Comments on: CNN reports that Jakarta has been bombed.

CNN reports that Jakarta has been bombed.

filchyboy — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:02:17 -0800

CNN reports that Jakarta has been bombed. Here's the explosion cloud rising. Here's a shot of Plaza 89 after the explosion, and here's another from a different perspective. Has flickr beaten textamerica in the race to beat CNN? Are ma_girl and fauzanazmi so different that they must use moblog services to suit their personalities or is it something else? How much specialization and differentation can we expect in the moblog arena? Will there be moblog streams of current events like this bombing in Jakarta? Will tagging suffice for such a task? Or is this just another terrorist bombing in Jakarta, I'm up late, and found a photo from a bombing before the story even broke on any of the major news sites? Ennui.

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:11:42 -0800

breakingnewsfilter

By: SteelyDuran

SteelyDuran — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:25:28 -0800

> breakingnewsfilter Looks like plenty more to me. So back off, Bob.

By: Parannoyed

Parannoyed — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:36:17 -0800

okay, is it just me, or is this post more than a little jaded and dispassionate? I mean, yes, there's lots of coverage, but it's a fucking bombing, and a nasty one at that, not an excuse to exercise journalistic one-upsmanship.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:49:51 -0800

filchyboy, c. 2001: "so, the world trade center has been bombed. You can view it from this webcame here, but the refresh rate is disappointingly slow. Don't you think that with today's modern technology we could have webcams that refresh more than once every 15 minutes?"

By: dobbs

dobbs — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:55:47 -0800

Caveat: I'm drunk. Now, what I don't understand is... why Jakarta? Maybe my geography knowledge is far too limited but why would anyone bomb IT. I can understand NY, Toronto, LA, or other places that represent (to some extent) things that aren't, you know... but Jakarta? I mean, wtf? Isn't that tantamount to beating up the wimp on the playground? I mean, do these people really think that bombing an 'easy target' demonstrates their might? (note: I understand there is an Australian embassy there but still, I mean... please.) In essence, what do these groups have against Australians? The ones I've met were all very nice and didn't even come close to the stereotype. In May of '97, I spent a lovely month there with a little Miss I met on IRC... I can't see what anyone could have against these people. What am I missing? (Sorry flichyboy, but I'm too intoxicated to understand the whole moblog thing to comment on it... but I think I appreciate that this isn't solely a "bombing" newsfilter post.)

By: loquacious

loquacious — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:59:01 -0800

Parannoyed: It's not jaded and dispassionate. For the Metafilter crowd it's extremely relevant. Many of us are either using/consuming or creating non-traditional information streams. Probably just about as many people here are very interested in bankrupting and/or abolishing the traditional publication streams, especially if we can increase the speed, accuracy, objectiveness and human perspective of said streams, and otherwise eliminating the entirely useless "celebrity" component of media and journalism. Seeing "personal", non-professional photography and journalism about the incident just drove it home for me in a way no sanitized CNN photo ever would. If you want "dispassionate" "news" that's not from a tech/blog focus, maybe you should try something else?

By: SteelyDuran

SteelyDuran — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:03:54 -0800

> but the refresh rate is disappointingly slow. Whoa there. I think it's significant that news could be received first from a "raw" source such as those, rather than pre-packaged and pre-interpreted (and pre-linked to al Qaeda) through CNN. I'm perfectly able to view the photos and feel the fear and outrage on my own, thanks. And perhaps even moreso when looking through the eyes of the first incredulous witnesses -- what they choose to focus on. Maybe that's not what you're dismissing. But i sure comes off that way.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:06:11 -0800

I thought it was cool. Thanks. Just shows how cameras are everywhere and move faster than the mainstream press. Can you define moblog for us not in the know?

By: SteelyDuran

SteelyDuran — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:13:31 -0800

> Can you define moblog for us not in the know? "moblog" splices together the words "mobile" and "weblog". There's a history at Joi Ito's site and a bunch of useful info and links at Wikipedia.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:25:24 -0800

Agreed, SteelyDuran. I actually clicked on the main Fox News link I emedded in my last comment (and yeah, I feel dirty) and the photo they chose to run is some low-res piece of crap with the bombed buildings in the deep background with a ring of police-type persons in the well focussed foreground. Pretty standard - and lame - last century human-interest-centric textbook photojournalism. (Mind, I understand the need for human-centric journalism, but disdain the blanketed and formulaic application of it. I don't want to see a bunch of uniforms and a blurry building, I want to see real details. Such obvious manipulations and machinations by the established press are growing seriously tiresome.) Whereas the flickr mo/blogged images are of a decent resolution (no damnable copyright/license issues as money isn't involved) and they actually show a bit more of the buildings and the scale and detail of the damage.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:36:56 -0800

Hmmm. The lack of EXIF data on the Flickr image makes me think that photo was snagged from another source rather than taken by the Flickr image. In which case it's more likely a local news source beating CNN, which isn't all the surprising.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:37:40 -0800

"taken by the Flickr image" ...takeb by the Flickr user, sorry.

By: Pseudoephedrine

Pseudoephedrine — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:41:00 -0800

dobbs> Indonesia's chock full of weapons, Muslim extremists in possession of those weapons, and Australian sex tourists. Oh, and it's got shitty security protecting things. Remember Bali? Evidently, neither does anyone else.

By: cheaily

cheaily — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:05:07 -0800

It was the Australian embassy that was bombed. ABC News Report There's your explanation.

By: cheaily

cheaily — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:08:42 -0800

Also.... Australia was key in helping East Timor gain independence a couple of years ago. My guess is that there's some terrorist groups who are still holding a grudge.

By: rory

rory — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:10:35 -0800

I can't see what anyone could have against these people. What am I missing? The Australian government's support for the Iraq war, which would not be looked on kindly by Indonesian extremists? Long-standing mutual mistrust between elements of the Indonesian and Australian populations, despite reasonably good government-level relations? Worsening government-level relations since the current Australian government took office in 1996, over things like Australia's support for East Timor during its struggles for independence in 1999? The fact that there's an Australian election on October 9th?

By: SteelyDuran

SteelyDuran — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:14:58 -0800

> The lack of EXIF data on the Flickr image makes me think that photo was snagged from another source rather than taken by the Flickr image. There's some processing going on behind the scenes to provide various sizes and to make the flash applet work. Naturally, to save bandwidth and processing time, you can bet they omit the EXIF data, including any embedded thumbnails left by digital cameras and phones. While there's always a possibility that a given photo was nicked, I wouldn't consider the lack of EXIF data to be even remotely suspicious unless you really are looking at the original file. Even then it's possible that someone purposely stripsheader data to speed up an upload on suddenly overburdened lines, or in uncertain situations where batteries, time, or the connection to the world are fast running out.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:17:37 -0800

Don't forget the oil. Though of course, East Timor is sovereign now (just like Iraq).

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:45:32 -0800

I note also that it's two days short of September 11th in this timezone. Not a coincidence, I wouldn't imagine. Nasty.

By: Onanist

Onanist — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:51:48 -0800

The dispute over the oil seems to have been largely settled. The bomb left a 3 metre deep hole outside the Aussie embassy and shattered windows 15 floors up on surrounding buildings. On the current affairs show I'm watching discuss it now, they are debating whether it could be an attempt to influence either the upcoming Indonesian elections, or the Australian elections.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:52:33 -0800

Steely, uploaded flickr images generally do include EXIF data. I think you can elect not to, but this is seldom used. To me this is a strong sign that the image was snagged.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:56:28 -0800

For example, here's the EXIF data taken by Flickr from my last photo. This is linked to on the photo's page by default.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:06:07 -0800

The dispute over the oil seems to have been largely settled. Apologies. I haven't been keeping track of recent developments there. It was a bit of a derail anyway. Good on the Aussies!

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:13:55 -0800

This chap, on the other hand, is a Flickr user that visited the scene after the incident.

By: acrobat

acrobat — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:23:09 -0800

By: dg

dg — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:54:05 -0800

"Last Friday, Australia warned that "particular caution should be exercised in Jakarta, including the central business and embassy districts," and said that security at its embassy in the capital remained at a high level." Actually, that is pretty much toe standard diplomatic advice for Indonesia and has been for several years now (way before 9/11, in fact). Actually, the warnings received by the Australian government from their friends in the CIA were specifically that an attack on western hotels in Jakarta were planned and extra security was in place in these locations. The attack could have been much worse except for the security in place at the Embassy, which stops any vehicle being left near the building unattended, meaning that the bomb had to be placed further away than would be ideal for maximum effect. The news here has been drawing parallels between the bombings in Spain prior to the election there and the fact that we are facing a similar situation here at the moment - an election looming, with the current government committed to our presence in Iraq and the opposition promising to bring the troops home at the earliest possible date. Speculation is that the bombing is intended to influence the election and bring about a change in government to one that is not quite as supportive of the war on terror when it involves Australians actually getting their hands dirty instead of just giving moral support. The reason terrorists would attack in Jakarta seems simple - the attack seems to be against Australia, but it is much easier for them to attack closer to their support base and without the problems of operating in an environment where security is easier to maintain. I would not like to be the person in charge of trying to stop car bombs being used in Jakarta - not for all the money in the world. The worst part of this is that, in an attack on Australia (technically an attack on Australian soil, being the Embassy), only Indonesians were killed.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:13:15 -0800

Or is this just another terrorist bombing in Jakarta, [sarcasm] Oh, yes, just another bombing. How two years ago.. [/sarcasm] If you want "dispassionate" "news" that's not from a tech/blog focus, maybe you should try something else? Yes, because anyone who dares question loquacious's view of the world must be a FoxNews watching fascist. Nice to know how you think, buddy.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:21:11 -0800

Thanks for all your answers, folks.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:24:50 -0800

So people are still wanking over the "why do they hate us" question? They want a nice, tidy, politically-motivated reason, like "we resent your previous actions in East Timor" or "we resent that you're helping rebuild Iraq" or "we previously had some minor issues over oil in Southeast Asia" or other such twaddle? Listen, the people who would blow up innocent people with a truck bomb do not live in this world where there is a point-counterpoint of political thought. They are beyond that, and have been for a long time. Or, to quote from the very CNN article linked in the FPP:

"In October 2002, 202 people were killed in the resort island of Bali, many of them Australians. Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a militant group with ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network that is trying to set up a pan-Islamic state in Southeast Asia, has been linked both those blasts.

October, 2002--that's before intervention in Iraq. This is not exactly a debate over land rights, or quibbles with a particular government. These people want a Caliphate. From wikipedia:

"Hambali wanted a large Islamic caliphate to be established across Southeast Asia, incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Cambodia, and Thailand. Such a state would have a population of about 420 million (using CIA World Factbook population counts). It would have a strangle-hold over the South China Sea shipping lanes which are a gateway between parts of Asia and the Indian Ocean. It would also have a significant air-space and would potentially affect trade between India, Africa, and Australia."

Want more?

"Jemaah Islamiyah (J.I.) is a militant Islamist group active in several Southeast Asian countries that's seeking to establish a Muslim fundamentalist state in the region... What attacks has Jemaah Islamiyah been linked to? The group—or individuals affiliated with it—is thought to be tied to several terrorist plots. Among them: - The August 2003 car bombing of the J.W. Marriott hotel in Jakarta that killed 12 people. - The October 2002 bombing of a nightclub on the predominantly Hindu island of Bali that killed 202 people, most of them foreign tourists from Australia and elsewhere. Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, a 41-year-old mechanic from east Java, was convicted on August 8 for buying the vehicle used in the main explosion and buying and transporting most of the chemicals used for the explosives. He was the first of 33 suspects arrested for the bombings to be convicted. - A December 2000 wave of church bombings in Indonesia that killed 18. Asian and U.S. officials say Hambali had a hand in these attacks, and Indonesian officials arrested J.I. leader Bashir for questioning in connection with this anti-Christian campaign. - A December 2000 series of bombings in Manila that killed 22. The State Department says Hambali helped plan these attacks. Fathur Rahman al-Ghozi, a Bashir follower, reportedly confessed to a role in the bombings. In April 2002, he was convicted in the Philippines on unrelated charges of possessing explosives. - A 1995 plot to bomb 11 U.S. commercial airliners in Asia that, the State Department says, Hambali helped plan. - Jemaah Islamiyah has also been linked to aborted plans to attack U.S., British, and Australian embassies in Singapore."

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:32:38 -0800

Welcome then, stav, to the world of monstrous inhuman dehumanizers, the only world that's available to any of us homo saps apart from your (very) occasional fully-enlightened bodhisattva. That's way too fucking complicated for me, mate. You want to spell it out in words of one syllable for me?

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:06:00 -0800

Why shore. We all have way too much angry-monkey DNA to expect understanding to be the default. Reacting to opposition with blind monkey-rage is being human--though having more conciliatory second thoughts is (sometimes) also human. Then we (sometimes) say we're sorry and go pick up the body parts. Those for whom understanding is the default are so rare we universally count them as walking miracles, and tend to report that they had halos and walked on water and stuff. Ergo, it's a bit extreme to go calling "inhuman" on asparagirl, when "inhumanity" (= failing to understand the more extremely different forms of other) is the human norm.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:19:17 -0800

OK, we agree. But I didn't call Asparagirl inhuman. I was just sayin'.