Al-Jazeera bars all reports from Baghdad

[Mordenheim]

Globalization, Imperialism, Communism, Anti-American, Anti-Bush or just anti government make up some of the REAL reasons you see so much protesting.

The hell with the Iraqi people as long as we stop globalizatin. Rally on

[Skunk]

Impartial? You and I discussed this earlier in another thread, and you said Al-Jazeera was biased and the Western Media was also biased and that the truth was somewhere in-between the two.

And so we did and I stand by that - but perhaps I'm not making myself clear here.

The accusation being made, implies that Al Jazeera only chooses to show one set of pictures and carry one set of stories which are sympathetic to Iraq.
This is not true - Al Jazeera does take on both stories, whether popular with its audience or not and from this standpoint, Al Jazeera is impartial.

However, from an editorial standpoint, Al Jazeera certainly takes the arab side. It's analysis of events are partial to the arabic viewer rather than to the interests of the UK/US alliance and the language employed is certainly not the same as CNN. For example, it stated that a suspected Iraqi militia blew himself and four soldiers up at a checkpoint - it did not label the attack as a 'terrorist' attack.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: Al Jazeera went ahead with the screening of the footage of the dead children because it believes that war should not be sanitised. Western media is keen to show things being blown up - they tend not to like to show the aftermath. Why not? If you don't show the consequences, you only tell half the story.

Sorry skunk, but I'll have to disagree.

When it comes to non-war news I don't need to see the bodies of the victims of motor vehicle accidents lying beside the road in pools of blood in order to believe there was an accident and that families will never be the same. I don't have to see the charred remains of a 6 year old's body to know she died in a house fire and that the guy who pulled her out will see that image in his mind for the rest of his life. I don't have to see the decapitated body of a farm worker whose head was removed by a piece of farm equipment to understand the horror of his death and the disbelief of his friends. I don't need to see the swollen, discolored, and disfigured body of a drowning victim found 2 weeks after they drowned to know they've been in the water so long they are decomposing. I don't need to see pieces of skull and brain embedded in the living room wall of a home to believe that someone blew there brains out by sticking a shotgun in their mouth.

These type images are sensationalism plain and simple and are rarely shown on American television (one of the few forms of sensationalism avoided here I must add). These things certainly grab the headlines and are reported over and over and over in the media, but the bodies are respectfully covered, and that's NOT sanitizing the incident.

The same thing goes for war casualties. I don't need to see the dead, disfigured, and disabled bodies of innocent Iraqis to know there are civilians causalities and to see the price of war. I also don't need to see dead coalition soldiers laying where they were killed with their faces plainly visible and their eyes still open and with dried blood running in a line from a hole in their heads to understand the price they paid.

Al-Jazeera has a lot of good things going for it, but photos like these, the propaganda footage of POWs and dead coalition soldiers, and the failure to report the Iraqi army's and paramilitary's consistent use of human shields aren't included in that list.

[ 04-03-2003, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Mordenheim]

Exactly

They aim to incite the arab crowd

It would be like fox running the video of the dead pow's over and over and over. It has a purpose to incite a anger.

That is not news. Calling it news is a joke

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: Exactly They aim to incite the arab crowd It would be like fox running the video of the dead pow's over and over and over. It has a purpose to incite a anger. That is not news. Calling it news is a joke

Remember Somalia?

Dead americans were shown on the tube.

What happened after that? America pulled out of the country because of the outcry: "What the hell are our kids doing over there anyway???" They were there for purely humanitarian reasons. No business interests were involved. It incited anger.. but not directed at their killers.. at the administration for having soldiers there in the first place.

[Mordenheim]

Running something over and over and over is a form of brainwashing. I don't care what it is or who does it.

This is not somalia. We are talking about now. I can look in the past and find any and everything to argue any point from any stance on any topic anywhere. I mean let's talk about now and now only.

[ 04-03-2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: Running something over and over and over is a form of brainwashing. I don't care what it is or who does it.

By this reasoning would you agree that the press running clips of Dubya telling you, over and over and over, that Saddam has WoMD is brainwashing?

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Quote: Originally posted by Mordenheim: Running something over and over and over is a form of brainwashing. I don't care what it is or who does it.

By this reasoning would you agree that the press running clips of Dubya telling you, over and over and over, that Saddam has WoMD is brainwashing?[/QUOTE]no doubt about it

though pictures are far more polarizing. A picture is a thousand word's bla bla. Most people take speeches with a grain of salt and consider the source. Showing a child with his head blown off over and over I would argue is a wee bit more dramatic don't you think? Considering they have no proof what bomb did what I find it actual fraud.

[Skunk]

When it comes to non-war news I don't need to see the bodies of the victims of motor vehicle accidents lying beside the road in pools of blood in order to believe there was an accident and that families will never be the same. I don't have to see the charred remains of a 6 year old's body to know she died in a house fire and that the guy who pulled her out will see that image in his mind for the rest of his life.

There is a bizarre cultural divide at play here that needs to be taken into account. Middle-Easterners are *used* to viewing dead bodies on their TV screens and even in the streets (in many cases). What may be a horrendous picture to you is just another picture to them. And the rules are completely different.

Remember Robocop? The film was released in 1987 and hit the Middle East a year later. By this time the Middle Eastern viewer had already seen 8 years worth of mutiliated bodies on their TV screens from the Iran-Iraq war. Yet the famous scene in the opening of the film when Murphy has some shotgun surgery performed on his extremities was (in most Middle Eastern states) edited to remove the actual shots of the 'handiwork' in action. It was considered too extreme for middle eastern eyes!

Likewise, in a movie I don't have to see naked bodies to know that love making is going on - but we *have* to see the bodies in the west, don't we? Wheras in the Middle East, the insinuation is enough, to show the naked bodies is shocking.

Different values are at play here - and different sensitivities and levels of tolerance. You find the pictures of the dead bodies shocking - the ME doesn't. The ME finds the fact that the civilians were killed and injured shocking - the west less so.

I also don't need to see dead coalition soldiers laying where they were killed with their faces plainly visible and their eyes still open and with dried blood running in a line from a hole in their heads to understand the price they paid.

No, and neither do I. However, would you not agree that the ME also needs reminding just what kind of a brutal regime that Saddam's Iraq really is? These pictures demonstrate it to the ME in a way that a simple statement could not. The pictures were aimed at the ME audience, and not the West - and I think that they did some good there. So much so that in Tehran, during the recent anti-war demonstrations, the marchers were yelling "Death to the Americans - Death to Saddam Hussein!" (OK, not the best result for the US, but at least Saddam is getting the level of revulsion that he deserves).

Al-Jazeera has a lot of good things going for it, but photos like these, the propaganda footage of POWs and dead coalition soldiers, and the failure to report the Iraqi army's and paramilitary's consistent use of human shields aren't included in that list.

Al Jazeera has shown both sets of photos - as indeed the western media has. Western news organisations were a little hypocrital there don't you think? "Al Jazeera is terrible because it showed the pictures below" -followed by insert of Al Jazeera pictures-

The issue of Human Shields is a difficult one to verify - but despite this, western news organisations are happy to report as fact *anything* that the Allied Command tells them on the subject.
Take for example of the alleged shelling of civilians outside Basra.

According to the Western Press briefing, the Iraqi's began shelling civilians leaving the city close to the British positions. The British responded by getting between the civilians and the Iraqi forces in order to shield the civilians from this murderous assault - and then returned fire. Al Jazeera *DID* report this story - but it also reported the Iraqi point of view, which was:

During an attack on British forces, the British deliberately placed themselves in the vicinity of the civilians in order to use them as Human Shields. Unfortunately, this led to the death of civilians and the Iraqi forces were forced to withdraw or risk further civilian death.

Which side was telling the truth? Probably both. Iraqi artillery and weapons are primitive. It's more than possible that an assault on the British was wide of the mark and hit civilians. The British assumed that the civilans were under attack - and moved to counter - but the position they took up looked very much like they were using the civilians as 'Human Shields'.

But it doesn't matter who was telling the truth - Al Jazeera at least gave the viewer the option to make up their minds by showing both statements on the incident - this is more than the 'impartial' western media did, who take it for granted that the fog of war lifts whenever Gen. Tommy Franks addresses them.

Originally posted by Skunk: Take for example of the alleged shelling of civilians outside Basra. According to the Western Press briefing, the Iraqi's began shelling civilians leaving the city close to the British positions. The British responded by getting between the civilians and the Iraqi forces in order to shield the civilians from this murderous assault - and then returned fire. Al Jazeera *DID* report this story - but it also reported the Iraqi point of view, which was: During an attack on British forces, the British deliberately placed themselves in the vicinity of the civilians in order to use them as Human Shields. Unfortunately, this led to the death of civilians and the Iraqi forces were forced to withdraw or risk further civilian death.

"getting between the civilians and the Iraqi forces in order to shield the civilians from this murderous assault" makes it pretty obvbious what the British forces intentions were...as opposed to firing on the civilians themselves or having the civilians between themselves and the Iraqi's that were firing upon them as a shield would properly be used.

Why should the Iraqi's withdraw in order to save lives when they were the ones (obviously) taking them?

Coalition forces are going to great lengths to insure the minimum of civilian casualties...to the extent that they allowed possibly armed Iraqi soldiers and civilians approach them without lifting their weapons prior to the suicide bombings...obeying orders not to fire until fired upon...I think that says more for the coalitions forces intentions, their dedication to their mission, than Al-Jazeera could ever spin into something evil and what's more the Iraqi citizens were eye-witnesses to it, they are not hearing it told on television in an attempt to sway them to the coalition's side. Actions speak louder than words...and pictures...don't you think? Would Iraqi citizens risk their own lives and the lives of their families to aid invading forces if they intended them harm? I doubt it very seriously...explain how so many are doing just that when Al-Jazeera's spin is that we are evil invaders with no concern for their life or their well being...I don't see Al-Jazeera bringing them food or water...putting their power back on...helping them amid conflict with the republican guard to restore dignity to their lives.

[ 04-05-2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]