. And it did make us grin when we got it in the office...
Delighted to extend the reach of the campaign!!!
Send to Kindle
Harsh
As another round of writers pass the authonomy 'top five' test, one of the books that passed out last month received an unusually harsh spanking from Harper Collins' editor.
Remember one of my points was 'respect'? That I was annoyed at HC's 'one way' communication and its faceless editors? Well, imagine how you'd feel having put your work in front of 4,000 people so that an anonymous jerk with the backing of a major corporation could write:
"...stands out from the crowd of Authonomy proposals; not necessarily through its content or writing, however, but through the high status its author is held in within the Authonomy community."
So it only got there through the writer's popularity? That starts the girl off well, doesn't it? And then we go on:
"I don’t honestly believe that Seeing Red is a great work of science fiction."
At least that's honest, if a tad brutal. But then you can't really get into the writing thing unless you're up for a bit of brutality. I mean, all editors are brutes, no?
"Seeing Red’s take on science fiction is naïve and simplistic..."
Oh hang on. Aren't we being a bit, well, unnecessary here?
"The world of SF...has moved far on from cheesy concepts expressed in this book"
Note the missing definite article. The editor can't spell 'found', either.
"...the settings are straight from central casting."
Our hero goes on to have a right old go. Get this - and do imagine this was your hard work, voted to the top by something like 500 people on the site who have said, essentially, that they would buy it if it were on sale:
"Of course, there is nothing wrong at all with referencing the styles of older pulp novels – they may be the equivalent of B-movies but at their best can have a tremendous joi de vivre and embrace some truly mind-boggling concepts. But I do not believe that the intention here was to deliberately pastiche that sort of science fiction to make a particular point or create a specific effect."
And this from a patronising, condescending goon that can't even spell 'Joie de vivre'!
But the real kick in the head comes last. Remember, this is supposedly from an editor at one of the world's largest and most powerful publishing houses, so carries unusual weight:
"I cannot see any science fiction imprint picking this one up for publication."
This is Patty's reaction to it. I don't think she's gone far enough, but there you go: Patty’s blog…
Remember one of my points was 'respect'? That I was annoyed at HC's 'one way' communication and its faceless editors? Well, imagine how you'd feel having put your work in front of 4,000 people so that an anonymous jerk with the backing of a major corporation could write:
"...stands out from the crowd of Authonomy proposals; not necessarily through its content or writing, however, but through the high status its author is held in within the Authonomy community."
So it only got there through the writer's popularity? That starts the girl off well, doesn't it? And then we go on:
"I don’t honestly believe that Seeing Red is a great work of science fiction."
At least that's honest, if a tad brutal. But then you can't really get into the writing thing unless you're up for a bit of brutality. I mean, all editors are brutes, no?
"Seeing Red’s take on science fiction is naïve and simplistic..."
Oh hang on. Aren't we being a bit, well, unnecessary here?
"The world of SF...has moved far on from cheesy concepts expressed in this book"
Note the missing definite article. The editor can't spell 'found', either.
"...the settings are straight from central casting."
Our hero goes on to have a right old go. Get this - and do imagine this was your hard work, voted to the top by something like 500 people on the site who have said, essentially, that they would buy it if it were on sale:
"Of course, there is nothing wrong at all with referencing the styles of older pulp novels – they may be the equivalent of B-movies but at their best can have a tremendous joi de vivre and embrace some truly mind-boggling concepts. But I do not believe that the intention here was to deliberately pastiche that sort of science fiction to make a particular point or create a specific effect."
And this from a patronising, condescending goon that can't even spell 'Joie de vivre'!
But the real kick in the head comes last. Remember, this is supposedly from an editor at one of the world's largest and most powerful publishing houses, so carries unusual weight:
"I cannot see any science fiction imprint picking this one up for publication."
This is Patty's reaction to it. I don't think she's gone far enough, but there you go: Patty’s blog…
Send to Kindle
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Snicket Watch 2
OK, it's a bad photo. But then my damn Nokia N73 has slowed to an unusable crawl when you try and do anything with the thing. It's EOL and going soon, BTW.
If you click on the image, you can just see the logo on the car. Yup, an RTA type trying to get through the snicket. I'm delighted to tell you that he failed - he drove past the spot to the left of the concrete barriers that was tonight's 'through' after another round of blocking today.
We're still beating 'em - UAE nationals, Brits, Indians, the lot of us. One tribe united against the unseen prats who are inefectually dumping massive piles of concrete and building up barriers across the sandy shortcuts.
A message. Lads, you can't block a desert.
We're still getting through! Yahoo!
(PS: If you're interested in the history of the snicket, just use the search bar on the blog header to look up 'snicket' - we've been winning The Battle of the Snicket for months now!)
Send to Kindle
Compassion
The Waterford Wedgewood factory in Kilbarry, Co. Waterford in Ireland, is to shut down.
Some 480 of the plant's workers were told they would lose their jobs by receiver Deloitte Ireland. According to the UK's Telegraph (as well as Sky News and others), the news was received by the workers in a text message.
Hang on. WTF?
Yup. The receiver sent a text. I wonder what it said? 'Could all those with jobs please take one step forward? Where are you going, mate?' or perhaps, 'For you, Paddy, ze work is over.' or maybe, 'Now lads, look here, dere's no point beatin' about de bush. Ye's laid off good an' proper and there's not a ting ye can do about it, like.'?
The workers have occupied the plant in protest and scuffles broke out yesterday with private security guards.
One commentator on the Sky News website put it quite nicely: "I'm disgusted and sickened to see how the workers were treated. It was such a sneaky and underhand way to treat people. The tv coverage of the security guards using such force bashing a worker's head through the toughened glass doors that the glass broke while another security guard tried to block the tv camera from showing it was sickening to watch."
The irony of smacking a redundant glass blower's head through a window is considerable.
I have been through a company receivership: many years ago, the first publishing company I ever worked for went bust. The memory of the scrubbed, shiny and self-satisfied face of the receiver poking out of his too-small collar as he smugly talked down to us all is still with me. I still have the cheque from the Royal Bank of Scotland for £0.69 in full settlement of my £800 outstanding expenses bill at the time of the closure.
But at least the bastard couldn't dismiss us all by text message. A new generation of bastards can, though. The very people that are behind the problem, that are clapping themselves on the back with $18.4 billion in bonuses as they ask for $700 billion to bail out the sector, are the people cutting off credit lines, winding up companies and clamping down on outstandings. Gulf News (700g) reports Obama's excellent reaction to the bonus news, BTW.
They have learned nothing from this and likely will learn nothing. Because the pain is being felt by other people.
I'd like to think that companies like Deloitte will be held accountable for their lack of respect and compassion. I suspect that I am being naive, but leave me to my naivete. Strangely, I take comfort from it.
Some 480 of the plant's workers were told they would lose their jobs by receiver Deloitte Ireland. According to the UK's Telegraph (as well as Sky News and others), the news was received by the workers in a text message.
Hang on. WTF?
Yup. The receiver sent a text. I wonder what it said? 'Could all those with jobs please take one step forward? Where are you going, mate?' or perhaps, 'For you, Paddy, ze work is over.' or maybe, 'Now lads, look here, dere's no point beatin' about de bush. Ye's laid off good an' proper and there's not a ting ye can do about it, like.'?
The workers have occupied the plant in protest and scuffles broke out yesterday with private security guards.
One commentator on the Sky News website put it quite nicely: "I'm disgusted and sickened to see how the workers were treated. It was such a sneaky and underhand way to treat people. The tv coverage of the security guards using such force bashing a worker's head through the toughened glass doors that the glass broke while another security guard tried to block the tv camera from showing it was sickening to watch."
The irony of smacking a redundant glass blower's head through a window is considerable.
I have been through a company receivership: many years ago, the first publishing company I ever worked for went bust. The memory of the scrubbed, shiny and self-satisfied face of the receiver poking out of his too-small collar as he smugly talked down to us all is still with me. I still have the cheque from the Royal Bank of Scotland for £0.69 in full settlement of my £800 outstanding expenses bill at the time of the closure.
But at least the bastard couldn't dismiss us all by text message. A new generation of bastards can, though. The very people that are behind the problem, that are clapping themselves on the back with $18.4 billion in bonuses as they ask for $700 billion to bail out the sector, are the people cutting off credit lines, winding up companies and clamping down on outstandings. Gulf News (700g) reports Obama's excellent reaction to the bonus news, BTW.
They have learned nothing from this and likely will learn nothing. Because the pain is being felt by other people.
I'd like to think that companies like Deloitte will be held accountable for their lack of respect and compassion. I suspect that I am being naive, but leave me to my naivete. Strangely, I take comfort from it.
Send to Kindle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)