It is interesting what my line of work does to people.
I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .
I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.
(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Details Make a Big Difference, Reuters
The title of this post is linked to a Reuters news article posted online Sunday, December 4, 2005, at 3:41 AM EST titled "Iran says not interested in talks with US".
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)