Aljazeera in english.

[Mike S]

Aljazeera launched its english language site today.

War news from a different slant.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

should make for interesting readind and of course intertesting discussions.

Mike

[Carley]

Woohoo Mike!!! I've been waiting for this :p The arabic translator I've been using is as bad as babblefish/babelfish.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Carley
Woohoo Mike!!! I've been waiting for this :p The arabic translator I've been using is as bad as babblefish/babelfish.

Yeah me too!! Just what an info junkie like me needs! Now I'll NEVER get any work done!

MS

[ijji]

These links aren't working. I got on there once but every time I clicked on a link I got a "your page cannot be displayed" message. Now I can't even get on the main page. x( *kicks computer*

[frggystyl]

Originally posted by Mike S

... Now I'll NEVER get any work done!
MS

Ain't that the truth... Just looked at my inbox today. Scared me so bad I think I shit myself TWICE. *shakes fist* Damn you, NWTekno! :D

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ijji
These links aren't working. I got on there once but every time I clicked on a link I got a "your page cannot be displayed" message. Now I can't even get on the main page. x( *kicks computer*

Yeah I'm reading that they are under a denial of service attack.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S
Aljazeera launched its english language site today.

War news from a different slant.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

should make for interesting readind and of course intertesting discussions.

Mike

I've been watching Al-Jazzera for the last few days, it's pretty incrediable how different the Arab world is getting a different view of this war, according to Al-Jazeera, The Iraqi Regime is highly favorable to stay in power.

[186k\sec]

it's pretty incrediable how different the Arab world is getting a different view of this war

I could say the same about US media..

sanitized for american consumption.....

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


I could say the same about US media..

sanitized for american consumption.....

Really? How so?

I've got boat loads of media at my finger tips and if anything its far from sanitized nor is it uniform in its presentation of the war.

MS

[seattle science]

Actually, the wonderful closeups of Americans executed point blank with gunshots in their foreheads was "sanitized" by American media because the feelings of the families of those soldiers actually matter. Now they're showing short clips, but since they are gruesome, some of it crosses the line of decency, and is not shown. Perhaps you'd like it if photos of murder scenes, and pictures of the aftermath of rapes and murders are plastered across TV screens on the news every night because ya wouldn't want to "sanitize" anything, but again, it crosses the line.

[186k\sec]

Really? How so?


I was mainly refering to US Tv coverage.., flip on CNBC during BBC's broadcast, or almost any other international tv media, you will notice they are more comprehensive & realistic in thier reporting. Im not saying all images need to be shown, & agree to some censoring for national security, or next of kin notification, but in cases where the US is being exploited, the people deserve to see the truth, without the candy coat..
The net is good, same with public radio, there is lots of info out there, I'm just warry of the competancy of mainstream media during war.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec



I was mainly refering to US Tv coverage.., flip on CNBC during BBC's broadcast, or almost any other international tv media, you will notice they are more comprehensive & realistic in thier reporting. Im not saying all images need to be shown, & agree to some censoring for national security, or next of kin notification, but in cases where the US is being exploited, the people deserve to see the truth, without the candy coat..
The net is good, same with public radio, there is lots of info out there, I'm just warry of the competancy of mainstream media during war.

I agree they need to see the truth.. after the next of kin have been notified. When you say the US being exploited. What do you mean by that and, depending on the situation, isnt "exploited" a subjective concept?

MS

[186k\sec]

yeah, it is subjective to a certain extent: but what I meant is; when other nations are privy to info (and making judements on it), that we as Americans are not, because of 'sensitivity' to the general public., is indeed exploiting the people, by info. supression. Reports are first filtered through government censoring, then media editing... by the time it gets to you - its just styrofoam..

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
yeah, it is subjective to a certain extent: but what I meant is; when other nations are privy to info (and making judements on it), that we as Americans are not, because of 'sensitivity' to the general public., is indeed exploiting the people, by info. supression. Reports are first filtered through government censoring, then media editing... by the time it gets to you - its just styrofoam..

I see. OK. I'm assuming that by government censorship you are referring to war coverage. Sure. and I'll defer judgment to whomever is censoring it that its being done in the interest of the troops on the ground. If I have to find out tomorrow about something that happened to day in order for our people not to be endangered. Fine.

Other than that what sort of supression are you referring to?

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


I could say the same about US media..

sanitized for american consumption.....

Which is what?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by 186k\sec



I was mainly refering to US Tv coverage.., flip on CNBC during BBC's broadcast, or almost any other international tv media, you will notice they are more comprehensive & realistic in thier reporting. Im not saying all images need to be shown, & agree to some censoring for national security, or next of kin notification, but in cases where the US is being exploited, the people deserve to see the truth, without the candy coat..
The net is good, same with public radio, there is lots of info out there, I'm just warry of the competancy of mainstream media during war.

Well as far as the POW shit is concerned I would agree with you but this equals suppression?

There is however a shit load of crap that is coming out of Arab TV to support the Iraqi regime that's for sure.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


Yeah I'm reading that they are under a denial of service attack.

Maybe so..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25491-2003Mar25.html

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by seattle science
Actually, the wonderful closeups of Americans executed point blank with gunshots in their foreheads was "sanitized" by American media because the feelings of the families of those soldiers actually matter. Now they're showing short clips, but since they are gruesome, some of it crosses the line of decency, and is not shown. Perhaps you'd like it if photos of murder scenes, and pictures of the aftermath of rapes and murders are plastered across TV screens on the news every night because ya wouldn't want to "sanitize" anything, but again, it crosses the line. I don't suppose you've heard of the Filipino woman who saw her son on TV while captured before the military told her about the situtation. Is that a case where censure could have helped? Also.. i'm all for graphic images. If it crosses the line.. GOOD! Maybe we as a nation will wake up to what war is about and what is being funded under our noses when we put a face to it instead of just reading slanted news articles and listening to boring talk shows.

[186k\sec]

Sure. and I'll defer judgment to whomever is censoring it that its being done in the interest of the troops on the ground. If I have to find out tomorrow about something that happened to day in order for our people not to be endangered. Fine.
absolutley...no question about it.

Other than that what sort of supression are you referring to?
suppression of ugly facts.... incidents that are damaging to the public's oppinion & moral, swept under the carpet so to speak, --- example: if the 'embedded journalist' was not at the scene of the muslim GI grenade bomber, the story would have been kept low priority w/ the Pentegon, delayed in releasing details, and diluted in its impact for the very reasons I mentioned..

that is suppressing the truth by minipulation.

[Carley]

Poynter (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45) has several interesting articles regarding the 'embedded journalist' phenomenon :)

[Mike S]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
I don't suppose you've heard of the Filipino woman who saw her son on TV while captured before the military told her about the situtation. Is that a case where censure could have helped? Also.. i'm all for graphic images. If it crosses the line.. GOOD! Maybe we as a nation will wake up to what war is about and what is being funded under our noses when we put a face to it instead of just reading slanted news articles and listening to boring talk shows.

I know the case and when I heard her talking about seeing her son on PTV before being informed of his capture by the brass I was blown away.

I think we all know that war is terrible Nathan.. Sometimes what's terrible is necessary.

We're not dumb Nathan. We don't need to see the dead junkie in the alley to know that addiction kills, we don't need to see the dead kids in the columbine library to know the massacre was horrific and to grasp that we have a violent culture and we don't need to see the disposed of fetus and emotionally distraught woman to know that abortion is a horrible experience.

Couple of other points Nathan... sometimes being shown our dead steels our resolve. The images of the Iraqi SOB standing over dead US soldiers and smiling didn't make me thing "bring our boys home" it made me think honor the sacrifice of our dead with complete and total victory.

The images of the dead in WW2 had this effect .. The images of the dead at Antitum and Gettysburg did this too.

It can also be argued that our exposure to graphic violence already desensitizes us to it.


MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Carley
Poynter (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45) has several interesting articles regarding the 'embedded journalist' phenomenon :)

Slate as well.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080699/