Al Jazeera

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by AKIron
And I'd agree with them, but since I recognize my bias that means I'm not so biased, right?

Sounds like a good start.  My biggest hurdle after trying to find the biases in news sources is recognising the biases in myself.  


"Notice how the article slowy and gently eases you into accepting that that AlJazeera's blatant bias and falsehoods are actually just fine and acceptable..."



Falsehoods like claiming that WMD have been found in Iraq, like Fox did over and over again?  

I read Fox News and Al Jazeera on a regular basis Grun, do you?

[-dead-]

Originally posted by AKIron
Iraq should have a free press. One that won't condemn to death views opposing religious leaders as in so many other middle eastern countries. However, the US is at war with OBL and one of the goals of war is to deny your enemy freedom of everything except surrender. Most folks hold that those who give aid to your enemy are also your enemy. Won't you agree?

Well then to avoid that and the charge of hypocrisy you'd have to shut down AP, AFP, Reuters, CNN, Fox, the BBC and so on as well - all of whom have featured bin Laden's tapes/speeches.

You should also bear in mind when arguing the "aiding the enemy" point, that while the US may be at war (albeit an undeclared one) with bin Laden, neither Iraq nor Qatar is. And IIRC, both Qatar and Iraq are - supposedly - not part of the US either. So unless you're declaring Iraq as a part of the US - a colony or a state, it would seem (legally speaking, at least) that Qatar's broadcasting bin Laden messages in Iraq can't constitute aiding "the enemy". The "aiding the enemy" argument is further weakened by the fact that not even the US has formally declared war on Al Qaeda.

This seems a bit of a digression from the premise with which Ripsnort resurrected this thread - that Aljazeera incites violence in Iraq, too. I don't think there was a bin Laden message just before the current uprising. There was an Al-Zawahri tape broadcast on the 25th of March which called for "Muslims in Pakistan to get rid of their government which is working for Americans" - but that hardly seems to be evidence of Aljazeera inciting violence in Iraq.

So again I'll posit that the people who are really guilty of inciting violence in Iraq are Bush and Blair.

[Eagler]

if one cant see a difference btwn az and cnn/bbc/fox

well, they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally

[Westy]

"they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally"

 and  so sayeth  Herr Archie Bunker.



p.s. I found the perfect accompaniment to your posts is "Deutschland Uber Alles"

[Eagler]

thank you "MEatHead"



LOL

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Eagler
if one cant see a difference btwn az and cnn/bbc/fox

well, they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally

I can see a difference. For one, it's all in arabic. It's also pro-Arab as opposed to CNN/BBC/Fox who are pro-US/UK. The bias is at pretty much the same level IMHO - just the sides they're biased to are different. This is to be expected - all news media are naturally biased towards their main revenue-producing audience. They have to be.

However I can't see the difference between the CNN/BBC/Fox playing a bin Laden tape and Aljazeera playing it. Except that CNN/BBC/Fox likely reach more people than Aljazeera. So if anything you should go after them before Aljazeera.

Also I don't see what problem the US government has with people seeing a different side to the story. Actually I do - it makes them look bad - but ideologically speaking, it's hard to support without being obviously hypocritical. Hard to justify curtailing press freedom and still run "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a straight face. Bad enough doing it with a big uprising going on after a year of "Iraqi Freedom", god forbid anyone should get to hear what the insurgent Iraqis have to say...

In the long run though, I'd imagine it's easier just to let Aljazeera run. Shutting them down in Iraq will just tell the Arab world that the US has something to hide, and Aljazeera was not only telling the truth, they weren't going far enough. And more people will be inclined to resist the occupation. Certainly shutting down Muqtada Sadr's weekly paper hasn't really worked out too well for the occupation forces so far.

[AKIron]

We restrict our own freedom of speech Dead. No one has the right in the US to incite to riot. Why should we allow the Iraqi's this?

[Eagler]

yes
someone start printing a mainstream rag calling for the overthrow of our gov, death to gov officials or open a radio/tv station airing the same "freedom of speech" and see how long it stays up and its operators out of jail

[Saintaw]

and that is cool?

[Eagler]

Iraq Kidnappers Kill Italian Hostage -Jazeera TV

[-dead-]

Originally posted by AKIron
We restrict our own freedom of speech Dead. No one has the right in the US to incite to riot. Why should we allow the Iraqi's this?

Practically: Because it appears to be extremely counterproductive not to. As has just been proved by the recent uprising sparked off by the closure of Muqtada Sadr's weekly rag. Currently, as a result of ensuring that Muqtada Sadr's followers can no longer read how Paul Bremer is taking Iraq down "Saddam's path", the "coalition" forces have lost control of two cities; look a lot more like Saddam to many more Iraqis than the newspaper reached, and especially to the Shia; and they are facing a worryingly popular uprising, and the hint of a unification between Sunni and Shia rebels.

Cosmetically: It upsets less people and you look like nice guys. Nothing looks more like an occupation/dictatorship than armed uprisings, losing cities and shutting down the media. It certainly doesn't look like a liberation.

Ideologically: The "freedom" in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" doesn't imply automatically following the US version of freedom. It implies (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick entirely and it really means Iraq should be French) the Iraqis should decide for themselves what constitutes freedom of speech rather than have the US impose US standards on them. Of course, the problem there is that no one in the government knows what the Iraqi people actually want, because nobody's asked the Iraqis yet. So until they have been asked, I'd stray on the side of caution and go with a "free for all" rather than risk annoying people - after all, it's their country. So ideologically speaking, it's not the US's place to allow or deny the Iraqis any rights, unless you make Iraq an American colony or state.