What's happening in the middle east?

[Aliantha]

This is a question my husband asked me last night after I gave him a bit of a run down on current events.

I was a bit surprised to have to say to him that I didn't really know because everyone's so worried about the World Financial Crisis (WFO) that no one seems to care much about the middle east atm.

So, is the fact that everyone's losing money more important than people being killed in far off foreign countries?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

So, is the fact that everyone's losing money more important than people being killed in far off foreign countries?

In the US, yes.

[Aliantha]

Well obviously in Australia too. I can't remember the last news report on the middle east or 'the war on terror' on TV or in the first few pages of the paper.

[classicman]

Probably because the going well and that would be a political plus for the Reps and the media is too busy promoting Obama.

Just a thought.

[Aliantha]

I think there are a combination of reasons, but obviously the financial crisis is heading up every news broadcast. The US election usually takes second place even here in Australia, then it's what Australia's government is doing about the financial crisis, then it's usually something about teen crime on the Gold Coast.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Probably because the going well and that would be a political plus for the Reps and the media is too busy promoting Obama.

It's not a liberal bias. It's a bias towards reporting the news. If there is no news coming out of the mid-east because there are no attacks, then they won't do a report on the mid-east. They will report on something else, like the stock market losing a lot again yesterday.

They don't read a list of all the places in the world where everything is just fine and there's no violence or strife, they focus on the places where there are problems. You know, news.

[Sundae]

News from the Middle East is still in our broadsheets, it's just not front page.
For example I know a British soldier has been killed in Afghanistan today.

We probably heard more about Iceland than you did in America because it's part of Europe, and so they are effectively our neighbours. Also because we've given them a £100m loan. Also because in some quarters, Dalring is blamed for the run on the Kaupthing bank and effectively setting off this whole chain of events...

The US election is usually about the third item on the news and that's stayed the same.

But people here are worried about putting food on the table, fuel in their cars and keeping warm this winter. If money can just be wiped out, can just disappear, can you be sure you'll get your wages this week, this month? IS your money in the bank safe? Why is the tax payer having to bail out banks when the banks are where the money is kept?

Every day since I moved, I walk past a little local branch of the Halifax (Building Society). At any time between 09.00 and 09.30. This week there has been a queue of approx 10 people waiting for it to open at 09.30. There wasn't last week. I can only assume they are there to draw money out, as a safeguard.

People are scared, and the news bias reflects that.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's not a liberal bias. It's a bias towards reporting the news. If there is no news coming out of the mid-east because there are no attacks, then they won't do a report on the mid-east. They will report on something else, like the stock market losing a lot again yesterday.

They don't read a list of all the places in the world where everything is just fine and there's no violence or strife, they focus on the places where there are problems. You know, news.

There is a clue buried in here about human nature, I just can't put my finger on it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's not a liberal bias. It's a bias towards reporting the news. If there is no news coming out of the mid-east because there are no attacks, then they won't do a report on the mid-east. They will report on something else, like the stock market losing a lot again yesterday.

They don't read a list of all the places in the world where everything is just fine and there's no violence or strife, they focus on the places where there are problems. You know, news.

Sure it is a liberal bias. If there are no plethora of deaths and dying Americans or dying inocent civilians at the hads of Americans which they can use to bash the current administration or tie the events to McCain then it serves no purpose to report on anything. If there was no bias they would report on the positive progress, the change in attitudes, and the increasing responsibility of the elected government in Iraq taking increasing responsibility.

[Shawnee123]

Bullshit. If everything were turned around, and the war belonged to the Democrats, the reporting of the events would not change: it would not all of a sudden become all sweetness and light in order to promote this so-called liberal bias.

"Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down.
We love dirty laundry."

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sure it is a liberal bias. If there are no plethora of deaths and dying Americans or dying inocent civilians at the hads of Americans which they can use to bash the current administration or tie the events to McCain then it serves no purpose to report on anything. If there was no bias they would report on the positive progress, the change in attitudes, and the increasing responsibility of the elected government in Iraq taking increasing responsibility.

Well, I suppose you'd know about bias. You have a raging case of conservative bias, yourself. Did you ever stop to think that there might be a big huge world out there, full of complexities and issues far beyond whatever you dreamed of in your little parochial philosophies?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If there was no bias they would report on the positive progress, the change in attitudes, and the increasing responsibility of the elected government in Iraq taking increasing responsibility.

The Washington Post a month or so ago did a big story on the reduction of deaths. It ran a big chart and everything.

Are they supposed to report every day that there are still no new deaths happening in Iraq?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Are they supposed to report every day that there are still no new deaths happening in Iraq?

Absolutely! Why not? They, and many others reported daily that death toll, why not report ZERO deaths everyday too? Or the state of things or some pieces about what is going on. The lives of the people in Iraq? Improvements, progress... if any. Whatever is going on there. Then again maybe nothing is happening. I don't know, but I'd like to - and thats my point.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then again maybe nothing is happening. I don't know, but I'd like to - and thats my point.

I think even Michael Yon left Iraq because there is nothing going on to report.

[classicman]

This is interesting and seems potentially newsworthy.

UPDATE: Iraq Lays Out Plans For First Oil-Bid Round
Dow Jones
October 13, 2008: 03:03 PM EST

(Adds comments from oil minister and U.S. oil company official; details on licensing round, production targets and provincial elections; and background)

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani laid out details Monday of the country's first- ever oil licensing round, and said the national government will have firm control over several oil fields that will be jointly developed with foreign companies.

Shahristani said Iraqi state-run entities will have 51% control in projects to rehabilitate six oil fields already producing crude and two natural gas fields yet to be developed. Foreign companies will have 49% in projects and operate under fee-based service contracts.

Shahristani, in London to address companies on details of the licensing round, made clear that Iraq wants to move fast with the licensing round after endless delays getting its oil sector back on its feet since the end of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Foreign companies are expected to submit bids within six months and the government wants deals in place by June. Only the Iraqi cabinet, not the Iraqi parliament, will get to approve whatever deals end up being signed, he said.

"We can't afford any more delays," Shahristani told journalists after meeting officials from 35 oil companies earlier in the day.

Shahristani said the profits companies made depended on how efficiently they run their operations and how much added crude production they're able to help state-run companies squeeze from the existing fields. He wouldn't specify what type of financial fees companies stood to gain for their work.

Baghdad hopes contracts for the fields, which are expected to run for 20 years, will help boost the country's crude production capacity to 4.5 million barrels a day by 2012 from 2.5 million barrels a day now.

The details of Iraq's first licensing round come at a time when security in Iraq has improved greatly over the past year.

But political uncertainty abounds.

Iraq is expected to soon hold provincial elections, which could unleash violence. Iraq is also moving forward with the licensing round despite having no federal oil law in place, a sign of the angst Iraq's government has in boosting oil production and oil revenue. The proposed federal oil law has been delayed by almost two years due to bickering between the Northern Kurds and Baghdad over issues such as who should control which oil fields and whether the Kurds should be allowed to sign their own oil deals.