Al- Jazeera web site launched

[Maple Leafs]

The english Al- Jazeera web site has been launched:
http://english.aljazeera.net/

It's virtually unreachable right now due to the first-day traffic, but I expect it will get better over the next few days.

This will be a worthwhile resource, although I'm sure much of what is published will be controversial and/or even disturbing. I'm in favor of the war, but I think that if you're really serious about an open debate then it's important to seek out information and opinions that contradict your own beliefs.

[Tarkus]

Now that's going to be a great source for up to date accurate and unbiased reporting. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[Tekneek]

Just as unbiased as some of what is done over here in the US. There's nothing wrong with adding a new source. If you consider sources from all over the world, you eventually get a good idea of what might really be going on.

[mrskippy]

Arab propaganda.

[Chief Rum]

I agree in concept that adding another source to the debate is never a bad thing, but the way Maple Leafs puts it, it's almost like this is a visionary new addition or something.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is as biased a source as Rush Limbaugh on Republicans, and while I respect that information presented there may be quite relevant, there's going to need to be a huge jump in credibility and corroborating sources before I will believe anything that comes from there. And Maple Leafs accounting of this as some kind of seemingly unbiased "other side reporting" is a joke and a farce. I don't know if that perception (an objective source from the other side)is what Sean intended, but it's there.

And for all the bias present in the U.S. media, I am sorry but no major new agencies in the U.S. come anywhere close to the bias shown in al-Jazeera reports. If you really think so, you need to go take a course or two in media communications and begin to question how willingly you accept your own assumptions. For all its evils, the U.S. media is not THAT biased.

All you need to know is that al-Jazeera quite willingly displayed the video of POWs getting shot and hurt by the Iraqis, and that few other agencies regularly receive propaganda tapes from al-Qaeda. This is not journalism, this is a voice for evil.

Chief Rum

[Maple Leafs]

Chief... I'm not saying it's an unbiased source. But even if you want to dismiss it out of hand as propaganda not worth your time, keep in mind that this station has huge influence over opinion in the Arab world. You can cover your eyes and pretend they don't exist, but the stories they cover and the way they spin them will have a lasting impact on the perception of the US in that region. I think it's worth while for Americans to know what's being reported, and how.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
but the stories they cover and the way they spin them will have a lasting impact on the perception of the US in that region. I think it's worth while for Americans to know what's being reported, and how.

Which is why it's being translated. It may be bad journalism, but it is worthy to see how the other side covers this thing.

Of course, I'm still wondering why we haven't bombed or seized Iraqi TV yet.

[clintl]

Because the US wants Iraqi TV intact and operational for its own use later.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
Because the US wants Iraqi TV intact and operational for its own use later.

That may not be a smart move ... since it's being used as a propaganda machine. I'd heard special forces would seize it.

Why not knock out the transmitter. Those are simple to move in and setup.

[bosshogg23]

Someone hacked the site, that is why it is unreachable.

AP Link (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_AL_JAZEERA_WEB?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME)

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Chief... I'm not saying it's an unbiased source. But even if you want to dismiss it out of hand as propaganda not worth your time, keep in mind that this station has huge influence over opinion in the Arab world. You can cover your eyes and pretend they don't exist, but the stories they cover and the way they spin them will have a lasting impact on the perception of the US in that region. I think it's worth while for Americans to know what's being reported, and how.
Oh, it's got worth. That is if you want to watch dead and captured Americans all day. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[Tekneek]

Al-Jazeera reporters that I heard interviewed said there was an ongoing debate on whether to air the footage or not, and ultimately it was decided that the footage was newsworthy. Saying they got the footage and everyone there was jumping for joy at the chance to show it doesn't jive with what they are saying. We are supposed to not believe them because they are Arab?

[stkelly52]

Out here we get Al-Jazeera, and I too will attest that they are about the most biased news agency I have ever seen. If Michael Moore set up a new network it might give AJ a run for it's money.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Al-Jazeera reporters that I heard interviewed said there was an ongoing debate on whether to air the footage or not, and ultimately it was decided that the footage was newsworthy. Saying they got the footage and everyone there was jumping for joy at the chance to show it doesn't jive with what they are saying. We are supposed to not believe them because they are Arab?
Yeah, I'm sure they debated it for a whole milisecond. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Al-Jazeera reporters that I heard interviewed said there was an ongoing debate on whether to air the footage or not, and ultimately it was decided that the footage was newsworthy. Saying they got the footage and everyone there was jumping for joy at the chance to show it doesn't jive with what they are saying. We are supposed to not believe them because they are Arab?

Apart from the fact that it's against international law, it's ok I guess. In the least, it's gross sadism and ignorance. Any humane news agency, there wouldn't be any debate at all.

[JPhillips]

Here is an interesting site I found that claims to be a translation of Russian intel sources and journalists. I don't claim it to be at all impartial, but it is an interesting read.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news076.htm

[tucker342]

It's about as unbiased as fox news:D

it does offer an interesting prospective

[wrigleyfield]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Arab propaganda.

bingo.

[Daimyo]

Doesn't the American media show pictures of captured Iraqi POW's as they are surrending? Also I'm sure I saw a photo of two dead iraqi's on one American news webpage (reuters I think)... Its not like this outlet is the only one showing that stuff.

(for the record I think its reprehensible for them to show it, just as I thought it was incredibly bad taste to show the two dead Iraqi's on the American site)

[clintl]

Originally posted by ACStrider
Apart from the fact that it's against international law, it's ok I guess. In the least, it's gross sadism and ignorance. Any humane news agency, there wouldn't be any debate at all.

Actually, there was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee about this issue. It's more of a gray area than the US government is letting on.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/bee/story/6338210p-7291436c.html

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
That may not be a smart move ... since it's being used as a propaganda machine. I'd heard special forces would seize it.

Why not knock out the transmitter. Those are simple to move in and setup.

I am not saying it's a smart move. I'm just saying that I heard that was a reason for not taking it out. I think in the report I saw, a military analyst questioned the reasoning, too.

[Havok]

Arab propaganda

right on

[Tasan]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Doesn't the American media show pictures of captured Iraqi POW's as they are surrending? Also I'm sure I saw a photo of two dead iraqi's on one American news webpage (reuters I think)... Its not like this outlet is the only one showing that stuff.

(for the record I think its reprehensible for them to show it, just as I thought it was incredibly bad taste to show the two dead Iraqi's on the American site)

1. Showing pics of them surrendering and getting them to say things under duress are two different things. Just showing them is okay, getting "confessions" under duress on tape and BROADCASTING that is wrong.

2. If it was on Reuters, its British. Not a big difference in this case, but a factual one.

3. Showing dead soldiers on either side, while gruesome, is technicly OK, showing EXECUTED soldiers that were in captivity is again wrong.

[Tekneek]

A big difference is the fact that the news media covering it here are not ran by the government. Iraqi TV showing it would be similar to the BBC being up in there putting a microphone and camera into the face of each captured/surrendered Iraqi. That has not happened. So the coalition nations are free and clear on those points. There is *no* double standard.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Of course, I'm still wondering why we haven't bombed or seized Iraqi TV yet.

Well, supposedly we have now. I wonder what the significance of the timing is?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Tarkus
Yeah, I'm sure they debated it for a whole milisecond. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

And its just like how the news agencies around here "debated" whether or not to show footage of people jumping out of the WTC on 9/11. I saw like 3 or 4 videos that day on replay of people jumping out, and CNN had a still picture on there collection of photos for it for at least a week after. But of course, we're white, I mean always right (slip of the tongue) so we're allowed to do those things.

[Tekneek]

Yep.

We always tell the truth, as well, and when we say we debated something it is true. When some Arabs say they did, they are lying. Once you decide to take these kinds of stands, based entirely on ethnic/geographical lines, you get on a slippery slope. If I had to make a choice, I would expect the Americans to be lying since I know many more Americans that lie often (if not constantly) than I do Arabs.

[EagleFan]

Al-Jazeera showed off it's wonderfully unbiased reporting again yesterday with similar footage of UK soldiers this time. Prompting the UK to have the same reaction as the US after their first example of fine journalistic integrity.

They followed that by a verry classy move at the UK press conference from CenCom last night of using the time for questions to issue a self-serving statement. Of course that received a great response from the one taking questions "No-one can take pride in a decision like that", not exact quote but something along those lines (it was 3 AM and I was half asleep). His first response was the best though, "I'm sorry. I seemed to have missed an actual question."

Oh and lets not forget the unbiased move of Al-Jazeera reporters of showing up at a demonstration for support of Iraq. Reporters holding signs in support of Iraq is unbiased, right?

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't say the entire base of employees is unbiased, but the details I heard in an interview lead me to believe they really did have that debate. Of course, now, once the can of worms had been decided to be opened they aren't going to close it. Suffice to say, I think the wrong side won the debate, but to say just because a bad choice was made that there was no debate at all, or just because they are Arabs they didn't debate it, is jumping to conclusions.