Democracy Lesson #1.

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Al-Jazeera Banned in Baghdad
August 09, 2004


The Iraqi interim government has shut down the Baghdad bureau of Al-Jazeera, claiming that they are inciting violence. The ban is for 30 days, but is renewable according to the Independent.

Reporters Without Borders has gone on the record as saying "We are extremely concerned about persistent episodes of censorship in Iraq", and brings up the fact that "the government has obstructed Al-Jazeera's work before" Reporters Without Borders. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi claims the move is "to protect the people of Iraq". Al-Naqib said the closure was intended to give the station "a chance to readjust their policy against Iraq". Al-Jazeera officials are calling this "An ominous violation of freedom" Guardian].

<snip>



Al-Jazeera silenced
05/09/2004 08:42 - (SA)

Doha - Iraqi security forces broke into Al-Jazeera's office in Baghdad late on Saturday and sealed it with red wax after the interim government extended a ban on the Qatar-based news channel, a spokesperson for the station said.

"Iraqi security authorities stormed Al-Jazeera's office in Baghdad, photographed our equipment and sealed the place with red wax, stationing a 14-strong police unit outside," Jihad Ballout told AFP.

They did so on grounds that Al-Jazeera continues to cover Iraq despite the month-long ban clamped on August 5, Ballout said.

Denouncing the move, Ballout said Al-Jazeera had complied with the ban and "has been receiving footage from news agencies, as do many media institutions operating in Iraq".

In a statement, the Arab satellite television network Al-Jazeera voiced "outrage" at the decision to extend the ban, saying the move flew in the face of Baghdad's promise to safeguard press freedom.

"Al-Jazeera channel is outraged at the decision taken this evening by the Iraqi interim government to extend the closure of its bureau in Baghdad," it said.

"This decision runs contrary to pledges made by the Iraqi authorities to pursue a policy of openness and to safeguard freedoms of the press and expression," the statement said.

The government of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi announced earlier Saturday it was extending the month-long ban on Al-Jazeera because the channel was inciting to violence.

"During this temporary closure the Government of Iraq had expected the Al-Jazeera management to offer an explanation to the presented allegations or to officially request a description of the possible threat that the channel may be imposing. However, none of this has happened," a statement from Allawi's office said.

"Additionally, Al-Jazeera TV has not respected the decision taken by the ministerial national security committee and has continued to broadcast from within Iraq and interview individuals on Iraqi soil regardless of the temporary closure order," it added.

In its response, Al-Jazeera vowed to continue its coverage of Iraq "in accordance with its editorial policy and professional values."

Al-Jazeera has frequently been accused by US and Iraqi authorities of inciting violence by screening "exclusive" videotapes from Muslim extremists, including Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Edited by Tisha SteynIraqi soil regardless of the temporary closure order," it added.

In its response, Al-Jazeera vowed to continue its coverage of Iraq "in accordance with its editorial policy and professional values."

Al-Jazeera has frequently been accused by US and Iraqi authorities of inciting violence by screening "exclusive" videotapes from Muslim extremists, including Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Edited by Tisha Steyn

 

[Guest]

Don't worry.

A.J. (as a business) is making enough money and expanding its operation out of Islamic countries (their govenment don't want it anyway, because A.J. criticise them)

That means, Rupert Murdock and Fox News and the likes has something to worry about.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Aj supports terrorists and inflames opinion against the government of Iraq.

That's the charge the interim government is making. If you are building a new government, the last thing you need is the very people making trouble for you to have their own television station. Censorship is one thing, acting against a viable threat to the peace and stability of your country is another bird entierly.

I have never watched much Aj. I do know they are Bin Ladin's favorte station to send smoochy grams to, so they can air them. Unless I misunderstand, the interim government has sent Aj a letter, outlining their concerns and AJ has yet to reply. The renewal of the ban was, according to the Ap report I read, to last until such time as AJ answers their concerns.

I don't think cencorship is right in all cases, but in this one, I am willing to wait and see how AJ answers the letter before I make a judgement. Refusing to answer and pissing and moaning to the international press corps seems to me to be closer to tacit admission that the interim government's concerns are real, than acting responsibily to lift the ban.

-Colly

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

AJ should of been banned from most arab networks many years ago. They are the only network in the arab world that has shown the full footage of beheadings until many arabs complained and they cut the beheading part out.
AJ has always been used by the terrorist as a free outlet to post their views, videos and rhetoric. AJ has used this to expand their circulation. Does that mean AJ is popular among the arabs for their radical opinions? Does that mean AJ post anything that is handed to them? Our press makes decisions on what to show or not. Does the arab world make the same decision or are they after ratings?
AJ has always shown their side of things. The capture of arabs by American soldiers. They never explained that those captured were terrorist and wanted. The beating of Palestinians by Israeli's. They never explained that those captured were responsible for a bomb that killed civilians on a bus.

Yet, AJ is used by the western media as their source for information on terrorism. Perhaps we should all ban them? Perhaps the arab world should wake up and ban them as Iraq has. But, that will never happen. Many arabs want to hear about their fighters. And AJ brings that to them.

 

[minsue]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm finding the ease at which you can all call for the banning of any media outlet more than a little disturbing. Especially when we're still considered 'occupiers' by a large portion of those we're 'liberating'.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm finding the ease at which you can all call for the banning of any media outlet more than a little disturbing. Especially when we're still considered 'occupiers' by a large portion of those we're 'liberating'.

Unless I misunderstand, the closing of AJ's outlets in Iraq was ordered by the Iragi interim government. If that outlet is guilty of the charges the interim government has made against them, I don't see how anyone could consider banning them outside of prudence.

If they aren't guilty, then they need only resond to a letter outlining the governments concerns and the Ban would be lifted.

I am sure there is a great deal more involved than what is on the surface, but I am not privy to that information yet.

I think I would have a better feeling for the situation if AJ had responded to the letter. Without a response, I don't see that the interim government has any choice but to Ban them.

I have only read a couple of articles on it. One in the ap, one from reuters and one from.. the post maybe? If my information is out of date it wouldn't surprise me.

-Colly

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm finding the ease at which you can all call for the banning of any media outlet more than a little disturbing. Especially when we're still considered 'occupiers' by a large portion of those we're 'liberating'.

I'm not going to flame you minisue. I get flamed all the time. So I don't want to flame anyone.
Should AJ be banned? I think so, until they prove themselves as a responsible, non-prejudice press. I don't believe in banning the press. Although I admit, there are a few reporters I might like to see gagged. lol
The problem with AJ is that they continously show support of the terrorist organizations. Each organization uses AJ to post their rhetoric and videos. And AJ beams these out. All other press services refuse this. They do not want to show beheadings. They reseach and back up their stories before posting them. AJ just takes the tapes and statements and post them without showing any responsibility. Then they beam it throughout the world. Are they a tool for terror? Yes, by showing these images they are spreading terror. Not just in the arab world, but in the international community.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

News media is not supposed to be a tool of the government to allow it to more easily manipulate the citizenry, although considering our domestic media’s performance over the last couple of years, I can understand where you obtained that idea.

News media is supposed to be a tool of the people to allow them to keep their government, public affairs, and their marketplace honest.

Shutting down a news service because its editorial policy is opposite to the one you wish to impose cannot be called anything but censorship.

August was not the only time Al Jazeera was shut down. It’s Baghdad offices were closed for a month in February, also. Nor was Al Jazeera the only news service shut down.

The Saudi Arabian channel al-Arabya was also ordered out of Baghdad in November. It was not allowed to resume operations until after channel officials signed a written pledge not to encourage terrorism

(Poorly-conceived military action, of course, could not have contributed to any of the terrorist activity.)

The CPA has also closed a number of Iraqi newspapers during the last year, for “inciting terrorism”

This time, their particular crime was that while Al Jazeera was banned from Iraq, it continued to report on Iraq from their headquarters in Qatar, using footage secured from other news agencies. That it seems is not enough. Instead, they were supposed to put themselves into the unique position of being a major Arab news agency that did not report about a major area of interest to their Arab viewers.

Finally, do not comfort yourself thinking that because the major networks are not complaining, that this is justified. Do not forget that Al Jazeera, as the fastest growing news cable service in the Middle East, is cutting into the profits of American outlets, of which the biggest is CNN.

It is a shame to report, but financial considerations far outweigh contemporary journalistic ethics.

 

[Pure]

As Lord D says,

//AJ has always shown their side of things.//

We definitely can't have that. As Colly points out, it tends to destabilize things, esp. in fragile budding democracies like Iraq.

General William Boykin has pointed out we're in Iraq on *God's* side. That's what should show up in the news.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If they aren't guilty, then they need only resond to a letter outlining the governments concerns and the Ban would be lifted.

?!?!?!!!!

Do you really believe that?

We consider Al Jazeera inflammatory because their take on the news is not what our Government's take is. What we call "insurgents" or "terrorists", they call "freedom fighters" or "martyrs".

This is not just Al Jazeera's doing. This is pretty much the way the majority of the Arab world understands what is going on in Iraq, which is: an invasion and illegal occupation of a sovereign Arab state by an oppressive, anti-Islamic superpower. They see Sadr as a patriotic hero--a goodguy--and the US as badguys. They no doubt see the current government of Iraq as a puppet maintained by Amaerican military might.

They're as outraged at the ban on Al Jazeera as we would be by some Arab country telling Fox what they could and couldn't broadcast, and we all know what this means: that the Iraqi government's hold on the hearts and minds of their people is extremely tenuous, so tenuous that their much-vaunted freedom is already nothing but an empty slogan, at least as far as freedom of expression goes.

---dr.M.

P.S. I see where McCain in a TV interview admitted that we expect our troops to be there for "10 to 20 years."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

?!?!?!!!!

Do you really believe that?

We consider Al Jazeera inflammatory because their take on the news is not what our Government's take is. What we call "insurgents" or "terrorists", they call "freedom fighters" or "martyrs".

This is not just Al Jazeera's doing. This is pretty much the way the majority of the Arab world understands what is going on in Iraq, which is: an invasion and illegal occupation of a sovereign Arab state by an oppressive, anti-Islamic superpower. They see Sadr as a patriotic hero--a goodguy--and the US as badguys. They no doubt see the current government of Iraq as a puppet maintained by Amaerican military might.

They're as outraged at the ban on Al Jazeera as we would be by some Arab country telling Fox what they could and couldn't broadcast, and we all know what this means: that the Iraqi government's hold on the hearts and minds of their people is extremely tenuous, so tenuous that their much-vaunted freedom is already nothing but an empty slogan, at least as far as freedom of expression goes.

---dr.M.

P.S. I see where McCain in a TV interview admitted that we expect our troops to be there for "10 to 20 years."

I don't have any reason not to believe it Doc. As Burley pointed out a Saudi Channel was baned until officials signed a written pledge not to support terrorism. If you are living in Iraq, are part of the interim government and facing an insurgency in your country that is at least partially lead by foerigners if not mostly composed of foerigners, I believe you would justly see AJ as a danger.

The channel does support terrorism, at least to the extent they allow their station and sattelites to be the mouth piece for men like Ossama Bi Ladin. You may argue indefintely on whether that's irresponsible or simply good bussiness, giving the viewer what they want & keeping your exclusives. What cannot be argued is that constant, inflammatory coverage makes it a lot harder to build a government and restore order.

A leter was sent to Aj, outlining the interim government's concerns. To my knowledge it has not been responded to. Like em or not, they are the government there and if you want to do buissness in their country, you have to conform to their demands.

Why are you going to treat Aj differently than any other buissness? If you own a cement company, and Iraq demands you only use sand from iraqi subcontractors, if you wish to operate a plant in their country, well, that's the price of doing buissness there. If you refused to do so, and they shut you down, no one would raise hell. Most would say, hey it's their country. Aj is no different from any other buisiness. You noted it's growing faster than any other news outlet in the mideast. We regulate who can run a news outlet, we regulate their merging, their competitive practices, in some cases even their content. Why is it that the Iraqi interim government has no say so in what bussinesses will be allowed to operate in their country?

Why is it that Aj didn't even take the simple step of replying to the letter? I think it is because the concerns of the interim government are well founded. I don't think Aj has an answer that will satisfy the authority's concerns and thus they are squealing to bring international pressure to let them keep on the way they want. That's a bussiness decision too.

You and Burley are disturbed by my acceptance of the government's ban on Aj. I am just as concerned with your lack of respect for them as a government. If you are going to give them the ability to form a government, you have to allow them to regulate things, order things and deal with things as they see fit. I find it strange you would like to pick and choose where they can exercise their power.

We expect you to form a government and take over the functions of government in your country, but you can't decide which buissnesses operate here or regulate their practices?

You cannot have it both ways. If you expect them to form a government, then you have to let them govern. If you are going to dictate to them what they can and cannot do, then you are ruling by fiat and not moving any closer to turning over power. If you plan on curtailing their power to the point of not letting them regulate buisness within their own borders then you aren't even pretending to be moving towards turning thier country back over to them.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I don't know about your cement manufacturing analogy. Manufacturing cement is not one of our fundamental constitutional freedoms, whereas saying what you want is, and the US government doesn't license news services based on their content. Or at least they're not supposed to.

The new government of Iraq has the right to do whatever they want. I just find it funny that we intend to bring peace and freedom there and they start out suspending a fundamental freedom. I'm sure that Iraq still has more freedom of expression than most Arab countries these days though, and even in the United States as I understand it you don't have the freedom to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Freedom of speech ends there.

I don't know enough about them to say whether Al Jazeera's supports terrorism, but I'm sure that they're very sensitive to Arab concerns, and they take an Arabic view of the news, just as we take an American view. I just wanted to point out that most Arabs don't share our view of what's going on over there and see things in a totally different light. Our news services tell us that we're fighting a self-sacrificing war to bring peace and freedom to a benighted country, while mostof AJ's audience probably see us as an invader and occupier trying to cram our Godless western values down their throats. So what we consider "advocating terrorism" quite probably constitutes brave acts of patriotism and religious martyrdom to them.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Colly:
The channel does support terrorism,

evidence?

ever watched or read them?

at least to the extent they allow their station and sattelites to be the mouth piece for men like Ossama Bi Ladin.

well, that's a clever out!! ARE they the mouth piece of Bin Laden?

Would broadcasting a 'demand' or 'proclamation' be being a mouthpiece?

As you know, in the West, journalists often debate the issue of giving a person--like a hostage taker-- air time (or hard copy space), for his demands. If you remember the Unibomber, one outlet refused to print his manisfesto, and another did. Was the latter, in the criminal sense, a 'mouthpiece for the unibomber'?

I myself like to know what the enemy is saying, proclaiming and planning. Perhaps if there had been more Bin Laden on US TV, someone up high might have gotten very worried.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, I don't know about your cement manufacturing analogy. Manufacturing cement is not one of our fundamental constitutional freedoms, whereas saying what you want is, and the US government doesn't license news services based on their content. Or at least they're not supposed to.

The new government of Iraq has the right to do whatever they want. I just find it funny that we intend to bring peace and freedom there and they start out suspending a fundamental freedom. I'm sure that Iraq still has more freedom of expression than most Arab countries these days though, and even in the United States as I understand it you don't have the freedom to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Freedom of speech ends there.

I don't know enough about them to say whether Al Jazeera's supports terrorism, but I'm sure that they're very sensitive to Arab concerns, and they take an Arabic view of the news, just as we take an American view. I just wanted to point out that most Arabs don't share our view of what's going on over there and see things in a totally different light. Our news services tell us that we're fighting a self-sacrificing war to bring peace and freedom to a benighted country, while mostof AJ's audience probably see us as an invader and occupier trying to cram our Godless western values down their throats. So what we consider "advocating terrorism" quite probably constitutes brave acts of patriotism and religious martyrdom to them.

---dr.M.

I don't know enough about AJ to say anything. Undoubtedly my view is so americacentric it's hard to be objective.

I think my cement factory analogy holds. The right of individual Iraqi's to say what they wish isn't suspended to my knowledge. The right of an outside concern that voices views the government finds dangerous is not being abridged either. Their right to operate in the country that sees them as a threat is.

I don't think that's splitting hairs. I doubt seriously that Pravda could have set up a news station in the U.S. in the 1950's. Americans could have set up a communist news station with the expected amount of pressure not to, but I just can't see Russians coming over to set it up. I don't know that Iraq has the means or wherewithal to jam their signals, so they are still free to say what they want, they just aren't free to operate in Iraq.

Until the station responds to the governments concerns, banning their operations within Iraq is really the only action open to the government. I just feel its a little early to start screaming censorship and violation of basic freedoms. At the moment, it is just as valid to view this as a difference of opinion between a government and a news outlet and that is hardly unprecedented.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Colly,

This is not a cement company. This is a news service, something traditionally protected by the First Amendment in our society. And protected by like provisions in all other democracies. In fact, many have said that a democracy cannot exist without a free press.

A democracy is what the Bush Administration said it would try to establish. That is what they told this country, and that was what they promised Iraq. Yet, at various times, for differing reasons, the Bush Government through the CPA and their present civilian appendage, have shut down this and other Arab news services — a poor start at teaching democracy.

Had this been a British or American News Service, the cries of freedom of the press would be a deafening. Through all of this, the major western broadcast media — Al Jazeera’s competition — have been deplorably mute. They have not even taken enough notice to attempt to justify the closing.

With the exception of Reporters Without Borders and a few British papers, it was left to Al Jazeera to point out the injustice

This was all covered last August when the original ban went into effect.

Al-Jazeera closure 'a blow to freedom'
Lisa O'Carroll and agencies
Monday August 9, 2004

A spokesman for the channel, Jihad Ballout, said today that it would seek to challenge the ban if there was "any legal recourse available" but it would not be signing any statement that it didn't support terrorism.

"We don't need to give anything in writing because we don't support terrorism, that is a given. Gagging the media is not the way to deal with the media. If the request is that al Jazeera will compromise its independence, that is a request that will not be entertained," said Mr Billout.

"We will always cover a story and our independence is sacrosanct. We will not jeopardise or compromise that," he added.

The question remains, other than providing a conduit for communication between al-Quiada and the West by airing their tapes, being critical of both Western and despotic Middle East regimes, and offering room for the Arab point of view on what is happening in Iraq, what have they done that upsets the west so much?

Al-Jazeera has frequently been accused by US and Iraqi authorities of inciting violence by screening "exclusive" videotapes from Muslim extremists, including the al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden.

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has also accused both al-Jazeera and al-Arabya of harming the image of the United States in the Arab world.

During the war, the Americans were furious that al-Jazeera was able to broadcast from behind "enemy lines" without permission of coalition forces.

It was able to prove that Basra had not "fallen" as the coalition forces had claimed, because it had supplied locals with cameras and satellite phones before the war.

Through a network of what one of its senior journalists described as "collaborators" it was also able to show Americans in action after the war, often in a way the US forces did not like.

It showed that the Americans were continuing to bomb Fallujah after a truce had been declared.

In an Arab world rife with conspiracy theories, the decision to close the offices could reinforce the perception that decisions by Iraq's interim government are influenced by the Americans, who have long complained about the channel's coverage.

That a news service can be closed down by a government because it gathers news from all sources and passes it onto its audience, is ludicrous. We have been forced to become accustomed to accepting ludicrous statements from the present Administration passed along without question by our own media.

I forget. What official sanctions did the government bring against Robert Novak for endangering his own country’s field agents by outing CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame?

Oh, sorry! Nothing naturally, they wanted to punish her husband, U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

The terrorists we try to suppress here at home, are the REAL threats like Howard Stern and Janet Jackson’s right nipple.

I suppose one should not be surprised that a similarly crippled democracy is what is being installed in Iraq.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

This is not a cement company. This is a news service, something traditionally protected by the First Amendment in our society. And protected by like provisions in all other democracies. In fact, many have said that a democracy cannot exist without a free press.

A democracy is what the Bush Administration said it would try to establish. That is what they told this country, and that was what they promised Iraq. Yet, at various times, for differing reasons, the Bush Government through the CPA and their present civilian appendage, have shut down this and other Arab news services — a poor start at teaching democracy.

Had this been a British or American News Service, the cries of freedom of the press would be a deafening. Through all of this, the major western broadcast media — Al Jazeera’s competition — have been deplorably mute. They have not even taken enough notice to attempt to justify the closing.

With the exception of Reporters Without Borders and a few British papers, it was left to Al Jazeera to point out the injustice

This was all covered last August when the original ban went into effect.



The question remains, other than providing a conduit for communication between al-Quiada and the West by airing their tapes, being critical of both Western and despotic Middle East regimes, and offering room for the Arab point of view on what is happening in Iraq, what have they done that upsets the west so much?



That a news service can be closed down by a government because it gathers news from all sources and passes it onto its audience, is ludicrous. We have been forced to become accustomed to accepting ludicrous statements from the present Administration passed along without question by our own media.

I forget. What official sanctions did the government bring against Robert Novak for endangering his own country’s field agents by outing CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame?

Oh, sorry! Nothing naturally, they wanted to punish her husband, U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

The terrorists we try to suppress here at home, are the REAL threats like Howard Stern and Janet Jackson’s right nipple.

I suppose one should not be surprised that a similarly crippled democracy is what is being installed in Iraq.

Burley,

We are viewing this from very different perspectives. So I will outline mine.

AJ is a bussiness. It is a bussiness not chartered or head quartered in Iraq. The government of Iraq has concerns about that bussiness and has sent a letter outling those concerns. Aj has yet to respond to that letter in an offical capacity. Aj has also not made made public what concerns are outlined in that letter, but has rather refused to respond.

As a government, when you have problems with a foerign company, you have a few options to deal with it. If, however, that bussiness refuses to respond to your letters, basically thumbs it's nose at your authority and attempts to carry on with bussiness, your options are severely limited.

About the only option you have is to put a moratorium on their operations within your country until they get off their high horse and respond to you in some more meaningful fashion than ignoring you.

If the concerns of the interim government were completely farcical or unfounded, then Aj would have released them and let world opinion fight for them. They haven't done that.

At present, I view this as a dispute between a government and a foerign bussiness. I haven't seen anything from Aj to make me believe it isn't just that. Until we know the concerns the interim authority has raised with Aj, I just feel it would be jumping the gun to say that interim government is acting inappropriately.

In my opinion an inappropriate reaction would have been to improsion their reporters and basically hold them hostage to make Aj respond or sending a missile over to blow up their transmitter. Banning their operation within your country until they respond just dosen't seem so out of line to me.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Your failure to appreciate the difference between “the press” (in this case the transmitter) and any other business operation is highly suspect. In the past you have demonstrated that you do not lack a sense of history. You must appreciate the importance of the fourth estate in a democracy — our democracy, or any other democracy.

When a news service has exposed the lies of a government (always dangerous) the response of closing down that offending news agency is never an option for any government trying to install or instruct a population in the precepts of democracy.

Expecting a news service not to report on an area of concern for their audience, is merely ludicrous, Nor would any responsible news agency ever sign a document which indicated it would not report on subjects that the present government deems too sensitive — but you probably know more about The Pentagon Papers than I do. Not even such a self-delusional group as our present administration, could have expected Al-Jazeera to sign that statement of fealty.

(That the Saudi Arabian channel al-Arabya did sign such a document, indicates how much they are already under the control of the Saudi government, and not a serious news agency.)

If you wish to continue to suggest that a government closing an unfavorable news agency is akin to closing an unregulated cement company, you have both the right and the access.

But, shame on you!

Of course, what we are seeing are not the actions of a democratic government, we are seeing the actions of a repressive regime in power through the aegises of American force, attempting to manipulate public opinion to get their agenda fulfilled.

In other words, we are seeing that the new American policy in Iraq is a continuation of the same American foreign policies that are in place all around the world. — exactly what got our nation so universally hated in third world countries in the first place.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Hrm.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Your failure to appreciate the difference between “the press” (in this case the transmitter) and any other business operation is highly suspect. In the past you have demonstrated that you do not lack a sense of history. You must appreciate the importance of the fourth estate in a democracy — our democracy, or any other democracy.

When a news service has exposed the lies of a government (always dangerous) the response of closing down that offending news agency is never an option for any government trying to install or instruct a population in the precepts of democracy.

Expecting a news service not to report on an area of concern for their audience, is merely ludicrous, Nor would any responsible news agency ever sign a document which indicated it would not report on subjects that the present government deems too sensitive — but you probably know more about The Pentagon Papers than I do. Not even such a self-delusional group as our present administration, could have expected Al-Jazeera to sign that statement of fealty.

(That the Saudi Arabian channel al-Arabya did sign such a document, indicates how much they are already under the control of the Saudi government, and not a serious news agency.)

If you wish to continue to suggest that a government closing an unfavorable news agency is akin to closing an unregulated cement company, you have both the right and the access.

But, shame on you!

Of course, what we are seeing are not the actions of a democratic government, we are seeing the actions of a repressive regime in power through the aegises of American force, attempting to manipulate public opinion to get their agenda fulfilled.

In other words, we are seeing that the new American policy in Iraq is a continuation of the same American foreign policies that are in place all around the world. — exactly what got our nation so universally hated in third world countries in the first place.

A news service IS a bussiness. You and others have noted how this bussiness is being picked on and other companies in the same bussiness have been silent.

A news service, while it has the responsibility to report the news, also has the capability of becoming an organ of propaganda. If that propaganda is stiring the population to unrest, then any prudent government, legitimate or otherwise has a vested interest in seeing that the spread of that propaganda stops.

If the government in question, seeks to air its concerns and reach an amiable compromise with the news agency and the news agency basically says fuck off, we can do what we like, what exactly would you suggest the government do?

Aj has been given a letter with the concerns the interim government has over its operations. We don't know if those concerns are monetary, editorial or otherwise. I do know that as of the last time I checked, Aj had not even deinged to respond.

Apparently, your answer here is for the interim government to go. Oh gee, Ok, you can do whatever you want. It dosen't work that way in any country. There are areas in this country where the press and even the general population are forbidden.

If Aj has responded to the interim government, and you are aware of what their concerns were, please enlighten me or tell me where I can go to read the article. If Aj has refused to respond, then please tell me what steps you think the governemnt should be taking to get them to respond, because short of banning thier operations within Iraq, I don't see that the government has any other means of leverage.

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
A news service IS a bussiness.

That does seem to be true. Most of the journalism department people I talk to admit as much all the time--with the caveat of "America is best designed, of everyone, to support the protection and freedom of the business".