American Media: Finding the Truthiness

American Media: Finding the Truthiness

Monday, October 20, 2014

Ebola

Afternoon Americans, 

Today I'll be discussing something that's been all over the news recently and whether or not it deserves so much attention. Deadly as it may be, is Ebola a real problem for America and/or the world?

Ebola has been circulating, and not just in West Africa. News coverage of the Ebola incidents in the US have reached "wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl" type proportions, with everyone talking about it at least a couple times a day. My question for all of you is: Is all of this attention and media awareness in regards to the Ebola virus' threat to world health really warranted?

The World Health Organization released a statement today officially declaring the end of Ebola transmissions in Nigeria, exactly three months after the first Liberian man to spread the disease in Lagos arrived via airplane. The same can now also be said for Senegal. Liberia, the epicenter of this most recent outbreak, has been hard-hit in recent months with school closures and government withdrawals from certain areas, however it would appear that there is some hope of ending the outbreak relatively soon. This story published today by CBS news details what author Debora Patta describes as "Pockets of hope amid Corridors of Misery." Patta goes on to explain that there is a culture in Liberia that involves touching and caring for the dead in order to prepare them for burial, not unlike the western tradition of memorializing the recently deceased. The standards for sanitation, however, in the sweltering mostly tropical climate of Liberia are far from what they are in most developed countries. This has lead to a high number of transmissions going unreported by those infected who only wanted to care for their deceased loved ones, as well as violence against healthcare workers who would advise strongly against this type of ceremonious burial.

This article from The Guardian claims that Ebola is still running rampant in Liberia due to poor healthcare standards, and even more frightening, that the reported numbers of deaths from the virus are far lower than what is accurate.

When it comes to Ebola in the Western world, specifically the United States, up until recently there has been more than enough news coverage to get people more than a little bit freaked out. People like this guy, Dr. Gil Mobley, claim that the CDC is not doing enough to prevent the spread of Ebola, and tout the risk of such inaction for the future.


Many people claim this type of reporting results in fear mongering and hysterical public reaction. CNN published a story today calling this an "Epic, epidemic overreaction". The truth is that aside from the handful of healthcare workers in the US who happened to contract Ebola from "US patient zero" Thomas Duncan, there is practically zero chance that anyone you know or even anyone they know is likely to contract Ebola. Even Mr. Duncan's fiancee who shared a bed with the man post-infection, has been cleared from quarantine after the standard 21 day incubation period had elapsed.

As far as preparedness goes, the CDC has released a checklist detailing the types of precautions necessary when dealing with a suspected case of Ebola for healthcare organizations and workers. The pentagon has a strike team prepared who's sole job is dealing with reported cases of Ebola anywhere in the US. Clearly there are measures in place to deal with reported cases within our borders, despite the shortfall of a select few healthcare workers in recent weeks. The New York Times published an interesting article last week about the partisan divide between people who believe in the government's ability to handle Ebola cases in the US vs those who don't, finding that fewer republicans than democrats have faith in the federal government's capacity to protect us from the virus.

Whatever your opinion on our government's level of preparedness, the facts are what they are. The low number of Ebola infections in the US should speak for themselves. Fear is the correct response to an outbreak of this magnitude anywhere in the world, however the sensationalizing of this tragic event into the hot button news story of the month is extremely unproductive. To summarize my point, I will leave you all with this video of Shepard Smith in which he addresses the rumors and hysteria surrounding Ebola. Enjoy!


*UPDATED 10/29/14
Kaci Hickox, a nurse in Maine who was recently quarantined for possibly being infected with the ebola virus has made claims that she will go to court to defend her right to refuse normal quarantine procedures, claiming that they violate her constitutional rights. The state of Maine claims that they are willing to enforce the quarantine legally. I wonder what kind of precedent this will set for future cases of this nature? This case will be interesting to follow....

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Drone strikes

Evening Americans, 

Tonight I'll take a look into a widely-known yet often under-reported facet of American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict over the past decade - Drone Strikes. 




When the average American hears the word Predator Drone, a few key ideas are brought to mind. First and foremost comes the belief that unmanned drones are a relatively cheap, effective means of doing a risky job once undertaken by manned aircraft or foot soldiers. Second may be the idea that American drone strikes are performing a valuable service for the global community by ridding the world of terrorists from several thousand feet in the air. What Predator Drones and Drone strikes do not usually bring to mind however is this phrase: Civilian Casualties.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism's 'Naming the Dead Project', over 400 CIA drone strikes have taken place over the past decade, killing an estimated 2400 to around 3800 people in the tribal regions of northern Pakistan. The Bureau claims that 704 of those killed have been identified by name and either listed as a potential enemy combatant or a civilian. About one-fifth of those 704 names have been identified as civilians, with a significant portion of that number including women and children. To ask a rather disturbing question, if only 704 names out of almost 4000 have been identified, who were the other 3300?
 Keep in mind that this number is only representative of drone strikes in Pakistan. These numbers are completely separate from more recent strikes against ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq.



On his new show on HBO, Last Week Tonight, John Oliver talks a little bit about the suspicion and secrecy surrounding policy regarding drone strikes.



While Oliver brings up several disturbingly subversive aspects of the US government's policy towards Drone Strikes, there is still more that he does not discuss. Not only have rules been set forth to stem the flow of civilian deaths from these air strikes, but the Obama administration has declared that these rules will not matter in the government's fight against ISIS. In essence the US military has taken off its own leash in relation to aerial drone strikes; a leash which, for the most part, has been ineffective in the first place.

So why aren't we hearing more about this? Drone strikes under the Obama administration have reached an all time high, as has their approval rating, but honestly, much like Mr. Oliver's research team, I found it fairly difficult to get a real grasp on the total number of drone strike deaths in the middle east over the past decade. Furthermore, the criteria for conducting drone strikes seems to be getting more and more convoluted as time goes on.

What do you guys think? Are the nature of these attacks warranted? Is reform necessary or even possible at this point? It would seem to me that this is just another extension of the military authority of the United States in its never-ending quest for the power to police the entire world, even if it means the lives and peace of mind of (literally) countless civilians.