I remember some conversations with people who claimed that Arabs in the middle east get a fair view of what is going on. That Al-Jazeera compares favourably to ‘Western Standards’. Oh really?
I guess the evil western media empires all controlled by the central conspiricy agency is supressing the truth that the US used Nukes in Iraq and that is the ONLY reason they won. Jeez, I wish I lived in the middle east so I could get more truth like this from Al-Jazeera. Yep, if Al-Jazeera reports (as they did) that the US used nukes it MUST be true.
The link below is to a rather interesting text of a radio show with some rather world renowned experts on the media in that area, a good read!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030425-2c1944a2.htm
I quote the sentences that i think BB refers to:
@transcript:
Al-Rashed: … I’m not going to say all of them because the lies are still going. Let me give you two examples I heard the past two days. One, I think it was, I think Al-Arabiya, the journalists said the American forces stole all the wealth of the museum, the national museum, the Iraqi museum. And of course we haven’t seen any photos or footage to support this claim. Another one which was Al-Jazeera, quoted or had someone talk to him from the Iraqi opposition who was against the whole military action. And he said he got news the Americans used a nuclear bomb. That’s why the Iraqis lost. And this wasn’t an opinion. It was news reporting from somebody who had no official responsibility, you know, he has no credibility in, let’s call it the market.
Ok, so we have the “lie” of US soldiers stealing antiquities (sp?). Well, on the other hand we have the fact that US soldiers tried to smuggle such goods into the US.
Then we have Al-Jazeera talking of someone who heard somewhere that the US used a nuke. True, selling this as news is B-S. But, as Al-Rashed says, they seem not to have sold as a fact but as a quote. Even though in a later sentence Al-Rashed says it “wasn’t an opinion” but news.
Let me just answer with a small russian joke:
Breaking news: the coalition forces have announced that they now control the city of Umm Kassr. It is the fourth city of that name taken since the start of the war.
You could now say, you would understand “faked news” when broadcasted by state agencies and not by private companies…
I will just quote on:
@transcript:
Host: Well, Ali Al-Ahmed, let me ask you about that. Is one set of reports having been discredited by facts on the ground, is that going to be explained away now by a new set of phony stories about what’s going on or has gone on in Iraq?
Al-Ahmed: You know, many of these media are ideological. They have an interest. They are not private media and if they are they are private but private with government monies …They have an interest. … That’s why they create and they manufacture news and they use loaded words or double-talk to achieve their desire.
Well, the only difference to Fox is that Fox pays the government and not vice-versa ;)….
I have no doubt all news media have some angle, they are all owned by somebody. But to compare favourably the journalistic integrity of Al-Jazeera to Fox or CNN is to err. I don’t think the only difference between fox and Al-Jazeera is who pays whom. This statement of your F_alk is one of the reasons why I generaly don’t want to read your posts. You state some things I can agree with then you follow it up with, quite frankly, one of the most stupid comments you could make. Do you really think that is the only difference? If so, I have no choice but to conclude you are an idiot. I don’t think you do believe this however and I know you are not an idiot. So I wonder out loud why you would say such a thing? Do you make wild alligations often so people have to waste their time deflecting them? Just curious.
BB
…I don’t think the only difference between fox and Al-Jazeera is who pays whom. … Do you really think that is the only difference? If so, I have no choice but to conclude you are an idiot. I don’t think you do believe this however and I know you are not an idiot. … Do you make wild alligations often so people have to waste their time deflecting them?
Well, i hoped that marking that sentence with the ;) emoticon would show it was a joke with a twinkle in my eyes, means a bit of truth, the bit that i explained in the sentences before that.
You are right, i like to end my postings with a half-joking, half-serious exaggeration, often ironic or satire.
And of course, i personally don’t think that thinking over anything can be considered a waste of time, even if it is “only” to prove them wrong, see flawed logic or whatever.
I seem to have a hard time reading emotions and intents into those little faces. So that’s a twinkle in my eye smilee face and that means a bit of truth and presumably the balance that wasn’t a bit of truth was mostly lies then? Damn boolean logic makes things rather black and white for me often. So, I’ve made my notes.
Perhaps nothing is a waste of time, but I’d prefer to concentrate on non-spurious arguments. I mean why waste your time with spurious ‘debates’ when the topic at hand is actually much more interesting. It is my experience when people concentrate on spurious debate rather than the topic at hand it is often do to a weak or indefensible position. I suppose something might be gotten from a debate on the merits of ritual child murder say, but I have better things to do. :-? :o :wink: :roll: :P
BB
