RE: [Air-l] <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd)
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@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@yahoo.com> To: nettime <nettime-l@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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
here is an interesting dialog between Al-Jazeera and CNN. I don't think Al-Jazeera has the monopoly on showing gruesome pictures, recall Somalia and the pictures and video that was aired on CNN and other media outlets. http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/000332.html#000332
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.
so it was fine to support him when he was our b@$t@rd? and he oppressed and gassed the Kurds, launched a war against the Iranians and gassed their armies too. the threat from iran to iraq was always overblown in the west. recall that Iraq is majority shia arab. yet during the time of the ayatollah kohemenni and the .iq/.ir war - the shia arabs never rebelled against saddam. in fact basra was never at risk. the force that sparked the ignition for political islam was the russian invasion of afghanistan and the cia/saudi/wahabi recruitment of jihadis from around the muslim world. as 5 million (?) refugees streamed into pakistan, the US government and the rich gulf states did not send them books, doctors, teachers, food, or shelter - rather wahabi mullahs, twisted translations of the qur'an and jihadi teachings (courtesy uni of nebreska, AK-47's and stinger shoulder launched missles were sent. so much for *unintended* consequences 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? there is a famous film of sh, as he came to power, announcing the names of his enemies and friends in a baath party meeting. one by one he announced names of people that were made to "disappear". this film was widely distributed in .iq as warning to his opponents. let me guess the nsa never saw it. you can get it here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/
oh yeah, i almost forgot, the shah came into power after the cia helped in the assassination of the iranian prime minister. Anybody who
has ever had a divorce might realize the illogic that drives this particular argument.
never had a divorce so i don't know ....
In addition to all the previous discussions mentioned, I also wondered two more things about the Al-jazeera and the blog piece that I forwarded: 1) what's up with blogs? why do they seem to have some sort of extra aura of authority about them? is it just hype, or do they have some other added value that I am missing? 2) beyond the political complexities of the middle east and the biased/unbiased reportage of Al-jazeera, how is it that *patriotism* has come to mean - do what ever you can to win, and screw the idea of free speech/press? whether you agree with Al-jazeera or not, if you apply duct tape across the face of its website and post a *rah rah go USA, we're patriots* splash page over it, aren't you squashing the very principles that you are so proud of? and how is this different from culture jammimg DOW, which I think it is? (please answer the above in short essay form. each question is worth 25 points. no points will be deducted for improper formatting, spelling errors, or political affiliation. :-) -robert
Perhaps this is where the original author's comments on lack of information in the mass media become most pertinent, when someone can ask, apparently not disingenously either: "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." I believe that this slant has been rightly rubbished already. This is not some sci-fi Frankenstein tale: oops, we did it again. Of course they (past US administrations, and past Saddam buddies like Rumsfeld) knew what he would become, especially as they assisted and defended him when he did his worst, so let's not feign innocence. Comparing something on such a grand scale to a mere divorce does considerable injustice to the whole discussion, and is a very metaphor to say the least. Maximilian C. Forte ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof)" <TRKluver@ntu.edu.sg> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM Subject: RE: [Air-l] <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd) 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@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@yahoo.com> To: nettime <nettime-l@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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
participants (4)
-
Karim R. Lakhani -
Maximilian C. Forte -
Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof) -
robert m. tynes