March 2003 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-l] Re: Denial of Service attack against al Jazeera
by Frank Schaap 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

Well, the Arabic version of the Al Jazeera was up and running this morning from France. DNS resolution is still rather unreliable, as is the routing... right now the routing runs through Berlin and stops there, whereas this morning it went straight to Paris and on to the webserver (which seemed okay, if a bit slow). Frank.

1 0

Re: Denial of Service attack against al Jazeera
by Rune Dalgaard 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

Thomas, and others. I just saw that Al Jazeera has now decided to postpone its english-version website due to spam from "US e-mailers" (whoever that is supposed to cover). See below. Best, Rune Latest News Spam keeps Al-Jazeera website down 27/03/2003 18:28 - (SA) Launch of English website delayed until mid-April Doha - Waves of spam kept Al-Jazeera's website down for a third day on Thursday and officials at the satellite channel said it was coming from US e- mailers apparently angry over its coverage of the Iraqi war. The Qatar-based network, which has broadcast graphic footage of dead US and British soldiers, also said it would now have to delay the introduction of an English-language site for several weeks due to the barrage of spam, or junk electronic mail. "English.aljazeera.net will not be launched until mid-April," online editor-in-chief Abdel Aziz Al-Mahmud told AFP. source: cursor http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm http://www.cursor.org/about/ ________________________________________________ Rune Dalgaard | MA, Ph.D. Candidate | Information and Media Studies | Aarhus University | Denmark runed(a)imv.au.dk | http://www.imv.au.dk/medarbejdere/runed

1 0

Re: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #671 - 7 msgs
by pmg＠gmx.co.uk 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

people pondering the inaccessability of al jezera's english- language service can get more info here: http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=2318&mode=thread&o rder=0 paula

1 0

Forward: [eccr] US and Europe see different wars
by meiwu＠umac.mo 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

----- Forwarded by MeiWu/UMAC on 03/28/03 12:30 PM ----- Jan Servaes <freenet002(a)pi.be> To: ECCR Mailing list <eccr(a)listserv.vub.ac.be> Sent by: cc: owner-eccr@listser Subject: [eccr] US and Europe see different wars v.vub.ac.be 03/26/03 05:42 AM US and Europe see different wars -------------------------------- American audiences are seeing and reading about a different war than the rest of the world. The news coverage in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, reflects and defines the widening perception gap about the motives for this war. Americans, meanwhile, are hearing commentary on military strategy and the human interest angles on soldier life in the desert. Some analysts say that because press ownership is less concentrated in Europe than in the US, the European media are providing more perspectives than either the Arab or American outlets. In Frankfurt, for example, readers have access to 16 different German-language newspapers - many of which present different vantage points, which makes for a more lively and varied debate. European journalists also seem to ask different, more skeptical, questions about the war, often being the ones at White House and Pentagon press conferences to ask whether the invasion of Iraq has turned up any of the weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the invasion - even as their American counterparts repeatedly focus on such questions as whether Saddam Hussein is alive or dead. Media watchers say the European press has tended to be more balanced than the US media in dealing with the war, in part because Europe is so much closer to the Muslim world. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0325/p01s04-woiq.html - Christian Science Monitor ------------------------- Israel censors news sites ------------------------- Israel's News and Media Censorship Office has warned all online publishers not to print any home security details during the war on Iraq. In what is thought to be a first, Israel's chief military censor has apparently written a letter telling the web magazine Scoops Forum that it must not publish any details of missile landing locations, missile types, any cabinet discussions relating to the war, or any information on Israeli army operations in any sector. Ironically, web publishers can circumvent all attempts at monitoring by using services such as anonymizer.com to publish sites through servers in other countries. Brigadier General Rachel Dolev's letter said: "Given the current security situation, you are reminded that it is required to submit [for the Censor's review] all materials that could pose a threat to the security of the State of Israel and its residents." Source: http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story603.html - Journalism.co.uk ---------------- ECCR-Mailing list --- To unsubscribe, send an email message to majordomo(a)listserv.vub.ac.be with in the body of the message (NOT in the subject): unsubscribe eccr --- ECCR - European Consortium for Communications Research Secretariat: P.O. Box 106, B-1210 Brussels 21, Belgium Tel.: +32-2-412 42 78/47 Fax.: +32-2-412 42 00 Email: freenet002(a)pi.be or Rico.Lie(a)pi.be URL: http://www.eccr.info ----------------

1 0

RE: [Air-l] <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd)
by Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof) 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

There are a couple of very troubling omissions from this reporting about Al Jazeera. First, the article doesn't mention that Iraq also has shut down Al Jazeera before, for misusing Saddam Hussein's proper title. In fact, Al Jezeera has at one time or another been shut down by most Arab governments, and is consistently being shut down by one government or another, primarily over minor slights, but then allowed to reopen. I guess I also find it quite curious that Libya is referred to as an ally of the West. Maybe I missed that treaty signing. The other critical ommission is that Al Jazeera is a satellite channel, and thus it is impossible for one nation to "shut down" the satellite. Rather, what they do is to close the local news bureau for awhile, then after things calm down, reopen it. Al Jazeera operates under two rules, it cannot say anything against the Qatari government, nor the royal family. Other than this, it can say anything about anybody else. This has brought the government of Qatar under immense pressure at times from other Arab states for allowing it to attack their own governments. Moreover, as a satellite channel, Al Jazeera doesn't find its biggest audience among the lower socio-economic strata, who, of course, can't afford satellite receivers, but rather the middle and upper classes in the Arab world. It is inconceivable to me that Gatsby can wonder if Al Jazeera put Palestine "on the international agenda" when the network has only been broadcasting since 1996. Palestine has been on the international agenda much longer. Besides the omissions, gatsby's piece actually misrepresents Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is not consistently known for its "in depth, high quality" reporting. It is known first and foremost for its focus on conflict and sensationalism, exemplified most recently by its broadcasting of the most gruesome pictures imaginable, including one with a US soldier with a bullet hole in his head (I did log on before it became victimized by hackers). If a US based satellite or cable channel broadcast such stuff, it would be loudly criticized by a host of liberals, and probably warrant attention from the FCC. Al Jazeera does indeed at times present intelligent discussions of controversial issues within the arabic world, and thus is a breath of fresh air, because it does bring taboo issues to the forefront. It also does have higher production values than many Arabic media, because much of its staff trained with outfits like CNN and BBC. However, the idea that it is some sort of honest voice of the Arab world is laughable. If Al Jazeera operated in the West, it would be treated with much more contempt by liberals, in a sense "murdochized." Not to defend US media, which I don't trust much myself, but when gatsby says the US press "NEVER mentions" that the US supported Saddam Hussein in the 80's, I wonder which planet he lives on. Certainly not the one I live on. Moreover, putting Saddam Hussein in place in the 80's in the midst of the cold war seemed a reasonable thing to do, much like supporting the Afghani mujahadeen against the Soviets did. It might be remembered that Iran overthrew the Shaw in 1979, and containing Islamic fundamentalism with a strong neighbor was reasonable. At that time, did the West have any idea what Saddam Hussein would become? Anybody who has ever had a divorce might realize the illogic that drives this particular argument. A. Randolph Kluver School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University 31 Nanyang Link Singapore, 637718 (65) 6790-5770 Fax (65) 6792-4329 > -----Original Message----- > From: robert m. tynes [mailto:rtynes@u.washington.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:01 AM > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: [Air-l] <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd) > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:59:42 -0800 (PST) > From: jay gatsby <principio_0(a)yahoo.com> > To: nettime <nettime-l(a)bbs.thing.net> > Subject: <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S > > AL JAZEERA VS. U.S. > > By Jay Gatsby (http://principia_ny.blogspot.com) > > > The 24-hour Arabic news network Al Jazirah has a very > intersting place in the scheme of current events in the > Middle East. Since 1996, Al Jazirah has become the most > popular Arab news network, with over 50 million viewers. It > has been highly acclaimed by journalists around the world for > its in-depth, quality reporting. Like all quality news > stations, however, it is controversial--particularly for > western governments and their Mid-East allies. Jordan, > kuwait, and Lybia, for example, have all banned Al Jazirah > journalists from their territories. > > Over and over, whenever we hear anything about a Bin > Laden tape or a statement by Saddam Hussein, in the American > news, Al Jazirah is the cited source. News about the war on > Afghanistan depends heavily on this channel, since the > Taliban doesn't allow western media crews into its territory > and Al Jazirah is one of only two Arab news networks that are > permitted access. As well, the network is particularly > reknowned for its reporting of humanitarian conditions > throughout the middle east--especially the plight of > Palestinians. I wouldn't be surprised if Al Jazirah had a lot > to do with putting Palestine on the international agenda. > > Unlike the U.S media, they seem to give some historical > context when reporting mid-east conflict. For example, they > always mention the fact that the U.S put Saddam Hussein in > power and supported him in the early 80's--things that are > absolutely NEVER mentioned in the American press. > > The network did not exist during the first Gulf > War.During the first 5 days of Gulf War II, however, Al > Jazirah has already presented a challenge to the > U.S: First by broadcasting Saddam Hussein's messages to the > Iraqi people; second, by broadcasting vivid pictures of the > Iraqi people who have been killed or injured by America's > "shock and awe" campaign; third, by showing footage of the > recent U.S and British prisoners of war, something about > which U.S and British officials want to press 'embarrassment' > charges; and fourth, by its coverage of the war on > Afghanistan.Thus, we are now witnessing a clash between Al > Jazirah and the U.S government. In fact, U.S secretary of > state Collin Powell sent a letter to the Qatar government, > requesting that it sensor Al Jazirah--to no avail. Within the > past few days, Al Jazeera has been banned from the NASDAQ and > from the New York Stock Exchange. > > Rumsfeld has talked about destroying all television and > radio communication in Iraq. In recent days, the military has > done just that, but Iraq has been able to restore its radio > and T.V transmissions after every bombardment. During the > opening stages of the war on Afghanistan, the U.S bombed an > Al Jazirah bureau in Kabul. U.S officials claimed that the > hit was 'unintended.' All of this has raised serious concerns > within the International Federation of > Journalists(http://www.ifj.org), which claims that the > attacks are a direct violation of the Geneva Convention and > has called for a U.N investigation of the destruction of > Iraqi television stations. > > Al Jazirah is based in Qatar and a shut-down of Iraqi > television will not prevent everyone else in the Middle east > --everyone else period--from knowing what is going on in > Iraq. Next to budgeting and finishing the war on terrorism, > Al Jazirah is just about the biggest problem the U.S has in > the middle east. > > Al Jazirah is available in the U.S through satellite T.V > and an English version is due to come out on cable soon. The > U.S government has recommended American businessmen to not > advertise on this channel. > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without > permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net > criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural > politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net > and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

4 3

spammers and the war
by noci 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

quote: Want to make a difference in the world? Sign up for the Save the Children free enewsletter and show your support for children in need. Click Here MyTopOffers 1819 S. Meridian Oklahoma City, OK 73108 has anyone else received spam like this? click....click.... max d

1 0

Anybody from Russia here?
by Pavel Miliutin 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

Hi all I'm just wondering does anybody of the subscribers live in Russia or is russian-speaking (besides me :)? Could be useful to share links and resources in russian language concerning internet research. As for me, my theme is about internet resources for studiyng geography of the world economy. Best, Pavel Miliutin Moscow State University, faculty of geography, world economy department plm2000(a)narod.ru

6 6

<nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd)
by robert m. tynes 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:59:42 -0800 (PST) From: jay gatsby <principio_0(a)yahoo.com> To: nettime <nettime-l(a)bbs.thing.net> Subject: <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S AL JAZEERA VS. U.S. By Jay Gatsby (http://principia_ny.blogspot.com) The 24-hour Arabic news network Al Jazirah has a very intersting place in the scheme of current events in the Middle East. Since 1996, Al Jazirah has become the most popular Arab news network, with over 50 million viewers. It has been highly acclaimed by journalists around the world for its in-depth, quality reporting. Like all quality news stations, however, it is controversial--particularly for western governments and their Mid-East allies. Jordan, kuwait, and Lybia, for example, have all banned Al Jazirah journalists from their territories. Over and over, whenever we hear anything about a Bin Laden tape or a statement by Saddam Hussein, in the American news, Al Jazirah is the cited source. News about the war on Afghanistan depends heavily on this channel, since the Taliban doesn't allow western media crews into its territory and Al Jazirah is one of only two Arab news networks that are permitted access. As well, the network is particularly reknowned for its reporting of humanitarian conditions throughout the middle east--especially the plight of Palestinians. I wouldn't be surprised if Al Jazirah had a lot to do with putting Palestine on the international agenda. Unlike the U.S media, they seem to give some historical context when reporting mid-east conflict. For example, they always mention the fact that the U.S put Saddam Hussein in power and supported him in the early 80's--things that are absolutely NEVER mentioned in the American press. The network did not exist during the first Gulf War.During the first 5 days of Gulf War II, however, Al Jazirah has already presented a challenge to the U.S: First by broadcasting Saddam Hussein's messages to the Iraqi people; second, by broadcasting vivid pictures of the Iraqi people who have been killed or injured by America's "shock and awe" campaign; third, by showing footage of the recent U.S and British prisoners of war, something about which U.S and British officials want to press 'embarrassment' charges; and fourth, by its coverage of the war on Afghanistan.Thus, we are now witnessing a clash between Al Jazirah and the U.S government. In fact, U.S secretary of state Collin Powell sent a letter to the Qatar government, requesting that it sensor Al Jazirah--to no avail. Within the past few days, Al Jazeera has been banned from the NASDAQ and from the New York Stock Exchange. Rumsfeld has talked about destroying all television and radio communication in Iraq. In recent days, the military has done just that, but Iraq has been able to restore its radio and T.V transmissions after every bombardment. During the opening stages of the war on Afghanistan, the U.S bombed an Al Jazirah bureau in Kabul. U.S officials claimed that the hit was 'unintended.' All of this has raised serious concerns within the International Federation of Journalists(http://www.ifj.org), which claims that the attacks are a direct violation of the Geneva Convention and has called for a U.N investigation of the destruction of Iraqi television stations. Al Jazirah is based in Qatar and a shut-down of Iraqi television will not prevent everyone else in the Middle east --everyone else period--from knowing what is going on in Iraq. Next to budgeting and finishing the war on terrorism, Al Jazirah is just about the biggest problem the U.S has in the middle east. Al Jazirah is available in the U.S through satellite T.V and an English version is due to come out on cable soon. The U.S government has recommended American businessmen to not advertise on this channel. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net

1 0

VIRTUAL ART : new video documentation
by Pete J. Otis 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

>Fellow Internet Researchers, Colleagues and Friends, > >The research project DATABASE OF VIRTUAL ART at Humboldt University has >recently created a video documentary series of contemporary media artists >like Maurice Benayoun, Jeffrey Shaw, Jean-Michel Bruyère, Luc Courchesne, >Masaki Fujihata, Lev Manovich and Zoe Beloff... These videos, representing >a small portion of the complex database - going public this summer - are >now already available through the ARTE website. > >Samples from our work can be found: > >http://www.arte-tv.com/emission/emission.jsp?node=220793&lang=de > > >More extensive information: > >OLIVER GRAU: VIRTUAL ART: From Illusion to Immersion, >MIT Press January 2003, ISBN 0-262-07241-6) > >**************************************************************************** > > >production: > >DATABASE OF VIRTUAL ART at Humboldt University of Berlin >scientific direction Dr. Oliver Grau >in cooperation with: channel unit digitale mediengesellschaft mbh > >video direction: Robert loessl >text: Dr. Oliver Grau >assistance: Anna Paterok > >with grateful support from Zentrum fuer Kunst- und Medientechnologie / >Dr. Andrea Buddensieg / Future Cinema. >recording / editing: channel unit digitale mediengesellschaft mbh >titles: Sevrina Giard, Joachim Gaertner

2 2

Citizens of Copyright
by Nathaniel Poor 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Hello international readers: Apologies that the specifics of this will be overly US-centric, but the root problem, I bet, is more widespread. Recently, I've gotten the feeling that US citizens don't really know their rights when it comes to things like copyright. Now many of you might say "Of course they don't!", and that's ok. One mailing list I'm on that is internal to my university had a discussion about CD burning (it's a Macintosh computer list), and there was a lot of confusion about what was legal, and most people thought it was illegal to make a copy for a friend, whereas I think it's legal (it's not for profit, for instance, and I don't mean making a dozen, but I digress without even talking about the small amount extra we pay for blank cassette tapes that goes to the music industry, but I'm not sure about CDs, but a lot of blank CDs at stores are advertised as "for music"). My most recent run-in with this issue, captured in email (below, threaded but it's only 2 emails), distressed me. I am writing a dissertation chapter on videotex (a pre-Internet yet Internet-like, somewhat, 1980's technology), and I found some useful images on a professor's website (he is also a former newspaper industry professional). When I emailed him to see if he had higher-res images, he said he was concerned about copyright (see below). If anyone outside of the legal profession should know about copyright, it's a former newspaper person turned media studies professor. So, given that the Internet (like videotex and every other electronic communication technology) was supposed to transform us all into a global hive-mind of democracy and knowledge (yes, that was somewhat sarcastic), or at least holds the potential for informing people, I find it really frustrating that there still seems to be confusion over important things -- let me be clear, these two copyright examples are impacting the people in the email directly! -- when we supposedly live in the "information age." (Suddenly I am reminded of Microsoft's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) tactics.) I'm not even sure if my question is "why aren't people more informed about copyright" since people, at least in the US, do seem to be very lazy about political knowledge, and for every organization like the EFF there is at least one if not many more well funded organizations like RIAA (sorry, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Recording Industry Association of America, which have very clear sides on certain issues) so for every snippet of good information there seems to be many of misinformation. Well, I'll stop my rant there. (Given that the Internet brings copyright issues to the forefront... Sigh....) (Lessig just spoke here at UM, talking about loss of culture through copyright....) Any input on my frustration appreciated. ndp... email thread (2 mssgs): ---------------------------------------- Clearly it's a case of fair use: educational/non-profit. Even if I were to get my dissertation published as a book, the screen shots would represent a small portion of the Viewtron experience and so would be a legal use, and the ad would be a form of commentary/criticism (not the negative kind of criticism, the critiquing kind). It would be exactly like your use of the same images on your website, it's for educational use. Please see sec. 107 of the copyright code: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html Here are some snippets: "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." "...the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." (And Viewtron has not existed for quite some time.) If you have them in electronic form and it would be easy to email them, I would really appreciate it, but I wouldn't ask you to scan new images, that's too much work. thanks, ndp... On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 09:14 AM, David Carlson wrote: > I do have more images, Nat. But I'm not sure what the copyright issues > might be that surround them. Some are screen shots taken by me or my UF > colleagues back in the day. The one of the family at home comes from a > Viewtron ad, and I do have the original. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel D. Poor Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Communication Studies http://www.umich.edu/~natpoor

1 0