|
The lying cunts in the criminal Bu$h mob can't compete
in a country where they don't own/control the media.
The U$$A will lose Iraq ... and they will lose badly.
washingtonpost.com
Losing the Media War
Monday, December 1, 2003; Page A22
ONE BATTLE THAT the occupation authority in Iraq has been steadily losing is
that of the media. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein there has been an
explosion of information sources in the country; more than 200 newspapers
are being published, and Iraqis have rushed by the tens of thousands to
acquire satellite equipment allowing them to watch Arab and other
international news stations. Meanwhile, the coalition's own attempts to
broadcast news and information have been woefully deficient. Although it
controls Iraq's main broadcast channel, two domestic radio stations and a
major newspaper, the authority and its American contractors have failed to
capture the Iraqi audience -- news programs, in particular, smack of
sanitization. The problem is made all the more serious by the fact that Arab
satellite broadcasters are at once more skilled in production, more credible
with many Iraqis and wildly biased against the U.S. mission. Last week, with
the approval of the Bush administration, Iraq's Governing Council reacted by
shutting down the Baghdad operation of one of the two leading broadcasters,
al-Arabiya. In addition to setting a terrible precedent for press freedom in
Iraq, this will only make the underlying problem worse.
Al-Arabiya, like its competitor al-Jazeera, covers Iraq and the Middle East
with a slant that is disturbing to Westerners, but typical of the prevailing
outlook among the Arab intelligentsia. It heaps attention on violence in the
Israeli-occupied territories, and on the resistance to the U.S. forces in
Iraq. Both channels sympathized with Saddam Hussein's resistance to the U.S.
invasion, and al-Arabiya recently broadcast a statement it received at its
Dubai headquarters that was attributed to the former dictator. This last act
was the pretext for its shutdown. Yet the channel was doing no more or less
than American networks that report smuggled statements from Saddam Hussein
or Osama bin Laden, not because they support them but because they are news.
After this fact was pointed out, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
charged at a press conference that al-Arabiya works in league with the Iraqi
resistance, which, he claimed, summons it to cover attacks. But he offered
no evidence to back this sensational charge. The channel, like other media
outlets, covers the aftermath of attacks, but those who monitor it say it
has not broadcast them as they occur.
If al-Arabiya really were a mere tool of the Iraqi resistance, the U.S.
challenge in Iraq would be easier than it is. In fact the channel merely
reflects as well as drives common Arab and Iraqi opinion about the United
States and the occupation -- which is mistrustful, misinformed and often
antagonistic. Censorship will only reinforce such biases while driving up al
Arabiya's viewership. The only effective way to attack the problem is to
offer an alternative -- or many alternatives -- that give Iraqis and other
Arabs access to quality programming and credible information, provided by
professional journalists who are independent of the governing authority.
This ought to be something that an American administration can get right.
That it has not done so, after seven months in power, is an inexcusable
failing.
2003 The Washington Post Company
--
"We are going to fight them and impose our will
on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill
them until we have imposed law and order upon
this country,"
-- US Viceroy Paul Bremer,
how U$A is going to win 'hearts and minds'
of the subjugated people of Iraq
|
| |
| |
- Vox Populi wrote:
The lying cunts in the criminal Bu$h mob can't compete
in a country where they don't own/control the media.
The U$$A will lose Iraq ... and they will lose badly.
I see Vox Populi would love to see Saddam back in power....
washingtonpost.com
Losing the Media War
Monday, December 1, 2003; Page A22
ONE BATTLE THAT the occupation authority in Iraq has been steadily losing is
that of the media. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein there has been an
explosion of information sources in the country; more than 200 newspapers
are being published, and Iraqis have rushed by the tens of thousands to
acquire satellite equipment allowing them to watch Arab and other
international news stations. Meanwhile, the coalition's own attempts to
broadcast news and information have been woefully deficient. Although it
controls Iraq's main broadcast channel, two domestic radio stations and a
major newspaper, the authority and its American contractors have failed to
capture the Iraqi audience -- news programs, in particular, smack of
sanitization. The problem is made all the more serious by the fact that Arab
satellite broadcasters are at once more skilled in production, more credible
with many Iraqis and wildly biased against the U.S. mission. Last week, with
the approval of the Bush administration, Iraq's Governing Council reacted by
shutting down the Baghdad operation of one of the two leading broadcasters,
al-Arabiya. In addition to setting a terrible precedent for press freedom in
Iraq, this will only make the underlying problem worse.
Al-Arabiya, like its competitor al-Jazeera, covers Iraq and the Middle East
with a slant that is disturbing to Westerners, but typical of the prevailing
outlook among the Arab intelligentsia. It heaps attention on violence in the
Israeli-occupied territories, and on the resistance to the U.S. forces in
Iraq. Both channels sympathized with Saddam Hussein's resistance to the U.S.
invasion, and al-Arabiya recently broadcast a statement it received at its
Dubai headquarters that was attributed to the former dictator. This last act
was the pretext for its shutdown. Yet the channel was doing no more or less
than American networks that report smuggled statements from Saddam Hussein
or Osama bin Laden, not because they support them but because they are news.
After this fact was pointed out, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
charged at a press conference that al-Arabiya works in league with the Iraqi
resistance, which, he claimed, summons it to cover attacks. But he offered
no evidence to back this sensational charge. The channel, like other media
outlets, covers the aftermath of attacks, but those who monitor it say it
has not broadcast them as they occur.
If al-Arabiya really were a mere tool of the Iraqi resistance, the U.S.
challenge in Iraq would be easier than it is. In fact the channel merely
reflects as well as drives common Arab and Iraqi opinion about the United
States and the occupation -- which is mistrustful, misinformed and often
antagonistic. Censorship will only reinforce such biases while driving up al
Arabiya's viewership. The only effective way to attack the problem is to
offer an alternative -- or many alternatives -- that give Iraqis and other
Arabs access to quality programming and credible information, provided by
professional journalists who are independent of the governing authority.
This ought to be something that an American administration can get right.
That it has not done so, after seven months in power, is an inexcusable
failing.
2003 The Washington Post Company
|
| |
| |
- Vox Populi wrote:
I see Vox Populi would love to see Saddam back in power....
He didn't say that. He didn't mention saddam. Can you also say polly wanna
cracker?
Saddam is either dead or in russia, either way he's irrelevant, the iraqis
are fighting for freedom, something americans used to do. The troops are
invaders, plain and simple and being exploited for shameful, unamerican
purposes.
Wake up and smell the coffee baby. It reminds me of a story Monica Lewinsky
used to describe Linda Tripp. Went something like:
Linda Tripp is the kind of person that invites you to a parade. She tells
you to stand in a certain spot and has a piano hoisted overhead. Just
before the piano is to fall, she shouts, "Look Out!" and pretends she saved
your life.
|
| |
| |
- Vox Populi wrote:
I see Vox Populi would love to see Saddam back in power....
The article quoted has nothing to do with Saddam. I assume you read it??? I
didnt snip it to give you another chance to read it.
M.
|
| |
| |
Ohia wrote:
He didn't say that. He didn't mention saddam. Can you also say
polly wanna cracker?
Naw, Christian is too busy sucking the festering cocks of the neo-cons
and neo-fascists to be able to say anything ...
Saddam is either dead or in russia, either way he's irrelevant, the
iraqis are fighting for freedom, something americans used to do.
You mean as True Americans used to do. The current inhabitants are
nothing but a bunch of pig-ignorant, greed-driven spinless cowards.
The
troops are invaders, plain and simple and being exploited for
shameful, unamerican purposes.
Yep, and as such deserve NO support from the True Americans ...
Wake up and smell the coffee baby. It reminds me of a story Monica
Lewinsky used to describe Linda Tripp. Went something like:
Linda Tripp is the kind of person that invites you to a parade. She
tells you to stand in a certain spot and has a piano hoisted
overhead. Just before the piano is to fall, she shouts, "Look Out!"
and pretends she saved your life.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
shogun wrote:
In article <20031201051134.25827.00001201@mb-m05.aol.com>,
blacksnows@aol.com (Blacksnows) wrote:
Subject: Re: => U$$A Losing the Media War in Iraq ...! that's
Freedom of the
From: Christian Williamson cdwilli@erols.com
Date: 01/12/2003 10:03 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: <bqf3ks$hn$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
- Vox Populi wrote:
The lying cunts in the criminal Bu$h mob can't compete
in a country where they don't own/control the media.
The U$$A will lose Iraq ... and they will lose badly.
I see Vox Populi would love to see Saddam back in power....
|
| |
| |
how the Iraq topic is shaping-up in the newsgroups [updated December 01]
_________________________________________________________________
[01] alt.politics.bush
[02] alt.impeach.bush
[03] soc.culture.iraq
[04] alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
[05] alt.religion.islam
[06] misc.activism.progressive
[07] alt.politics
[08] talk.politics.misc
[09] soc.culture.iranian
[10] soc.culture.malaysia
_________________________________________________________________
|
| |
| |
|
