CNN, Al-Jazeera, VietNam, Desert Storm, and Clean War...

I think the difference is that here in the USA we know we are getting only half of the story, and there are some stations that do give info about civilian casualties.

I am on record as saying that Al Jazeera is probably the biggest threat to America in that region.

One of the first things I would do after we get Saddam is set up a PRO- USA channel in Iraq that broadcasts into the arab world.

Give them a different perspective.

Because right now they are getting a much more warped sense of the war then we are.

Think of it this way, if the government, television, the religious leaders, and the schools are all saying that America is evil wouldn't you tend to believe it?

DD

 

I think you missed my point. I think the people in the USA know that we are not getting the gory details, and we know that the war has some horrible stories to tell.

Tonight we saw a story about how US marines took out a car with a grandfather and 2 boys in it on accident, then they showed another grandson digging a grave for his grandfather.

It was heart wrenching. At least we get some of this....however, the Arab world gets NONE of this on Al-Jazeera...and just because this panel thinks it is one sided, does not mean that the man or woman on the street in Syria or Jordan or Egypt thinks it is....

They are getting fed an anti-American diet, and it is going to cost us more in the future then it has already.

DD

 

By the way...the point about Al-Jazeera showing none of this...was meant that they WOULD show that, but would not show the Iraqi regime using a hospital, or death squades, or human shields etc..etc...so most in the Arab world don't even know about it.

DD

 

The truth is that most people want to feel safe and secure, and after 9-11 we as a nation are really jumpy and feeling vulnerable.

People think that we will be a target again, and Saddam has stated his disdain for us publicly. I think people believe that should he acquire nukes, or a dirty Suitcase bomb, that he would be one that would give it to terrorists to take to the USA.

Also, he is a bad guy, and people have no problem seeing him taken out.

Now, the biggest problem we have with all this is that if this war drags on too long, or we do not honor our commitments and make Iraq a MUCH better place for Joe Q Iraqi, we will have alienated even more potential terrorists.

I think the President is gambling that the war will be over soon, our casualties will be light, and the people of Iraq will forgive as long as they are better off in the long run.

Here is to hoping he is right.

DD

 

What was the show? If it was a CBC show it may be archived or transcribed on their site. They’ve been doing some very good pieces recently. I saw Hot Type with Evan Solomon tonight on Newsworld. He had 4 moderate Muslims who were talking about the Wahabi corruption of Islam that is behind much of the “conservative” militant Islam that we see today. Very interesting. (It’s not really conservative Islam because it isn’t really Islam. It’s a corruption of Islam.)
http://www.cbc.ca/hottype/season02-03/03-03-17.html Doesn’t look like this show is archived, but there is some additionnal info here.

Regarding Al-Jazeera, I’m hearing that they aren’t that bad. My moderate Arab friends watch it religiously (if you’ll pardon the phase ). They are ex-BBC people who demanded non-interference from the Monarchy in Qatar before setting up there. They are said to be a little inflammatory and to use in your face type journalism, but I hear that they are quite balanced with their coverage. They have been kicked out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for doing stories that were not favourable to the royal families there, so they seem to be equal opportunity antagonisers. If they are not reporting everything they see in Baghdad it may be that they are withholding certain things to keep from getting kicked out of the country. This may be a questionable decision from a journalistic standpoint (although not much different than the conditions the embedded journalists have agreed to), but quite a different motive than being pro-Iraq.

 

First question was to MacBeth, btw.

 

This is the problem, and this is why a broad based coalition which included regional Arab countries was so important to have in the first place. That way it wouldn’t have been just about the “evil empire” of America. Neither Iran nor Syria liked Saddam. It’s reasonable to think that they could have been brought on board at least nominally at the beginning. Perhaps a promise to revisit the Palestinian issue, to hold a conference where they got good face time or some such thing would have been enough. Now it looks like they will be interfering in the war and you can be that they’ll be interfering after the Saddam is gone too. This is now their opportunity to gain something from this situation. If a deal could have been struck before it could have been something else, or at least something else could have been a significant diversion. I truly don’t understand the thinking behind the strategy being used by your administration. From where I sit it just looks extremely arrogant and ill thought out. Still, if this wraps up quick they may get away with it … until they try it again.

 

Maybe I'm too naive. I don't get how the government is "controlling" the free press. I mean, why would the US news sources allow themselves to be controlled? They are not run by the government. As far as I know, they are basically driven by profits. What leverage does the government have to control them? What do they gain by being censored?

This is a genuine question, not a critique.

 

Thats the problem. If your news source is anti-war, all they will show is civilian deaths and US deaths ... showing all the bad sides of war. They will never show the thousands of Iraqis who are surrendering and giving humanitarian aid ... nor all the aid we're giving them as we take over territory. They will not concentrate on the dirty tactics saddams troops are using just to get an american kill.
Unfortuately (and how we are raised in school), we are only taught to state our case favoring our side, not truely debating within ourselves.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I am currently in China, and Chinese media is anti-war. That doesn't mean they don't show the Iraqi's surrendering, they do, but they show more of Iraqi's resentment towards the invasion, Iraqis voluntarily going back the country to fight, cab driver in Baghdad expressing his will to resist, the bloody and heartbraking pictures of the civilian casulties, and the surrendering of Iraqi soldiers are coupled with comments accusing the USA's double standard on the release issue of videos of American captives. It's one sided. Vice versa, I don't expect the American media showed or will show so many footage that cries out the sins of war either, and even when they do, they also downplay it, the crushed skull of a child would probably be replaced with a picture of a distraught woman etc. I know the drills, I lived in America too. Media is the same everywhere, they are biased and give one-sided coverage. That's why I think that guys who have a chance to make objective and accurate assessment need to be exposed to media from both sides. The CNN or Al Jazeera together will do good to one's understanding of this war. Lucky me, the city I am staying in is just next to Hong Kong, and I get some coverage from the western media aired by HK TV stations as well.

It's an overstatement to say the USA government controls the media. It's not out of the question though, for the government and media to have certain chemistry and compromises, and the fact of media guys being Americans does help too - nobody want to see their country lose face, subconciously there's a tendancy to polish the country or government's foreign actions. Last, the audience being Americans who are very proud of being Americans also contribute to the media's selective filtering, to make the audience feel good and then, naturally, addicted to hearing positive journalism. Just some thoughts.

 

I agree, especially with your last point. I remember after 9/11 I think it was Tom Brokaw who said he would criticise Bush for getting on Air Force One and flying around because he (Brokaw) was an American first and a journalist second. That was an especially difficult time, but this does offer a bit of a window on what can happen to the principles of good journalism in difficult times.

I’m not sure that this is being one sided. I think this is reporting the news, i.e. what is new and unexpected. It’s not news that Iraqis are surrendering. It is news that not as many are surrendering as was expected. When General William Wallace the war will take longer than expected and won’t be as neat and tidy as was initially implied, it’s news. The civilian casualties are news when contrasted with all the pre-war talk about “smart bombs” and the like. Much of this expectation was actually established by the US administration by antagonising most of the rest of the world and world media, by making such sweeping generalisations about the “evil” enemy, and by making such grandiose claims about their abilities, so to a significant extent they have established this context themselves. Perhaps they thought it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission, but that’s high stakes poker with big consequences if they’re wrong.

 

DaDa,

I guess the US military does not feel the same way that you do in regards to Al Jazeera. Since both the military strategy and Al Jazeera are based in Qatar, there seem to be no problems.

 

Correction. That should have said:
"Tom Brokaw who said he wouldn't criticise Bush for getting on Air Force"

 

I think the difference is that here in the USA we know we are getting only half of the story, and there are some stations that do give info about civilian casualties.

Dakota, I don't believe that this is largely correct. A small percentage (a lot leass than 50%) knows this, but the number is growing. By the way this explains the roughly 50% of Americans who falsely believe that Sadam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I saw a story says that a growing number of Americans are going to foreign sources to get some balance. Having to go only to alternative sources that the average American doesn't even know exist to only get bare numbers is a form of censorship.


Not showing the war leads people to believe that nearly all of our smart bombs hit only non-military targets with virtually no civilian casualties. That is getting harder as the missiles land in Kuwait, Turkey and Iran and perhaps other countries. Initially the media runs the disinfo that they were Iraqi, but they have to come clean a bit later.

Macbeth, is correct that the military has decided that the media footage showing dead G.I. 's, mud covered, exhausted GI's or numerous shots of dead or wounded Vietnamese contributed to the perception that the war was brutal and that led to more questioning if it was necessary.

The military is quite happy with the control they've had since then, but with satellites and the inernet their control is slipping. Rumsfeld and Bush are starting to complain about our media a bit in the last day or so, but I don't think it will be effective. Being scooped continually by the foreign media and having to print reatraction after retraction is going to make them resist the Bush admin's pressure. Ultimately media profitability depends on enough people believing them or they'll start turning to Al-Jazeera and other sources.

 

I believe that DaDakota is correct. What exactly are you basing your supposition on? Do you have a poll or something that says that "a lot leass than 50%" of the American public is aware that there have been civilian casualties in the war? I am quite certain that everyone with access to a TV knows about this. Where are you getting your information on this? Please post reference.

OK, I asked you about this in another thread, and you ran away. I will ask you again: How do you know that Saddam is innocent of any connection to 9/11? You make your statement as if you have evidence that he was not involved. Please post some sort of reference material to back up this statement, since you appear to be confident of its validity.

And don't run away again, lest I think you're just talking out of your ass again.

That aside, I would agree that going to foreign sources helps one to get a balance. Also to get information not reported on US networks.

What are you talking about. Nearly all of our weapons *do* hit military targets; the stray bombs that hit civilian targets are decidedly the exception. You know that as well as I do.

What's the civilian dead tally so far? Is it anywhere near that 3,000 mark we discussed in the thread where you chickened out on my challenge? No. Nowhere near that. We don't know what the tally is so far, but we do know that it is nowhere near that. It hasn't even passed the one-hundred-mark yet.

I suppose the Chinese-made missile that landed in Kuwait last night was a stray US weapon? And the Al Samouds and other ballistic missiles that have been fired at Kuwait have been fired from, what, US ships in the Gulf?

The tally of errant US missiles stands at 5 so far. Five out of over 650 cruise missiles launched in the war. You do the math.

I would say that with the voluntary embedding of over 700 reporters from virtually every country on the planet with US units the US military *gave* a significant degree of its control away. Voluntarily. No conspiracies here, glynch.

Scooped by foreign media? You mean like trugoy's Russian site? Please...

And please offer examples of these many retractions you speak of.

 

I thought it was ~1,000 cruise missiles so far...I know that it has been reported around there and I thought that that number came from military briefings...I realize this is not a big issue...

In regards to the glynch vs treeman issue of Saddam and 911, I think the 50% thing was for Americans that were certain he had a direct invovlement in the planning and action. This, while there has never been proof of such direct involvement...only tangential (actually, has anyone anywhere made an argument for direct participation?). Is this correct? I am not making an argument, just presenting how I read that report.

 

Treeman, I don't you suppose you've ever thought about this, but it is hard to prove a negative i.e. that Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. This is one of the reasons you don't have to prove your innocent is a criminal trial.

Why don't you prove something for instance something like the Israelis did not know about 9/11 and let it happen? Note I'm just giving you an example of how hard it is to disprove a negative and I don't believe this.

One more thing: I believe that DaDakota is correct. What exactly are you basing your supposition on? Do you have a poll or something that says that "a lot leass than 50%" of the American public is aware that there have been civilian casualties in the war?

If you would read more carefully I'm saying that only 50% o"of e Americans know they are not getting the full story" , not that anyone would be foolish enough to believe there are no civilian casualties.


Note we can if you want, play this game again and again and every post I will shrilly assert that you are full of bs, have no facts and are ignorant because you have never proven that the Israelis did not allow 9/11 to happen.