roachboy

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...279410,00.html

so it appears that the iraqi "administration" has shut down al-jazeera for 30 days.

the arguments are presented in the above guardian article.

have any of you folks been following coverage of iraq through al jazeera's website or broadcasts? what do you think of it?

personally, i find it to be consistently interesting--and i appluad the fact that their coverage is willing to show to human costs of bush's war--civilian casualties in particular by publishing photos for example---which i assume underpins the charge from american conservatives that al-jazeera is "antiamerican"--which raises a host of problems about this (empty) notion of "anti-american" in all its aspects.

do you agree with the rationale offered by the iraqi administration? why?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

onetime2

Yes I agree with their approach. Starving terrorists of attention hurts their cause. The only thing they can influence is public opinion through fear. Take away the mechanisms of communicating their actions and threats and you minimize the fear they can spread.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

SecretMethod70

I agree with this.it's not a big secret that al-jazeera is in the business of providing a decidedly anti-US, anti-anti-terrorist slant. The people of Iraq are, unfortunately, used to being led by propaganda. The only way to change their hearts and minds is to provide them with the right propoganda and hope that future generations will be better able to decipher the truth for themselves.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

sailor

I definitely agree with that. While al-jazeera isnt exactly waving an american flag, they do seem to try to present both sides. Its good that someone out there is willing to show the effect of war. Like any news station, there are biases, but the idea that al-jazeera is unamerican simply because they are willing to show the other side of the war is ridiculous.

As for blocking them for 30 days, I dont know enough about why they did it to really comment. If they really were being overly propagandistic, thats one thing. If this is an attempt by the White House to stifle differing opinions in Iraq, thats another thing altogether.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

Rekna

I read al-jazeera daily and they do have a major slant. They do at least show the side the american media won't show. However, they never put anything positive about the US in their news it is all negative. The reasoning for the suspension is they have been insigting more violence. It is unfortuante that al-jazeera has an agenda, if they didn't they probably wouldn't have these problems.

roachboy

why is pro-bush administration journalism not equally tarred with the accusation of "having an agenda"?
why is the refusal to show civilisan casualties, to make more "real" the debacle that is this war, not also part of an "agenda"?
what is the real problem here? that the administration cannot dictate to all media outlets, all over the world, how they should cover this war?

how is covering the demands of groups that take hostages not part of a journalist's function?
would you really prefer that they get no coverage, and that the hostages die in silence?
what would the point of this be?
therapy for american television viewers at home?
it certainly would have nothing to do with what is going on on the ground....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

I read your thread earlier and didn't respond.

I still don't have much to say, but my sig might be enough to make my thoughts known.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Journeyman

Pardon me, but did we leave Iraq with a democracy or another dictatorship? Because democracies entail free press, and dictatorships entail the media being controlled by the government, and I was somehow under the impression that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" meant, you know, changing Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy. Did this not happen?

Rekna

I didn't say the pro-bush media doesn't have an agenda because it does obviously as soon as you classify it as pro-bush. The reason i read al-jazeera is so that i can get both sides of the story. If i get both sides i can assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The difference is the pro-bush media isn't inciting people to commit violence. In Iraq we have a horrible quagmire that needs to be resolved and inciting more violence on either side is not the solution.

Stare At The Sun

Freedoms are very important, and I think this is just going to do more harm then good. As when they come back, if they don't just go underground, they will come back with a vengance.

If Iraq is supposed to show the middle east what United States democracy really is, i don't think this is gunna help any.

silent_jay

Exactly, if they could pull this off everyone would have actually believed that "major combat" was over.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

hammer4all

As Michael Moore would say, "I'm sure glad we were able to liberate Iraq and make it a free country!"

Why don't we close down the New York Times for "inciting violence?" After all, it was their repeated printing of unchallenged government propaganda that originally led us into this war.

Rdr4evr

They say nothing positive about the US because there is NOTHING positive to say about America. Bushie and company dropped bombs on Iraq killing thousands of innocent civilians under false accusations. What do you want them to say: " Fellow Iraqi citizens, the wonderful coalition has killed more of your children today in order to complete their mission of peace. Please do not attack or make their job any more difficult than it has to be, they are murdering us for the wonderful and bright future of Iraq."

Atleast they are showing the truth unlike the bullshit we see here in the states in the so called 'news'. Besides, I dont think Al-Jazeera being shut down for 30 days is going to reduce the violence in the least bit. The beheadings will continue, the torcher will continue, the murder will continue, Iraq will never be a peaceful country as long as America is around.

Seaver

Really? My cousin who is over there building schools, mosques, bridges, roads, etc would have something to say about that.

Those people who lost scores of family to Saddam would say something about that too.

They said Japan and Germany would never become peaceful countries, that their culture would never change. As there, time will tell.

smooth

Your cousing seems to be a very busy person, which is good, because the rest of his comrades are busy blowing up schools, mosques, bridges, roads, etc.


Who comprised the "they" that said this?

Both Japan and Germany have had "peaceful" periods much longer than the U.S.'s entire existence. I haven't heard anyone argue that their respective cultures were incompatible with peace. I find it interesting that about the only commonality between the two nations you listed is that they do not share U.S. culture.

You managed to do what you claim you didn't intend. Why you felt compelled to point out that you are not intending to be rude when you could have just refrained from typing the rude comment is beyond me. I can't think of any other reason, and your post didn't offer one, for your last sentence than to take a swipe at Rdr4evr. Grammar check has been turned off in the politics forum for a very long time now, please don't rekindle this snippity kind of dialog.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

onetime2

Seems that the true feelings of some have come out in this thread.

The theme of the US doing no good in the situation sure seems to be underlying a lot of comments throughout the politics board. At least FINALLY someone admitted they feel that way.

Of course I disagree completely, but there's something to be said for honesty.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

ARTelevision

My thoughts echo onetime2's immediately above.

__________________
create evolution

DelayedReaction

Freedom of speech is limited when it hurts people, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I think a similar argument could be placed for temporarily limiting Al-Jazeera in this situation. That they're shutting it down for a month is actually pretty encouraging; had Saddam been displeased with the media outlet, the employees and their families would probably have been tortured and executed.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

roachboy

i am not sure how things got diverted onto a black/white choice here: the americans are doing no good, the americans mean well so are trying to do good...since the war requires a marketing campaign--moreso in iraq than elsewhere even, it stands to reason that the americans would be trying to "do good things" materially--if they did not, what possiblity would they open up for themselves?
the americans would have no choice but to think about the relation between their actions and "terrorism" if they did not try to "do good" in iraq.....and elsewhere....

every colonial power has imagined that it too was "doing good"--the civilizing mission, dontcha know...the atrocity exhibition that is the history of belgium in the congo, for example, is littered with pronouncements about how much good the belgians were doing--they were working toward "moral improvement" as they rounded up villages that did not make their rubber quotas, marched the inhabitants out into a sunny place, crowded them together, built walls tight around them, and left them there to die slowly in the heat. for example.

whether you believed a given colonial occupation was "for the greater good" or not was a function--then as now--of control of information flows.

for whom does this control exist?

is control over information a therapeutic operation that functions to reduce cognitive dissonance for the folk who find themselves having to carry out the directives that shape a misbegotten, illegitimate war?

is it a therapeutic operation aimed at shoring up support domestically for the administration?

do you believe this narrative for reasons other than the fact that it makes it easier for you to not experience dissonance in your relation to this fiction of the american nation by looking too much at what this war is doing in the name of "doing good"?

how fragile is this therapeutic narrative?

what kind of relation is there between the defensive reactions on the part of the administration to outlets like al-jazeera and the gap that seperates how the administration sells the war to itself and what is happening on the ground?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rdr4evr

.............................

Seaver

Many sociologists/politicians after WWII. Sorry I cant back up with who to read, did a 15 page report last semester on it and I'll look through my old paperwork if you want me to, just I'm currently moving so it's all boxed up.

Sorry if I did sound like a dick on that, I probably should have sent it through a PM, and I'm editing it out of my previous post.

Roachboy nice post, I disagree with you but it's clear you spent a long time on the rhetoric.

MSD

If we're getting into the business of controlling the media, why don't we at least try to do so through the one media outlet that people over there will listen to?

Even I can't figure out if that statement was sarcastic or serious.