Comments on: Comments on 19483

Post number 19483

goethean — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:00:39 -0800

Lobsters, caviar and brandy for MPs at summit on starvation. Is this really a scandal? Or typical tabloid pabulum? Yes, it is hypocritical, but is it worse than rich people who don't claim to give a damn about the poor eating caviar and swilling champagne? Matt thinks it's "sick".

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:28:30 -0800

Rich people don't care about poor people? When did this start happening? Sorry for the sarcasm, but blah blah blah rich people blah blah blah disgraceful blah blah blah starving children blah blah blah.

By: muckster

muckster — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:44:21 -0800

Better than not attending at all. I think this just distracts. Why not read about some of the actual issues discussed at the summit instead?

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:45:40 -0800

Does he think they should starve for the entire week just so they can 'see what it's like'? In that case perhaps Americans should grind to a halt for a week, refuse to do any work, and wipe their asses with their hands, just to develop some compassion for the third world, eh?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:52:24 -0800

op/ed

By: goethean

goethean — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:58:58 -0800

Fine.

screw you, I wanted to talk about it!

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:05:12 -0800

Why not read about some of the actual issues From your link: A global human society based on poverty for many and prosperity for a few, characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty" Sounds like the point goethean was bringing up.

By: sacre_bleu

sacre_bleu — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:11:35 -0800

This is not an op-ed. It is a newspaper article, purporting to report a facet of a news event. It is an English paper, however, which normally means a higher level of opinionated word choices and juxtapositions than most U.S. dailies. An "op-ed" is an opinion column, usually a writer holding forth with their opinion absent of original reporting. So named because the newspaper page where those columns run is usually opposite the editorial page. Whether it's too weak for a good thread is still up to you.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:18:07 -0800

I'm with sacre_bleu. If Drudge had written about how sick this is, it would be op-ed. This is just a newspaper article by a nondescript journalist. That said.. The Sun has a horrible reputation for being one giant column, a newspaper not really full of news, but just full of dire opinions. It's often referred to as a comic rather than a newspaper.. so, perhaps this odd example could fall into the op-ed pile ;-)

By: Aikido

Aikido — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:20:55 -0800

More marxist rebel rousing...

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:24:48 -0800

wackybrit: Huh? If Drudge had written the same thing, it would be an op/ed, but if a British journalist writes it, it's a news article? It's an op/ed. It may be published in the news pages, but this is not journalism that makes any pretense at objectivity. Of course, all writing from The Nation and Cato and so forth are op/eds. They may contain factual material, but they are written to advance the writer's point of view, and they're linked here all the time.

By: riviera

riviera — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:35:46 -0800

This is not an op-ed. It's the Sun. The boundaries between editorial and opinion are as scanty and removable as the clothing on its Page Three models. Rupert Murdoch thanks you.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:42:59 -0800

Yay! This place has turned into one big metatalk circlejerk.

By: quarsan

quarsan — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:14:46 -0800

to get back on track. i think the opulence of the conference is inappropriate and obscene. for news about the conference i enjoy the daily summit for it's background and briefings. details of the daily negociations can be found here in a variety of formats

By: lia

lia — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:34:50 -0800

I seriously doubt the delegates had any hand in planning the menu, so the blame isn't really on them for the opulence of the food -- blame the event organizers and planners for picking a posh hotel with a posh menu for the event, and not realizing how hypocritical it'd come off. Good food, of course; caviar and lobster, hell no. Tacky tacky tacky. That said, it's pretty weird that food was flown in from other countries just for this conference. Usually host nations take events this big as an opportunity to show off their local cuisines, but with respect to the dietary restrictions of certain guests (halal, kosher, vegetarian, no alcohol, etc). The chef who was bragging to the papers comes off as self-serving and stupid -- sure, now everyone knows you can make a tasty huge spread, but you can bet major events aren't going to booked at a place where the staff is known to talk to the media, especially when what they say comes off as detrimental to their clients.

By: revbrian

revbrian — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:08:34 -0800

[Does he think they should starve for the entire week just so they can 'see what it's like'? ] Surely there is a middle ground, eh?

By: alrob

alrob — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:23:29 -0800

Why would anybody be surprised to find extravagant dining at this event? The hypocrisy is par for the course. Case in point: for all the rhetoric about saving the environment and eliminating poverty, why is it that Robert Mugabe is allowed to address the summit? The deterioration of society in Zimbabwe points to the problems that developing nations face when they are ruled by kleptomaniac, autocratic dictators.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:30:59 -0800

Ah, but by kicking all the white farmers off their farms, Mugabe is helping the land return to its pristine state, and after enough people die from resulting food shortages, well, there won't be as much poverty, numerically speaking, will there? He's an enviro-hero! And yes (as people have displayed a worrying tendency to miss the sardonic and satirical of late 'round these parts) I'm joking, blackly.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:31:49 -0800

So to speak.

By: Nicolae Carpathia

Nicolae Carpathia — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:40:10 -0800

Soweto speak.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:27:34 -0800

... give a damn about the poor eating caviar and swilling champagne? Matt thinks it's "sick". Matt who? Haughey?

By: Orb

Orb — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:32:56 -0800

"In my experience, heads of state don't decide what they want to eat or drink until the last minute. So I have to make sure I have everything they can possibly want. If that's the case, then the organizers aren't totally to blame for the overwhelmingly expensive choices of food available. It seems that the visiting parties are making choices on what they want to eat, and the hotel is expected to have it all all on hand. Sort of like when a rock star calls room service and wants a jar full of nothing but green M&Ms. Personally, I think it's all a bit much. It would have shown better form and more class to intentionally "eat down" (as in eating something closer to what a normal person in the area might eat), and donating some money/food/whatever to the local charities. I was also disturbed to hear about the trees that were cut down so the limos could have better access. Heaven forbid that a government dignitary be inconvenienced by having to actually walk a step or two before dining on caviar and champagne. Much better to chop down hundreds of trees.

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:35:02 -0800

Huh? If Drudge had written the same thing, it would be an op/ed, but if a British journalist writes it, it's a news article? Oh well, ALL news stories are written by someone, so all news must be op-ed!

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:56:16 -0800

I may have jumped the gun, calling it op/ed... the "Matt thinks" part is what did it.

By: lia

lia — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:01:31 -0800

Matt who? Haughey? Was this a serious question? If it was: if you'd followed the Matt link or moused over it, you wouldn't have to ask, and you've certainly been here long to know to do either of those two things. If it wasn't: the name Matt was linked to drudgereport, which is obviously not mathowie. goethean should've probably said Drudge or Matt Drudge instead to be super duper clear, but still.

By: Shadowkeeper

Shadowkeeper — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:29:39 -0800

Yes, I'm sure Mr. Drudge must be horrified to see all of his hard work on behalf of the starving get undermined. People who eat well while working to alleviating starvation are one infinity less hypocritical than people who call this hypocritical and yet are doing nothing themselves.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:21:05 -0800

lia, what's your point? *shakes head* and yes, it was a joke, you got that right: very simply, I think that the words "Matt thinks" in a FPP are kinda misleading. It's not that hard to add "Drudge" since Matt happens to be the name of this site's administrator. And also, I think the huge majority of MeFi users don't give a fuck about what Drudge has to say about anything. You've been here long enough too, no? I simply underscored a rookie mistake innocently made by goethean. Thanks for your little unnecessary lesson, anyway Next time, I'll put footnotes under my post, 'mkay?

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:50:30 -0800

wackbrit: a good postmodernist would say that all news is op/ed. [And a good critic of postmodernism would say that while there is some truth in that, it's a vast oversimplification.]