I’ve got a litmus test for whether a film or television show focusing on aid-workers, journalists or policy wonks is going to be a worthy representation about working on the frontlines of the developing world.
It’s the phrase, “Children are dying!” If you hear that one, then you know you’re in for some Hollywood tripe. *
Its most recent incantation has been in the promos for ABC’s Off the Map, by the makers of Grey’s Anatomy. And while the show may well be a successful character-driven drama, the backdrop is a very Disney depiction of what aid-work is actually like.
Strangely, “Children are dying,” is usually an omen of heavy-handed nobility: get out the shovel. But Off the Map is so anodyne that one character is even ignorant of what “gringo” means.
Set “somewhere in South America,” the pilot episode could very well have taken place in the “Swiss Family Robinson” attraction at Disney World. There’s cliff-diving! Did you see that Indiana Jones style rope-bridge in the promo? And there’s zip-lining!
Zip-lining is a sign of real money — a country marketing the golden goose of “eco-tourism” to wealthy foreign tourists who want a little Third World adventure, just hold the actual Third World part of it, por favor. A town with eco-tourism is going to have an infinitely better hospital, with — gasp! — doctors who aren’t flown-in foreigners. But Off the Map hasn’t got room for an actual “South American” who went to school — besides the token hot nurse.
The “jungle clinic” exists in a weird hybrid of what’s meant to be total isolation, and yet it’s crawling with foreign tourists - like Tijuana, like Kuta Beach, Bali; like - well, the Swiss Family Robinson attraction at Disney World.
(Mysteriously, this “jungle clinic” has an ultrasound machine, and yet not a single painkiller for the tourist with a stingray in his foot?)
But these, arguably, are lesser crimes. What Hollywood consistently misses entirely is what motivates a professional person to work overseas.
In the interest of total disclosure, mine is not an unbiased argument. I’m currently shopping my own television series proposal about these very topics. I also lived 17 years overseas, in Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia/East Timor, Egypt, Hong Kong and India; and have done the rounds of several low-budget insurgencies, plus the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia - so I know of what I speak.
In Off the Map, three of these tortured souls have left behind a death (two have lost a loved one; one accidentally killed a patient.)
Oh, what tortured pasts! (And this is just a slight variation on the canceled 2009 series “The Philanthropist,” whose lead character James Bonded around the globe to save it and ease the torment of losing a son, who oh-so-heartstringingly showed up in hallucinations and dream sequences. There was also a token hot local chick in every episode.)
Most aid-workers are not actually engaged in self-imposed penance with gut-wrenching nobility. The world of aid, policy and journalism is real enough without the tortured pasts — though Off the Map is so lightweight it’s those shackles to the past that may be the only thing keeping the characters from floating away.
(If you’ve really worked in aid, then the phrase “Children are dying!” suggests an aid-worker so enraptured by his own self-sacrifice that he would be considered naïve to the point of incompetence. If the issue is literally life-and-death, then there’s no time for the histrionics.)
Put simply: most aid-workers (and journalists!) want to get off. They want to get off on doing good. They want to get off on testing themselves against hardship and working on the frontlines of history. They want to get off on the ex-patriate lifestyle.
And sometimes they just want to get off.
This is not a bad thing.
Where else do you go from rookie journalist to sit-downs with the Prime Minister within the first year of your career? And the topic is genocide? Where else can you teach people how to cast a ballot, in what will be their country’s first ever election? Where else can the virologist on the frontlines of HIV prevention sit down to coffee and gossip with a trannie junkie but the backstreets of Jakarta? It beats the White House, it beats stuffing envelopes and it beats the Ivy League.
The push-button shallowness of Off the Map means it’s going to miss the epic tragi-comedy of what working overseas in aid, journalism or policy is really like. It’s wading hip-deep into farce - and finding out, for example, that the national human rights chief is the same guy who just flattened the refugee camp. And now you’ve got to work with him.
Yes, your job may suck. But your sense of humor just improved. You’ll never meet more twistedly, mordantly, funnier people than aid-workers and hacks.
What’s more, with its exotic frontlines-of-history-vibe, working in a Juba, a Baghdad or a Kabul makes it easy to get laid. The pond is small, and - more than anywhere else you’ve ever lived - you are one hot fish. Ask me sometime what “yellow fever” is, and I don’t mean the mosquito-borne disease.
Booze and chemical recreation, if you go that route, are cheap and easy to come by. Laws of the “real” world simply don’t apply. If you get caught, the local police are likely to be corrupt enough to be bribed into submission.
And while most are already cynical about the press, no one should labor under the misapprehension that all aid-workers are good. There are self-serving careerists and incompetent wanna-be’s in the aid-biz, the same as any other industry. Plus, just because you call it “aid,” it doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. Just look at Haiti. (Click here. Click here. Click here. Click here.)
Amid all that, is some very real dedication, by people who spend their lives using journalism, diplomacy, medicine, teaching, science and social entrepreneurship to improve lives.
Make no mistake: there is poverty in this world. There is tragedy. The tens of thousands of professionals working to stop it are a global sub-culture all their own. It’s a universe that deserves to be examined for its many successes and all its myriad, marvelous flaws.
But it’s never Disney.
*Angelina Jolie’s “Beyond Borders” has it, uttered repeatedly by a close-to-cardiac-arrest Clive Owen. “Hotel Rwanda” does not. The “Killing Fields” does not, nor does “The Year of Living Dangerously.” The wonderful recent film “Balibo” does not. The fabulous series of episodes in which “ER” went to a country similar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to my knowledge, did not. The Broadway production “Time Stands Still” does not.
The “Naughty vs Nice” files maintained by Santa Claus ahead of his annual Christmas gift-giving flight around the globe are the latest documents released by self-proclaimed “whistleblower,” Wikileaks.
The file is divided into a “naughty list,” for children who misbehaved or treated people badly, who are therefore less deserving of presents; and a “nice list,” which includes an inventory of gifts for children whose actions fall under the rubric of “good.”
The confidentiality of the file is considered vital to a Christmas season filled with joy, surprises and holiday cheer.
Santa Claus – known in some countries as Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or St. Nicholas– reacted with fury at the leak.
“That’s it. Assange is on the permanent ‘naughty’ list,” he fumed from his North Pole workshop. “No more Swedish women for him!”
In one key entry, Santa is revealed to have written “very deserving,” next to a letter to “S. Clause,” written by a 7 year-old boy from Denver, who requested a sled for Christmas. In a special notation section, Claus is revealed to have written, “Worked very hard on spelling.”
In another, however, a 12 year-old girl’s request for an I-Touch will go unanswered. “Mean to girls in the hallway at school,” says the special notation.
None of the children’s names were redacted by Wikileaks, leading to concerns the children will be singled out for mockery in schools already fearful of bullying, both in person and online.
The Huffington Post has chosen not to publish these names to protect the children’s privacy.
“It’s wrong to say that we ‘targeted’ Claus,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, contacted while in hiding. “His organization, which is really more of a Christmas-cabal, has a virtual monopoly on flying reindeer and skilled-elves, and deploys what appears to be an entirely arbitrary system for categorizing the world’s children.”
“It’s that type of secrecy we think is important to unveil to the public eye,” Assange said.
Claus – the jolly, old fat man, typically seen wearing a red suit – works all year in preparation for the evening of December 24th, in which he brings gifts to children the world over. His North Pole residence is also home to more than a dozen flying reindeer, and scores of elves – whose work ranges from crafting toys to helping maintain the “Naughty vs. Nice” list.
“We think the file was exploited when we updated from dusty, old ledger books to a Windows-based server system,” said Alabaster Snowball, the elf in charge of administering the system.
“But if we can’t do our work with absolute confidentiality, then why would children even wake up early on Christmas to find out what they received?”
Disappointment by children around the world has many elves fearful of a “milk and cookies backlash.” With lowered anticipation, elves are concerned that fewer kids will leave holiday treats for Claus.
“Those cookies represent the carb-and-sugar load he needs to get through the night,” Snowball said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mp-nunan/santa-claus-naughtynice-l_b_792506.html
What was the most compelling aspect of Wikileaks’ release of 220 US diplomatic cables - the latest move by the online whistle-blower to - well, whistle-blow - about anything it can get its hands on? Because hey - information wants to be free, national security and diplomacy be damned?
It wasn’t that North Korea aided Iran in acquiring technology for medium range ballistic missiles; and it wasn’t that the US knows Ahmed Wali Karzai is a narco-trafficking thug.
It was that in global politics, the US plays the part of the “Gossip Girl” Alpha-Female - and that high school never really ends.
Reading Wikileaks, in fact, is like listening to one side of a teenage girl’s cellphone conversation. A little something like this:
I know - it’s such a total drag, but really, we just have to close Guantanamo - holding terror detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions is just so 2001! Who can we get to take these people off our hands?
[Pause.]
Couldn’t we, like, get Belgium to do it? [Pause.] Seriously. Here’s how we say it: Taking more Guantanamo prisoners represents “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.” ‘Cause being the capital of the European Union just isn’t as cool as they thought it would be, right? So we can just tell them, This. Is. Cool.
But we need one more, ‘cause Belgium’s not going to buy it if we make them take everyone. [Pause.] How about Slovenia? No one’s ever heard of them! Just tell them - tell them if they take some Guantanamo people, we’ll invite them to sit with us at the cool table. But Obama’s only going to do it once.
[Pause.]
OHMYGOD. Don’t get me started on Qaddafi! That Ukrainian nurse? [Pause.] Is she really going out with him? Are you kidding? That is totally about the money. [Pause.] I know, but living in like, a Libyan palace, has got to be better than the Ukraine.
And have you heard? Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Russian PM Vladimir Putin are totally like BFF’s! They hang out all the time! I know Putin’s not supposed to be in charge anymore but really - he’s like Batman, and President Medvedev is totally Robin. [Pause.] I know he’s supposed to be in charge, but in real life, he is totally Robin.
[Pause.]
Hang on. I have another call coming in - let me look. No - OK, nevermind. It’s just Pakistan. I know. We give them like half a billion dollars for the floods, and every once in a while, I’m like, Guard your nuclear arsenal! And then they get all huffy about it.
Wait. Oh. I have to take this, this time - it’s Saudi Arabia. They’re like, totally pissed off that Iran found out how bad they don’t really like them.
[Pause.]
No - seriously. They never said anything, because they’re almost neighbors, but the Saudis told us to get rid of the Iranian nukes. [Pause.] Yes, way! They said, ‘Cut off the snake’s head!’ And then they’d get to act all mad, like, Oh, you’ve violated the sovereignty of our Muslim brothers! And really, I don’t know why they think we’re just going to do everything they say. They act like we don’t know they’re still funding al-Qaeda! It pisses me off sometimes. But it’s still ringing, so I have to go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mp-nunan/the-wikileaks-diplomacy-l_b_789336.html
From the “Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear” to the hyperbolic ranting of Fox News to the MSNBC suspension of Keith Olbermann and its aftermath, American media have been in the midst of a maelstrom lately – and the portents are not good. (And that’s even if you ignore the culture war skirmish over the Juan Williams firing!)
The networks may look down on the cable news echo-chamber, but really – should they be so high and mighty? And CNN? Sigh. CNN.
So gird your loins for my take on what’s gone on in the media-world of late and what it may mean.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mp-nunan/how-will-we-know-when-ame_b_785676.html
Los Angeles - A group of Haitian orphans is in Los Angeles for a week-long trip to raise awareness for the cause they consider essential to the recovery of their nation - preventing the arrival of any more celebrities to rescue Haiti.
“What we want to see is effective policy prescriptions for Haiti, not dilettantes in photo-vests,” said 11 year-old Henri Bellereve, one of the three orphans who made a surprise visit to Nobu, the popular LA eatery renowned for celebrity sightings.
Nine months after the devastating January 12, 2010 earthquake, Haiti has seen actor Sean Penn, singer Wyclef Jean, former President Bill Clinton - and now, Prince Charles lend their names and support to the recovery process.
Despite the A-list names, roughly 1.3 million people continue to live in “tent city” refugee camps, and much of the funding intended for the reconstruction remains undisbursed.
“The celebrities we have now - sure, they mean well,” said another of the orphans, 13 year-old Lucien Napoleon, while declining to pose for a photograph with a Hollywood B-lister eating a macrobiotic salad and eager to brand himself with a cause.
The group was motivated to act by what they say is the “false promise” of celebrity in the recovery process. “Fugees” frontman Wyclef Jean, they point out, was denied the right to run for president in Haiti and immediately descended into petty politicking, before Brown University redeemed him.
Piping into the conversation is 12 year-old Geraldine Pierre.
“What’s most significant now is that of the $1.15 billion in reconstruction funds pledged to Haiti by the US government in March, just $300 million has been spent. The rest has been held up in State Department bureaucracy,” she said.
“Sometimes you think, What if we had a really cool celebrity helping us get those funds? Like the former leader of the free world, whose wife is the Secretary of State?” said Pierre.
“Then you realize - Oh, wait. We already have that,” she said.
Trailed by a crew from Haitian television, the group toured renowned celebrity eateries, including and the Ivy, Chateau Marmont and Sunset Tower, to see for themselves what gives rise to celebrity do-gooderism.
Noting the $28 Lobster Cobb salad at Sunset Tower’s Terrace restaurant, Napoleon sighed. “These are exactly the conditions that send a Ben Affleck to the Congo.”
But doesn’t having a celebrity name attached to a humanitarian crisis raise awareness?
Bellereve admits their mission is controversial.
“Clooney throws a telethon, and everyone gets to feel warm and fuzzy texting $10 to Wyclef Jean, under the assumption the money will be spent and spent well,” said Bellereve.
But the problem, he says, is lack of follow-up.
“At this point, what we wonder is, do celebrities actually motivate people to help, or do they think, That’s OK - Sean Penn’s fixing it?”
What the group says they don’t want for Haiti is what we’ve seen in other countries, from Burma to Rwanda.
“More often than not, celebrities refill the coffers or their own consciences with a week of roughing it by pretending to be an aid-worker or a journalist,” says Napoleon. “Then it’s back to the red carpets, and we’re long since forgotten.”
As reconstruction efforts in Haiti falter, the first deaths are being reported by people killed in storms associated with hurricane season because of the limited shelter provided by a living in a tent. Just two percent of rubble has been cleared from the capital, Port-au-Prince, meaning just 10 percent of stronger temporary shelters have been built. Sexual assault in camps is rampant.
When Prince Charles lent his name to rebuilding Port-au-Prince’s historic center, the orphans realized it’s time to work more effectively with the celebrities they have, before bringing in more.
“Who knows? Maybe it will work,” says Pierre. “But I’d like to quit living in a tent and in fear of being raped or getting cholera before I spend my Saturdays shopping for souvenirs at the restored Iron Market.”
The orphans’ two day visit includes a number of speaking engagements, including at the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles and the Church of Scientology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mp-nunan/haitian-orphans-launch-ce_b_769914.html
It’s that time of year again — when Manhattan bears witness to the expression of the highest aspirations for global harmony and the most inspirational ideas for the advancement of humankind. Yes, Fashion Week - followed quickly by the United Nations General Assembly!
While one event captures the world’s attention for its political intrigue, backroom negotiating, nail-biting suspense and life-altering drama, the other is the UN General Assembly. So let’s take a look at it from a fashion perspective.
US President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak Thursday. His sartorial choices almost always lean towards Brooks Brothers, except for one “Weatherproof” jacket he wore simultaneously on the Great Wall of China and three stories high in Times Square.
With off-the-rack and angry voters confronting him at town-hall meetings, the president may very well wish he could be two places at once, and the General Assembly may give him the room he needs for some soaring bespoke rhetoric, reaffirming American leadership in these, our troubled times. It beats thinking about the mid-terms.
But overall, Barack - from the fashion point of view, where’s the hope and change? The fashionista to watch here is First Lady Michelle Obama, who aims for simple elegance with the not-so-haute couture of J Crew - which may still be too high-falutin’ for the Tea Party crowd. Attention K-Mart shoppers!
Another member of the US delegation strutting the catwalk of power is former First Lady and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - whose straightforward pantsuits and skirt and jacket ensembles are nearly always in primary colors! (Seriously.) Maybe that’s why Hillary hasn’t entirely eluded her past just yet.
But with Iran inching toward becoming a nuclear power, Iraq without a government, and trouble-spots from Haiti to Yemen needing attention, are pantsuits the image the US needs to project around the world? Remember when Condoleezza Rice made headlines with the leather boots she donned shortly after taking the same job, in a look that said dominatrix-meets-war-on-terror? Even President Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright celebrated fashion by jabbing back at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - who had called her a “serpent” - by donning a golden snake brooch.
C’mon, Hil! The “Hillary Doctrine” may be about the “American moment” and the pantsuits of pragmatic internationalism. But mix things up a bit. This year’s asymmetrical hemlines say unpredictability! Keep al-Qaeda on its toes!
Of course, one of the most-watched world leaders to make their way into the General Assembly Thursday is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He dressed in business-casual on Monday, with a tie-less suit at the Millennium Development Goals summit - in which he declared capitalism dead. Hey Mahmoud! Karl Marx called and he wants his manifesto back!
But all eyes will be on Ahmadinejad on Thursday for his address to the General Assembly. Will he stick with business casual, or go with the “Members Only” jacket - the look he’s sported so frequently since the brand premiered in 1981? That happens to be the same year the US embassy staffers held hostage in Tehran were released after 444 days of captivity - a siege in which Ahmadinejad allegedly took part!
Ahmadinejad will likely be dressing for sanctions-blocking success, as he maneuvers to
consolidate Iran’s power in the Middle East with nuclear weapons technology. Is Ahmadinejad’s jacket of choice a sly reference to his push for Iran to join the world’s “members only” nuclear club? Will he be so bold as to block future UN weapons inspectors from the country, like he did in June? That line of thinking is so 2002, Mahmoud! And it didn’t work for Saddam!
But let’s not ignore some of the lesser pariah states.
Shifting slightly from fashion to personal styling, another favorite to watch is Zimbabwe’s dictat - excuse me, President Robert Mugabe.
Taking Zimbabwe from Africa’s brightest hope to international basket-case during his 30 years of iron-fisted rule, Mugabe at least has the decency to be the only world leader to sport a Hitler-like moustache! It’s a look that truly says, “Only God can remove me from power.”
Last but not least, a plea for a fashion intervention for Great Britain. The Brits’ coalition government features, of course, David Cameron as Prime Minister, and Nick Clegg as his deputy. Sure, their dress-sense says “10 Downing Street,” but they’re both the blandest looking white people, you probably have to be British to tell them apart. They’re the “Lands End” of global politics. Really, Great Britain, if you want to move on from the Tony Blair “lapdog” era of British power, isn’t it time to break some fashion rules? Maybe Ahmadinejad can loan you some jackets.
‘Twas nine years after the September 11th attack,
But the faultlines revealed by that trauma are back.
Where once, we were a nation that mourned for its heroes,
We’re now mired in debate about a mosque at Ground Zero.
The arguments are broken down broadly in three:
The first, Let them build it! It’s called “liberty!”
Next, Why put a mosque here? Muslims only want strife!
The past simply proves they hate our way of life!
Third’s, We respect Muslims, but in this neighborhood,
(Like the Catholic church at Auschwitz,)
“Can” doesn’t mean “should.”
The issue was local to New York’s downtown
Now, politicians are batting it here, there and around.
(It’s not even a mosque, its supporters have cried –
But a community center, a 92nd Street Y!)
For many, it seems a mere ploy for attention -
A problem to exploit for the November election.
On Bloomberg! On Gingrich! On blogosphere, too!
On Obama, who flip-flopped – so disappointingly new!
On Fox News, on Stewart and the guys who work late!
Sarah Palin on Twitter: You must “refudiate!”
We’re still at a loss of what we should do
To distinguish the many from the terrible few.
The question is, Muslims – what role do they play?
A position familiar to Jews, Blacks and gays.
Most gleefully watching it get out of hand
Is Osama Bin Laden, in – my guess – Pakistan.
Nearly a decade has gone and we’re still prey to his vices
His hatred - plus fear - shape our identity crisis.
(Life’s no better for Muslims – but that was never his plan.
‘Twas just megalomania by a very warped man.)
But it’s not just Osama - the world’s watching us fight.
They have to. We’re the superpower(!) - which uses its might
For leadership, that’s frankly both brilliant - and dumb.
And they’re looking for signs of the US to come,
With our glorious paradox of rule by majority -
Who’d fight to the death for the rights of minorities!
So let’s take a moment to consider the cost
Of all this tense vitriol on the Ground Zero mosque.
I’m not casting a verdict on who’s right and who’s wrong,
But I mean this sincerely: Can’t we all just get along?
The media pages have been alive in recent months with prognostications about the impending death of CNN, and multiple diagnoses about what’s causing its demise.
Most recently, Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff critiqued the leadership, or lack thereof, by the head of CNN/US, Jon Klein - and his efforts to shake-up CNN’s primetime line-up as both symptom and treatment of the illness.
Others, including Politico and the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, have insisted that because of its impartial editorial line, CNN is losing viewers to the left leaning MSNBC or the right leaning Fox. In Politico’s words, CNN needs to “get more personality.”
Douthat insists that CNN should bring back Crossfire, the debate program which allegedly fell at the hands of Jon Stewart, because viewers like to watch on-air slugfests.
The real diagnosis, however, may be deceptively simple. The sad truth is, CNN no longer reports the news. It merely does “lives” — an endless stream of anchors or talking-heads, blathering on about the subject du jour.
A 24-hour news channel, you see, is a good thing. Live news, more often than not, just blows.
When I first started looking at the CNN death knells, in April, I spent a day watching coverage of the coal mining disaster in Montcoal, West Virginia, in which there was an on-going search for four trapped miners after a blast killed 25 of their colleagues. (Sadly, all four were eventually found dead.)
CNN’s coverage consisted of live feeds from press conferences; lots of satellite interviews with talking-heads related to the mining industry; the occasional live question-and-answer with a correspondent, standing in a field in West Virginia.
I counted exactly one news package. (And it was a very low-rent one with wallpaper images cobbled together from feeds from local broadcasters, with no reporter on the scene.)
Where was the reporting?
In days of yore, say, the mid 00’s and the 90’s, CNN would send one of its correspondents — let’s say Christiane Amanpour — with a cameraman and perhaps a producer into a situation, to film events, do interviews and develop visual sequences with people informed about the situation at hand. She would write a script and shoot a piece to camera - placing herself on the scene and elucidating more about the situation. The team would feed an edited “news package” — a story — home, to be broadcast.
But where were CNN’s news packages on how coal mining communities are coping in a world that’s meant to be evolving toward alternative energy? Where’s the news package from another mine that shows what a day in the life of a miner is like? Where is the news package about the community pulling together to support one another, or help coming in from other towns?
I’m sorry, but talking heads, Google Earth and computer graphics of mining techniques just don’t do it for me. And that’s pretty much what CNN’s live coverage consisted of.
“Live” can also be blamed for the wholesale decline in the caliber of the discussion.
Most of us remember when Captain “Sully” Sullenberger landed the US Airways jet on the Hudson — for a certain amount of time, that was extraordinary live news — something CNN does well.
Then it devolved. As the coverage dragged on, Wolf Blitzer was saying things like, “Of course in an plane crash, you shouldn’t stop to get your things from the overheard compartment…. Let’s turn now to Person-at-the-Scene.”
Person-at-the-Scene: “What’s important to remember in an emergency is not to get your things from the overhead compartment… Now let’s turn to Air-Disaster Analyst So-and-So” - who repeats the same line about overhead compar — enough already!
It seems pretty obvious that when you have to spend hour after hour filling up live air, then the quality of the information and analysis you’re going to impart is going to become ever more trivial.
And — paging Jon Klein and Michael Wolff — when CNN’s regular news-programming consists, at times, of anchors reading Twitter out loud, should network execs really be so surprised that no one is tuning in to primetime?
The problem is that the news package I mentioned earlier — the one from the mine, reported, perhaps, by Christiane Amanpour? That would take all day to shoot and edit, and it’d come to a total of about 2-3 minutes of material. Tops. It’s expensive — far more expensive than having a talking-head babble on camera for the same amount of time.
With her defection from CNN to the Sunday morning circuit for ABC, Christiane Amanpour, I would wager, saw the writing on the wall. The veteran of Bosnia, Somalia, Israel/Palestine, Iran, Rwanda (among other places) would have been able to clearly see that CNN is no longer a place for a correspondent who wants to report news. (And now, rumors abound that Anderson Cooper also has one foot out the door.)
Yes, CNN appears to be dying. But the cure is not to be found in bringing back Crossfire, nor in developing an editorial bias, nor in finding someone provocative enough to drag viewers back to primetime.
The cure lies in blowing off live news coverage — in order to report the news.
(An earlier version of this piece appeared on TrueSlant. )
The stars must be aligned strangely in the heavens this week, because it’s the stars who are dominating foreign policy news. Stars - or at least some celebrities and a super-model.
But it’s not a pretty sight.
Naomi Campbell has been compelled to testify at the Special Court for Sierra Leone at the Hague. Prosecutors hope to link alleged war-criminal and former Liberian President Charles Taylor with the illegal diamond trade - by literally tracing the path of illicit gems from his commanders’ hands into those of a manicured model.
While Campbell testified that she didn’t know the “dirty” and unimpressive un-cut diamonds she received in the dead of night after a 1997 dinner party hosted by Nelson Mandela were from Charles Taylor - others disagree.
This includes her former agent, Carole White and fellow dinner-party guest Mia Farrow, who testified that Campbell was “mildly flirtatious” with Charles Taylor - and spent the night text-messaging about, and giddily awaiting, delivery of the stones from his underlings - whom prosecutors allege were rebel commanders.
Campbell says she “planned” to give the diamonds to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, which the dinner was intended to benefit.
But how can we be sure?
Subpoena the housekeeper, I say! In 2006, Campbell was arrested for throwing a “jewel encrusted” cellphone at her housekeeper. Only the housekeeper can confirm if the gash on her head requiring stitches was caused by diamonds. And if they weren’t blood diamonds before, they sure as hell were after!
And while we’re at it, what was up with that guest list, Nelson Mandela? You invited former Liberian President Charles Taylor - war criminal - to a dinner, intended to benefit your Children’s Fund? What was that about?
As a rebel leader, Charles Taylor was renowned for the recruitment of child soldiers and the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Liberia’s civil war, which had spilled into neighboring Sierra Leone - for control of the diamond trade - in 1991.
So really, the dinner was about selling out Sierra Leonean kids for South African ones?
You, sir, got out of jail in early 1990. I know you had a country to fix - but virtually the entire time since you were released from prison - up to and beyond that 1997 dinner party - Charles Taylor was a murderous thug. No excuse for not knowing!
As for Mia Farrow? Well, we’ll let that one slide.
On the other side of the world, pop-star Wyclef Jean from “The Fugees” has announced his candidacy for the presidency of Haiti - for which his only qualifications appear to be that he’s written a song called “If I Was President” - in which he predicts his own assassination.
If I was President, I’d get elected on Friday, Assassinated on Saturday, Buried on Sunday, Then go back to work on Monday.
At least that’s a more lyrical refrain than, “If I was president, I’d compel donors to follow through on pledges of $5.3 billion in funds following the January earthquake, not only to rebuild shattered physical infrastructure, but to revitalize a government that was so riven by factional fighting that it required the presence of UN peacekeepers for the last 16 years in an effort to stop gang-warfare, glutinous corruption, and the wholesale destruction of the environment; while enacting a series of effective policy initiatives to alleviate poverty, stimulate the economy and push for the lifting of restrictions with trading partners like the US - saving Haiti from continued existence as a failed state and the poorest in the Western hemisphere.”
(Or how about: If I was president, I’d learn the subjunctive.)
Now, that’s a tall order for anyone - even Bill Clinton, the UN’s special envoy. And another self-appointed savior of Haiti, actor Sean Penn, and fellow “Fugee” Prakazrel Michel, don’t think Wyclef’s got it in him.
Psssst! They’re not alone.
Bizarrely enough, “If I Was President” includes a warning that “it’s not all that’s bling that’s diamond/ Most of y’all wear cubic zirconia.”
Maybe that’s a hidden lesson for Naomi Campbell. As those “dirty stones” suggest, it’s not all that’s diamond that’s bling. And she probably should have stuck to cubic zirconia - it doesn’t land you in the Hague.
