Baghdad Al-Jazeera Office Ordered Closed

[Ted Striker]

Word

[Natalinasmpf]

I'm quite amazed by this. Showing images that are truthful (never mind intent) is "inciteful"? So newsgroups should encourage a "ignorance is bliss" policy? Oh wow, showing the news on the latest suicide bombing is inciteful, I guess, lets not do that! If US troops fired on civilians, lets not show that either!

Aren't American news sources inciteful as well?

Then again, you can't expect less from an American puppet government.

[Ted Striker]

The point is that they ARE NOT TRUTHFUL. duh

Do you trust an organzation that knows that bombs are about to go off, yet alerts nobody? All in the pursuit of being the first ones on the scene to film all the bloodshed?

Yeah, great ethics.

[Agathon]

Do you trust an organzation that knows that bombs are about to go off, yet alerts nobody? All in the pursuit of being the first ones on the scene to film all the bloodshed?

Actually, I prefer that the media don't get involved in the conflict. If they do, that just means that one or the other side has all the more reason to censor them.

Okay so let's hear a few ignoramus

All the major networks (CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC), CNN, CNN Headline, CNBC, PBS - and that's just on basic cable. There's a crapload more on digital cable.

I can buy the New York Times and the Washington Post at the 7-11 on the corner and most of the world's major papers near my work.

That's not counting the internet. We get an incessant amount of your stuff here. People outside of the US get bombarded with American opinions all the time, the converse is not true.

I don't know where you're getting at but sure IMO Al Jazeera is very bad also and takes sides, a clear stance, is not balanced, lacks of journalism sometimes and absolutely can not be considered as good News.

Can't you get it into your head? Al Jazeera is the flip side of the US stations. In fact from what I've seen Al Jazeera is a bit better in that it allows a wider range of opinions.

The US News media are moral cowards who can't see past the bottom line to deliver news. During the war I watched the US networks and the CBC. Frankly the US networks were pathetic cheerleaders for the war and never allowed any serious discussion about it. The CBC was even better than the Beeb for the war.

The fact that you live in a society without a properly free press has obviously tarnished your perception of media bias. Similarly, Americans think that the Democrats are a left wing party when the fact is that in every other developed country they would be more right wing that the major right wing parties. Your media are pathetic, and are viewed as such by the rest of the world. The joke reporting on the Israel/Palestine issue in the US is one of the more glaring examples. You guys are so far out of whack with the rest of the world, and until you understand that, you will continue making a diplomatic mess of things.

You should try living in New Zealand. I never understood the idea of political bias within the media until I left there. We don't have left wing or right wing papers or stations - the idea of a paper having a political stance is just weird and no one would fall for it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon


Actually, I prefer that the media don't get involved in the conflict. If they do, that just means that one or the other side has all the more reason to censor them.

Cool. You condone murder.

All the major networks (CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC), CNN, CNN Headline, CNBC, PBS - and that's just on basic cable. There's a crapload more on digital cable.

Nice. You can name the major networks. this is the eqivalent of naming off McDonald's and Pizza Hut as representatives of American food choices.

The US News media are moral cowards who can't see past the bottom line to deliver news. During the war I watched the US networks and the CBC. Frankly the US networks were pathetic cheerleaders for the war and never allowed any serious discussion about it. The CBC was even better than the Beeb for the war.

This occurs because of your fundamental lack of understanding of how America works. Before the war, it was hotly debated in the news, even mainstream. Once a war starts, there is no turning back. Americans trust the President and are willing to back him in a time of war, because of the basic concept of group dynamics. When everyone is supportive and on the same page, the probability for success is higher and less lives are put at risk.

The fact that you live in a society without a properly free press has obviously tarnished your perception of media bias.

This is a poor assessment of the media choices available. You are getting the Pizza Hut version of the news.

Now, please provide me with specific examples of US media inciting.

[Ted Striker]

Actually I think in your case, lack of Free Press amounts to, "they don't agree with my views."

You are confusing cultural views with press views

New Zealand is a poor example because they are out in the middle of nowhere with no global influence whatsover so it's easy for them to be pacifist.

Hell, they are even outsourcing large parts of their military to Australia.

[Agathon]

Cool. You condone murder.

I don't condone anything. It isn't the press's responsibility to take sides in a conflict, they are there to report the conflict.

Nice. You can name the major networks. this is the eqivalent of naming off McDonald's and Pizza Hut as representatives of American food choices.

Fine. You want to show me a better news source that people actually watch.

This occurs because of your fundamental lack of understanding of how America works. Before the war, it was hotly debated in the news, even mainstream.

It was not. There was mild dispute, but the media were so cowed by the post 9/11 forced patriotism that Bush got a free ride. If you want to see hotly debated, look at the British press - even that was better. I don't remember seeing Bush front up to panels of angry citizens like Blair did.

Once a war starts, there is no turning back. Americans trust the President and are willing to back him in a time of war, because of the basic concept of group dynamics. When everyone is supportive and on the same page, the probability for success is higher and less lives are put at risk.

That is not how a democracy goes to war. In the Iraq case there was no question that the US was going to defeat the Iraqi military, the only dispute was over how long and how difficult it would be. The flip side is that if everyone stands behind a war, idiotic wars are likely to go on for far too long - imagine how long Vietnam would have gone on for if the public had supported it (and don't give me that crap about the soldiers being betrayed by the public - you could have never won: the Vietnamese would have fought on for 100 years).

Now, please provide me with specific examples of US media inciting.

The embedded "cheerleaders" who tried to turn the war into a video game. The news organizations that failed to do their job and just followed along like lost sheep, when proper media criticism could have helped prevent the war.

Actually I think in your case, lack of Free Press amounts to, "they don't agree with my views."

Not at all. Hardly any of the NZ press agree with my political views in their editorials, but they will report the news properly and will give fair voice to all sides. US reporting is a joke. Try living somewhere else.

[Agathon]

August 10, 2004

Banning Bad News in Iraq

As interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi is supposed to be guiding Iraq toward democratic elections. Yet in his first six weeks he has begun yielding to the same kind of authoritarian mentality that has stifled democracy in too many neighboring states. His latest target is Al Jazeera, whose sometimes sensational news coverage is the Arab world's principal source of uncensored information. Claiming that Al Jazeera's extensive coverage of terrorist kidnappings and other crimes encourages continuing violence, Mr. Allawi's police shut down the station's Baghdad bureau on Saturday for at least 30 days. The office will be allowed to reopen only if Al Jazeera agrees to change its policies.


Thwarting Al Jazeera's news coverage will not halt the violence that has been tearing Iraq apart for the past 16 months. But it may spare Mr. Allawi the embarrassment of having that violence so visible to a worldwide audience. It may also give his government a freer hand to abuse human rights and pursue personal political vendettas in the name of restoring law and order.


Al Jazeera's professional, provocative and partisan news coverage has no exact parallel in the United States, in part because the journalistic context in which it operates fortunately has no parallel here. Before the station began broadcasting in 1996 with financial support from the emir of Qatar, Arab viewers were largely limited to tame and uninformative state broadcasting outlets. Now tens of millions of people across the Arab world see news that their own governments would prefer to keep quiet.


That has repeatedly gotten Al Jazeera into trouble with authoritarian Arab governments - a precedent that Mr. Allawi should not be so eager to follow. The station has also drawn sharp criticism from Bush administration officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for its stridently Arab nationalist tone and the graphic details of its Iraq war coverage.


More sensitivity and less stridency on Al Jazeera's part would certainly be welcome. But on the whole, it has been a healthy and crucially important force for change. It often stands almost alone in holding the actions of previously unaccountable governments up to public view and encouraging broader public debate. Mr. Allawi's government is supposed to be pointing the way toward a more democratic Iraq in a more democratic Middle East. By moving against Al Jazeera, it does just the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10tue3.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Hey, look sometimes you can do it, if you really try...

[Last Conformist]

you could have never won: the Vietnamese would have fought on for 100 years

Assuming there would have been any left - ask the Herero or Jungars whether refusal to cave in to an imperial power guarantees eventual victory.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
If they do, that just means that one or the other side has all the more reason to censor them.

As appears to have happened with AJ.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon


I don't condone anything. It isn't the press's responsibility to take sides in a conflict, they are there to report the conflict.

DUDE. They get advanced warning that a bomb is about to go off. They could evacuate the area. But they don't. This has absolutley nothing to do with taking SIDES.

Secondly, TERRORISTS who are out blowing up innocents don't count as a "SIDE."

Fine. You want to show me a better news source that people actually watch.

Al Jazeera.

It was not. There was mild dispute, but the media were so cowed by the post 9/11 forced patriotism that Bush got a free ride. If you want to see hotly debated, look at the British press - even that was better. I don't remember seeing Bush front up to panels of angry citizens like Blair did.

Absolutley wrong. Again, showing your ignorance. You don't live here. You have no idea. Mild dispute. Okay.

That is not how a democracy goes to war.

The flip side is that if everyone stands behind a war, idiotic wars are likely to go on for far too long - imagine how long Vietnam would have gone on for if the public had supported it (and don't give me that crap about the soldiers being betrayed by the public - you could have never won: the Vietnamese would have fought on for 100 years).

Your opinion. It could have been done.

The embedded "cheerleaders" who tried to turn the war into a video game. The news organizations that failed to do their job and just followed along like lost sheep, when proper media criticism could have helped prevent the war.

Specific examples please.

Not at all. Hardly any of the NZ press agree with my political views in their editorials, but they will report the news properly and will give fair voice to all sides. US reporting is a joke. Try living somewhere else.

Trying living in the US.

[Agathon]

You are so deluded. Try living in a free country.

Al Jazeera are being persecuted because they say things that the US doesn't like, and that means they say things that the puppet government doesn't like. You can take your conspiracy theories with you.

[Ted Striker]

Nice try but once again my info is based on real reports from the ground. Yours are based on projection of policies you simply don't like.

You on the other hand have provided no specific evidence of this incitement by the American media.

And by the way, the Freedom of the Press you cherish so much was invented in the USA. Meanwhile you English bootlickers have traditionally lagged behind in the area, following the US lead.

The US had a Freedom of Information Act passed in 1966,.

Canada's "Access to Information Act": 1985

Whatever

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10tue3.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Hey, look sometimes you can do it, if you really try...

Nice.


So, here we have the New York Times, the most widely read US newspaper in the country, showing a balanced look at the situation.

All American media is crap though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Al Jazeera are being persecuted because they say things that the US doesn't like, and that means they say things that the puppet government doesn't like.

I've asked this before but you haven't answered this yet. Could you please explain to me where the good journalism is in the incidents described by Oerdin?