Cantankerous Frank ¦ Mark Roberts
With 2 failed wars in the Middle East, an economy in ruins and New Orleans still in a state of total disrepair, it is hard to see how George W Bush could get any less popular. But with less than 60 days of his Presidency left the self-styled “Leader of the Free World” has angered environmentalists worldwide after repealing crucial laws protecting America’s wilderness.
Now it’s no secret that I don’t exactly see eye to eye with Bush Administration Policy. I could argue for hours about his “Free Trade” agreements or his continuing reluctance to address the huge inequalities within the American healthcare system. But when it comes to his environmental policy, I cannot stay silent.
We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy.
A press release on the White House website, highlights the “key environmental accomplishments” of the Bush presidency. It makes for interesting reading. There is, however, one word I would like to highlight – economy. In the above document, it is mentioned 4 times. If you look through the rest of the site, you’ll find it pops up much more frequently. The message is clear, the economy comes first, the environment second, and the proposals announced this week fit cleanly into this pattern of thought.
Climate change is the biggest threat that we as a WORLD face today. You only need to look at the destruction caused by Katrina to get a taste of what may be to come, but the Bush Presidency has consistently refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement. If passed, the measures outlined today would not only cause irreperable damage to an already fragile ecosystem, but would also increase greenhouse emissions further.
But, to be honest, I’m not surprised.
Every outgoing administration passes some sort of midnight regulation as a parting gift for the new government, whether they reside at the White House or at No. 10. Over the last few months of campaigning and election fever the current incumbent of the White House has become all but invisible. The media now talk of President-elect Obama, of his policies, his economic strategy and his vision for the future. These proposals, therfore, are Bush’s way of reminding us that his is still the name above the door to the Oval Office. It is, if you’ll excuse the crude terminology, the equivalent of a contest to see who has the biggest cock.
The flurry of new rules is part of a broader campaign by the Bush administration to leave a lasting imprint on environmental policy.
Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 20.11.2008
On the eve of the election I blogged about the lack of environmental policy in the campaign manifestos. But since his victory at the polls, President-elect Obama has repeatedly stated his commitment to creating a greener and cleaner American future. Previously seen as electoral suicide, the environment is now firmly on the political agenda.
After years of living in fear of climate change, we are fast aquiring the weapons to defeat it. But the only one who can unite humanity for this life-or-death struggle is Barack Obama – and he must act now
A few weeks ago I watched Recount, and it made me wonder how different the world would be had Al Gore won in 2001. Would we still be facing recession? Would we still be at war? My guess is yes on both counts.
One thing, however, seems clear. With the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sub-prime scandal and, consequentally, the looming recession, the decisions taken during George Bush’s 8 yrs as Commander in Chief will have an effect for years to come.
Above all, you have to get the story! Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tags: BBC, Front-line reporting, Jeremy Bowen, Journalism, Kate Peyton, Mary Stokes, Political Comment, War, War Reporting
In 2005 BBC reporter Kate Peyton was shot dead while on assignment. Yesterday, an inquest into her death cleared the BBC of any responsibility, but raised awkward questions as to whether journalists face too much pressure to sign up to dangerous assignments.
In an increasingly competetive media market, the pressure on news agencies to deliver the stories is greater than ever. If you aren’t on top of the story, you can be assured that one of your competitors will be.
But how far should you go to get the story?
The power of the media has brought the front line into the front room. Recent technological advances have enabled camera crews to get into war zones faster and produce higher quality broadcasts. So if a story breaks anywhere in the world, the viewer expects the major network news agencies to be there.
However, the world is changing. The murder of Daniel Pearl in 2002 was proof positive that journalists are now targets. Wearing a flak jacket marked “Press” is no longer a guarantee of safety. But no story is worth your life.
Reporting from a war zone is always going to be dangerous. Martin Bell, himself a veteran war correspondent for the BBC, described it as “daft“. But above all you have to acknowledge that we live in a warring world, and if you are in the news industry, you are more than likely going to be sent to the front-line.