How the Dalai Lama got into Tiger Woods' pants

I admit, I am not a fan of the Dalai Lama. Personally, while I stand by the plight of the people of Tibet, I don't know what this man has done to deserve so much fanfare.

The Chinese, who periodically moan and groan whenever a Western official meets with the Buddhist leader, are as much to blame for his cult of personality.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't necessarily say that the Dalai Lama is an evil man, even though he seemed to be out of touch with reality when he said:

"Of course, I have great respect for, in fact, I love President Bush, because he is very frank, very straightforward. His intentions are good, but some of his policy in spite of his sincere motivation and right goal, and some of his method becomes unrealistic because of lack of understanding about reality."

How a man allegedly of peace, who campaigns on behalf of his occupied people, can say he has respect for Bush, a man who has destroyed the peace ... well it's beyond me. Is he being diplomatic, and if so, are we to understand that diplomacy comes before the guiding tenets of Buddhism?

I will just call the Dalai Lama stupid.

Moving along, however, how related is the Dalai Lama visit to the US with Tiger (has) Wood? Sure, Tiger has shed light on his Buddhism but that's like asking the Pope what he thinks of Raul Julia.

On February 20, the Dalai Lama was in Beverly Hills to support a charity organization which advocates better care for orphans around the world. Given the latest disaster in Haiti, such support is well-timed.

But some journalist decided to ask the Dalai Lama what he thought of Woods' sexcapades. Say what? Why would the Dalai Lama care; furthermore, why not ask the Dalai Lama about Haiti or orphans around the world?

No, Woods' dick and where he put it and how often was the most pressing issue. AP reported it, FOX News ran it et voila, you have yet another brilliant example of journocrapitalism.

Sigh.

Al Jazeera, BBC go apeshit over Tiger Woods

What a disappointing day for journalism.

Take a look at this snapshot from the BBC News Americas website.

The lead story is "Repentant Woods sorry for affairs".

Nowhere on that page is there any mention of the Department of Justice's ruling following an investigation into the memos sent out by two Bush administration lawyers authorizing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, including the much-maligned waterboarding, etc.

Compare the BBC website's choice of leading stories with oh, say the Huffington Post:

The Huffington Post is leading with the story, and has an interesting play on words to express ... well, dismay, for one.

This was the Huff Post front page as of 0500 EST.

The Huff Post also includes several links to other news stories related to this as well as entries by their usual slew of bloggers.

One would expect a story such as this, which paved the way for all kinds of human rights violations in Bagram, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be picked up by the world press. Alright, maybe not the whole world cares, but one would expect a news organization like Al Jazeera, which has championed itself as the network which covers stories other media to do not, to cover such an event.

Disappointingly, no. Al Jazeera English as of 0600 EST has not yet made any mention of the DOJ report, but has covered and written on its website extensively about the Tiger Woods affair.

Both Al Jazeera English's TV coverage and website have failed to cover the DOJ story.

Arabic Al Jazeera metioned the DOJ story in its morning news hour, but nothing yet on its website.

One has to question what is going on. Arabic Al Jazeera has a huge stake in covering this story, particularly since one of their own cameramen, Sami Haj, was held at Guantanamo and, by his own accounts and those of his lawyers, torture in lieu of the aforementioned memos.

Did the Al Jazeera networks drop the ball? Or are they chugging along on the BBC railroad?

These are difficult questions, to be sure, but they must be asked. How can we, as media consumers, trust the media, any media?

The Tiger Woods story has transfixed audiences, mostly in North America, and the BBC and Al Jazeera (at least English). Both the BBC and Al Jazeera are hoping to lure the audience with lurid stories of affairs and sexual romps. This is what sells. It is a shame that the BBC chose to lead with this story on its Americas page.

But it is a travesty that Al Jazeera is quickly failing its audiences and falling into the pit of journocrapitalism.