The move will boost the prime minister’s governing coalition domestically as Israel attacks countries across the region.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that his former rival Gideon Saar is joining the Israeli cabinet, a move that will boost the government coalition and bolster its support in the country’s parliament.
The hawkish Saar will serve as a minister without a portfolio, the prime minister said on Sunday.
Saar’s inclusion in the government coalition takes its support in the 120-seat Israeli parliament from 64 to 68, weakening the de facto veto power that far-right parties have over the cabinet.
The move comes as Israel intensifies its attacks on Lebanon, Gaza and across the Middle East in what is increasingly looking like a wider regional war.
Saar had been one of Netanyahu’s most vocal critics in recent years, but the Israeli prime minister suggested that the two politicians have been on the same page since the start of the war on Gaza.
“Gideon accepted my request and agreed to return to the government,” Netanyahu said in a joint statement, as reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
“During security cabinet discussions, I was deeply impressed by Saar’s broad vision and his ability to offer creative solutions to complex problems. On more than one occasion, we have seen eye to eye on the necessary actions. It’s no secret that we’ve had our differences in the past, but since October 7, we have both put all past grievances behind us.”
For his part, Saar said described the decision to join the government as “the patriotic and right thing to do now”.
“At this time, it is crucial to strengthen Israel, its government, and the unity and cohesion within it,” he said.
Earlier this month, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu was considering replacing Defence Minister Yoav Gallant with Saar. Haaretz and Ynet also reported that Saar and Netanyahu were jointly going to pick the new Israeli army chief to replace Herzi Halevi.
A former lawyer and journalist, Saar was first brought into politics 20 years ago by Netanyahu, who made him his cabinet secretary during his first term in office.
He was considered a rising star in Netanyahu’s Likud Party and one of the few independent voices in a party that has largely been synonymous with the prime minister and his policies.
Saar defected from Likud after unsuccessfully challenging Netanyahu for the party’s leadership. Late in 2020, Saar formed his own political movement – dubbed New Hope.
Expanding the government will likely strengthen Netanyahu by making him less reliant on other members of his coalition.
Busy weeknights call for a quick sheet pan dinner.
Tender chicken breast pieces are baked with veggies and then broiled with a sprinkle of crispy parmesan cheese.
One baking sheet is all you need to get perfectly roasted chicken and veggies, and cleanup is a cinch.
Chicken sheet pan dinners are wholesome, healthy, and easy to customize.
Great for big families and big feasts. Serve with noodles and a simple salad, and let everyone help themselves.
Serve all week long as workday lunches and reheat and eat dinners.
Ingredients and Variations
Chicken: Chicken breasts, chicken thighs, or even chicken drumsticks can be used in a sheet pan dinner. For extra flavor toss in some slices of summer sausage too.
Vegetables: Potatoes, peas, and fresh or frozen mixed veggies are perfect in a sheet pan dinner. Mushrooms, halved Brussels sprouts, corn cobs cut into bite-size pieces, thick coins of zucchini, asparagus, and chunks of red onion and red bell peppers will all caramelize nicely and bring on new flavors.
Seasoning: Homemade seasoned salt and Italian seasoning are quick and easy to make and the ingredients can be adjusted to suit your preference. Or toss chicken and veggies in a zesty Adobo blend and serve with warm tortillas and wedges of lime.
Variations: This recipe is perfect for using what you’ve got! Mix up the proteins and use salmon or shrimp for an old-fashioned shrimp boil, or use leftover beef or pork.
How to Make a Sheet Pan Dinner
Season potatoes and bake them on a baking sheet.
Toss vegetables (except peas) and chicken in with seasoning and oil.
Roast chicken and vegetables with the potatoes (recipe below).
Add thawed peas. Sprinkle with parmesan cheese and broil.
Holly’s Best Tips and Tricks
Prep the pan with parchment paper for faster cleanup.
Don’t crowd the pan. If necessary, use two sheet pans
Chop potatoes, carrots, and squash into uniform sizes so they cook evenly.
Starchy veggies like potatoes, squash, and carrots need to be cooked a little first, but you can prep the rest of the dish ahead.
Keep leftovers in a covered container in the refrigerator for up to 4 days.
More Easy Sheet Pan Meals
Did you enjoy this Sheet Pan Dinner recipe? Leave a comment and rating below!
No ratings yet↑ Click stars to rate now! Or to leave a comment, click here!
Sheet Pan Chicken and Vegetables
For a one-pan easy-to-make meal, try this sheet-pan dinner recipe!
Prep Time 13 minutesminutes
Cook Time 36 minutesminutes
Total Time 49 minutesminutes
Prevent your screen from going dark
Preheat the oven to 400°F.
Toss potatoes with 1 tablespoon olive oil and seasoned salt. Place on a rimmed baking sheet and roast for 20 minutes.
Meanwhile, in a large bowl, combine the seasoning mix ingredients and 1 tablespoon of olive oil. Add the vegetables (except for the peas) and chicken pieces and toss well to coat.
Stir the potatoes on the pan and arrange the chicken and vegetables around the potatoes. Return to the oven and roast for an additional 14 to 18 minutes or until the vegetables are tender and the chicken is cooked through.
Sprinkle with the thawed peas and parmesan cheese and broil on high heat 4 inches from the broiler for 2 minutes.
Lemon pepper can be salty. Taste your seasoning and if it doesn’t have enough salt, add additional salt to the mixture. For the vegetables choose any of the following: zucchini sliced ½-inch thick, sliced bell pepper, cherry tomatoes, snap peas, asparagus spears cut in thirds. If the asparagus is thin, add for the last 10 minutes of cooking time. Leftovers will keep in the refrigerator for up to 4 days.
Three years ago, he primarily played on the Alps Tour, two levels below the DP World Tour, and therefore did not have the eligibility to qualify for and play in the Spanish Open. But he still decided to go to Madrid to watch Jon Rahm play from outside the ropes. The opportunity to watch Rahm on his home soil comes only once or twice a year, so Hidalgo did not want to miss this chance to see the best Spanish player of his generation.
While watching Rahm then, he had his own aspirations, hoping he would join him on this stage someday. He finally did so. But he never could have imagined what transpired this week. Hidalgo defeated Rahm in a two-hole playoff to win the Spanish Open, marking his first DP World Tour title.
“Insane,” Hidalgo said.
“Absolutely insane.”
It did not come easy.
Hidalgo slept on the 54-hole lead, holding a two-shot advantage over Rahm, the two-time major champion who doubles as one of the best players in the world. But it all came down to the 18th hole, where Hidalgo still held a one-shot advantage. Rahm had just birdied the par-3 17th to cut the deficit to one, putting all the pressure on Hidalgo.
The final hole at Club de Campo Villa de Madrid measures only 322 yards, meaning both Hidalgo and Rahm could drive the green. After launching their drives around the putting surface, Rahm chipped his approach to about six feet while Hidalgo knocked his to roughly four feet away. Being the world-class player he is, Rahm stepped up and drained his putt, which tied Hidalgo at 14-under. That set the stage for Hidalgo to try to win his national open with a short birdie try, but it was not meant to be in regulation. He hit a nervy stroke that did not sniff the hole, and off to extra holes they went.
The DP World Tour sent them back to the 18th tee for the first playoff hole, which he and Rahm capitalized on. Both players made birdies, which included Hidalgo making a five-footer. His make reinstilled his confidence and erased the memory of what transpired on the 72nd hole.
They then returned to the 18th tee for a second playoff hole. Hidalgo hit his drive into a great position just off the green while Rahm missed well left, his ball nestling in a buried lie on a downhill slope. Rahm then chipped his ball over the green while Hidalgo knocked his chip 18 inches away, thus guaranteeing the victory.
“I was pretty relaxed all day, even the first tee. I don’t know why,” Hidalgo said after.
“Even when I missed the short putt on hole 72, I was not discouraged that I stroked that bad of a ball.”
He kept his composure and did not get discouraged. He operated the same way early on, too, when it looked like David Puig might run away with it thanks to his hot start.
“To be honest, on the eighth tee, I thought Puig was going to win the tournament by eight because he was hitting amazing, and Jon and myself made a few mistakes,” Hidalgo said.
“I played a pretty smart game, and pretty good game, and I stroked my putter well, so yeah, I’m happy. And especially with beating Jon, he’s probably the most important player in the last 20 years or 30 years in Spain.”
But it’s the people and stories behind the player that make these maiden underdog victories memorable and incredible.
Hidalgo dedicated this win to his late Grandfather, who passed away a few years ago. He would have turned 80 years old on Saturday, but he received a picture-perfect birthday present up in heaven from his grandson, who he is no doubt smiling upon.
Hidalgo’s parents also traveled to Madrid by train on Sunday to watch their son compete among the world’s best. His best friend and coach did as well.
“Winning at home, winning a Spanish Open with all the support there has been. You could tell how much he felt it and how important it was for him,” Rahm said of Hidalgo’s win.
“May he learn from these moments and enjoy them.”
It does not get better for Spanish golf than what happened on Sunday. Rahm competed against and played alongside two young Spaniards in the final pairing of their national open. It then went to a playoff, and David defeated Goliath, putting Hidalgo into a joyful shock as tears streamed down his face.
Rahm, meanwhile, knows that feeling well, falling just short of a fourth Spanish Open title.
“I gave myself a chance to win, which is what I wanted. I gave it my all until the end, and I’m proud of myself,” Rahm said.
“But having a final like this, no matter who wins, helps those kids who were watching here or on TV to want to try playing golf to experience moments like today’s.”
Jack Milko is a golf staff writer for SB Nation’s Playing Through. Be sure to check out @_PlayingThroughfor more golf coverage. You can follow him on Twitter @jack_milko as well.
Why Don’t Poor Countries Have Emission Reduction Targets?
Global warming is primarily a result of the industrialization and motorization levels in the OECD countries, on whom the main onus for mitigation presently lies.
It has long been accepted that those industrialized nations that have been industrializing since the Industrial Revolution bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades.
With a bit of historical context then, claims of equity and fairness take on a different meaning than simply suggesting all countries should be reducing emissions by the same amount. But some industrialized nations appear to reject or ignore this premise.
However, what Washington has not mention is that the developing nations are NOT the ones who have caused the pollution for the past 150 or so years and that it would be unfair to ask them to cut back at for the mistakes of the currently industrialized nations.
Today’s Rich nations are responsible for global warming
Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for decades. It is rarely mentioned in Western mainstream media, but has been known for a while, as the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) noted back in 2002:
Industrialized countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the industrialized countries’ emissions are still present in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs.
As the above-mentioned WRI report also adds: Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.
As the above-mentioned CSE also adds:
Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still significantly lower than that of industrialized countries. The difference in emissions between industrialized and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equaled that of 19 Indians.
(The slight difference in emissions capita quoted by the sources above are due to the differences in the date of the data and the changes that had taken place between.)
Furthermore, many emissions in countries such as India and China are from rich country corporations out-sourcing production to these countries. Products are then exported or sold to the rich. Yet, currently, the blame for such emissions are put on the producer not the consumer. It is not a clear-cut issue though, as some producers create products and try to market them to consumers to buy, while other times, there is a market/consumer demand for certain products. Companies who can try to avoid more regulation and higher wages in richer countries may attempt to off-shore such production. As discussed on this site’s consumption section, some 80% of the world’s resources are consumed by the wealthiest 20% of the world (the rich countries). This portion has been higher in the past, suggesting that those countries should therefore bear the brunt of the targets. This issue is discussed in more detail in various part of this site’s trade and economic issues section.
Developing countries will also be tackling climate change in other ways
Furthermore, many developing nations are already providing voluntary cuts and as they become larger polluters, they too will be subject to reduction mechanisms.
These and many, many other related issues have hardly received detailed coverage either at all, or at least at the same time as the coverage of US reasons for backing out of Kyoto. Hence it is understandable why many US citizens would agree with the Bush Administration’s position on this, for example.
See this site’s section on climate change negotiations and actions and trade related issues for more on some of these aspects.
At the time of the end of the CoP-8 climate change conference, what appears to be a change in principle by the European Union, towards the position of the developing countries has emerged. That is, as Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) comments, Denmark, currently president of the European Union, announced yesterday [October 31, 2002] that developing countries would not get any money for adapting to climate change until they start discussing reduction commitments. Not only can this be described as blackmail, as CSE also highlight, but in addition, rich nations themselves have shied away from their commitments, amounting to hypocrisy.
As CSE continued, Adaptation funds have been on the negotiations agenda for several years now. Industrialized countries, including progressive countries like Denmark, have run away from committing anything concrete, and developing countries have not been able to pin down any liability on them. (CSE has also been critical of leaders in developing countries who are equally to blame for encouraging the perception that they can be bought appearing to respond to money only such, giving an opportunity for some rich nations to exploit that.)
Economics and political agendas always makes it difficult to produce a treaty that all nations can agree to easily. The wealthier and more powerful nations are naturally able to exert more political clout and influence. The US, for example, has pushed for different solutions that will allow it to maintain its dominance. An example of that is trading in emissions, which has seen a number of criticisms.
The way current climate change negotiations have been going unfortunately suggests the developed world will position themselves to use the land of the developing and poor nations to further their own emissions reduction, while leaving few such easy options for the South, as summarized by the following as well:
Investments in carbon sinks (such as large-scale tree plantations) in the South would result in land being used at the expense of local people, accelerate deforestation, deplete water resources and increase poverty. Entitling the North to buy cheap emission credits from the South, through projects of an often exploitative nature, constitutes carbon colonialism. Industrialised countries and their corporations will harvest the low-hanging fruit (the cheapest credits), saddling Southern countries with only expensive options for any future reduction commitments they might be required to make.
This web site’s section on the Kyoto conference that looks more at the issue of developing countries and the US position.
Climate Justice from CorpWatch heavily criticizes corporate interests and influence in climate negotiations.
Christian Aid goes as far as criticizing the Kyoto protocol as a fraud because of the unfairness by rich countries. As they point out:
4.5 per cent of the world’s population lives in the USA and emits 22 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
17 per cent of the world’s population lives in India and emits 4.2 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
Britain emits 9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, while Honduras emits 0.7 tonnes per person.
The world’s poorest countries account for just 0.4 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. 45 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions are produced by the G8 countries alone.
EcoEquity provides a number of articles and commentary.
As a local and major foodie, here are all my restaurant recommendations for Kelowna, BC!
Kelowna has such a vibrant food and wine scene, and I am grateful to have so many great eateries in my backyard. I’ve rounded up some of my favourite places to eat at (I will make sure to keep adding to the list!), with a little something for everybody. Enjoy!
Where to Eat in Kelowna
Roma Nord
My favourite little eatery is Roma Nord. Italian owners Danilo and Angela (she does the cooking) are hard-working, kind, and the very best hosts. Danilo takes the extra time to get to know you and is always there greeting customers, pouring drinks… this place is good for the soul, and the Italian food is just incredible. You can’t go wrong with anything on their menu, but the Ricotta and Spinach Ravioli is to die for, and we always start the meal with the Burrata appetizer. Ask Danilo for his favourite Italian wine – so good! Tip: I recommend making a reservation and if it’s warm out, the patio is wonderful.
The Old Vines Restaurant at Quails’ Gate Winery
I love visiting The Old Vines Restaurant at Quails’ Gate Winery for an elevated dining experience. In my opinion, enjoying a meal at a winery is the best way to truly enjoy the wine! The menu is exceptional – this is a place Charles and I love to sneak away to for a date night! Like most winery restaurants, they source from local farms and suppliers and highlight what is in season.
The Terrace Restaurant at Mission Hill Winery
It doesn’t get more quintessential Okanagan wine country, than a stop at Mission Hill Family Estate Winery. Their Terrace Restaurant, open in the warmer months, is nothing short of stunning, with panoramic lake views.
Home Block Restaurant at Cedar Creek Winery
A Kelowna wine experience wouldn’t be complete with a stop at Cedar Creek and a meal at their restaurant Home Block. Trust me, it’s a world class experience. Consider arranging a ride (taxi or uber), enjoy the wine paired dinner menu, and end the night with the Sticky Toffee Pudding dessert! You’re welcome. The rock work and landscaping always makes me feel like I’ve escaped to Europe!
Cantina Del Centro
In the heart of downtown you’ll find this Mexican spot, Cantina Del Centro. I love any of their street tacos, and a good margarita (the Coconut Habanero Margarita is A+)! This is a great casual spot, good vibes, and 70+ types of tequila and mezcal.
Bernie’s
Bernie’s is such a fun spot to try! Their Supper Club has the coolest atmosphere, excellent bar, and the yummiest Pesto Fries. For something even more unique, book a show in their Cinema, where you can also enjoy eats and drinks! Such a unique experience.
King Taps
King Taps is a true ‘there’s something for everyone‘ type of restaurant. Waterfront views, a casual atmosphere, and a killer patio in the summertime. This is a spot I love to go with the whole family! Try the pizza…. so good!
Frankie We Salut You
Frankie We Salut You is an incredible vegan restaurant (which you by no means need to be to dine there) that is bursting with flavourful plant-based food, regional wine, craft beer, and seasonally inspired cocktails. Plus, it’s pretty darn cute inside! Home to exciting dishes like Cauliflower Wings, Vegan Sushi, Chickpea Fries, and the Frankie Cheeseburger (which I LOVED), to name a few. Oh and their mocktail lemonades are amazing, and so refreshing!
OEB
Craving brunch? OEB is where it’s at! Located in downtown, this is a family-friendly breakfast joint that has something for your sweet or savoury tooth. Tip: I don’t recommend trying to walk-in on a weekend. You can check the wait times & put your name placed on a virtual waitlist, or make a reservation by using the Yelp App. It’s a well-loved spot and is busy for good reason! The menu is large so if you don’t know where to start, their breakfast bowls are iconic, and you might as well wash it down with a mimosa flight!
Hotel Eldorado
The Hotel Eldorado is a charming hotel with some seriously unobstructed water views, with a few great dining options. They have an award-winning Lakeside Dining Room, Eldorado Lounge, Whisky Room (you can book private whiskey tastings!) and a sun-drenched Boardwalk overlooking Okanagan Lake and the mountains. If you’re visiting in the summer and looking for something casual, try to get a spot on the boardwalk right beside the marina! Their cocktail menu is also legendary, with the yummiest boozy slushies!
Sprout
My favourite coffee shop in Kelowna! Sprout is more than just coffee, it is baked goods and casual breakfast and lunch options. Try to grab a seat outside, and do NOT leave without some freshly baked bread or a croissant (or two).
Diner Deluxe
Diner Deluxe is a trendy and popular brunch spot, a stone throw from Gyro beach. The menu is full of comfort food for breakfast, brunch & lunch. Don’t be surprised if there is a line-up to get in – especially for weekend brunch. The wait is worth it, and you can always relax at the beach across the street while you wait!
Cactus Club Kelowna
I just love Cactus Club. No matter what city I am in, I feel like we end up at a Cactus. It is delicious, reliable and kid-friendly. The downtown Kelowna location can’t be beat! It’s right along the water, with a big indoor/outdoor patio, perfect for watching boats on the lake, and people on the boardwalk. The menu gets new features seasonally, but some tried-and-true favourite’s I always love are the Poke Bowl, Raincoast Greens Salad, Szechuan Lettuce Wraps, and anything on their fun cocktail list…
Moxie’s Kelowna
Moxie’s Kelowna is newly-renovated, with a super cute and bright interior. This is a great family-friendly lunch, happy hour, dinner or late-night, spot. I recently ordered the Avocado & Bacon Cobb Salad and left one happy camper!!
BNA Brewing
BNA Brewing is a Kelowna local watering hole. Nestled in the walls of a century old building, you will find a craft brewery, an eatery with eclectic comfort food, and a bowling alley. Kids can be there until 10pm, at which point the brewery becomes a super fun evening hangout hot spot. Next door in their tasting room you can grab an insanely tasty BNA Burger and try some of their craft beer.
OAK + CRU Social Kitchen & Wine Bar
It really doesn’t get more waterfront than OAK + CRU. If you are from out of town and staying at the Delta Hotel, then this restaurant is in the lobby – woohoo! The views are memorable, with a fantastic patio right beside a lagoon, and a menu with something for everyone. This is a super family-friendly spot!
Gather
Gather is a Korean & Italian restaurant (isn’t that an awesome combo?), located at the base of the Innovation Center in downtown Kelowna. I love going there for a casual lunch, but they also have a dinner menu, great wine list and atmosphere. They have an open kitchen (which I love) so you can enjoy seeing the kitchen action! I am going to make a couple menu recommendations: you MUST try the fried tofu, and fried gnocchi.
Humo Izakay
Humo Izakaya is a contemporary Asian and Latin dining experience with a range of globally inspired tapas & larger sharing plates. This is a great spot to get some seafood! Their cocktail list is so thoughtfully curated and featuring world-renowned & artisanal Mezcals, Japanese Whiskies, Tequilas, Sake & more.
Ships-A-Hoy Fish & Chips
Ships A-Hoy is a little family-owned fish and chips restaurant just outside of West Kelowna in Peachland, approximately a 20-minute drive. They’re located right across from the beach and two local parks (Heritage Park and Cenotaph Park), making it the perfect takeout location. Their batter, tartar sauce, coleslaw, and fresh-cut chips are all made in-house, and bonus—the batter is gluten-free!
Miss Grand Philippines 2024: CJ Opiaza, Sophia Santos, Alexandra Rosales in Top 5. Image: Screengrab from YouTube/GrandPhTV
The Miss Grand Philippines 2024 is approaching its final stage as the national pageant announced the five candidates who advanced to the question-and-answer portion.
After the swimsuit, evening gown, and speech to promote peace, here are the candidates who were announced as the Top 5 on the early morning of Monday, Sept. 30, at the Newport Performing Arts Theater in Pasay City:
Article continues after this advertisement
CJ Opiaza (Castillejos, Zambales)
Sophia Bianca Santos (Pampanga)
Jubilee Therese Acosta (Manila)
Anna Margaret Mercado (Quirino)
Alexandra Mae Rosales (Laguna)
The candidates showed grace under pressure at the question-and-answer portion after taking on topics of the West Philippine Sea and whether women are better peacemakers than men, among other topics.
One of the candidates will be chosen as the winner of the Miss Grand Philippines 2024 and the country’s representative to the Miss Grand International 2024 pageant in Bangkok, Thailand on October 25.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
At least nine people, including a child, have been confirmed dead and 27 rescued after a shipwreck off the Spanish coast.
Patrol boats and helicopters are searching for 48 refugees and migrants missing after their boat sank near the Spanish island of El Hierro, but officials say hopes of finding survivors are fading.
Nine people, one of them a child, have been confirmed dead after the incident in the early hours of Saturday morning, emergency and rescue services said. Rescuers were able to pick up 27 of 84 people who were trying to reach El Hierro, the westernmost of the Canary Islands.
A spokeswoman for the Canary Islands government told Reuters news agency on Sunday that the search continues “but it seems that the chances of finding someone alive are slim”.
Canary Islands regional President Fernando Clavijo had told journalists on Saturday night that the 48 people missing are “presumed dead”.
More bodies will likely appear “over the next two, three days”, washed up by the current, he added.
People on the boat were from Mali, Mauritania and Senegal, Spanish authorities said. They set out from Nouadhibou in Mauritania, some 800km (nearly 500 miles) away.
Boat sinks during rescue attempt
Shortly after midnight on Saturday, Spanish emergency services received a call from the boat, which was located about four miles (6.5km) east of El Hierro.
It sank during the rescue attempt, they said, with wind and poor visibility making the rescue extremely difficult.
“After what happened yesterday and if the forecast for the arrival of the migrant boats happens, then it will be the biggest humanitarian crisis to happen to the Canary Islands in 30 years,” Canary Islands Minister of Social Welfare Candelaria Delgado told reporters on Sunday.
Three of those rescued suffered from hypothermia and dehydration, rescue services said.
The nine who died will be buried on Monday and Tuesday. Among the dead was a child aged between 12 and 15, according to the NGO Walking Borders, which helps refugees and migrants.
As hopes of finding more survivors diminished, police installed a morgue on El Hierro, authorities said.
Three other boats reached the Canary Islands during the night, carrying 208 people.
This disaster follows the deaths of 39 people in early September when their boat sank off Senegal while attempting a similar crossing to the Canaries, from where they apparently hoped to reach mainland Europe.
In some 30 years of refugee and migrant crossings to the islands, the deadliest shipwreck recorded to date occurred off the island of Lanzarote in 2009, when 25 people died.
This post was sponsored by General Mills. All opinions are my own.
Growing up in a household of five children wasn’t so easy. As the oldest child, mornings were usually a blur helping my mom dress and feed my younger siblings, so cereal with milk and sliced fruit on top was our go to for a nourishing breakfast. My mom would have a glass jar and mix all the cereals together—so you get what you get and don’t get upset! But every day, thanks to this quick, easy, and nutritious breakfast, my mom was able to get all of us ready for school on time everyday.
As a registered dietitian (RD) and single mom with three children of my own, cereal has certainly come in handy for breakfast, snacks, and even for dinner. If you’ve scanned the nutrition facts panel, you can see that a variety of vitamins and minerals have been added to cereal – which is known as fortification. The addition of vitamins and minerals to cereal isn’t new and has been around for decades to help provide nourishment and close nutrient gaps that may exist for a variety of reasons, including food insecurity, an unhealthy diet, or even picky eating in kids. However, when I scan social media and speak with folks about cereal, so many inaccurate statements are made. I partnered with General Mills Big G Cereals because I wholeheartedly believe in the power of cereal to help nourish adults and kids.
In this post, I will address three common myths about vitamin fortification and specifically about vitamin D fortification.
Myth #1: The added vitamins and minerals in cereal are not as effective as naturally available nutrients
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), food fortification is the practice of deliberately increasing the content of one or more micronutrients (like vitamins and minerals) in a food to improve the nutrition quality of that food, and thereby providing a public health benefit with minimal risk to the person’s health. Throughout the 20th century, there were many common health problems in the US stemming from micronutrient deficiencies like goiter (from lack of iodine), rickets (from lack of vitamin D in kids), beriberi (from lack of thiamine), pellagra (from lack of niacin), and neural tube defects (from lack of folic acid). Since the initiation of fortification, these diseases have been virtually eliminated.
Cereal is an ideal food to fortify with vitamins and minerals because it is convenient, affordable, widely consumed by people in all stages of life, and has the ability to have a uniform distribution of nutrients. The vitamins and minerals that you find in fortified cereals play the same role within the body as the vitamins and minerals that are naturally found in foods.
In the 2020-2025 dietary guidelines for Americans, vitamin D was identified as an under consumed nutrient for all life stages. A staggering 96% of all Americans age 2 years and older fall short on this key nutrient. This is why General Mills now offers twice the amount of vitamin D in their Big G Cereals to help bridge this gap.
Honey Nut Cheerios Label courtesy of General Mills
There has been a debate about the effectiveness of synthetic and natural vitamins and minerals. Synthetic nutrients (or isolated nutrients) are usually made artificially, in an industrial process, while natural nutrients are obtained from whole food sources in the diet (like nuts, fruit, and vegetables). There has been research to determine if synthetic nutrients work the same way as natural nutrients in the body. A 2014 published study found that vitamin D supplement, when combined with calcium, improved bone health in older folks.
Bottom Line: Fortified cereals make for an easy and affordable way to help people get a delicious dose of essential vitamins and minerals as part of a balanced diet.
Myth #2:You can meet your vitamin D intake through sunlight alone
The two main ways you can get vitamin D are through sunlight and by eating food. But it’s tough for many folks to get sun exposure during the winter, in rainy areas, and on cloudy days. Your skin color also designates how much sun you need. Folks with darker skin need to spend more time in the sun to get enough exposure compared to folks with lighter skin. How much vitamin D you get also depends on how much clothing you’re wearing. If you’re bundled up, you’re not getting that much vitamin D!
Also, you can’t synthesize vitamin D by sitting indoors next to the window or when you’re wearing sunscreen. Plus, in today’s culture there is a lot of time being spent indoors in front of screens, using sunscreen, or sitting in the shade to avoid direct sunlight. Most folks will benefit from including vitamin D in their diet to supplement their limited sun exposure. That is why as an RD, I encourage the consumption of foods with vitamin D, including fortified milk, fortified 100% juices, and General Mills fortified Big G cereals (like Cheerios, Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms and more!), which now provide 20% of the Daily Value of vitamin D. That is twice the previous amount, making it an easy, affordable, and delicious way to up your vitamin D intake.
Bottom Line:Both sunlight and foods– including fortified foods– can help you meet your vitamin D needs.
Myth #3: You must get sun exposure to meet your vitamin D intake requirement
Vitamin D is known as the sunshine vitamin because exposure to sunlight is one source of it. However, many folks believe that you must get a certain amount of sun exposure to get enough vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight is not always possible and has been linked to cancer. But did you know that you can also get vitamin D by eating foods rich in vitamin D and a vitamin D3 supplement? The caveat is that many foods rich in vitamin D aren’t foods folks eat on a regular basis, like fatty fish, sardines, egg yolks, and mushrooms. This is exactly the reason why vitamin D was added to foods like milk, orange juice, and grains.
General Mills Big G cereals, which are made from whole grains, are fortified with vitamin D to help fill the nutrient gap as it is under consumed by most of the U.S. population. General Mills Big G Cereals now deliver 20% of the Daily Value for vitamin D—which is twice the previous amount — to help take in this important nutrient in an affordable and delicious way. You’ll find some of your favorite childhood cereals including Cheerios, Cocoa Puffs (my fave!), Trix, and Lucky Charms now with 20% of the Daily Value of vitamin D. General Mills follows dietary intake of our current U.S. population and has updated these cereals to reflect what our current population needs to help close the vitamin D gap.
Bottom Line:You don’t need sunlight to get enough vitamin D. Many foods are a good source including fatty fish, sardines, egg yolks, milk, fortified 100% juices and General Mills Big G Cereals.
Game status: A.J. Brown is INACTIVE for Week 4 vs. the Bucs.
After injuring his hamstring back in Week 1, Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver A.J. Brown will be looking to make his return on Sunday. Brown injured his hamstring in practice prior to Week 2 and has not played since. With a big game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Week 4, Brown returning to the lineup would provide a huge boost to the Eagles offense.
A.J. Brown Injury Status
According to NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport, Brown is officially being listed as questionable for Sunday’s game against the Buccaneers. For the first time since injuring his hamstring back on September 13 preparing for Week 2, Brown was able to practice in a limited capacity. While he was unable to practice fully, testing the hamstring the practice before a game is a positive sign. Now, it will depend on how Brown’s hamstring responds and if he feels good heading into the game on Sunday.
While Brown would certainly provide a boost to the offense, hamstring injuries have been proven to linger throughout a season. It’s possible that the Eagles could play it safe with Brown as they have their bye next week. This would give their star wide receiver an extra week to ensure that his hamstring is 100 percent.
What does AJ Brown’s injury mean for fantasy football
Brown started the season as many would have expected in Week 1 against the Green Bay Packers. He had five receptions for 119 yards and a touchdown, finishing the week as the WR7. However, Brown has been unable to play since and the Eagles offense hasn’t been the same without the wide receiver in the lineup. Philadelphia lost without Brown to the Atlanta Falcons and then snuck out a win against the New Orleans Saints last week, scoring just 15 points.
The added twist here is that the Eagles will also be without wide receiver DeVonta Smith on Sunday as he is recovers from a concussion. If Brown is unable to go in Week 4, the Eagles would be down their top two wide receivers. That would make Jahan Dotson and Johnny Wilson the starters at wide receiver.
Prior to the beginning of the season, the Eagles traded for Dotson, a former first-round pick, from the Washington Commanders. This would be a huge opportunity for the wide receiver out of Penn State.
Still, it’s hard to know if Dotson would have any fantasy relevance. When Smith left the game last week, Hurts leaned heavily on tight end Dallas Goedart. Goedart finished with 10 receptions for 170-yards. That would likely be the case against the Buccaneers as well.
The Eagles also seemed to find something last week with running back Saquon Barkley. Barkley scored on a 65-yard touchdown run against the Saints and had 17 carries for 147 yards. Without their top two wide receivers, the Eagles could rely heavily on Barkley and Jalen Hurts in the game. In last week’s loss to the Denver Broncos, the Buccaneers allowed running back Tyler Badie to rush for 70 yards on nine carries. Quarterback Bo Nix also had 47 rushing yards.
When Brown has missed time in the past, the Eagles offense hasn’t been the same and Hurts has struggled to develop chemistry with his other receivers. If there are two Eagles players to start this week, they are Goedart and Barkley.
In recent years, the American media has been plagued with all sorts of problems including, sliding profits, scandals about manipulation, plagiarism, propaganda, lower audiences, dumbing down, and so on.
Media omissions, distortion, inaccuracy and bias in the US is something acknowledged by many outside the USA, and is slowly realized more and more inside the US. However, those problems have made it very difficult for the average American citizen to obtain an open, objective view of many of the issues that involve the United States (and since the United States is so influential culturally, economically, politically and militarily around the world, they are naturally involved in many issues).
Those with power and influence know that media control or influence is crucial. A free press is crucial for a functioning democracy, but if not truly free, paves the way for manipulation and concentration of views, thus undermining democracy itself.
a principle familiar to propagandists is that the doctrine to be instilled in the target audience should not be articulated: that would only expose them to reflection, inquiry, and, very likely, ridicule. The proper procedure is to drill them home by constantly presupposing them, so that they become the very condition for discourse.—Noam Chomsky
The media is therefore one avenue by which such support and, if needed, manipulation, can be obtained. The US is no exception to this. As the following quote summarizes, the role of the media from the view of politics is often less discussed:
George Seldes, a reporter for over seventy years, points out that there are three sacred cows still with us today: religion, patriotism, and the media itself… Patriotism, defined as taking pride in one’s country, allies the masses with the ruling powers. The media refuses to discuss its consistent failure to inform the masses of this ongoing control. It has been in place for so long that few are aware of how it came about or that it is even still there. But many people are intelligent, moral, and idealistic; if the media would discuss the true history of these three sacred cows, that control would quickly disappear.
There are many ways in which the media is used to obtain such support and conformity. The U.S., often regarded as one of the more freer countries with regards to its media, is therefore worth looking at in more detail. This is a large topic so this section will be updated from time to time.
Uninformed population means harmful policies can go unaccountable
Many US policies, especially foreign policies, have come under much sharp criticism from around the world as well as from various segments within American society. As a result, some fear that they are running the risk of alienating themselves from the rest of the world. A revealing quote hints that media portrayal of issues can affect the constructive criticism of American foreign policy:
One reads about the world’s desire for American leadership only in the United States, one anonymous well-placed British diplomat recently observed, Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism.
The quote above also summarizes how America is viewed in the international community and how some of their actions are portrayed in the United States. Yet, the international community, often for very valid reasons, sees America’s actions differently.
Dr. Nancy Snow, an assistant professor of political science describes one of her previous jobs as being a propagandist for the U.S. Information Agency. In an interview, she also describes how Americans and the rest of the world often view the American media:
[P]ublic diplomacy is a euphemism for propaganda. In the United States, we don’t think of ourselves as a country that propagandizes, even though to the rest of the world we are seen as really the most propagandistic nation in terms of our advertising, in terms of our global reach, our public relations industry—we have more public relations professionals and consultants in the United States than we do news reporters. So there’s an entire history of advertising, promoting, and getting across the message of America both within and also outside of the United States.
Australian journalist John Pilger also captures this very well:
Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. In our country, said one of them, to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What’s the secret?
While many countries—if not all—in some way suppress/distort information to some degree, the fact that a country as influential in the international arena such as the United States is also doing it is very disturbing. The people of this nation are the ones that can help shape the policies of the most powerful nation, thereby affecting many events around the world. For that to happen, they need to be able to receive objective reporting.
An integral part of a functioning democracy is that people are able to make informed choices and decisions. However, as the 2000 Election testified, there has been much amiss with the media coverage and discourse in general.
The inappropriate fit between the country’s major media and the country’s political system has starved voters of relevant information, leaving them at the mercy of paid political propaganda that is close to meaningless and often worse. It has eroded the central requirement of a democracy that those who are governed give not only their consent but their informed consent.
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p. 192.
(Note that in the above quote, the book was originally published in 1983, but is still relevant to today and applicable to the 2000 Elections in the United States and the various controversies that accompanied it.)
Since the terrible attacks by terrorists on September 11, 2001 in America and the resulting war on terrorism, various things that have happened that has impacted the media as well as the rest of the country.
One example was the appointing of an advertising professional, Charlotte Beers as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. As writer and activist, Naomi Klein pointed out in the Los Angeles Times (March 10, 2002), Beers had no previous State Department experience, but she had held the top job at both the J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather ad agencies, and she’s built brands for everything from dog food to power drills. Beers’ task now was to work her magic on the greatest branding challenge of all: to sell the United States and its war on terrorism to an increasingly hostile world where many nations and people have been critical of American policies. (Beers eventually stepped down in March 2003 due to health reasons.) As Klein also pointed out, the trouble has been that the image to be portrayed is not seen by the rest of the world as necessarily being a fair portrayal:
Most critics of the U.S. don’t actually object to America’s stated values. Instead, they point to U.S. unilateralism in the face of international laws, widening wealth disparities, crackdowns on immigrants and human rights violations … The anger comes not only from the facts of each case but also from a clear perception of false advertising. In other words, America’s problem is not with its brand — which could scarcely be stronger — but with its product.
The media frenzy in the wake of the war on terror has on the one hand led to detailed reporting on various issues. Unfortunately, as discussed on this site’s propaganda page, this has been limited to a narrow range of perspectives and context leading to a simplification of why terrorists have taken up their causes, of the US’s role in the world, world opinions on various issues, and so on.
One of the most famous media personalities in American news, Dan Rather of CBS had admitted that there has been a lot of self-censorship and that the U.S. media in general has been cowed by patriotic fever and that accusations of lack of patriotism is leading to the fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.
For more about the war on terror and the attacks on the U.S., see this site’s war on terror section.
But deeper than self-censorship, has been the systemic and institutional censorship that goes on in the media on all sorts of issues. This has been going on for decades.
There is no formal censorship in the USA, but there is what some call Market Censorship — that is, mainstream media do not want to run stories that will offend their advertisers and owners. In this way, the media end up censoring themselves and not reporting on many important issues, including corporate practices. For some examples of this, check out the Project Censored web site.
Another effect of these so-called market forces at work is that mainstream media will go for what will sell and news coverage becomes all about attracting viewers. Yet the fear of losing viewers from competition seems so high that many report the exact same story at the very same time! Objective coverage gets a back seat.
A friend of mine [of journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski] was working in Mexico for various US television channels. I met him in the street as he was filming clashes between students and police. I asked What’s happening here, John? Without stopping filming he replied: I don’t have the faintest idea. I just get the shots. I send them to the channel, and they do what they want with them.
This highlights that market censorship isn’t always a natural process of the way the system works, but that corporate influences often affect what is reported, even in the supposedly freest press of all. Some journalists unwittingly go with the corporate influences while others who challenge such pressures often face difficulties. John Prestage is also worth quoting on this aspect too:
Even some mainstream journalists are sounding the alarm…. Henry Holcomb, who is president of the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia and a journalist for 40 years, said that newspapers had a clearer mission back when he began reporting. That mission was to report the truth and raise hell. But corporate pressures have blurred this vision, he said.
Janine Jackson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a news media watchdog group, told the American Free Press that 60 percent of journalists surveyed recently by FAIR admitted that advertisers try to change stories.
Some advertisers kill some stories and promote others, she said, asserting that there is an overwhelming influence of corporations and advertisers on broadcast and print news reporting.
The trends are all bad, worse and worse, Nichols said. Newspapers and broadcast journalists are under enormous pressures to replace civic values with commercial values.
He labeled local television news a cesspool. Local broadcasters are under pressure from big corporations to entertain rather than to inform, and people are more ignorant after viewing television news because of the misinformation they broadcast, he said.
Political bias can also creep in too. Media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) did a study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in 2001 in which they found that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican. While of course this is not a complete study of the mainstream media, it does show that there can be heavy political biases on even the most popular mainstream media outlets.
A year-long study by FAIR, of CNN’s media show, Reliable Sources showed a large bias in sources used, and as their article is titled, CNN’s show had reliably narrow sources. They pointed out for example, Covering one year of weekly programs [December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2002] with 203 guests, the FAIR study found Reliable Sources’ guest list strongly favored mainstream media insiders and right-leaning pundits. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts.
Concentrated ownership of media results in less diversity. This means that the political discourse that shapes the nation is also affected. And, given the prominence of the United States in the world, this is obviously an important issue. However, politicians can often be hesitant about criticizing the media too much, as the following from Ben H. Bagdikian summarizes:
[M]edia power is political power. Politicians hesitate to offend the handful of media operators who control how those politicians will be presented — or not presented — to the voters. Media political power has always been a fixture in American history. But today the combination of the media industry and traditional corporate power has reached dimensions former generations could not match. … Today … political variety among the mainstream media has disappeared. As the country enters the twenty-first century, the news and analyses of progressive ideas and groups are close to absent in the major media. Similarly absent is commentary on dangers of this political one-sidedness to American democracy.
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp.xv—xvi
Bagdikian continues in that paragraph to then note how the American media are good at recognizing similar problems with other countries, by pointing to certain New York Times stories as examples. Yet, when it comes to looking at one’s self, then that example of good journalism seems to be less likely.
Many other media commentators have pointed this out as well, including, for example, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book, Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon Books, New York, 1988). In that book, they point out that there are many occasions, where the U.S. mainstream media have been very thorough, critical and in most cases, appropriate, in their look at the media and policies of other nations in geopolitical issues. However, when it comes to reporting on the actions of their own nations in geopolitical issues, reporting often fits a propaganda model that they also defined in their book. This propaganda model isn’t necessarily explicit. Sometimes it is very subtle, but comes about through natural interactions of the various pulls and pushes of different political, economic and social aspects that affect decisions on what to report and how. In some countries of course, especially authoritarian regimes, propaganda models may be very explicit.
Chomsky/Herman Propaganda Model
Using their propaganda model, Chomsky and Herman, attempt to demonstrate how money and power are able to filter out the news, … marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public. (see p.2) They continue to then summarize their propaganda model that allows this filtering of news to be accomplished, as consisting of the following ingredients:
Size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms
Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media
Reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and experts funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power
Flak as a means of disciplining the media
Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism.
Size and concentrated ownership
The issues of concentration in media and its often negative impact on discourse and democracy is discussed in more detail on this sites section on corporate influence in the media.
Advertising as primary income source encourages dumbing down
On the advertising ingredient, Chomsky and Herman also point out that the pressures to show a continual series of programs that will encourage audience flow (watching from program to program so that advertising rates and revenues are sustained) results from advertisers wanting, in general, to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere with the buying mood. (see p. 17.) Documentaries, cultural and critical materials then get a back seat. Others also recognize this as well:
It is no wonder then that media historian Robert McChesney suggests that cutbacks in news and informational programs are deliberate because the companies who own and control media want to keep us in our private worlds, cut off from other people’s pain and from too much knowledge about the world. They prefer us tranquilized, pacified, entertained. I have heard him describe in several speeches the mantra of dominant media to ordinary viewers, readers and listeners as simple: Shut up and shop.
It is these often unspoken values at the heart of the business culture that undercut the creation of and support for more democratic public interest media.
[W]ith few exceptions … programming is carefully noncontroversial, light, and nonpolitical in order to create a buying mood. … If an advertiser is large enough to make the initial payment [for the high costing commercials], each household is reached at a relatively low cost. In the familiar dynamics, this in itself favors the big operator over the small, a contributing factor to the emergence of giantism in the American economy.
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p. 133
Reliance on official sources and the powerful
On the reliance upon official sources ingredient, Chomsky and Herman point out that because sources such as the government and businesses are often well known, they are deemed reputable and therefore not questioned much. However, when another government offers news items, we are often able to recognize it as possible propaganda, or at least treat it with some scrutiny that requires further verification.
Flak as a means of disciplining the media
In terms of flak, Chomsky and Herman point out how various right-wing media watch groups and think tanks were set up in the 80s to heavily criticize anything in the media that appeared to have a liberal or left wing bias and was overly anti-business. It has a profound impact, especially when combined with the corporate ownership, as the following quote highlights:
Corporations have multimillion-dollar budgets to dissect and attack news reports they dislike. But with each passing year they have yet another power: They are not only hostile to independent journalists. They are their employers.
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p. 65
Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism
They also point out that the final filter, that of the ideology of anticommunism, is because Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status … [and] helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accommodation with Communist states and radicalism. … If the triumph of communism is the worst imaginable result, the support of fascism abroad is justified as a lesser evil. (see p. 29.)
This last statement on supporting fascism abroad reflects the support and installing of dictators around the world in places like Latin America, Africa and Asia to support economic interests and anti-communist activities, despite social costs. While of course the Cold War has since ended, this last ingredient still survives in other forms like neoliberal economic beliefs, demonization of rogue states and so on. One of the additional effects of this filter has been that during the reporting of conflicts, there has been almost an effect of [concentrating] on the victims of enemy powers and [forgetting] about the victims of friends (see p.32.)
Some of the structural causes of the above ingredients are such that they naturally come about, rather than some sort of concerted effort to enforce them by media owners. For example, if a news reporter is critical of a company’s business practices in some ways, and that company is a major advertiser with that media company, then it is obviously not in that media company’s interest to run that story. In a wider sense, any critique or serious examination of say the nations economic policies, or even the global economic policies, that go counter to what the media companies, their owners and advertisers benefit from would also not get as much, if any, discussion. Chomsky and Herman recognize this too:
The elite domination of the media and the marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news objectively and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. (Emphasis Added)
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent; The Political Economy of the Mass Media;, (Pantheon Books, New York, 1988), p. 2.
Using extensive evidence and sources, they use this propaganda model to examine a number of key world events in recent history that have involved America in some way or another, including situations in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, of the KGB-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope and of the Indochina wars.
It is a truism, often issued with pride by the main media themselves, that the national news has a major impact on the national political agenda. What the main media emphasize is what politicians attend to. Whatever is not given steady emphasis in the news is more safely forgotten by those who make the laws and regulations. Consequently, the media race for quick and easy profits that pushed the real issues into the shadows has imposed a high cost on American voters: it becomes easier for politicians to distract the public with false or exaggerated issues. … Continuous repetition and emphasis create high priorities in the public mind and in government. It is in that power — to treat some subjects briefly and obscurely but others repetitively and in depth, or to take initiatives unrelated to external events — where ownership interests most effectively influence the news.
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xxvii, 16
In this way then, as with other societies, the range of discourse can affect how much is discussed, what is discussed, and to what degree. It is not that there is absolutely no reporting on important issues. For example, the mainstream will report and criticize on issues. However, it is the assumptions that are not articulated that affect how much criticism there will be, or what the context of the reports will be and so on. In that respect, given that there is some critique, we may get the false sense of comfort in the system as working as claimed. Yet it is at the level of these assumptions where the range of discussions get affected. In fact, Noam Chomsky, in another book captures this aspect quite succinctly, while also hinting as to the reason why:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. (Emphasis Added)
Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, Odonian Press, 1998
Parenti’s Media Monopoly Techniques
Political Scientist and author, Michael Parenti, in an article on media monopoly, also describes a pattern of reporting in the mainstream in the U.S. that leads to partial information. He points out that while the mainstream claim to be free, open and objective, the various techniques, intentional or unintentional result in systematic contradictions to those claims. Such techniques — applicable to other nations’ media, as well as the U.S. — include:
Suppression By Omission
He describes that worse than sensationalistic hype is the artful avoidance of stories that might be truly sensational stories (as opposed to sensationalistic stories).
Such stories he says are often downplayed or avoided outright and that sometimes, the suppression includes not just vital details but the entire story itself even important ones.
Attack and Destroy the Target
Parenti says, When omission proves to be an insufficient mode of censorship and a story somehow begins to reach larger publics, the press moves from artful avoidance to frontal assault in order to discredit the story.
In this technique, the media will resort to discrediting the journalist, saying things like this is bad journalism, etc., thus attempting to silence the story or distract away from the main issue.
Labeling
Parenti says that the media will seek to prefigure perceptions of a subject using positive or negative labels and that the label defines the subject without having to deal with actual particulars that might lead us to a different conclusion. (Emphasis added)
Examples of labels (positive and negative) that he points to include things like, stability, strong leadership, strong defense, healthy economy, leftist guerrillas, Islamic terrorists, conspiracy theories, inner-city gangs and civil disturbances. Others with double meanings include reform and hardline.
Labels are useful, he suggests, because the efficacy of a label is that it not have a specific content which can be held up to a test of evidence. Better that it be self-referential, propagating an undefined but evocative image.
Preemptive Assumption
As Parenti says of this, Frequently the media accept as given the very policy position that needs to be critically examined
This is that classic narrow range of discourse or parameters of debate whereby unacknowledged assumptions frame the debate.
As an example he gives, often when the White House proposes increasing military spending, the debates and analysis will be on how much, or on what the money should be spent etc, not whether such as large budget that it already is, is actually needed or not, or if there are other options etc. (See this site’s section on the geopoltiics for more on this aspect of arms trade, spending, etc.)
Face-Value Transmission
Here, what officials say is taken as is, without critique or analysis.
As he charges, Face-value transmission has characterized the press’s performance in almost every area of domestic and foreign policy
Of course, for journalists and news organizations, the claim can be that they are reporting only what is said, or that they must not inject personal views into the report etc. Yet, to analyze and challenge the face-value transmission is not to [have to] editorialize about the news but to question the assertions made by officialdom, to consider critical data that might give credence to an alternative view. Doing such things would not, as Parenti further points out, become an editorial or ideological pursuit but an empirical and investigative one.
Slighting of Content
Here, Parenti talks about the lack of context or detail to a story, so readers would find it hard to understand the wider ramifications and/or causes and effects, etc.
The media can be very good and can give so much emphasis to surface happenings, to style and process but so little to the substantive issues at stake.
While the media might claim to give the bigger picture, they regularly give us the smaller picture, this being a way of slighting content and remaining within politically safe boundaries. An example of this he gives is how if any protests against the current forms of free trade are at all portrayed, then it is with reference to the confrontation between some protestors and the police, seldom the issues that protestors are making about democratic sovereignty and corporate accountability, third world plunder, social justice, etc. (See this site’s, section on free trade protests around the world for a more detailed discussion of this issue.)
False Balancing
This is where the notion of objectivity is tested!
On the one hand, only two sides of the story are shown (because it isn’t just both sides that represent the full picture.
On the other hand, balance can be hard to define because it doesn’t automatically mean 50-50. In the sense that, as Parenti gives an example of, the wars in Guatemala and El Salvador during the 1980s were often treated with that same kind of false balancing. Both those who burned villages and those who were having their villages burned were depicted as equally involved in a contentious bloodletting. While giving the appearance of being objective and neutral, one actually neutralizes the subject matter and thereby drastically warps it.
(This aspect of objectivity is seldom discussed in the mainstream. However, for some additional detail on this perspective, see for example, Phillip Knightley in his award-winning book, The First Casualty (Prion Books, 1975, 2000 revised edition).)
Follow-up Avoidance
Parenti gives some examples of how when confronted with an unexpectedly dissident response, media hosts quickly change the subject, or break for a commercial, or inject an identifying announcement: We are talking with [whomever]. The purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically forbidden topic no matter how much the unexpected response might seem to need a follow-up query.
This can be knowingly done, or without realizing the significance of a certain aspect of the response.
Framing
The most effective propaganda, Parenti says, relies on framing rather than on falsehood. By bending the truth rather than breaking it, using emphasis and other auxiliary embellishments, communicators can create a desired impression without resorting to explicit advocacy and without departing too far from the appearance of objectivity. Framing is achieved in the way the news is packaged, the amount of exposure, the placement (front page or buried within, lead story or last), the tone of presentation (sympathetic or slighting), the headlines and photographs, and, in the case of broadcast media, the accompanying visual and auditory effects.
Furthermore, he points out that Many things are reported in the news but few are explained. Ideologically and politically the deeper aspects are often not articulated: Little is said about how the social order is organized and for what purposes. Instead we are left to see the world as do mainstream pundits, as a scatter of events and personalities propelled by happenstance, circumstance, confused intentions, bungled operations, and individual ambition — rarely by powerful class interests.
Cultural bias (as with perhaps any country) has an effect on how something is reported as well.
For example, look at how we in Europe and USA perceive the Muslim/Islamic world and the threat of Islam, due to media concentration on certain aspects of the news. (Since writing the above, around 1999, we of course have witnessed a horrible series of terrorist attacks on the U.S. The resulting war on terror and various attitudes towards the Muslim world has also become negative too. For more on these issues see this see this site’s war on terror section.)
The USA media coverage of President Clinton’s historic tour of Africa (the first tour by an American President) came under a bit of scrutiny. The previous link mentions how some right-winged politicians made comments on TV about how embarrassed they were when Clinton made some unofficial apologies relating to black slavery. Instead, they blamed Africans for the slave trade!
Referring to Ben Bagdikian’s work again, he also details how subtle forms of specific cultural reinforcement are made by corporate demands on advertising. For example,
To show certain types of imagery that is beneficial to their ability to sell products, corporations will demand for that inclusion of the following ideas appear in programs around their ads (for brevity, some of the ideas have been skipped in the quote): All business men are good, or if not, are always condemned by other businessmen. All wars are humane. The status quo is wonderful. … The American way of life is beyond criticism. (see p.154).
He then continues to point out that it isn’t just in advertisements that these images are made, but that corporations also demand that independent news reporting, editorial content etc also have such ideas expressed (see p.154).
Furthermore, he also mentions that [i]f audiences were told that the ideas represented explicit demands of corporations who advertised, the messages would lose their impact. (See p. 155).
And, while there is room for wider description of events and ideas in the media, he says that there are limits to this latitude. For example, he says that the most obvious limit is criticism of the idea of free enterprise or of other basic business systems and that while there may be cases of specific criticisms of corporate activities, the actual structural system beneath, itself is not criticized, just, as he points out, how in the former Soviet Union, criticism of communism would not be possible. (See p.155).
