Outsourcing the media?

A few weeks ago the NYT reported that CBS and CNN were discussing the possibility to "share resources."
There are a couple reasons off the top of my head why this could be a bad thing.
Essentially CNN and CBS would be sharing stories, reporters and anything else. This would just be like using a wire service and I believe it would severely diminish the news industry.
Don't misinterpret my statement, I do not hate wire service. I believe the AP is great and really help the news industries. But relying on a wire service will diminish the end product. Granted many of the MSM (mainstream media) carry the same stories, but each is covered slightly different.
If CNN and CBS somewhat merge we the people would lose a different perspective. Even though the media is supposed to be unbiased, bias does show through one way or another. Some more apparent than others FoxNews
A slew of media outlets can cover one event and each one will be will put out a different story with a different angle.
Wire services are used several ways. The Reuters or AP service stories made be run in their entirety because the a media outlet may not have been able to get a reporter to the story. Or the wire service may be used as a starting point but the media outlet weens itself off the wire service story and develops its own.
But if every news outlet runs the same exact story, what does the public gain?
Then again maybe this is the way the news industry is going. Maybe there only needs to be one large, super television news station.
Look at the newspaper industry.
Newspapers in general are suffering. However, the larger papers are suffering more in my opinion. The larger papers are covering the same stories the television news stations are covering. But the newspapers are losing because of the timeliness and the publics laziness to pick up a paper and read it.
Now, look at smaller newspapers. The Lebanon Daily's, the Press And Journal's and the Patriot News's.
Each paper has a smaller audience and a narrower focus. The LDN and PN are daily newspapers therefore have the opportunity to compete with TV news.
The P&J which is a weekly does not have less of an opportunity to compete with television news so the staff has to work harder to scoop TV and other daily papers.
However, lets look at what makes the three papers (which cover the same regions) are successful.
The LDN covers all of Lebanon County and is liked by its readers because of the "gossip" factor.
The PN is a larger circulation and covers most of Central Pennsylvania.
The P&J covers the Middletown area.
Now, one would assume the PN would be able to crush the LDN and P&J because it has more money and a larger staff ergo better stories.
However, the LDN and P&J with their narrow focus are able to successfully compete with the PN.

What's the deal with genocide?

Ignoring the fact the I titled my first blog Jerry Seinfeld-esque this is a very serious topic, genocide that is. Also, ignore the fact that I started this post last year and am only finishing/posting it now.
Last year I read "A Problem from Hell": American and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Powers. As I write this blog I am only about halfway through the book, but nonetheless I have already been able to see patterns develop with U.S. foreign policy, mainly when it comes to dealing with genocide. Put simply, the U.S. likes to not use the word genocide. One reason being that if the U.S. did deem something a genocide then it would have to get involved in some way, shape, or form to stop it.
From what I gathered from my reading is that the U.S. does not like to get involved 1) the thought of sending troops to stop a genocide does not bode well for public opinion and 2) usually if the U.S. would have decided to step in during a genocide it would somehow end up hurting itself. Examples of this can be seen during the Cold War period.
One specific example is the Kurdish genocide in Iraq. This genocide was enforced by Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam Hussein's cousin and secretary-general of the Northern Bureau. The reason for the genocide against the Kurds was because of a ongoing war with Iran. The certain Kurds were allied with Iran and were considered "rebels" in Iraq, therefore, Iraq justified removing the Kurdish "rebels" saying that they were trying to bring down the government. The problem was that the "rebels" that the Iraqis were removing were not only men but women and children and then systematically destroying villages. The whole Kurdish genocide is much more complicated than that.
The reason the U.S. did not want to get involved was because the U.S. did not like Iran, therefore, the U.S. supported the Iraqi government. The U.S. feared that if they spoke up that they would lose an ally in the war with Iran.
Now fast forward 20 years and we are faced with another genocide. This time it is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. So far 400,000 have been killed and more than 2 million people have been displaced. Repeatedly the U.S. and the world community has said "never again" would a genocide occur. In reality, countries continue to turn a blind eye to these types of atrocities. This time the U.S. is afraid to act because the Sudanese government gives the U.S. "valuable" intelligence in the war on terror. If the U.S. were to stand up to the Sudanese government they may lose that support for the war on terror, therefore, the janjaweed militias and government forces are able to continue killing Darfuris.

Go 2008 Beijing Olympics

Today the Olympic torch made it to France.
The relay was run in a traditional fashion -- the runner, a torch, roller blading police officers and eventually the torch had to be taken to the next leg via bus.
Why?
Because of protesters and demonstrators, OH MY!! As seen here in the New York Times article.
And don't forget the photos.
They were protesting China's persistent suppression of Tibet -- especially after the most recent outbreak of violence which only occured last month.
While the most recent protests to the 2008 Olympics have focused on the Chinese government violently putting down the Tibetan protests, let's not forget people have been protesting because of China's ah-mazing human rights record.
Thousands (possibly millions) of people have called for China to stop supporting the Sudanese government's genocide in Darfur. China investment in the Sudanese oil fields.
A rally was held in October 2007 in Philadelphia where former Olympian Joey Cheek spoke out against the genocide in Darfur and China's involvement. The photos from that event are here.
Steven Spielberg was the creative consultant for the opening ceremonies until Mia Farrow called for his resignation on Nov. 8 2007. He resigned in February 2008.
A Save Darfur facebook group has already called on its members to protest the relay when it makes the only stop in the United States on April 9 in San Francisco.
Pres. Bush even said "not on our watch" would another genocide occur. Unfortunatly, not much is being done on the federal level. However, on the state level. governments are slowly but surly divesting from Sudan.
According to the NYT, Pres. Bush plans on attending the opening ceremonies.
So, much for not on our watch. Then again I guess it's only appropriate for the POTUS to pay respect to the country that lends us billions of dollars.