Archive for April, 2005
Nice one Melvyn!
Posted by: | CommentsI write to express dismay and opposition to the decision taken by the AUT to sever links with Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities.
This boycott fails to recognise the continuous democratic processes and discussions within Israel, where brave voices are constantly raised against the actions in Palestine; it glides over the effects of the barbaric suicide attacks on the streets of Israel and the unremitting threats from Arab states that they will destroy Israel; it is wrong because it denies the hard-won freedom of international academic discourse; and, as far as Britain is concerned, it denies freedom of speech, which is a gift for extremists everywhere.
I have no doubt that the AUT’s decision was sincerely taken, but I believe it is dangerous and misguided.
Melvyn Bragg
London
(from the Guardian Newspaper)
And in case we needed proof that the organizer of this boycott is not the most balanced of people. Here’s the great Sue Blackwell in the same letters pages today:
Michael Kustow (Letters, April 23) challenges my description of Israel as “an illegitimate state” (Report, April 22). How can any state be legitimate that is founded on ethnic cleansing (which Kustow accepts took place)? I would have said the same about apartheid South Africa. I look forward to a Holy Land in which people of all races and religions have equal status under an inclusive constitution – like South Africa today.
Sue Blackwell
Birmingham
Academics back Israeli boycotts
Posted by: | CommentsThese are dark days for British academe.
What a Weekend
Posted by: | CommentsWell, I made it through. The painkillers meant that waking and sleeping have not been much different the last couple of days. Somehow, I managed to put the remaining blog interviews together today and yesterday to beat my deadline. Come to think of it, I can’t believe I managed to conduct a telephone interview on Friday afternoon, four hours after having my teeth taken out. Luckily, my subject couldn’t see me or she may have been less than impressed. Thankfully, the swelling on my jaw has shrunk considerably, as has the swelling on my back from when I passed out in the early hours of Saturday morning.
The following week will be busy. My parents arrive for a week-long visit tomorrow and I am anticipating a deluge of last minute revisions before the book is put to bed next weekend. I’m going to try taking myself off the painkillers tomorrow just so that I can get some work done with a straight head. All of this, of course, is a precursor to the usual lame excuse that blogging could be erratic over the next week. But there you go. You have been warned. 
Oh woe is me
Posted by: | CommentsI just had two wisdom teeth pulled. Ouch. I had an infection in one of them, so I’m not really in the mood to blog today. Aprt from this sympathy-seeking post. More later…
Authentic Voice
Posted by: | CommentsSome extremely inciteful thoughts on the PR industry’s success at feeding the mainstream media in this article by essayist and programmer Paul Graham:
Reporters like definitive statements. For example, many of the stories about Jeremy Jaynes’s conviction say that he was one of the 10 worst spammers. This “fact” originated in Spamhaus’s ROKSO list, which I think even Spamhaus would admit is a rough guess at the top spammers. The first stories about Jaynes cited this source, but now it’s simply repeated as if it were part of the indictment. [4]
All you can say with certainty about Jaynes is that he was a fairly big spammer. But reporters don’t want to print vague stuff like “fairly big.” They want statements with punch, like “top ten.” And PR firms give them what they want.
If I wasn’t staring a drop dead deadline in the face, I would take more time to weigh in on this subject. But I think it is worth noting now that Paul’s views echo the opinions of a number of people I have interviewed lately for the latest book project I am contributing to about weblogs. It is summed up best by Paul here:
I think the main reason is that the writing online is more honest. Imagine how incongruous the New York Times article about suits:
“The urge to look corporate– sleek, commanding, prudent, yet with just a touch of hubris on your well-cut sleeve– is an unexpected development in a time of business disgrace.”
or the Business Week article about tagging:
“Joshua Schachter used to be a lot like the rest of us online. When he surfed the Web, he’d zip through interesting articles only to find that days later he couldn’t remember where he had seen the stories or sites that had caught his interest.”
would sound if you read it in a blog. The problem with these articles is not just that they originated in PR firms. The whole tone is bogus. This is the tone of someone writing down to their audience.
Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It’s not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It’s people writing what they think.
(Hat Tip: Doc Searls)
