"Deadly Storm..." Ha.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today called “DeadlyStorm Trudges East, Threatens Holiday Travel.” One of the biggest questions I have concerning the media is: when to publish (on the front page) news about weather on national newspapers, and why is it important? I posted about Typhoon Haiyan’s oncoming disaster for the Philippians and it was then that I wondered, why ISN’T this front-page news? The radar looked more like the eye of God than it did a typhoon.   Thousands have been killed, many are still missing. I said that we needed to care so we could either start sending aid for the people or so we can help get them out of there…which didn’t happen.

So this article about a ‘deadly storm’ that is threatening ‘holiday travel’ has made front page news. Ten inches of snow fell in some parts of Oklahoma, and freezing rain does make life a little difficult. Power might go out. People might be trapped in doors for a few days. Families might miss flights to see each other for Turkey Day.

Being from Northern Minnesota, this article made me laugh. 10 inches of snow is nothing. Sleet? Icy roads? What of them? There is more than one way to drive, especially when winter hits. It's called using caution. WSJ at least managed to say “An icy storm that started in the West and is blamed in at least 10 fatal accidents was bringing a mix of snow, sleet and freezing rain;” the key term being ‘is blamed.’ I wish the journalist would have said if these accidents are abnormal for the areas in Oklahoma and Texas. If this was the first time these storms have hit those areas, the news would be worthy of front-page news. Then we could start talking about climate change.

The author even called it an “Arctic mass” that is to “head south and east and threaten plans for Tuesday and Wednesday as people hit the roads and airports for some of the busiest travel days of the year.” I wonder what kind of weather we had this time last year. Winter weather always disrupts flight plans. Sleet is hard to fly through. It’s the risk that winter travelers take.

Maybe the reason why I find this hype ridiculous is because I’m from an area of the country where this weather isn’t just normal, it’s expected. This journalist does manage to make a lighter end of things by quoting someone in Oklahoma that is excited to see the snow.

This article makes me think, ‘why is this important?’ The journalist reported the facts, but left out the relevance to the bigger audience. Sure, it’s nice to know when flight plans may be disrupted, but is this worthy of front page news, above the article about the lack of preparation in the Philippians for the typhoon? Its placing would have made more sense if the journalist discussed the normal fatalities during bad weather in the same areas this storm is going through. Or even if they talked about how rare/normal these types of storms are for this time of year. I think the journalist missed the bigger picture.

Switzerland In the News

The Wall Street Journal ran the article “Swiss Voters Reject High-Pay Initiative” today. They gave it front page space, while it was nowhere to be found on the New York Times site or even the Washington Post pages. This is an interesting choice that the front page, mostly because it seems like this is an international issue that doesn’t touch base with the United States at all. So why chose this, out of other topics, to place on the front page? Maybe this has something to do with business and money, which draws most readers of this particular news source. Or maybe the editor was making a statement of comparison to the situation in the US with the widening gap between lower class and high class earners.

The initiative would have restricted executive salaries to 12 times that of the lowest paid employee. The organizers believed “that no one in a Swiss company should earn more in a month than someone else makes in a year.” It was rejected by 65% of voters. Only 34% supported the proposal.

The article describes a related proposal that passed. “It will require a binding shareholder vote on executive salaries at all publicly traded Swiss companies and also will ban signing bonuses, golden parachutes and other forms of compensation.” Does this start to sound like an issue that has been raised recently in America? Perhaps during the firing of CEOs during the economic collapse? The biggest outrage was that these men, who helped tank the economy, lost their jobs…but were rewarded with millions.

One of the most curious sentences in this piece was that “Major companies also urged employees to think carefully before heading to the polls.” What kind of urging took place? ‘Urge’ is a harmless term, but could potentially mean more. The journalist should have expanded on this statement, as it may have been the most important part of the issue. 

The president of the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, David Roth “said the country had missed an opportunity to curb executive pay that it sees as spiraling out of control. ‘We're obviously disappointed at the result, but we were faced by opponents who ran a high-profile fear campaign.’”

Obviously, spurred by the last point (companies urging an outcome), this should have been a red flag for the journalist to begin researching. While this idea isn’t shocking in itself, it could have been a jumping off point. What kind of tactics were the companies using to persuade employees? What if jobs were threatened? What if livelihoods were at risk? These are questions that the article raises. But then, what if Roth’s statement evoked questions that weren’t fair to the companies? What if the companies simply asked their employees to think about consequences and left it at that?

The final bit of the article is my favorite: “Public anger over corporate pay reached a peak in February, when local media reported that Novartis was planning an exit package that could have totaled 72 million Swiss francs ($79 million) for former chairman Daniel Vasella . Faced with a backlash that included public comments by the country's justice minister, Novartis scrapped the original plan for a package worth roughly 5 million francs, including cash and shares.”

Public outrage caused a company to backtrack on the ridiculous severance package to a chairman. Maybe because Switzerland is such a small country, their voices matter more. The company has to keep it’s consumers happy. It’s just an interesting juxtaposition between what happened with the CEOs in America when our economy began its downward spiral.

Nuclear deal reached with Iran...for now.

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times ran articles today discussing the deal with Iran to freeze their nuclear programs. For once, it seems that someone at the NYT has become critical of something within the Obama administration. While they use less quotes and devote less space to the information than the WSJ, it was easier to read. Both articles are top-front page news. They both use pictures of smiling officials, hugging officials. The WSJ takes a tone that is much more factual, reporting what specifically was agreed upon and glazed over where the difficulties lay. The NYT took almost a sarcastic tone, beginning with a description of a quote from the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif. “Smiling and avuncular, he reiterated Iran’s longstanding assertion that its nuclear program was peaceful, adding that the Iranian people deserved respect from the West.”

The WSJ outline the overall achieved goal: “The agreement calls for Iran to stop its production of near-weapons grade nuclear fuel—which is uranium enriched to 20% purity—and for the removal of Tehran's stockpile of the fissile material, which is estimated to be nearly enough to produce one nuclear bomb. Iran, in return, will gain relief from Western economic sanctions that U.S. officials believe will provide between $6 billion and $7 billion in badly needed foreign exchange for Tehran over the next half-year.” 

The NYT article points out immediately the shortfalls of the idea, whereas WSJ goes into detail what all is included in the deal. “The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.”

It was interesting that WSJ quoted Obama in a statement that was clearly thought out: “the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with Iran since I took office.” I would have loved for someone to mention if there has been progress with other presidents, or where our relationship is with Iran compared to other administrations. It was so well worded that it’s hard to ignore how specific it is.

While the WSJ does give a little to the opposition; “This deal appears to provide the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.)” it doesn’t go into detail like the NYT. WSJ also touches on the discomfort of Israel, who believes that the concessions the US has made will damage economic and security issues overseas.

It’s also pointed out by both articles that this is a temporary, six month agreement that can either be strengthened or completely undone later. The NYT is much more critical. ‘“At the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations — ad infinitum,” said Gary Samore, a senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council in Mr. Obama’s first term.”

Two very interesting points were made. One by the WSJ and one by NYT. The first, by WSJ: “Tehran cites the U.N.'s nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as affording every signatory that legal right to enrich uranium, provided it is used for civilian purposes. Successive U.S. administrations have denied this right exists and have supported multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities.” If that’s not fishy, I don’t know what is. This whole article, as does the NYT article, makes the US come off as the Big Brother of the World, which is something that isn’t a surprise, but to deny a country rights from the UN Treaty seems to be crossing a line. I would like to know why the US denied Iran this right.

The second point, which is the most important, was brought to light by the NYT. “This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. I feel like, for the first time in a while, the NYT brought up an issue that the public needs to debate. Why does the President get the power to make deals with other countries without Congress? Part of me wants to say, “why not,” considering how LITTLE is accomplished through congress and the senate. But another part of me wants to know how much power this gives the president of our nation and if he/she should even have it.

Way to go, NYT.

Alabama Pardons Three Dead Men

The New York Times published an article today about Alabama posthumously pardoning three black men who had been falsely convicted more than 80 years ago in the rapes of two white women.

For something that happened in the 1930’s the NYT seems to believe the public knows a lot about this event. 9 men were originally convicted of raping two white women. This incredibly vague article says that these men endured convictions, pardons, and more convictions. It’s one big legal mess. But… did they do it? All 9 of them were let off the hook by the Supreme Court but four of them were later re-convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms (or death).

The article summarizes the confusing convictions well, but fails to strike into the heart of the matter with the exception of one sentence: “The case, which yielded two landmark Supreme Court rulings about the inclusion of blacks on juries and the need for adequate legal representation, had continued to hang over Alabama as an enduring mark of its tainted, segregationist past.”

Maybe this is the harsh question, but why does this matter? The State senator was quoted; “We’re certainly a different state in the 21st century than we were. Today is the final chapter – and it ends on a brighter note – of a very tragic chapter in our history.” I wish this article had done some digging. They mention that the juries were all white, which of course wasn’t fair. But had the men actually done what they are accused of? IF they had, why are they being pardoned? If they hadn’t…why are they being pardoned post-harmoniously, and why does this matter to Americans today? Aside from being a nice thought, a nice band aid on the issue of racism, how is this effecting the general population? The men are dead. Did they have families or friends advocating the issue?

“Nudged by researchers, the state Legislature earlier this year unanimously supported a measure from Mr. Orr and others that allowed the pardons board to act on cases that had not been overturned by the courts or abandoned by prosecutors.” This almost seems to be the ultimate point of the story. I’d like to know more about this as well. Does this apply to people who are still sitting in jail today? How will this affect them? This could mean something huge, but is poorly developed in the article, mentioned as an afterthought.

The piece ended with a quote from the Governor; “We cannot take back what happened,” Gov. Robert Bentley said in April when he signed the legislation. “But we can make it right moving forward.” Again, how far into history are these pardon boards going to go? How deep into recent history, and will it change the lives of people in jail or their families?

North Korea...why did you detain an old man?

Both the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post devoted front-page space to an 85-year-old man who has been detained in North Korea the day he was to return to American soil. It is unclear why they are holding the man, though it is speculated that being a Korean War veteran has something to do with it. He was pulled aside by authorities to discuss his military experience before being detained later.

It is rare that I find the WSJ taking the wrong tone with their writing, but this article was different. Throughout the piece, the journalist refers back to American officials and their frustration with North Korea and their unwillingness to reach peace over nuclear weapons. What I want to scream is: why are we still “sympathetic” toward NK when they are detaining American citizens (even 68 year olds!!)? This article makes it seem like we are worried to make too much of a fuss over the detainees because it will harm the barely functioning relationship we have with the leaders of NK.

The WSJ article utilizes some interesting interviews. Koryo Tours, a Beijing based tour company, having nothing to do with the detained man, says that they have never had a problem with American tourists, even veterans. Another interview took place with a woman who had used Koryo Tours to travel to NK 90 times says she has no knowledge of any US Korean War Vets that traveled using the company (is there a point to these interviews?).

The WSJ says there are now two men currently detained in NK, while the WP says that “at least six Americans have been detained since 2006” but doesn’t say if they are currently being held. The WSJ article seems to focus less on the man and more on the volatile relationship between the countries. It ends its article with: “Earlier this year, North Korea allowed a U.S. Korean War veteran into the country on a humanitarian mission to recover a fellow Navy pilot's remains, though adverse conditions prevented the recovery from taking place,” but doesn’t explain the adverse conditions.

The WP article seems aimed more at letting the article know what is going on with the missing man (his son hasn’t been told why his father was detained and NK hasn’t yet publicly acknowledged detaining the older man) but gives small details to let the reader know that relations between the countries are less than perfect. For those of us who don’t know our American History, it was helpful to read that the Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, and that the NK leaders are using the war as propaganda: the US and Seoul are trying to bring down the political system.

This piece also points out that the other detainees have been visiting on missionary trips and that it is unusual to detain a tourist. They also point out that the ‘secretive’ government of NK is suspicious of tourists and monitors visitors to the country. This article seems to point questions in the right direction: what does NK think this man knows that’s worth detaining him even at such an old age? I also like that this article tells us that the US does not have an embassy in NK due to poor relations and that we have to work through the Swedish ambassadors to get him back.