Social change in new media damaging accurate news

Over the past few years, the social change that new media has witnessed has been detrimental, and to a certain extent, dangerously damaging to the content of accurate foreign news. To be specific, the language used by foreign newspapers and satellite television channels is often interpreted in a different way to what it may actually mean. The biggest illustration of this is the Arab news channel, Al Jazeera. This is arguably due to the formula of achieveing viewer retention through audience participation.

Researchers and speakers from around the World gathered together last year at the Centre for Arab and Muslim Media Research (CAMMRO) for its fourth annual conference at the King’s College in London. During the conference, it had emerged how the emergent transnational satellite television channels and the Internet (online newspapers in particular) affect politics, the public sphere and the daily lives of the public just by merely translating a news story in a different language.

Instead of pointing towards accurate readability, word for word translating (often in the sense of online newspapers) leads to literal precision. Within the framework of news, some readers may argue that it is essential to be as literal as possible and translate each word as it is it. However, in doing so some may forget the necessity of maintaining clarity of expression.

Non-fluent arabic speakers can use the example of movie subtitles to undertsand this point. Writing from experience, watching a bollywood movie with subtitles often diverts my attention to reading the subtitles and listening to the speech, rather than watching the directions in the movie. I often end up laughing and then sighing at the way exact word for word translating in subtitles can lead to a totally different meaning to what has actually been said.

The same can be said about reading news in English being translated into Arabic, only to witness the information so abundantly present in the original text be substantially altered.

Commercial enterprises have commented that Arab satellite broadcasters do not have an intrinsic interest in politics and the development of societies. Rather, they follow the same rationale as their Western counterparts. That is, to build and retain an audience that can be turned into advertising revenue.

Is it this retention of audience that leads to inaccuracies?

The CAMMRO conference led to the conclusion that the process of media-induced change in the Arab countries, which has only just begun and is unstoppable, will give more power to individual citizens. This will in turn create more commonality between citizens and countries generating new ties between the Arab World and the Western world.

However, does that mean that the Arab nations are now on the fast track to European-style democratisation and open societies or are they on the way to modernise their own traditions, however damaging and painful it may be?

112 year old Somali man marries girl, 17

Click here

Hmm...interesting! God bless them! hope Mr Dore can give her equal rights, which seems as if he has no issue with.

Reforming the law- new inheritance rights for cohabiting couples

Unmarried partners could automatically receive the same inheritance rights as married couples under a recent proposal by the Law Commission

Where a cohabitant dies without a will (intestate), the surviving partner would have automatic rights to inherit half of their partner's estate, if they have been together for two years, under the new proposal. Under the current law, the estate is transferred to the intestate's children or family memebrs. Cohabitees have no automatic right to inherit their partner's assets if they die without leaving a will, unless if an application is made to the courts under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975) where the partner is granted a discretionary award on the basis of their needs. This is currently a complex procedure as the Commission says it causes "great financial and emotional cost".


The commission acknowledges that some people will find the review of the intestate rules controversial but says that research shows it would match public expectations, and is a welcomed issue. However, the question thus arises whether it undermines marriages. Will this step drive the issue of marriages and the overwhelming rise in divorce rates further underground? Do people marry with a crude expectation that when their partner dies they will receive their estate? Ultimately, is this review of reasonable legislation necessary at all? It is certianly a striding step in the wrong direction which will make our society increasingly corrupt...one issue leads onto another, and I dread to think what step the law will take in the next few years after such a law is implemented to follow on from this! I hope our judges aren't getting too old to lose sense.

Prince Philip blunders again over Indian 'joke'!!

Prince Philip yet again made another embarrassing blunder by joking about the Indian name 'Patel' at a reception for 400 influential British Indians.

He greeted businessman Atul Patel by looking at his name tag and saying "there's a lot of your family in tonight'. There is a strong indication that "he is out of touch" as spokesman Graham Smith from the Republic (group campaignin to abolish the monarchy) commented. He is certainly ignorant of the fact that there are an estimated 670,000 people living in Britain with the surname 'Patel' and to say something like that at the timing of a Indian state visit to a formal event hosted by the Queen is sheer ineptness.

Previous blunders by Prince Philip demonstrates his notorious reputation for his off-hand remarks. In addition to his remarks to an Australian Aborigine in 2002, in his 1986 visit to China he told a group of British children "if you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed". Is he trying to act funny or is he just naturally stupid?

Other Philip gaffes include his visit to a factory in Edinburgh where he said a fuse box looked as if it had been installed by an Indian. Furthermore, a decade ago, he told deaf children at British Deaf Association in Cardiff "if you're near that music no wonder you're deaf" The height of irratible misbehaviour! Seems to me as if he has sudden fits of temporal arteritis.

Maybe he should just keep hands-off his off-hand remarks and continue trying to uphold his so-called repectable elegant title.

What do you think about Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time?

The far-right 'whites-only' political party BNP's leader Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time last thursday. Why he wanted to present himself and his demented views to the public, which he is very unpopular with, is a mystery unsolved, considering his participation on the programme. When asked about his opinions on the holocaust denial and Islam, he delivered mere confused and clouded reasoning. As Syeda Warsi rightly put it "I think he is confused himself about what he thinks."

Although preference for one's own ethnicity can be blamed on human nature, it is no excuse for highlighting racial differences by declaring 'whites' superior to other ethnic groups. One audience objected to Griffin's use of the term 'white' by explaining that all beings are descendants of the African race.

The BNP originally used to be overtly anti-Semitic, but recently shifted their interest, or should i say 'dis'-interest or ignorance towards Islam. The rationale behind this may be that Islam is becoming an increasingly recognised religion, although wrongly preached through terrorist attacks (9/11, 7/7).


Yet another one of his lame statements was on why he thinks Islam is a vile religion. His answer entailed that women are not given the rights that they deserve in Islam. One point to drum into Griffin's head is that Islam was one of the very first religions that granted rights to women, and for women.

I would question: is the BNP's Nick Griffin justified in complaining about his treatment on Question Time?

Download:

FLVMP43GP