Deadly, murky hostage crisis in Algeria continues

Last updated at 10:46 a.m. ET

ALGIERS, Algeria About 30 foreign hostages are still unaccounted for three days into a bloody siege with Islamic militants at a gas plant deep in the Sahara, Algeria's state news service said Friday.

The militants, meanwhile, reportedly offered to trade two American hostages for terror figures jailed in the United States, according to a statement received by a Mauritanian news site that often reports news from North African extremists.

It was the latest development in a hostage drama that began Wednesday when militants seized hundreds of workers from 10 nations at Algeria's remote Ain Amenas natural gas plant. Algerian forces retaliated Thursday by storming the plant in an attempted rescue operation that killed at least four hostages and left leaders around the world expressing strong concerns about the hostages' safety.

Algerian special forces resumed negotiating Friday with the militants holed up in the refinery, according to the Algerian news service, which cited a security source.

The report said nearly 100 of the remaining 132 had been freed by Friday, but it could not account for the remainder.

Militants on Friday offered to trade two American hostages for two prominent terror figures jailed in the United States: Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheikh," who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist convicted of shooting at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

The offer, according to a Mauritanian news site that frequently broadcasts dispatches from groups linked to al Qaeda, came from Moktar Belmoktar, an extremist commander based in Mali who apparently masterminded the operation.

It could not be independently confirmed.

Algeria's government has kept a tight grip on information, but it was clear that the militant assault that began Wednesday with an attempted bus hijacking has killed at least six people from the plant — and perhaps many more.




Play Video


Deaths and survivors in Algerian hostage rescue



Workers kidnapped by the militants came from around the world — Americans, Britons, French, Norwegians, Romanians, Malaysians, Japanese, Algerians. Leaders on Friday expressed strong concerns about how Algeria was handing the situation and its apparent reluctance to communicate.

British Prime Minister David Cameron went before the House of Commons on Friday to provide an update, seeming frustrated that Britain was not told about the military operation despite having "urged we be consulted."

At least one American, Mark Cobb, who had hidden in a meeting room, is known to have gotten out of the gas plant, CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports.

One high-ranking source in the U.S. government told CBS News that four Americans had been freed, one of them injured, after the raid.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday the U.S. is working with the British and Algerian governments to assess what's happening on the ground. Speaking Friday at Kings College in London, Panetta said the U.S. is "working around the clock to ensure the safe return of our citizens."

Panetta said the terrorists should be on notice that they'll find no sanctuary in Algeria or North Africa.

He said anyone who looks to attack the U.S. will have "no place to hide."

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said President Obama was receiving regular updates from his national security team and was in constant contact with the Algerian government, stressing that "our first priority is the safety and security of the hostages. "

Terrorized hostages from Ireland and Norway trickled out of the Ain Amenas plant, 800 miles south of Algiers, the capital. BP, which jointly operates the plant, said it had begun to evacuate employees from Algeria.

On Friday, up to around 20 people, including some Americans, were being evacuated from the country, a spokesperson for the U.S. African Command said. AFRICOM said those with injuries would recieve medical treatment en route to Europe, but would not specify the extent of the injuries or the final destination within Europe for the evacuees.

"This is a large and complex site and they are still pursuing terrorists and possibly some of the hostages," Cameron said. He told lawmakers the situation remained fluid and dangerous, saying "part of the threat has been eliminated in one part of the site, a threat still remains in another part."

Algeria's army-dominated government, hardened by decades of fighting Islamist militants, shrugged aside foreign offers of help and drove ahead alone.

The U.S. government sent an unarmed surveillance drone to the BP-operated site, near the border with Libya, but it could do little more than watch Thursday's military intervention. British intelligence and security officials were on the ground in Algeria's capital but were not at the installation, said a British official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

A U.S. official said while some Americans escaped, other Americans were either still held or unaccounted for.

El Mokhtar Ould Sidi, editor of the Mauritanian news site ANI, said several calls on Thursday came from the kidnappers themselves giving their demands and describing the situation.

"They were clearly in a situation of war, the spokesman who contacted us was giving orders to his colleagues and you could hear the sounds of war in the background.... He threatened to kill all the hostages if the Algerian forces tried to liberate them," he said.

With the hostage drama entering its second day Thursday, Algerian security forces moved in, first with helicopter fire and then special forces, according to diplomats, a website close to the militants, and an Algerian security official. The government said it was forced to intervene because the militants were being stubborn and wanted to flee with the hostages.

Militants claimed 35 hostages died when the military helicopters opened fire as they were transporting hostages from the living quarters to the main factory area where other workers were being held.

The group — led by a Mali-based al Qaeda offshoot known as the Masked Brigade — suffered losses in Thursday's military assault — but garnered a global audience.

The militants made it clear that their attack was in revenge for the French intervention against Islamists who have taken over large parts of neighboring Mali. France has encountered fierce resistance from the extremist groups in Mali and failed to persuade many Western allies to join in the actual combat.

Even violence-scarred Algerians were stunned by the brazen hostage-taking Wednesday, the biggest in northern Africa in years and the first to include Americans as targets. Mass fighting in the 1990s had largely spared the lucrative oil and gas industry that gives Algeria its economic independence and regional weight.

The official Algerian news agency said four hostages were killed in Thursday's operation, two Britons and two Filipinos. Two others, a Briton and an Algerian, died Wednesday in the initial militant ambush on a bus ferrying foreign workers to an airport. Citing hospital officials, it said six Algerians and seven foreigners were injured.

APS said some 600 local workers were safely freed in the raid — but many of those were reportedly released the day before by the militants themselves.

One Irish hostage managed to escape: electrician Stephen McFaul, who'd worked in North Africa's oil and natural gas fields off and on for 15 years. His family said the militants let hostages call their families to press the kidnappers' demands.

"He phoned me at 9 o'clock to say al Qaeda were holding him, kidnapped, and to contact the Irish government, for they wanted publicity. Nightmare, so it was. Never want to do it again. He'll not be back! He'll take a job here in Belfast like the rest of us," said his mother, Marie.

Dylan, McFaul's 13-year-old son, started crying as he talked to Ulster Television. "I feel over the moon, just really excited. I just can't wait for him to get home," he said.

Read More..

Manti Te'o's Fake Girlfriend May Have Duped Others













Notre Dame star linebacker Manti Te'o's fake girlfriend "Lennay Kekua" may have hoaxed other unsuspecting suitors.


"Catfish" movie director and actor Ariel Schulman told "Good Morning America" today that he believes there may have been "a few other people duped by the fake Lennay character."


Schulman and his brother Nev Schulman have been looking into the elaborate scam and claim to be corresponding with various players involved. They have come to believe that there were "a lot of other people that she was corresponding with before and maybe even during her relationship [with Te'o]."


Nev Schulman was the subject of the 2010 movie "Catfish," which spawned the TV series, because he himself was sucked in by an Internet pretender -- or a "catfish" -- who built an elaborate fake life.


As questions mount about Te'o's possible role in the complex scam, the number one question is whether Te'o was unknowingly ensnared, as he says, or whether he was complicit in the scam.


"I stand by the guy. My heart goes out to him," Ariel Schulman said. His brother has reached out to Te'o, but has not heard back.


"He had his heart broken," Schulman said. "He was grieving for someone, whether she existed or not. Those were real feelings."






Streeter Lecka/Getty Images











Manti Te'o Hoax: Was He Duped or Did He Know? Watch Video









Manti Te'o Hoax: Notre Dame Star Allegedly Scammed Watch Video









Tale of Notre Dame Football Star's Girlfriend and Her Death an Alleged Hoax Watch Video





Click here for a who's who in the Manti Te'o case


Te'o has kept a low-profile since the news of the scandal broke. He released a statement calling the situation "incredibly embarrassing" and maintaining that he was a victim of the hoax.


He was captured briefly by news cameras on Thursday at a Florida training facility, but has not spoken publicly.


As for the woman whose photo was used as the face of Lennay Kekua, "Inside Edition" has identified her as Diane O'Meara who is very much alive. The show caught up with her on Thursday, but she declined to comment.


ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams said that O'Meara may be the one person in the scandal with the power to sue since her likeness was taken and used without her permission.


As for Te'o, even if he knew about the deception, it appears that he did not do anything illegal.


"He's allowed to lie to the public. He's allowed to lie to the media. He's not allowed to lie to the authorities," Abrams said on "Good Morning America."


Questions also remain about the timeline of events and when Te'o discovered that the "love of his life," as he called her, was nothing more than a fake Internet persona.


According to Notre Dame's timeline of events, Te'o learned his girlfriend didn't exist on Dec. 6.


But in a Dec. 8 interview with South Bend, Ind., TV station WSBT, Te'o said, "I really got hit with cancer. I lost both my grandparents an my girlfriend to cancer." And on Dec. 11, he talked about his girlfriend in a newspaper interview.


Te'o alerted Notre Dame on Dec. 26 about the scam, the university said.


Click here for more scandalous public confessions.


Skeptics have also cited comments by Te'o's father Brian Te'o who told a newspaper how Kekua used to visit his son in Hawaii.


Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said the university launched their own investigation.


"Our investigators, through their work, were able to discover online chatter between the perpetrators," Swarbrick said at a Wednesday news conference. "That was sort of the ultimate proof."






Read More..

Did Scientology ad cross line?




The Church of Scientology is also at fault for thinking the advertorial would survive The Atlantic readers' scrutiny, Ian Schafer says.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The Atlantic published and pulled a sponsored Scientology "story"

  • Ian Schafer: On several levels, the ad was a mistake

  • He says the content was heavy-handed and comments were being moderated

  • Schafer: Experimenting to raise revenue makes sense, but standards should be clear




Editor's note: Ian Schafer is the founder and CEO of a digital advertising agency, Deep Focus, and the alter ego of @invisibleobama. You can read his rants on his blog at ianschafer.com.


(CNN) -- "The Atlantic is America's leading destination for brave thinking and bold ideas that matter. The Atlantic engages its print, online, and live audiences with breakthrough insights into the worlds of politics, business, the arts, and culture. With exceptional talent deployed against the world's most important and intriguing topics, The Atlantic is the source of opinion, commentary, and analysis for America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." -- The Atlantic 2013 media kit for advertisers


On Monday, The Atlantic published -- and then pulled -- a story titled "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year." This "story" went on to feature the growth of Scientology in 2012.



Ian Schafer

Ian Schafer



Any regular reader of The Atlantic's content would immediately do a double-take upon seeing that kind of headline, much less the heavy-handed text below it, shamelessly plugging how well Scientology's "ecclesiastical leader" Miscavige has done in "leading a renaissance for the religion."


This "story" is one of several "advertorials" (a portmanteau of "advertising" and "editorials") that The Atlantic has published online, clearly designated as "Sponsor Content." In other words, "stories" like these aren't real stories. They are ads with a lot of words, which advertisers have paid publications to run on their behalf for decades. You may have seen them in magazines and newspapers as "special advertising sections."


The hope is that because you are already reading the publication, hey, maybe you'll read what the advertiser has to say, too -- instead of the "traditional" ad that they may have otherwise placed on the page that you probably won't remember, or worse, will ignore.



There's nothing wrong with this tactic, ethically, when clearly labeled as "sponsored" or "advertising." But many took umbrage with The Atlantic in this particular case; so many, that The Atlantic responded by pulling the story from its site -- which was the right thing to do -- and by apologizing.


At face value, The Atlantic did the right thing for its business model, which depends upon advertising sales. It sold what they call a "native" ad to a paying advertiser, clearly labeled it as such, without the intention of misleading readers into thinking this was a piece of journalism.


But it still failed on several levels.


The Atlantic defines its readers as "America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." By that very definition, it is selling "advertorials" to people who are the least likely to take them seriously, especially when heavy-handed. There is a fine line between advertorial and outright advertising copywriting, and this piece crossed it. The Church of Scientology is just as much at fault for thinking this piece would survive The Atlantic readers' intellectual scrutiny. But this isn't even the real issue.


Bad advertising is all around us. And readers' intellectual scrutiny would surely have let the advertorial piece slide without complaints (though snark would be inevitable), as they have in the past, or yes, even possibly ignored it. But here's where The Atlantic crossed another line -- it seemed clear it was moderating the comments beneath the advertorial.


As The Washington Post reported, The Atlantic marketing team was carefully pruning the comments, ensuring that they were predominantly positive, even though many readers were leaving negative comments. So while The Atlantic was publishing clearly labeled advertiser-written content, it was also un-publishing content created by its readers -- the very folks it exists to serve.


It's understandable that The Atlantic would inevitably touch a third rail with any "new" ad format. But what it calls "native advertising" is actually "advertorial." It's not new at all. Touching the third rail in this case is unacceptable.


So what should The Atlantic have done in this situation before it became a situation? For starters, it should have worked more closely with the Church of Scientology to help create a piece of content that wasn't so clearly written as an ad. If the Church of Scientology was not willing to compromise its advertising to be better content, then The Atlantic should not have accepted the advertising. But this is a quality-control issue.


The real failure here was that comments should never have been enabled beneath this sponsored content unless the advertiser was prepared to let them be there, regardless of sentiment.


It's not like Scientology has avoided controversy in the past. The sheer, obvious reason for this advertorial in the first place was to dispel beliefs that Scientology wasn't a recognized religion (hence "ecclesiastical").


Whether The Atlantic felt it was acting in its advertiser's best interest, or the advertiser specifically asked for this to happen, letting it happen at all was a huge mistake, and a betrayal of an implicit contract that should exist between a publication of The Atlantic's stature and its readership.


No matter how laughably "sales-y" a piece of sponsored content might be, the censoring of readership should be the true "third rail," never to be touched.


Going forward, The Atlantic (and any other publication that chooses to run sponsored content) should adopt and clearly communicate an explicit ethics statement regarding advertorials and their corresponding comments. This statement should guide the decisions it makes when working with advertisers, and serve as a filter for the sponsored content it chooses to publish, and what it recommends advertisers submit. It should also prevent readers from being silenced if given a platform at all.


As an advertising professional, I sincerely hope this doesn't spook The Atlantic or any other publication from experimenting with ways to make money. But as a reader, I hope it leads to better ads that reward me for paying attention, rather than muzzle my voice should I choose to interact with the content.


After all, what more could a publication or advertiser ask for than for content to be so interesting that someone actually would want to comment on (or better, share) it?


(Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said native advertising accounts for 59% of the Atlantic's ad revenue. Digital advertising, of which native advertising is a part, accounts for 59% of The Atlantic's overall revenue, according to the company.)


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ian Schafer.






Read More..

Football: Rodgers slams Suarez over diving admission






LONDON: Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers on Thursday said that his controversial striker Luis Suarez could face punishment from the club after admitting that he dived to try to win a penalty in a league game with Stoke City.

In an interview with Fox Sports Argentina, Suarez admitted "falling" during October's 0-0 draw between the clubs at Anfield, prompting Rodgers, who had defended him from criticism at the time, to hit out.

"I think it is wrong. It is unacceptable. I have spoken to Luis and it will be dealt with internally," said Rodgers. "(Diving) is not something we advocate. Our ethics are correct."

Rodgers spoke to Suarez on Thursday and said he had been "totally understanding on where I am coming from as manager of the club.

"What was said was wrong. He takes that and we move on," he added.

Suarez hit the headlines for a theatrical fall in the Stoke game after he went to ground under a challenge from Marc Wilson in an unsuccessful attempt to win a second-half penalty.

FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce was moved to describe Suarez's tumble as "cheating", adding that the tendency for players to easily fall to the ground was a "cancer" in the game.

Suarez has been accused of diving at regular intervals during his time in England and he admitted in the interview that he had gone down on purpose.

"I was criticised for trying to win a penalty by falling in a match against Stoke," said the Uruguay international. "It's true I fell because we were drawing against Stoke at home and we needed to do something.

"But afterwards, the coaches of Stoke, Everton, all of them, came forward. I came to realise that the name of Suarez was a (newspaper) seller."

Suarez sparked controversy again earlier this month when he handled the ball prior to scoring Liverpool's winning goal in their 2-1 victory at non-league Mansfield Town in the FA Cup.

"The other day, a ball hit my hand without me meaning it to," he said. "I kissed my wrist (in celebration) and everyone started rounding on me."

Suarez also claimed that foreign players are treated differently to home-grown players in the Premier League.

"It's difficult," he said. "It's what Carlitos (Tevez) said, it's what Kun (Sergio Aguero) said: foreigners, and especially the South Americans, are treated differently to local players."

Suarez added that his run-in with Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, which saw him hit with a 40,000 fine pounds and an eight-match ban for racial abuse, was long forgotten.

"When people come and insult me, saying I'm South American, I don't start crying. It's something that stays on the pitch, part of football. My conscience is clear," he said, before claiming that Manchester United control the British press.

"They've got a lot of power and they'll always help them."

- AFP/fa



Read More..

Lance Armstrong stripped of Olympic medal









By Josh Levs, CNN


updated 11:01 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013







Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong has been stripped of the bronze medal he won in the 2000 Olympics.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Lance Armstrong is stripped of his 2000 bronze medal

  • The International Olympic Committee made the decision in December, an IOC spokesman says

  • Armstrong was stripped of his Tour de France titles in October

  • The first part of his interview with Oprah Winfrey airs Thursday night




Share your thoughts on the downfall of Lance Armstrong at CNN iReport, Facebook or Twitter.


(CNN) -- Not only is disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong no longer officially a Tour de France winner -- he's no longer an Olympic medalist either.


The International Olympic Committee has stripped Armstrong of the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, an IOC spokesman said Thursday. The committee has told Armstrong to return it.


The move came in advance of a televised interview in which Armstrong is believed to acknowledge for the first time that he used prohibited performance-enhancing drugs in his career.















Lance Armstrong over the years



























HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20









>


>>








While talk-show host Oprah Winfrey has not released details of exactly what Armstrong said in the recorded interview, she appeared to confirm media reports Tuesday that the former seven-time Tour de France champion admits doping and lying about it.


The interview will air in two parts on Thursday and Friday nights.


In October, the International Cycling Union stripped Armstrong of his Tour de France titles.


Armstrong responded a few weeks later by tweeting a photo of himself lying on a sofa in his lounge beneath the seven framed yellow jerseys from those victories.


The International Olympic Committee said in October that it was reviewing evidence against him.


"We have written to Armstrong asking him to return the medal" and informed the U.S. Olympic Committee, IOC spokesman Mark Adams said Thursday. It's up to the U.S. committee to handle retrieving the medal from Armstrong, the IOC said.


The decision was made "in principle" at a meeting of the IOC executive board in December, Adams said. The committee did not act on the decision until it received confirmation from the International Cycling Union that Armstrong was not appealing that agency's decision.


12 Lance Armstrong quotes to know


Livestrong: Tell the truth about doping












Part of complete coverage on


Lance Armstrong






updated 1:25 PM EST, Wed January 16, 2013



They were the liars. The "trolls." The bitter, vindictive and jealous.







updated 11:18 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013



Cheating arises from desires, incentives, pressures.







updated 1:26 PM EST, Wed January 16, 2013



Livestrong, the cancer charity Armstrong founded, has urged the fallen star to come clean.







updated 1:28 PM EST, Wed January 16, 2013



CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance.







updated 8:46 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013



Armstrong has not only spent years vehemently denying using banned performance-enhancing drugs; he also has viciously attacked those who told what they knew about doping in the sport and implicated him in the process.







updated 10:49 AM EST, Wed January 16, 2013



It will take more than a television interview to reduce sanctions against Lance Armstrong, the World Anti-Doping Agency said.







updated 4:27 PM EST, Tue January 15, 2013



The court of public opinion weighed in decidedly against Lance Armstrong, even before the broadcast of an interview in which he is said to acknowledge using performance-enhancing drugs after years of denials.







updated 9:26 AM EST, Tue January 15, 2013



Lance Armstrong's feat of winning seven consecutive Tour de France titles was like the demigod Hercules achieving his "Twelve Labors."







updated 3:40 PM EDT, Mon October 22, 2012



The International Cycling Union announces hat Lance Armstrong is being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.







updated 11:45 AM EST, Thu December 6, 2012



Forty days alone in the wilderness was enough for Jesus, but Lance Armstrong is facing an altogether longer period of solitude.







updated 4:43 PM EST, Wed November 7, 2012



Lance Armstrong's fall from grace has left one of the cyclist's former sponsors not only "sad" -- but also without one of its biggest marketing tools.







updated 2:57 PM EDT, Wed October 24, 2012



For years, as Lance Armstrong basked in the glow of an adoring public, his critics frequently were banished to the shadows, dismissed by the cycling legend and his coterie as cranks or worse.







updated 9:57 PM EDT, Wed October 10, 2012



Cyclist Lance Armstrong was part of "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."





















Read More..

Some children may lose autism diagnosis with age

Some children diagnosed with autism in early childhood may no longer have the disorder as they grow older, according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"Although the diagnosis of autism is not usually lost over time, the findings suggest that there is a very wide range of possible outcomes," said Dr. Thomas R. Insel, NIMH director, said in a press release. "For an individual child, the outcome may be knowable only with time and after some years of intervention."

Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disorders that cause behavioral, social and communication problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate one in 88 children have an ASD.





Play Video


Headlines: Report says kids can grow out of autism




The new study looked at 34 children between 8 and 21 who had an "optimal outcome," meaning they were diagnosed with autism earlier in life but functioned normally compared to their peers later on. These subjects were matched by age, sex, and nonverbal IQ with 44 children with high-functioning autism and an additional 34 typically developing peers.

The researchers reviewed their initial diagnoses to make sure they were accurate and enlisted a second diagnostic expert, who didn't know the child's status, to review reports where the initial diagnosis had been removed.

What they discovered was the "optimal outcome" children had milder social problems than those in the high-functioning autism group in early childhood. Verbal IQ of "optimal outcome" children were slightly higher than high-functioning autism individuals. However when it came to communication and behavioral problems, there were similarities to the high-functioning subjects.

The researchers then examined all the subjects using standard cognitive tests and parent questionnaires. The "optimal outcome" children were all in regular education classes with no special education aimed at autism. The whole group showed no signs of problems with language, face recognition, communication, and social interaction.

Researchers cannot speculate which percentage of children will outgrow their ASD, but they are hoping that through the research they gathered they can see whether the diagnosis changed because brain function normalized or the brain was able to make up for autism-related deficiencies.




10 Photos


Is it autism? Facial features that show disorder



"All children with ASD are capable of making progress with intensive therapy, but with our current state of knowledge most do not achieve the kind of optimal outcome that we are studying," study author Deborah Fein, a professor at the Department of Psychology at University of Connecticut, said in a press release. "Our hope is that further research will help us better understand the mechanisms of change so that each child can have the best possible life."

The study published Jan. 16 in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Researchers are also looking at which therapies led to the most success. Fein told HealthDay she believed behavioral treatments were the most likely to result in an "optimal outcome." However, even for children that lose the diagnosis, she said that parents should not stop therapy "prematurely" since these children are still at risk for attention problems and anxiety.

"But I want to point out that this is the result of years of hard work," she added. "This is not anything that happens overnight. I would say that at minimum we're talking about two to three years of intensive therapy to produce this outcome, but it could also be five years. It's variable.

"This is the first solid science to address this question of possible recovery, and I think it has big implications," added Dr. Sally Ozonoff of the MIND Institute at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study, to the New York Times. "I know many of us as would rather have had our tooth pulled than use the word 'recover,' it was so unscientific. Now we can use it, though I think we need to stress that it's rare."

But, other experts warned that parents shouldn't get their hopes up that their child will outgrow their diagnosis.

"This study is looking at a small sample of high functioning people with autism and we would urge people not to jump to conclusions about the nature and complexity of autism, as well its longevity," Dr. Judith Gould, director of the National Autistic Society's Lorna Wing Centre for Autism, told the BBC. "With intensive therapy and support, it's possible for a small sub-group of high functioning individuals with autism to learn coping behaviors and strategies which would 'mask' their underlying condition and change their scoring in the diagnostic tests used to determine their condition in this research."

Read More..

Manti Te'o Hoax Exposes 'Catfish' Internet Scams













Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick cited the documentary "Catfish" in trying to explain how he said
star linebacker Manti Te'o became the victim of an elaborate hoax that duped him into believing that his online girlfriend died during the 2012 college football season.


"I would refer all of you, if you're not already familiar with it, with both the documentary called 'Catfish,' the MTV show which is a derivative of that documentary, and the sort of associated things you'll find online and otherwise about catfish, or catfishing," Swarbrick told reporters Wednesday.


The 2010 blockbuster film stars Nev Schulman, who was the real-life victim of a "catfish" scam. Schulman wanted to make the documentary to show how he was sucked in by an Internet pretender -- or a "catfish" -- who built an elaborate fake life.


Schulman made the documentary as he was falling for someone named "Megan," a gorgeous 20-something from Michigan. Their online relationship blossomed until Schulman confronted "Megan."


"Megan" turned out to be a middle-aged mom of two named Angela Wesselman, who later said she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.






Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images











Manti Te'o Hoax: Notre Dame Star Allegedly Scammed Watch Video









'Catfish' Star Nev Schulman's Red Flags for Spotting Online Fakers Watch Video









Tale of Notre Dame Football Star's Girlfriend and Her Death an Alleged Hoax Watch Video





Inside 'Catfish': A Tale of Twisted Cyber-Romance


"It was different. It was something new. It was a little mysterious," Schulman told ABC News in an earlier interview, describing his reaction before he discovered Megan's true identity.


Now, a much wiser Schulman is helping others catch the "catfish" in his new hit series on MTV inspired by the real-life documentary, "Catfish: The TV Show."


'Catfish' Stars Nev Schulman's Advice for Online Dating


In one episode, Schulman meets Sunny, who says she has been dating a medical student online named "Jameson" for eight months.


"He's going to be an anesthesiologist. He does online classes," Sunny says of "Jameson" in the episode.


Schulman convinces Sunny to take a road trip to meet "Jameson" face to face and and Sunny later finds out "Jameson" was really a woman who was pretending to be a man online for at least four years.


"I mean who does that," Sunny said in the episode.


For Te'o, 21, the scam was allegedly worse. The Hawaiian said during the season that his girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, died of leukemia in September on the same day Te'o's grandmother died, triggering an outpouring of support for Te'o at Notre Dame and in the media.


"If the person you're talking to has a series of family incidents, this is something to watch out for," Schulman said.


As more become connected through various social media outlets, Schulman says these "catfish" hoaxes will continue.


"So long as we're not looking people in the eye face-to-face, there's always going be room, a lot of room for deception," he said.


WATCH: Deadspin Writer Who Uncovered Hoax Explains the Story



Read More..

Should we give Lance another chance?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Mike Downey: I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for the dope "pedaler"

  • Randy Cohen: If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping

  • Jeff Pearlman: Lance racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42

  • John Hoberman: Any lifting of his lifetime ban should be based on his total cooperation




(CNN) -- CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance in light of his apologies to his charity, Livestrong, and his soon-to-be-aired interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which it's widely reported he admitted he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong is banned from professional cycling for life and was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.


Mike Downey: No sympathy for the dope "pedaler"


I was at the Champs-Elysees finish line on July 27, 1986, when the bike of Greg LeMond whizzed by, making him the first American to win the Tour de France. It was a monumental achievement: 210 cyclists, 23 grueling days, long and winding roads, treacherously steep hills.



Mike Downey

Mike Downey



Equally hard had to be the abuse LeMond endured in retirement after publicly decrying the sport's hypocrisies and daring to suggest that seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, the All-American boy himself, had not been on the up-and-up. Vilified and disdained, LeMond was treated like a tobacco company's insider who blew the whistle on the industry's methods or like Carl Lewis speculating that his rival Ben Johnson had not won foot races fairly and squarely. As if he had an ax to grind.


I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for Armstrong now that he is exposed for the dope-pedaler -- that's pedal, not peddle -- he truly was. He played the Jean Valjean part of the persecuted man for every franc that it was worth. Let us resist the magnanimous gesture to forgive, forget and give Lance a second (eighth?) chance. He was caught, unlike certain baseball players who have been merely suspected or accused, and has, evidently, confessed. Seven strikes and you're out.


Professional athletes do exist who 'fess up, serve a suspension, then are welcomed back. They, as with the ballplayers, did disgrace their life's work, yet none single-handedly won their sport's championship with their chicanery. None stood apart as Armstrong did and hogged credit for being a champion, a hero. None won a championship by compelling teammates to also cheat, at risk of being shunned, smeared or dropped from the team.


I say we say goodbye for good to Monsieur Armstrong, farewell, adieu. Off to Elba and exile with you, you rogue. Vive LeMond.


Mike Downey is a former columnist for The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.


To Armstrong's critics, doping admission would be sweet


Randy Cohen: All big-time cyclists who doped should confess


The important ethical question isn't whether Lance deserves a second chance. Chance to do what? Cheat in seven more Tours? Lie about it seven more times? Bully seven more teammates into doping? He behaved badly and is rightly censured.



Randy Cohen

Randy Cohen



But that should be the beginning, not the end, of this disheartening story. There's a lot more blame to go around. Cycling's governing bodies also have an ethical duty, and that's to provide a setting in which honest athletes can participate.


If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping. You simply can't compete against them without doing the same. What was Lance to do? Quit the sport? And who inherits his Tour titles? Some other cheat?


It would be thrilling if one by one, they declined in a Spartacus moment -- an honest, I-am-drugged-Spartacus moment. This is a community problem; it demands community solutions. Unless those who run big-time cycling institute real reforms, Lance's fall will be merely a celebrity scandal, and there's little good in that.


Randy Cohen wrote The Ethicist column in The New York Times Magazine till 2011, and he is a former writer for "Late Night With David Letterman." His latest book is "Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything."



Jeff Pearlman: He's almost 42, forget about it


Back when I was 8 or 9, my parents took me to my first trip to Disney World. I remember Space Mountain, and I remember Mickey Mouse's enormous head. For some reason, though, what I remember most is a sign posted within the borders of Epcot. It read: If you can dream it, you can do it.


"Dad," I said, "I dream of being 8-feet tall. But that'll never happen ..."


"Well, son ..."



Jeff Pearlman

Jeff Pearlman



"And, Dad, I dream of being able to fly just like Superman. But that'll never happen ..."


"Son, the thing is ..."


"And Dad, I'd really like to win an Olympic gold medal for my Joanie Cunningham impersonation, but ..."


"Son," my father said, "It's a sign. It's just a damn sign."


Sigh.


Throughout Lance Armstrong's recent fight to prove he hadn't cheated, and throughout the plights of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire and the alleged PED abuses of dozens upon dozens of others, I've often thought about that day at Disney and, specifically, of that sign.


As a boy, it spoke to me as a kid longing for greatness. Maybe, just maybe, I can accomplish anything. Maybe ...


As a sportswriter who has chronicled much of the past two decades, however, it strikes me as foolish nonsense. As Armstrong's recent admission shows, the words must be altered to -- if you can dream it, you can do it -- as long as you leave your ethics at the door and cheat your ass off and don't mind throwing your supporters under a bus.









Lance Armstrong over the years



























HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20









>


>>








That, now, is the sad, pathetic legacy of men such as Armstrong and Bonds. Once upon a time, they dreamed of doing wonderful things: Of hitting baseballs 500 miles; of speeding down the largest mountains; of being special. Then, however, they learned (as we all do) that we are bound by the confines of humanity. Within the rules and regulations, there is only so strong. There is only so fast. There is only so big. Hence, one can either accept his lot in life and put out the best possible effort, or he can cheat and lie and enjoy the temporary fruits while trying to avoid the inevitable plummet.


Do I think he should be allowed to race again? No. Lance Armstrong racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42.


Just the same, I am thrilled that he has -- at long last -- begun to come clean. There are lessons to be learned here, beyond those pertaining to cycling. And day's end, when the cheering has stopped, there is something to be said for trying your best, even if your best doesn't result in triumph.


There is empowerment in knowing you gave your all. There is satisfaction in achieving your own PR. There is the sense of community and camaraderie that comes in the aftermath of a sporting event. Cold beers, casual conversation, sore muscles -- bliss.


Armstrong and Bonds forgot that long ago. For them, it was all -- and only --about winning. They got lost in a corrupt world of enhancers and boosters and had their heads turned by the fame and accolades and money.


Now, though, they are outcasts. They are the tombstones of long-ago dreams.


Jeff Pearlman is the author of "Sweetness: The Enigmatic Life of Walter Payton." He blogs at jeffpearlman.com. Follow him on Twitter.


Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say


Wayne Norman: Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong


Lance knows that a quick mea culpa is not enough -- otherwise, he would have admitted to doping long ago. Instead, he made a calculated gamble that he could preserve his reputation and brand by lying, defrauding corporate sponsors, impugning the authorities pursuing him and actively slandering and suing honest whistle-blowers who stood in his way.



Wayne Norman

Wayne Norman



That bet has not paid off.


Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong and leads to a hostage-taking and a high-speed chase, Lance's doping is by far the least of his transgressions. A highly calculated confession about the doping still looks like Lance gambling to advance his interests. Former fans will need contrition and a sense that he genuinely regrets the gamble. Those he slandered and defrauded should demand even more.


Lance cannot get another chance as an athlete at this point. That would make a mockery of all sporting rules and their enforcement. When you've been that blatantly dishonest, it won't be easy to convince people to trust you again.


Wayne Norman is the Mike & Ruth Mackowski professor of ethics at Duke University.


John Eustice: Armstrong can make a deal and get leeway


What Lance has, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency wants, and Lance is not going to give it to them unless he gets his (athletic) life back. USADA knows that Lance stands at the nexus of two distinct cultures, two completely different mindsets: The ideals and dreams of Olympic sport and the harsh, ratings-driven business of the professional game.



John Eustice

John Eustice



They view this conquest of Lance as their great chance to have the Olympic vision triumph over the cynicism of the pros. But they need his cooperation to win.


Despite the admitting of pros into the Olympic Games, in truth, the two cultures do not mesh. Pro sports are businesses where talent, ratings and the subsequent cash flows from them, must be protected just as in any other entertainment business.


USADA needs to understand how the professional mentality has "infected" the Olympic movement, and Lance is the key. Was he protected by the International Cycling Union? Was the Tour de France involved? Did it go even higher that that?


USADA makes deals. If Lance can provide them with information on the underground system that fuels athletes worldwide, and explain, for example, how of the 6,000 drugs tests given at the London Games, only one came back positive, allowing him to participate in some triathlons seems a very small price to pay.


Cycling analyst John Eustice was one of the pioneer Americans to break into the world of European pro cycling. He co-founded and captained the first American team to race in the Tour of Italy, and is a two-time United States Professional Champion.


John Hoberman: Is it possible to acquire a conscience overnight?


The report that Lance Armstrong choked up during his apology to Livestrong Foundation employees earlier this week would seem to mark an abrupt departure from the cold, calculating and manipulative personality he has displayed throughout his celebrated athletic career.


Having closely followed the Armstrong saga as a doping researcher, I have come to doubt whether this is man is capable of genuine contrition. One can only imagine the apologetic telephone calls he has been making to the former teammates and other victims he persecuted, threatened, bullied and slandered over so many years.



John Hoberman

John Hoberman



Is it really possible to acquire a conscience overnight? Can a person who has long-demonstrated reckless self-assertion, a lack of empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm and irresponsibility suddenly repent after months of hostile intransigence?


One is tempted to say no, since this ensemble of traits bears a disturbing similarity to the psychopathic personality. Let us hope that Armstrong is capable of leaving his old self behind and building a healthier personal identity.


Any lifting of his lifetime ban from officially recognized competitions should be made contingent on his absolute and total cooperation with the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Armstrong must demonstrate some good faith by revealing everything he knows about the illicit trade in doping drugs as well as the cynical and opportunistic doctors who have profited from these corrupt arrangements.


John Hoberman teaches at the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport." He was a consultant in 2005 for the SCA Promotions of Dallas, the insurance company demanding that Lance Armstrong repay a total of $7.5 million it paid to him in Tour de France bonuses.


Shawn Klein: If he cooperates, maybe the lifetime ban could be reduced


After years of adamant denials and protestations of his innocence, Lance Armstrong has reportedly come forward to admit his use of prohibited performance enhancing drugs. If Armstrong is sincerely contrite and forthright in his apology, most people, including myself, will forgive him for his use of prohibited drugs.



Shawn Klein

Shawn Klein



He cheated in a sport known for its widespread cheating; that doesn't justify his use but it does put his actions into an understandable context that makes it easier to excuse the use. Further, if Armstrong cooperates with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, his lifetime ban from cycling ought to be reduced to something more reasonable.


The more troubling aspects of the Armstrong case are the allegations that he harassed and intimidated team members and potential whistle-blowers. Violating the arbitrary rules of a sport shows a character flaw and poor judgment, but it is hard to see who else is truly harmed by such actions. But to threaten, intimidate and coerce others (either to use performance enhancing drugs themselves or to cover up his team's use) causes real harm.


Even if only some of these reports are accurate, Armstrong will have to do more than sit on Oprah's couch to earn forgiveness. 


Shawn Klein teaches at the Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College in Illinois and writes the Sportsethicist blog.


What do you think? Comment below and join us on Friday for a live chat on Twitter @CNNOpinion about Lance Armstrong.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.






Read More..

Elton John has second baby via surrogate






LONDON: British pop star Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents for a second time, they confirmed on Wednesday.

The couple told Hello! magazine that they were "overwhelmed with happiness" at the birth of their son Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John, who was born in Los Angeles on Friday to a surrogate mother.

"Both of us have longed to have children, but the reality that we now have two sons is almost unbelievable," they said.

The couple's first son Zachary was also born via a surrogacy arrangement in California in 2010.

"The birth of our second son completes our family in a most precious and perfect way," John and Furnish told the magazine.

"It is difficult to fully express how we are feeling at this time; we are just overwhelmed with happiness and excitement."

The "Candle in the Wind" singer, 65, has been in a relationship with 50-year-old film producer Furnish for almost 20 years and they have been in a civil partnership since 2005.

Last week, the couple's spokesman denied reports they had become parents again, but they have often spoken of their desire for Zachary to have a sibling.

The baby shares his middle name, Daniel, with one of John's 1970s hits.

- AFP/fa



Read More..

Online courses need human element




Online courses are proliferating, says Douglas Rushkoff, but will really succeed when they bring humanity to learning process




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Douglas Rushkoff: Education is under threat, but online computer courses are not to blame

  • He says education's value hard to measure; is it for making money or being engaged?

  • He says Massive Open Online Courses lack human exchange with teachers

  • Rushkoff: MOOCs should bring together people to share studies, maintain education's humanity




Editor's note: Douglas Rushkoff writes a regular column for CNN.com. He is a media theorist and the author of "Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age" and "Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World, and How We Can Take It Back." He is also a digital literacy advocate for Codecademy.com. His forthcoming book is "Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now."


(CNN) -- Education is under threat, but the Internet and the growth of Massive Open Online Courses are not to blame.


Like the arts and journalism, whose value may be difficult to measure in dollars, higher education has long been understood as a rather "soft" pursuit. And this has led people to ask fundamental questions it:


What is learning, really? And why does it matter unless, of course, it provides a workplace skill or a license to practice? Is the whole notion of a liberal arts education obsolete or perhaps an overpriced invitation to unemployment?



Douglas Rushkoff

Douglas Rushkoff



The inability to answer these questions lies at the heart of universities' failure to compete with new online educational offerings -- the rapidly proliferating MOOCs -- as well as the failure of most Web-based schools to provide a valid alternative to the traditional four-year college.


Education is about more than acquiring skills.


When America and other industrialized nations created public schools, it was not to make better workers but happier ones. The ability to read, write and think was seen as a human right and a perquisite to good citizenship, or at least the surest way to guarantee compliant servitude from the workers of industrial society. If even the coal miner could spend some of his time off reading, he stood a chance of living a meaningful life. Moreover, his ability to read the newspaper allowed him to understand the issues the day and to vote intelligently.


What we consider basic knowledge has grown to include science, history, the humanities and economics. So, too, has grown the time required to learn it all. While the modern college might have begun as a kind of finishing school, a way for the sons of the elite to become cultured and find one another before beginning their own careers, it eventually became an extension of public school's mandate. We go to college to become smarter and more critical thinkers while also gaining skills we might need for the work force.



Accordingly, we all wanted our sons and daughters to go to college until recently. The more of us who could afford it, the better we felt we were doing as a society. But the price of education has skyrocketed, especially in the tiny segment of elite schools. This has led to the widespread misperception that a good college education is available only to those willing to take on six-figure debt.


Worse, in making the calculation about whether college is "worth it," we tend to measure the cost of a Harvard education against the market value of the skills acquired. Did my kid learn how to use Excel? If not, what was the point?


To the rescue come the MOOCs, which offer specific courses, a la carte, to anyone with a credit card; some even offer courses for free.


Following the model of University of Phoenix, which began offering a variety of "distance learning" in 1989, these newer Web sites offer video lectures and forums to learn just about anything, in most cases for a few hundred dollars a class. MOOCs have exploded in the past few years, enrolling millions of students and sometimes partnering with major universities.








For pure knowledge acquisition, it's hard to argue against such developments, especially in an era that doesn't prioritize enrichment for its own sake. But it would be a mistake to conclude that online courses fulfill the same role in a person's life as a college education, just as it would be an error to equate four years of high school with some online study and a GED exam.


Don't get me wrong: I have always been a fan of online education -- but with a few important caveats.


First off, subjects tend to be conveyed best in what might be considered their native environments. Computers might not be the best place to simulate a live philosophy seminar, but they are terrific places to teach people how to use and program computers.


Second, and just as important, computers should not require the humans using them to become more robotic. I recently read an account from an online lecturer about how -- unlike in a real classroom -- he had to deliver his online video lectures according to a rigid script, where every action was choreographed. To communicate effectively online, he needed to stop thinking and living in the moment. That's not teaching; it's animatronics.


Online learning needs to cater to human users. A real instructor should not simply dump data on a person, as in a scripted video, but engage with students, consider their responses and offer individualized challenges.


The good, living teacher probes the way students think and offers counterexamples that open pathways. With the benefit of a perfect memory of student's past responses, a computer lesson should also be able to identify some of these patterns and offer up novel challenges at the right time. "How might Marx have responded to that suggestion, Joe?"


Finally, education does not happen in isolation.


Whether it's philosophy students arguing in a dorm about what Hegel meant, or fledgling Java programmers inspecting one another's code, people learn best as part of a cohort. The course material is almost secondary to the engagement. We go to college for the people.


Likewise, the best of MOOCs should be able bring together ideal, heterogeneous groupings of students based on their profiles and past performance, and also create ample opportunities for them to engage with one another in the spirit of learning.


Perhaps this spirit of mutual aid is what built the Internet in the first place. Now that this massive collaborative learning project has succeeded, it would be a shame if we used it to take the humanity out of learning altogether.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Douglas Rushkoff.






Read More..