Pay to play

I know, I know. I'm obsessed with Zimbabwe. I can't explain the fixation I have with the country and Mugabe's dicatatorship. And I realize that, by getting my information from American news sources, I may not be considering all sides of the story.

But I also believe that America has a free press and, because of that, I trust the information that I get from it. Zimbabwe's press, however, is not free. And now they are charging exorbinantly high prices for foreign journalists to work in the country. You wouldn't charge people to report if you had nothing to hide.

This, from CNN.com:

HARARE, Zimbabwe (CNN) -- The Zimbabwean government has announced restrictive licensing fees for foreign journalists working in the country, demanding they pay an annual fee of $4,000 to practice journalism.

In addition foreign media groups must pay $10,000 for the application and $20,000 for accreditation, payable only in foreign currency, the government-controlled Media and Information Commission said Wednesday. An administration fee of $2,000 is necessary for the permit.

Zimbabwe has some of the harshest conditions for journalists in the world. Several foreign and local journalists have been arrested in Zimbabwe for lack of accreditation since a media law was passed in 2002.

Most Western media organizations including CNN are banned from Zimbabwe. Those that do still operate there including Reuters, The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Al Jazeera would have to pay the fee if they wanted to report from the country.

Zimbabwean government spokesman George Charamba said the fee was being introduced because foreign media organizations were "reducing local reporters to mere runners."

The new fees do not apply to journalists working for Zimbabwean organizations...

When we visited the Newseum last month, there was this great wall mural that depicted how free the press was in each country of the world. Those countries that had a completely free press were also democracies and developed countries (US, Canada, Western Europe, etc). Those who had somewhat free presses were developing countries without any major world issues going on (Russia, Brazil, etc). Those that had no free press were those countries and geographies riddled with strife (much of Africa, China, Middle East).

I haven't studied this issue so I can't say there is a causation. But the correlation seems pretty clear. That speaks volumes for the power of the pen, the power of free thought and dissent, and the power of knowledge.

The collective media - a soapbox rant

Can I just step on my soapbox for a moment?

Let me preface this rant by saying that I don't like to be told what to do. Ever. Just ask my parents.

I am sick and tired of the collective media making the election decision for the American public. Obama is on the cover of Time Magazine this week, with the caption "And the Winner is...". Fortune's cover has a picture of Obama with a headline about the two candidate's positions on the economy (where's the picture of the second candidate?). CNN seems to only report positive stories about Obama and negative storis about McCain. What happened to telling both sides of the story and letting the people make the decision?

Answer: the media is tired of Republicans in office and have decided not to trust Americans to make the decision at the ballot box again. After all, the American public had been given a second chance and blew it, electing GW into office a second time.

But that shouldn't matter. How is what the media doing any different than when developing countries/dictatorships stuff the ballot box? Or intimidate people when they go vote? Or just having a dictator make the decision himself, without the hassle of an election?

News Flash: we haven't had one debate yet between the candidates nor do we really, truly know what these candidates stand for. All of it is rhetoric at this point, on both sides. How can the winner already be determined if we don't even know where they stand on the issues?

I'm not suggesting that we should swing the other way and glorify McCain. But I am suggesting that we give the relevant information to Americans and let them vote based on the facts and figures. It makes me so angry - physically angry - that the media is essentially making the decision for us. Yeah, our freedom gives the media the right to say whatever they want. But now they are just being irresponsible and a bully.

It's almost enough to vote a certain way, just out of spite.

At least he has a fun name to say

Nothing like a dictator to incite the American public.

Our Iranian friend, President Ahmadinejad, made his appearance today at Columbia University. There seem to be people on both sides of the fence, with most Americans protesting his invitation to speak at the university.

I'm a bit torn on the subject. On the one hand, what he has done - and what he does - is despicable. On the other hand, we should allow ourselves to hear what he has to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it, per se. It's more of the opportunity to hear differing perspectives and to open our minds to what is out in the world.

I won't go into all the details, but back when I was at the Old Gold and Black at Wake (the student newspaper), an advertising insert went into the paper. It turned out to be a pamphlet called "The Revisionist" which said, in a nutshell, that the Holocaust was a figment of the Jewish imagination. Some students on campus were outraged (most didn't care either way, unfortunately) and censored the insert.

But here was the perfect opportunity to talk about that. To talk about revisionism and what it means in history. To open our eyes to beliefs that exist beyond our limited view of the world and to understand what they are and why we should disagree. Should we give ignorance, give evil a chance to be studied and talked about? Yes. Simply because ignorance and evil exist and without knowing the foundation of why it exists or what the underlying beliefs are, then we can never attack it at the core and disband it forever.

I think Ahmadinejad should have been given the opportunity to speak. I want to know what he's all about and to understand that foundation of his evil regime. Because then we can tear it apart, bit by bit, and educate others on why it is wrong. And only by that education can we perhaps prevent another dictator like him from doing the same thing.

Knowledge is such a powerful instrument. But to use it to our greatest advantage means that sometimes we have to hear what we don't want to hear, open the wounds and allow ourselves to be pained in order to stem the infusion of hate and outwit the spread of ignorance.