#gorley

At first, Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What If We’re Wrong? Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past, was utterly confusing to me. I could not tell if Klosterman was serious about what he was writing or if it was meant to be satirical. But after reading the introduction, chapter one, chapter five, and chapter eight, I gained a much better perspective on the author’s beliefs of change and prediction. His concern is the fact that we don’t even consider the possibility that we could be hugely wrong about something, or that our current worldview might drastically change. When it comes to global media, I think there is no definitive answer for how it will change. On the grand scale, it is clear that the world is shifting towards a more digital method of obtaining news and other media. Since the early 2000s, many United States newspapers have shut down their physical papers and turned to online-only editions. On the last day of 2007, media giant E.W. Scripps shut down the shrinking Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post, a zoned edition that served the city's Northern Kentucky suburbs. A day later it launched KyPost.com, with a veteran Post editor as managing editor. In Madison, Wis., the struggling afternoon Capital Times halted daily print publication last April and unveiled a beefed-up Web news operation.

Daily Nation began in 1958 as a Swahili weekly newspaper known as Taifa by a gentleman named Charles Hayes. In 1959, The Aga Khan purchased Taifa and re-named it Daily Nation. “The Aga Khan’s personal association with Kenya was a long one. During World War II, his father Prince Aly Khan was based in Cairo with the Free French forces and fought the German Axis armies in the North African desert. Prince Karim and his younger brother, Amyn, were sent to safety in Kenya…” (Loughran, 2010). As Gerard Loughran explains in his book, Birth of a Nation: The Story of a Newspaper in Kenya, Prince Karim fell in love with Kenya out of respect for the safety that it had provided him. When Prince Karim’s grandfather passed away, he named the young prince as the next Aga Khan. In 1957, The Aga Khan became incredibly disappointed over the quality of newspapers in Kenya because he felt they were “the mouthpieces of the colonial government” (Loughran, 2010).

As a result, The Aga Khan became increasingly determined to create a newspaper that was the voice of Kenyan journalists. On October 3, 1960, the first English-edition of Daily Nation was published by East African Newspapers, Ltd. Which The Aga Khan also re-named as Nation Media Group. The CIA reports that as of 2015, there are about a half-dozen large-scale privately owned media companies with TV and radio stations, as well as a small offering of state-owned TV and radio stations. The CIA also reports that about 45.6% of the population uses the Internet. Currently, the Daily Nation circulates around 170,000 copies of the daily printed newspaper, making it the most popular Kenyan newspaper with a 74% marketshare. Daily Nation reports on the following subjects:

Sports

Smart Company

Living

Money

Lifestyle

Buzz News

”Seeds of Gold”

International

While the main audience for Daily Nation would be considered local Kenyan citizens, it also aims to attract English speaking citizens because the paper only posts and prints articles in English or Swahili, since those are the two most popular languages in Kenya. Unfortunately, the international news piece of Daily Nation is not original to the newspaper. Every international news piece I shared during our month of monitoring, was written by an outside source then copied to the Daily Nation website. For example, when I discussed the coverage of the United States election, there are 300 articles posted on the Daily Nation website. These articles can be found by searching “Trump Hillary”. Of all 300 articles, not a single one was an original piece by a reporter from the Daily Nation, meaning 300 out of 300 articles were brought over from an outside news source. Even then, a great majority of news articles are posted by AFP. When an original article is posted, they are usually incredibly short (about 35 sentences or shorter). When it comes to politics, it would appear that the Daily Nation takes a rather neutral stance. For every negative article about a candidate or political issue, they offset it with a positive article as well. The other benefit to articles posted by Daily Nation is that they are full of great information and generally accurate facts. Meaning that in 35 sentences, the reporters do an incredible job of giving their readers plenty of facts and information with which they can do more research on to learn more about the article they are reading. Overall, I was disappointed with the coverage provided by the Daily Nation. Perhaps, if I were able to get my hands on a paper copy, the articles would be original and written by Daily Nation staff, the online Daily Nation appears to almost be an after thought or place where articles are just thrown up to take up space. But even then, I did manage to find articles that caught my attention and made me wish they were longer so I had more to read. One such article was A shot in the arm for sorghum and millet farmers.

I really enjoyed this article because sorghum is something I use in my home cooking so that I may enjoy gluten-free meals. East African Maltings Ltd (EAML), a subsidiary of beer-maker East African Breweries Ltd (EABL), has partnered with Kenya Cereals Enhancement Programme (KCEP) to boost sorghum and millet farmers. These two companies have partnered specifically with small farms to increase the amount of sorghum and millet farms without involving large-scale operations. By doing so, they are allowing smaller farms to work together to produce the 30 tons of grains needed by KCEP and then allowing the farmers to sell the excess to EAML. This provides the farmers who chose to participate with the opportunity to have higher income than they had previously enjoyed. Another piece that caught my attention was a piece posted on Daily Nation’s Youtube Channel yesterday (November 3, 2016) about police now punishing journalists who cover anti-corruption protests. In this first clip, viewers can see journalists in front of the protestors trying to capture what is happening. Focus on the journalists seen in this clip.

In this next clip, you can see journalists arguing with police. Asking, “Why are you against us?” Again, you see the same journalists in the middle of this argument.

Warning: This writing contains images and videos that may be considered disturbing to some readers. The Stoning of Soraya M. serves as more than just a movie to watch, it also serves as a platform for educating viewers on the ways in which women are treated as a result of Sharia Law in Iran. During the film, viewers follow as a woman named Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) tells French journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam (Jim Vaviezel), about the wrongful stoning and death of her niece, Soraya Manutchehri (Mozhan Marnò). Soraya’s death, as viewers come to quickly witness, was the result of her conniving, selfish and evil husband, Ali (Navid Negahban). Because Ali wants rid of Soraya so badly, he uses the town officials and his skills in blackmail to turn the town against his wife. In the end, Ali hopes to find himself in a position that allows him to marry a younger, more subservient 14-year-old girl named Mehri. The movie begins with a blue car breaking down on what seems to be an old, abandoned highway. After sometime, a bus happens to drive by, picking up the driver and towing the car in to the nearby town of Kuhpayeh, Iran. Shortly after arriving in the town, the driver of the blue car is approached by a woman who hurriedly asks him if he speaks English. Once this woman learns that the man speaks English, she begs him to listen to a story she has to tell. After a few minutes, viewers learn that the name of this mysterious man is Freidoune Sahebjam, and his is a French journalist who is just trying to get back home. When Sahebjam agrees to meet this woman at her home, it is learned that her name is Zahra. Having been told by the mayor and mullah of the town that Zahra is just a crazy old woman, Freidoune asks her why he should listen to her story, Zahra’s answer, “voices of women do not matter in here. I want you to take my voice with you” (Brisman, 2012).

As the film continues, “Ali [plots] with the mullah to accuse Soraya of committing adultery with Hashem”, the man who Soraya works for after being forced to take the job by her husband, the mayor and the mullah (Brisman, 2012). Soraya assists Hashem with caring for his young, motherless son, Mohsen, and with general house duties. Ali witnesses Hashem’s hand brush Soraya’s and watches them chat and laugh together. Ali uses these occurrences as fuel to his fire of accusing Soraya of being unfaithful to him. In his own way of being “kind”, Ali convinces the town mullah to offer Soraya a divorce from Ali with the chance to become the mullah’s “temporary wife”, or whore. Soraya, worried for the wellbeing of her daughters, refuses the mullahs offer, which sends Ali into a fit of rage.

Ali then realizes that if he can successfully get rid of Soraya for good, he would not have to pay any child support for his two daughters, as they would have no other parent to live with but him. “As time and patience runs thin for Ali, he decides, with the assistance of the town’s leaders, to execute a story accusing Soraya of adultery and killing her for it” (Esther, 2009). Ali and the mullah then force Hashem to lie alongside them, saying that if Hashem does not do as Ali and the mullah wish, they will kill Moshen, his son. “At a decisive moment in the lead-up to the stoning, Ebrahim asks God for a sign to indicate that he should put a stop to the proceedings. At that precise moment, a travelling carnival, complete with dancing monkeys, rolls into town,” followed by the first two stones, thrown by Soraya’s father, missing (Kroenert, 2010). Hesitation can be seen across Ebrahim’s face, but the mullah sees this and pushes Ebrahim back into the crowd. When the stoning is finished, Ali is seen smiling at the sight of his dead wife, because he knows he was victorious in turning her sons’ against her, and getting rid of a disobedient wife in the preparation for a more subservient one. Viewers come to learn that Soraya’s brutally painful and prolonged death happened all for nothing because Ali does not get to marry Mehri due to her father’s execution.

The reason that I love The Stoning of Soraya M. as much as I do, is not because of the graphic nature of the film, but because of the social issues that it brings to light, issues that many American’s never stop to think about. This film directly calls out the treatment of women under Sharia Law and the barbaric act of death by stoning. This film successfully makes viewers uncomfortable, sad, angry, and most of all, curious. I for one, would have never looked into Sharia Law if I had not seen The Stoning of Soraya M. because I do not experience the laws on a daily basis. The more I looked into the background of the movie, the more curious I grew. What exactly is Sharia Law, and why is it so barbaric?

As a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior and even private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. Because the system is so broad, it allows men like Ali, Ebrahim, and the mullah to bend and twist laws to fit their own agendas. It is a common belief amoung the Muslim religion, that If it weren’t for the Christians and the Mongols, Muslim women would still be enjoying the prominent status given to them by Muhammad. In this particular religion, surplus female babies were considered a burden and were buried alive before Muhammad came to power. After Mohammad, females were not thought of as a burden as much as they were deemed to lack common sense because their minds are deficient. As clearly seen in The Stoning of Soraya M., men did not need to have reasons to divorce their wives, but wives could not obtain divorce without permission of their husbands. A majority of Muslims say that a wife should always obey her husband.

http://regorley1.tumblr.com/post/152172295059/pew-research-survey-results-for-mcst-critical

As David Wood makes clear in his writing Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them! Muhammad’s Low Opinion of Women, women have little to no rights under Sharia Law, even when it comes to the person that they marry. “A woman became the property of a man upon marriage, and no woman could refuse a match made by her father.” They [women] are required to cover their bodies--in varying degrees in different places--for fear they might arouse the lust of men other than their husbands. The Koran instructs women to "guard their modesty," not to "display their beauty and ornaments" and to "draw their veils." Saudi women typically don a billowy black cloak called an abaya, along with a black scarf and veil over the face; morality police enforce the dress code by striking errant women with sticks. The women of Iran and Sudan can expose the face but must cover the hair and the neck. Women who do not wear the veil or do as commanded, are subject to horrific atrocities, such as being doused with acid. While the Christian religion believes that Eve was made from the rib of Adam and was also responsible for Adam’s downfall because she chose to eat from the Forbidden Tree, the Qur’an does not blame Eve for Adam’s fall. “The claim is surprising because many Muslim women grew up with the saying that ‘Eve was created out of a crooked rib of Adam’s.’ … this saying comes from the hadith (sayings of the prophet) and not the Qur’ān” (al-Hibri, 1982). While the current version of the Qur'an does not offer stoning as a form of punishment, the Hadith and Sira do. Ibn Ishaq (970) - "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca. Islamic Law - "The stone shall not be so big so as to kill the person by one or two strikes, neither shall it be so small that it cannot be called a stone" The victim is intended to suffer. While Sharia Law is vague, it is not completely without morals. Actions that go against these morals include backbiting, slander, calumny and sedition. In The Stoning of Soraya M., viewers see slander in perfect action. This is even worse than backbiting, because backbiting is the disclosure of something true about somebody who does not like it to be disclosed, whereas slander is to fabricate some lies about somebody and spread them in order to harm him. Ali uses slander and calumny to create an entire story about Soraya and her actions in order to have her executed. However, being a man and therefore the most educated, Ali knows that the claim of calumny would never hold up for Soraya because it cannot be claimed as evidence in a case for crime.

The mullah justifies the need to kill Soraya by saying that her actions have shamed not only Ali and her family, but also the community as a whole. In Ignorning the Law in the Name of Honor, Gabriel Hallevy, a professor of law at Ono Academic College, proves that honor killings ignore all laws. “When a woman is murdered in the name of family honor in the country of origin, it is justified by law, since the concept of family honor justifies the killing of women in these societies” (Hallevy, 2011). Even in western societies, these killings are protected because the person responsible for the murder can claim ignorance to the law since they grew up in a society where such actions were allowed and not punished (Hallevy, 2011).

Essential Background Information on the Detestation Towards Journalism in Turkey

Before diving into research about journalist arrests in Turkey, it is imperative that one first understands not only the corruption of press within the country, but also the attitude towards press within the country. As Andrew Finkel demonstrates in his article for The Journal of International Affairs, corruption in Turkey press is all too common. Journalists are publishing ideas and news that they know are inaccurate, false, and skewed to please the government due to fear of being punished. The question that Finkel poses to his readers, is “Quis custodiet custodiens or ‘who guards the guardians.'" If journalists are meant to be the guardians of the press, or the stewards of public knowledge on events happening within their own country, then who is protecting the rights and freedoms of the journalists? The answer, no one. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is the current president of Turkey, and the man responsible for turning the country of Turkey against its own journalists. As VICE News points out, “President Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly accused foreign journalists of inciting unrest, in an apparent attempt to imply that Kurdish separatists, supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — who Ankara opposes — and members of the press are plotting against Turkey." It can be said that President Erdoğan has a fear of journalistic press, and as a result, he has instilled this fear into the members of Turkish military and police forces; to President Erdoğan, press is synonymous with terrorism. Upon conducting further research, it was plain to see that Turkey is not a newcomer to arresting journalists, foreign and domestic. In 2010, Kurdish newspaper editor Ozan Kilinc was sentenced to 21 years in prison for allowing entries about the P.K.K. to run in 12 editions of the paper. Yet again, in 2015, three VICE News reporters were arrested and detained on charges of terrorism in the city of Istanbul. Ruben Neugebauer, Björn Kietzmann, and Christian Grodotzki: Arrested for Being in the Wrong Place At the Wrong Time It came of little shock when finally reading the VICE News article about German journalists getting arrested in Turkey. “Turkey's woeful record on press freedom came to international attention again this week when three German photojournalists were arrested and detained on October 11 in south-eastern Diyarbakir, accused of being spies and provocateurs." The true crime that these journalists committed was simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ruben Neugebauer, Björn Kietzmann, and Christian Grodotzki are free-lance photojournalists who traveled to south-eastern Diyarbakir to report on the strife between political and security groups. Upon witnessing a group of demonstrators build then light fire to a barricade in the middle of the street, the three reporters sought shelter in a nearby store. When the gentlemen went to leave the store, they were stopped by civil police and brutally arrested along with two tourists. “‘They pushed us, kicked us, and threw our equipment to the ground, our press cards on the street and punched one of the tourists,’ Neugebauer recalled. ‘Quite rough for an arrest.'" Neugebauer goes on to explain that then the men were taken to the Anti-Terrorism headquarters and were verbally assaulted with anti-German statements. While at the headquarters, they saw cameras and other press equipment in storage lockers, indicating that they were not the first journalists to find themselves in serious trouble. The three gentlemen even met another reporter who was being detained for unknown reasons. Once wind of the German journalists’ arrest caught international attention, the German Embassy and the journalists’ colleagues sent over lawyers to help secure their release. As a result, the gentlemen were released and given their equipment back; however, they were not released of their pending criminal charges or deported. Though these German journalists were “lucky” in securing their release, others have not had the same pleasure. Journalists from all over the world are still being detained at the Anti-Terrorism headquarters with no idea when they will be allowed to return home. Although the arrest of Ruben Neugebauer, Björn Kietzmann, and Christian Grodotzki received international attention, it has done very little to help with the suppression of press in Turkey. There is still no freedom of press and any “uprising” or expression of dislike towards the government is heavily punished. Why? Because President Erdoğan continually preaches that the press is bad and that journalists are terrorists. When your president believes something of this nature with such ferver, your military and police powers begin to believe it too. As Reporters Without Borders found in their recent April 2016 evaluation of press freedom, it “is indicative of a climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private-sector interests." This goes to show that press censorship is not unique to Turkey, authority figures all over the world are becoming increasingly afraid of the press and as a result are trying to snuff out the journalist voices that express anything but admiration for their offices and power.

The link goes to an article about Roger Gorley being arrested and forced from his partner's side. Even in America my friends. This is disgusting.