News Corp. disclosed recently that they donated $1 million to the Republican Governor’s Association, an amount far exceeding donation limits for federal level campaigns, and this simple act of partisan bias belies a basic fact that is laid more bare by the day: Rupert Murdoch’s operations are anything but unbiased.

As the parent company of FOX “News,” the famously conservative and anti-Obama TV network that masquerades as a news channel, and The Wall Street Journal, an increasingly politicized publication since the change in ownership, News Corp. has no business getting directly involved with politics. Even prior to such a cash expenditure, so-called entertainment hosts Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, along with a multitude of other party-line lackeys, had pushed the network into the realm of opinion and bias more than anything resembling journalism. MSNBC, the only comparable network with an opposing, but similar, bias, donates to political organizations, but makes sure to do so in equal amounts to both sides of American politics, just as they are able to maintain the truth in their reporting necessary to attain the label of journalism.

This is the Fourth Estate? News Corp., courtesy of its properties, claims to be of the fabled private sector group intended to provide accountability and a semblance of transparency for the American government, even while behaving in a contrary manner. It’s one issue to have opinions on politics or other arenas of life that may bleed into other avenues, but it’s entirely different to allow those opinions to influence the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but untruthful journalism is its circus.

The institution of journalism is, on all fronts, fading in America, as more individuals choose to read, watch, and listen to only what agrees with their viewpoints, if they pay attention to the outside world at all. With the degradation of television and print vehicles for news delivery, and the rise of entertainment-oriented pseudo-information enterprises, over the last decade, the citizens of the United States are more politicized, influenced by demagoguery, and ignorant than ever before – the blatant, open, and utterly shameful actions of those like News Corp. do not aid the situation.

Journalism should, by definition, be as unbiased as possible, and adhere to a certain set of principles that include integrity, honesty, and gravitas – FOX “News”, WikiLeaks, and any number of online efforts simply do not qualify to be placed in such a category, except that they, for some reason, are. If this method of self-determined labeling would be applied to other industries, BP would, right now, be a consumer-friendly, environmentally-conscious energy company, just as AT&T would be a reliable and popular-by-choice communications network.

Why is such behavior tolerated? Keith Olbermann may have openly liberal opinions, but not only does he carefully designate which portions of his show are news and which are commentary, he does not participate in outrageous invective, sponsor borderline-treasonous movements, or shill for corporations, all of which makes him, and MSNBC, his employer, a false comparison to the disturbingly dedicated talent seen on FOX “News”. WikiLeaks is run by a man with a clear agenda that involves anti-government, anti-corporation, anti-conflict sentiments, even when a situation justifies government involvement, large companies, or military action, yet he is hailed as an unbiased hero of journalism, despite having nothing in common with journalists or legitimate whistleblowers.

There was, once upon a time, a requirement for news organizations to be unbiased, or, if not unbiased to at least equally present opposing viewpoints, that would have prevented such a situation from evolving within America – except that it was repealed long ago and never reinstated. The time has come, although admittedly long past, for Congress, the FCC, the President, or any other body with the political power to make it clear, via any means necessary, that news organizations have obligations to the American people that must be met, lest the organizations lose the freedom to call themselves a journalistic enterprise. Or, at a minimum, for it to be made clear to citizens nationwide that when a company decides to donate large sums of money to a single political party, they are most definitively not unbiased.

Not even close.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Filipino Congressman Mong Palatino…

To see is no longer to believe.

There was a time when people had to look up into the sky to search for answers about the mysteries of life. We raise our eyes to the heavens looking for clues about our existence. Astronomers and astrologers gaze at the stars and planets to discover their meaning in relation to our own planetary system.

We are curious creatures. We are explorers of the world. We are adventurers.

To understand the realities of the globe, we only had to open our eyes. We use our eyes to probe the riddles of humanity. Often, after seeing something interesting or extraordinary, we are pushed into action. We are motivated to deepen our knowledge about this enigmatic thing. In short, the first step towards the affirmation of truth and the need for change is to see.

The problem today is that we no longer gaze at the stars. We no longer want to touch the fleshy, spongy, rough surface of the planet. We have lost the patience to look for answers by peering into the distance. We are refusing to open our eyes to the ugly realities of our society.

Yes, we are still using our eyes to see the world but we no longer go out to experience reality. We are satisfied “to see” in the comfort of our homes. It seems our eyes couldn’t resist the glare of our TV sets, computer screens, cell phones, ipods and other gaming devices. Truth is validated if it appears in front of our computer windows. Emile Zola once wrote that “you cannot claim to have really seen something until you have photographed it.” Using Zola’s words, we can say today that you cannot claim to have really seen something until you have seen it in the Internet.

What is worse than refusing to see? Paul Virilio warned that “our contemporaries no longer want to see, they want to be seen by all.” The best example is our facebooking activities. We want to be seen by everybody on Facebook. We are exhibitionists. We upload our photos and videos on Facebook. We have redefined the meaning of privacy. Suddenly, the lives of everybody are now an open (face)book. Susan Sontag’s term of self-surveillance is appropriate in describing our Internet habits.

So we have two issues: 1) we refuse to see; 2) we only want to be seen.

What is the problem of refusing to see? We can’t solve the problems of man if we do not open our eyes. Or worse, if we only use our eyes to observe others or if we continually compare ourselves with others. Or if we end up as cyber voyeurs. Virilio wrote that the information revolution is really a revolution of generalized snooping. Think of webcams and camera phones.

What is the problem of only wanting to be seen? We can’t be good neighbors if we are satisfied with looking in the mirror everyday. How can we feel the pain of others if we are obsessed with our Facebook profile? The world does not evolve around us. The center of the earth is not us. There are more important things on this planet other than our puny concern about an unflattering picture on Facebook which was tagged by one of our friends.

It is wrong to think and assert that providing instant and real-time information to everybody will inspire people into action. The reverse might happen. Over-communication might actually prevent people from doing something. And it is already happening.

For example, pictures of poverty are re-tweeted on Twitter, shared on FB walls, liked by FB friends, re-posted in blogs to the point that they were seen by everybody in our online network many times over. This is the “obscenity of ubiquity.” And there is no guarantee that viral blasting the images would provoke people to do something concrete about what they have just seen. Why? Sontag reminds us that “pseudo familiarity with the horrible reinforces alienation, making one less able to react in real life.” She adds that the “feeling of being exempt from calamity stimulates interest in looking at painful pictures, and looking at them suggests and strengthens the feeling that one is exempt.”

But it is not just overexposure to the real that discourages people to act. The “art of seeing” itself is gone. Moholy-Nagy mentioned eight distinct varieties of seeing – abstract, exact, rapid, slow, intensified, penetrative, simultaneous, and distorted. Meanwhile, Alvin Langdon Coburn wrote that the camera is an instrument of ‘fast seeing’. Sontag wrote about us having a photographing eye used for photographic seeing. Today, we have Internet eyes which are used not to see but to consume vast amounts of information in real-time. We don’t even blink anymore. We are too overwhelmed with the power of the cyberspace that we refuse to reduce our intake of data believing that doing so would deprive us of the chance to access the great truths of our time.

Surfing the web is not a sightseeing activity where we can experience and witness the marvels of the world. Most of the time, it is only a glorified and eye-stress inducing celebration of the trivial, inconsequential and boring information tidbits about ourselves and our neighbors. But because we believe that Internet data is the truth and web surfing is the modern and safe way of seeing, we proudly share our new knowledge with the less informed others. Sharing of Internet-sourced knowledge becomes the preferred mode of political action of the 21st century man.

The challenge then is to restore the radical power of seeing. The truth is not located in our RSS and twitter feeds. It is out there.

Journalism involves truth, truth can be relative, sides are thus taken and morality is then measured. Journalistic integrity involves openness to multiplicity and a willingness to engage perspective, whatever those perspectives may be. At times, when standing across the deep and cavernous valley of relativity, one person’s truth may seem like another’s lie, but as difficult as it may be, both sides must be addressed - both regions of truth must be heard. It is only then all concerned can arrive at their own conclusions and the freedom to release and thus add to our wide and wonderful world’s library of multiplicity can be employed. For RELATIVITY OnLine’s David Anthony Hohol, this is how things all come together and this is where the battle lines are drawn.

This past summer, I was offered the position of staff writer by an up and coming political website, donklephant.com. Named after the age-old symbols of the American two-party system, the Republican Elephant and the Democratic Donkey, the site professed itself to be the moderate middle representation of the dual-natured political landscape of the United States.

I was invited on board and given the unofficial title of Middle Eastern correspondent. Site editor and founder, Justin Gardner, an early 30s University of Missouri graduate and self professed Democratic blogger, extended me the invitation with enthusiasm. The process involved several emails and links to several of my editorials from RELATIVTY OnLine. He asked me to provide a genuine and “insider’s perspective” of the Arab World and touted my arrival as a contributor even before my first post:

David Anthony Hohol of RELATIVTY OnLine has lived in Dubai the last six years and during that time has also spent time in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Sudan. He’ll be giving us an insider’s perspective on issues facing the Middle East and beyond.

I looked forward to getting started and upon receiving “the keys” to his WordPress posted four blogs. The next day I was fired.

The post that led Gardner to kick me out the front door was one that cited the Israeli action in Palestine as “ethnic cleansing” and Arab World perspective of Israel as being “scheming thieves”. The subject line in my pink slip of an email message was “Scheming Thieves?” Below comes from Gardner’s message the following day.

I’m not sure what was unclear from my invitation to the site… Donklephant is about balanced coverage, not blatant advocacy.

Given that, I think it’s best we just called it a day on this partnership and left it at that. I simply can’t risk the integrity of the site.

There’s no question, Gardner’s brief and very quick reaction caught me off guard. The term ethnic cleansing was something I’d seen used several times over in publications all over the world. That very week, Time magazine used the phrase to describe how “much of the world” thinks of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  And his distaste of my stating that the Arab World perspective of Israel is that of thieves who are plotting to take Palestine away from the Palestinians was even more unexpected. I mean, this is exactly what they think and believe me, Arabs describe Israelis in far more colorful terms than scheming thieves. “What does this guy expect? Didn’t he read anything from RELATIVITY OnLine or was he desperately trying to add writers without getting to know their perspective?” I asked myself.

With a jab thrown my way, I thought it only fair I throw one of my own to even things up. Below was my response:

Hello Justin,

I must say that I am quite surprised by your reaction…. You wanted me to write about the Arab perspective (review your own description of me as an upcoming writer) and that was what I did.

My words in the article were “many in the region” (i.e. the Middle East) look at the Israelis as “scheming thieves”. That is the side, the perspective, the opinion, that offers the balanced coverage you say you want.

Balance is about both sides, not one side being free to say what they want and the other being forced to be politically correct. And when you then say, “Okay, I don’t want you to write anything at all anymore,” it makes me wonder why you even invited someone to offer you the Arab perspective in the first place. By telling me, a secular Canadian, that you don’t want me or my stories about the REAL Arab perspective on your site after asking me to do so, is COMPLETELY inappropriate and that, Justin, is where the integrity you say are trying to protect is lost.

Best of luck.

With that, I thought we each could move on in our own directions. But Gardner could not accept each of us having our own say. He wanted more. Below was his response.

David,

Actually, I said you’d be giving us an insider’s perspective, not a one-sided Arab perspective that accuses a Zionist Israel of ethic cleansing. I mean COME ON. How would you ever think that’s appropriate to post…?

What’s more… if you, as a writer for this site, use the words “scheming thieves” and then link those words back to an editorial written by you where you call the state of Israel a terrorist state, well, guess what…that makes it seems as if Donklephant is endorsing that view.

And yes, balance is about both sides. That’s why I invited you. Because I thought you were going to offer a perspective that took a look at the situation colored by more of the realities of a foreigner living in the Middle East. I can tell you that it (my post) has absolutely no integrity on the site. Think of that what you will.

And so, I once felt it only fair to even things up, and respond:

Hello Justin,

I recently posted an article about the Burka and was thinking of your last email. In the end, I guess I couldn’t resist replying to you.

It may be a rhetorical question, but when I asked you to read over my editorials so as to get a better perspective on my writing style… did you even read one article form beginning to end? If you had you would have seen where I come from and what transpired could have been avoided. You would not have wasted my time… or yours for that matter. It was unprofessional on your part not to know who it is you invite to write for you. Perhaps now you’ve learned your lesson and will be more thorough in the future.

Saying you wanted an “insider’s perspective” as opposed to a “perspective of the region” is just semantics, by the way. That phrase could be defined any number of ways. At NO TIME did you ask me for a foreigner’s viewpoint, as opposed to the Arab perspective.

Further still, calling what I wrote a “one-sided Arab perspective” is flat out wrong and prejudiced. There are many in the international community, not Arab, and not even Muslim, who hold these views. I mean COME ON, you must know this.

And this point I went on a bit of a citation rant, linking articles, news stories and even Jewish groups that hold a similiar view. I included everything from a Pulitzer Prize winning writer Chris Hedges to a story on 60 minutes. I even quoted a passage from the aforementioned Time Magazine article from July of 2009:

“And yet to much of the world, the Katzes (a family of West Bank Israeli settlers) are participating in illegal land grabs forbidden by the Geneva conventions, which do not allow an occupying power (like Israel) from settling its own civilians on militarily controlled land.”

I ended my response with the following:

The world media as a whole is shifting. You can join the fearful herd and be a follower Justin; some are better suited to do so than others. But I will join the others in the distance and lead. Being against Israeli actions in Palestine, calling them bullies… is NOT anti-Judaism. This is a manipulative lie whose shelf life is finally and thankfully reading its end. Think of that what you will.

Best Regards

Gardner once again could not simply allow each of us to have our say. He craved the last word, he needed to be one up on me, and so he let loose one more long email. In it he disputed every source or citation as isalotory or radical, even claiming the Time Magazine article was representing only one Jewish family (when the article was about the inhibiting process of Israeli settlements). I thought about evening things up one more time, but decided to just leave it. A couple of months later, the idea to write about the experience crept into my head and here we are.

I concluded my evening of writing this piece by returning to the About Us section of RELATIVITY OnLine. I read it though once more and afterwards closed my laptop for another day. A sense of purpose soon rolled through me. It also seems to be the best way to finish this discussion:

RELATVIVTY OnLine seeks to promote global citizenry through the respect, awareness, and recognition of individual perspective. Specificity over stereotypes, tolerance over dogmatism, and justice over bigotry- RELATIVITY is about the deconstruction of ethnocentrism, and its dangerous tendency to compartmentalize and diminish. There are many paths and not only one, and the values and beliefs of any single culture will never be universal.

RELATIVITY seeks to expose the bias nature of the media and the socially programmable disposition of cultures the world over. From the earliest ages, populations across the globe are conditioned into believing news coverage is both objective and factual; that television and film are agents of truth. The reality is our hard drives are bombarded with massive uploads of over-simplified, dogmatic, prejudiced information on a near daily basis. We are systematically programmed to believe what we believe and all too often, leave the act of discovery for others. The truth is found when it is sought, lies will die when they are exposed, and the beauty of freedom is often born from slavery.

Today the world is smaller than it has been at any point in human history. An international Culture War has begun and victory will come only through hope, tolerance, and understanding. RELATIVITY OnLine will stand at the front lines and we hope that you will join us.

And so the battle rages on…

The human experience offers us more perception and less reality. RELATIVITY OnLine’s own Editor in Chief takes us inside his journey into the desert. David Anthony Hohol’s tale of a Canadian farm boy’s Middle Eastern adventure is one of surprise and enlightenment and conversely, one that brings his heart closer to home than ever before.

Sometimes I wonder how I ended up in the middle of the desert. I grew up on the other side of the planet, in Canadian small town, on a farm in the middle of an ocean of prairies. It’s been years since I’ve lived there, but every time I return to Canada from another year in the Middle East, the vision in front of me is always the same.

After walking through the markets of Cairo, the streets of Amman, the ruins of Baalbek, and the bridges of Esfahan, I climb into my 1973 Chevy pick-up on a glorious summer morning, and make the short drive in from the family farm just north of town. As I make my way down Main Street, the little town has been awake for a while is bustling with activity. The bank and supermarket parking lots are full, mothers are dragging their little kids down the sidewalks, people are darting in and out of the pharmacy, and farmers drive by in their trucks, still half-loaded with hay bales.  As the warm sun sparkles through the thick white clouds, nearly everywhere I look, people have stopped for a quick chat. As a young boy, this was something I took for granted, but in a small town one can rarely take more than a few steps down the street without saying hello or stopping to talk to someone.  I’ve had the privilege of spending time in places ranging from less than one hundred to tens of millions people, and have developed the ability to feel comfortable in either. A small town, however, to those who have lived there to then occasionally return, is a place that will always feel safe, comfortable, and familiar. In other words, it will always feel like home. To this day, my hometown of Two Hills is the only place where my feet truly feel as though they’re firmly planted beneath me, and while under the soft and comforting wing of my humble beginnings, the rest of the world often seems like a noisy, cluttered, and fast-paced dream.

My journey started in academia and upon graduating from the University of Calgary, I took a job teaching at small local college. Not long after, I left for Asia and chose Tokyo as my initial destination. One of our planet’s most amazing cities, for more than three wonderful years the center of the Asian world was my home and I will forever be indebted to the Japanese people for teaching me the virtue of humility, the necessity of patience, and the importance of respect. After spending time in places like Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, and China, in the summer of 2004 I decided to leave Asia behind and make a rather adventurous move to the Middle East. I wanted to see for myself what made this part of the world tick and was drawn to it in a way that is difficult to explain; and with the world in a post nine-eleven haze, a part of me felt it was almost my duty to do so. I suddenly found myself living in the little country of the United Arab Emirates, in the booming city of Dubai. I was soon provided with an opportunity to learn about a part of the world so many have an endless amount of pre-conceived notions about. With Saudi Arabia to the west, Kuwait to the north, Iran to the East and Yemen to the south, I was right in the middle of a culture and lifestyle I knew little about and I sunk my teeth into all that surrounded me. So much of what I had been force fed via CNN and the North American mass media was debunked in less than a year.

When I first informed family and friends of where I was planning to go to next, almost everyone asked me why, told me to be very careful, and often enough even tried to change my mind. “What? You gotta be kidding Dave. Why? It’s so dangerous over there,” was something I heard over and over again. Time and again I was told that because I was a white Westerner, I was placing myself in harms way simply by choosing to live in the Middle East. “They don’t like anyone who isn’t Muslim, they’ll think you’re American, there’s wars breaking out all the time,” and more was directed my way, right up until the day I once again left Canada behind. I didn’t agree with what people had to say or I never would have come to this part of the world. With that said, even my liberal minded thought process was surprised at the openness and acceptance from the world that was soon to be my own.

The vast majority of the U.A.E. is indeed Muslim, but with that said, there are churches available for all those who need them and Christianity is practiced freely. In fact, after having traveled through a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I can safely say I was never once made to feel conspicuous about who I was. The average minded Middle Eastern citizen seems to be more aware than we are that a nation’s people and its government are two very different things. Most even counted the United States as a good country filled with good people, who just happen to be represented by a rather unfortunate administration. If only more of us Westerners could make the same distinction in terms of their corner of the world. Whether it was Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Qatar, or Bahrain I was made to feel welcome and times, even treated like VIP of sorts. Even while venturing into Iran, and spending time in part of the so-called ‘Axis of Evil,’ I saw a church in downtown Tehran. Further still, the hospitality and kindness of the Persian people made me feel more welcome than I ever expected. Iranians were as hospitable and curious as any I’ve encountered in all my travels, only to be matched by the Jordanians in terms of kindness and hospitality. Whether it was an older gentleman introducing himself and spending nearly two hours walking me through the streets of the ancient capital of Esfahan, before taking me to a tea house and insisting on paying; or a young university girl, who asked me if she could practice her English by offering to answer any questions I had about her country, before taking me to her family’s shop and introducing me to her mother, I was made to feel like a true guest. This is certainly not what we see playing out on our televisions nearly every night. In my experience, no matter where I was in the Middle East, I was never once made to feel apprehensive and further still, was never expected to be anything expect who I am.  

With a population of just over five million, my current home base of the United Arab Emirates is a small country indeed, but when taking into consideration less than one million are actual Emirati nationals, it becomes even smaller. This means well over three million foreign workers, or expatriates, live there. Within a few weeks of my arrival, I’d met people from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, China, the Philippines, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Hungary, Turkey, Armenia, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belarus, Romania, the U.S.A and of course, a my beloved Canada. There is indeed a hierarchy in place steadfastly based on the immovable capitalistic pillars of education and finance. Those from G7 nations fill out the large majority of professional jobs, while those who stem from the poorest countries work as laborers, and the rest then fill out the many vocational possibilities that lie in between. The lifestyle choices of expats, most especially those from the upper tier, are thus readily supplied with all the trappings of Western culture. There are posh night clubs, low-key bars, casual pool halls, well stocked shopping malls, high end beach resorts, five star hotels, and upscale restaurants serving food from every conceivable corner of the world. Whether it’s The Dark Knight or Indiana Jones, you can catch the latest summer blockbuster at the Cineplex, after which you can grab a coffee at Starbucks or Mister Donuts. If fast food is your game Burger King, KFC, and McDonald’s outlets are located on every other street, with places like Chile’s or T.G.I. Friday’s readily available, if you want to take things up a notch. The Emirati nationals, an extremely likeable group of people, for the most part, stick to themselves. By extension, the country is an eclectic expat mix of race, religion, and values that result in making the UAE a most unique patch of earth.  

Following several years in Tokyo, the Arab world, a collectivity of 22 countries stretched throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, has been my home for the last five years. We plan a return to Canada soon, but living here has quite simply changed me forever. I’m always telling my family and friends not to take what they see on their televisions and in their newspapers as the absolute truth. I also say the same to my Arab friends from countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. about the image of North American life they see on their televisions and in movies. One thing I know for sure is that the many souls on this amazing planet are all simply people, working hard, wanting the best for our children, and hoping for a better future. We all love laughter and take pride in who we are; we all cherish our families, and count dignity as paramount to life. All that is needed to bridge the gap between cultures is to remove the biased middle-man that is the mass media and replace it with simple exposure; simplicity is often the truest form of beauty and so much of the world has forgotten.

We can live our whole lives and not know who we really are, until we see the world through the eyes of another. When we first get to know someone, all we notice are the differences, but as time passes we begin to notice the similarities – that’s how any relationship begins.  My wife, a Jordanian National, and I, a Canadian from the Alberta Prairies, learn from one another everyday, as do all those around us. It’s at least a start, but then again every great journey will always start with a single step towards to that which we do not know. Sometimes in life we need to remove the glasses prescribed to us by the culture from which we stem and step closer. Give it a try. Afterwards, you just might be surprised at what you’ll find.