Interesting Links for 14-06-2012

[andrewducker]

• Coventry launches electric bus services
  (tags: uk buses electricity )
• Goodfellas mobster Henry Hill dies aged 69
  (tags: movies mafia )
• The BBC block UK access to some pages produced by BBC Worldwide. What the fucking fuck?
  (tags: uk bbc EpicFail )
• Some interesting discussion/analysis of the new top level domain applications.
  (tags: internet google amazon )
• An editor explains how ebook licensing works, and why you can only buy most ebooks in some countries.
  (tags: publishing ebooks )
• Is the Guardian the most bigoted newspaper in Britain?
  (tags: uk media guardian bigotry palestine israel )
• What happens when the DRM on digital projectors kicks in (a terrible tool-chain)
  (tags: drm copyright movies digital )
• 35mm Film is About to Die – Studios Plan to Go With All Digital Projection by 2014
  (tags: digital cinema )
• The govt’s work programmes are pure exploitation: here’s the evidence (anyone got some counter-evidence?)
  (tags: welfare work uk politics )
• Skype to feature massive in-call ads. Microsoft tries to sell this as a _good_ thing.
  (tags: skype microsoft advertising )
• Chinese mindfulness meditation improves brain white matter and mood.
  (tags: psychology emotion brains meditation )
• Windows Phone market share expected to surpass Apple's iOS in 2016 (expected, in this case, by analysts on crack)
  (tags: windows microsoft mobile_phones apple )

Comments

Re: Is the Guardian the most bigoted newspaper in Britain?

[steer.livejournal.com]

I think the article about the guardian massively overstated the case here. I mean it is "published uncritically" -- in the sense that there's no editorial "beware, here be dragons"... however, what he published does not appear to deserve such editorialising in any case.

The original article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/palestinians-reclaiming-our-destiny

On the other hand, the article linked does go some way to mislead, for example, including the Hamas constitutional promise to wipe out Israel without including Ismail Haniyeh's statement that he would be willing to accept a peace based around the 67 borders. So they include a general statement from the party without including the much more conciliatory statement by the author they are criticising.

Then take
“ We do not want more blood. We want help in achieving justice for our people who lost their land and freedom decades ago, and in providing security for a region that has long endured oppression and suffering.“

All lies, of course. Israel has never attempted to wipe out the Palestinians.

I find it hard to believe that even the most pro-Israeli viewpoint could deny that at least some Palestinians lost some land. Weirdly the writer counters instead by refuting an allegation the author does not make (he nowhere claims that the Israeli's tried to wipe out the Palestinians).

So, I guess I risk the accusation of a typical left-liberal bias to Palestine, but I found the article being criticised was much more even-handed than the article crticising it.