View Full Version : David Frost joins Al-Jazeera
Wow now that's something. An Arab channel getting a top journalist like Frost. Maybe now they can broadcast on a wider front ? Well actually that is the plan, to broadcast in English from next Spring. I think it's great that people will have an alternative to the Western channels for Mid East news.
I know Al Jazeera has a bad rap in America because Bin Laden always sends his videos to them but I think it's just a news channel and it doesnt have anything to do with terrorism. What do you guys think ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4318284.stm
Sjakihata
10-07-2005, 13:19
I don't believe in 100% objectivity. That said, though, I don't believe that Al Jazeera is connected in anyway with terrorism.
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 13:21
Who?
I don;t think they are 100% objective either, but then I don;t think 99% of any news is. Thing is now we'll be able to watch an Arab channel and see how they are reporting things about Iraq in particular.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 13:29
Who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost_%28broadcaster%29
Thats who .
Who?
David Frost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/default.stm)
Al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage)
:book:
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 13:41
Right, I read the article. I don't think this will make a very big splash, over here anyway. Yay for him and Jazeera, though.
Right now I use al-Jazeera to improve my Arabic skills. I like their style, and I can’t wait for them to launch the English channel. ~:)
I think Al-Jazeera is reminiscent of an Arabic BBC, at least in its journalistic philosophy (AFAIK, its not state owned). I don't understand the US venom towards it. The administration should be using it to win hearts and minds in the Arab street, not demonising it for cheap purposes at home.
The fact that the US military bombed Al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul and Baghdad is one of those things that keeps me awake at night wondering about who are the good guys in all this. I don't know what angers me more - the murderous nature of the acts, their stupidity or their sheer cynicism.
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 13:53
The administration should be using it to win hearts and minds in the Arab street, not demonising it for cheap purposes at home.
Is it that simple when you have the Arab street refering to Al-Jazeera as "Al-Khinzeera" for airing Israeli Officials?
I think Al-Jazeera is reminiscent of an Arabic BBC, at least in its journalistic philosophy (AFAIK, its not state owned). Perhaps because many of the reporters are from the late BBC Arabic. :tongue2:
Is it that simple when you have the Arab street refering to Al-Jazeera as "Al-Khinzeera" for airing Israeli Officials? :drunk: Charming name. I suspect most of the people who object to the interviews with Israeli and American officials are the ones who prefer channels like Al-Manar (Hizbullah TV). But while some people may cringe at seeing evil Zionists and imperialists during dinner, at least they see them.
I hope that, inshallah, God willing, al-Jazeera will continue to provoke reforms in not just the Arab Middle East, but the entire Islamic world.
Is it that simple when you have the Arab street refering to Al-Jazeera as "Al-Khinzeera" for airing Israeli Officials?
OK, but it sounds like the problem is the Arab street, not Al-Jazeera. To be honest, my post may have been unfair to the US administration as I vaguely recall reading that it has made more of an effort to get its views aired in recent years. I still think targeting journalists takes us into Dr Strangelove territory though. (There was something fishy about bombing the Chinese journalists in Belgrade too.)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 14:05
I think Al-Jazeera is reminiscent of an Arabic BBC, at least in its journalistic philosophy (AFAIK, its not state owned). I don't understand the US venom towards it. The administration should be using it to win hearts and minds in the Arab street, not demonising it for cheap purposes at home.
It is not officially state-owned, but examining its finances you will find that it is at least tangentially beholden. I do not know to what extent this influences their reportage. The U.S. has always viewed the network as far too willing to air terrorist messages as opposed to reporting on them without giving them air time to further their message. As to whether or not our approach to this network is the best, it is hard to say. There are a number of US opinion leaders who share your assessment.
The fact that the US military bombed Al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul and Baghdad is one of those things that keeps me awake at night wondering about who are the good guys in all this. I don't know what angers me more - the murderous nature of the acts, their stupidity or their sheer cynicism.
Bombing such offices/broadcast facilities is usually a part of coordinated offensive operations. The goal is to smash enemy command and communication links in order to paralyze the defense. The assumption is that any such facilities that remain operational will be used by the enemy to coordinate against our forces. This behavior is not considered murderous by military standards, though it is, of course, quite possible that innocent people were killed in such strikes. "Collateral damage" is not a pretty thing, even where necessary.
Seamus
Bombing such offices/broadcast facilities is usually a part of coordinated offensive operations. The goal is to smash enemy command and communication links in order to paralyze the defense. The assumption is that any such facilities that remain operational will be used by the enemy to coordinate against our forces. This behavior is not considered murderous by military standards, though it is, of course, quite possible that innocent people were killed in such strikes. "Collateral damage" is not a pretty thing, even where necessary.
If you were talking about Serb government TV facilities in the Kosovo conflict, I could see your point, although I would not necessarily agree.
But we are discussing neutral third parties - Al Jazeera - here. Would it be ok to have bombed the BBC offices in Baghdad and Kabul too? Or Reuters or AP? It seems to be taking Bush's "if you are not with us, you are against" dictum too literally.
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 14:10
:drunk: Charming name.
Almost as charming as calling someone a mooli (Kaiser? Correct spelling, please?) or a nigger, I think.
I hope that, inshallah, God willing, al-Jazeera will continue to provoke reforms in not just the Arab Middle East, but the entire Islamic world.
Me too, but it seems like when they try they're accused by the 'Arab street' of being Zionists who wish to divide the Middle Eastern countries.
Oh well, we can hope but I'm a bit doubtful.
Good posts. Now that's a model for discussion.
Personally I belive that Al-Jazeera can really make a difference in the Middle East because it is much more liberal in what it airs than the state owned TV. Most countries in the Middle East have state owned TV which just airs streams after streasm of absolute BS propaganda. In this way Al-Jazeera is unique in that they air stuff agaionst their own government. They have had more trouble in their home turf of Qatar than anywhere else for criticsing the government. All the government sin the Middle East would prefer if their journalists did not visit their countries but they can't do much to stop them since they have such a latge audience. I think it's a good thing that at least there is one independent channel which airs what they want to rather than tow the government lines. freedom of the press is very limited in the Middle East and channels like this can pave the way for greater news independence.
:drunk: Charming name. I suspect most of the people who object to the interviews with Israeli and American officials are the ones who prefer channels like Al-Manar (Hizbullah TV). But while some people may cringe at seeing evil Zionists and imperialists during dinner, at least they see them.
I hope that, inshallah, God willing, al-Jazeera will continue to provoke reforms in not just the Arab Middle East, but the entire Islamic world.
That is true. The fact is the large extreme right organisations already have channels of their own and Al-Jazeera is not one of them. It must piss them off to no end that their show is being stolen from them.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 14:16
I assume the military was operating under the expectation that the AJ facilities might have been/would have been co-opted and therefore had to be rendered useless. I suspect that if they had credible intelligence that the BBC facilities could also be co-opted that they would have neutralized them as well. I have no idea as to the credibility of the intelligence used in deciding to take out the AJ facilities. Our military is usually pretty good (though unfortunately not perfect) at not destroying things or people simply from spite. This does not guarantee, of course, that our intelligence is 100% accurate. That's why its the "art" of war, and not the science. The morality of taking out "3rd party" facilities during combat is, in part, a question of perspective.
Seamus
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 14:22
Personally I belive that Al-Jazeera can really make a difference in the Middle East because it is much more liberal in what it airs than the state owned TV. Most countries in the Middle East have state owned TV which just airs streams after streasm of absolute BS propaganda. In this way Al-Jazeera is unique in that they air stuff agaionst their own government. They have had more trouble in their home turf of Qatar than anywhere else for criticsing the government. All the government sin the Middle East would prefer if their journalists did not visit their countries but they can't do much to stop them since they have such a latge audience. I think it's a good thing that at least there is one independent channel which airs what they want to rather than tow the government lines. freedom of the press is very limited in the Middle East and channels like this can pave the way for greater news independence.
Good perspective. Here in the USA, we rarely hear about their broadcasts save when our media relates that AJ is covering "X terrorist message" or commenting negatively on a US action. We don't get any reporting on them hammering their "local" audience's governments etc. However annoying the press may be in some ways, having someone poking into the government does have value.
Seamus
Strike For The South
10-07-2005, 14:24
I need to get Al-Jazeera might be intresting
Adrian II
10-07-2005, 14:38
The morality of taking out "3rd party" facilities during combat is, in part, a question of perspective.The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would wholeheartedly agree with you. They also work with incomplete intelligence and they obviously cause some collateral damage whilst attacking enemy infrastructure - though never in the tens of thousands of victims, of course, due to their use of smart weapons such as box-cutters. Anyway, collateral damage is a minor problem from the perspective of their leaders Osama bin Laden and Ajman al-Zawahiri. They feel they have bigger fish to fry than mere humanitarian concerns. The future of their ideals is at stake in a worldwide confrontation between Good and Evil.
I assume the military was operating under the expectation that the AJ facilities might have been/would have been co-opted and therefore had to be rendered useless.
That's an example of why I said the US bombing AJ keeps me awake at night. Yes, 9/10 I might share your benign assumptions about the US military and indeed my own (UK). We assume "we" are the good guys. But what if we are being hoodwinked by ruthless amoral real-politik players? Or worse still, lied to by dumb blunderers who like to think they are ruthless amoral real-politick players?
The fact that the US military denied targeting the AJ facility in Kabul (and the Chinese outlet in Belgrade) makes me less willing to assume the best of all possible worlds.
And personally, I don't find the expectation that the AJ facilities would be co-opted at all reasonable[1]. That leads me to doubt the integrity or the morals of the decision to target them.
[1]Having AJ cover the US bombing campaign was probably worth much more to Saddam than whatever he could do by trying to steal their equipment. Plus my opinion of Saddam or the Taliban's capacity - in the moment of their destruction - to do smart things like co-opt TV facilities is even lower than my opinion of the Allied bomb targetters.
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 14:46
The morality of taking out "3rd party" facilities during combat is, in part, a question of perspective.
The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would wholeheartedly agree with you.
The 9/11 attack was on a 3rd party facility? Who were the 1st and 2nd parties?
Adrian II
10-07-2005, 14:49
The 9/11 attack was on a 3rd party facility? Who were the 1st and 2nd parties?You can read it all in Ajman al-Zawahiri's manuscript Knights under the Banner of the Prophet, published in part in London in december 2001 and available all over the Web.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 14:53
The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would wholeheartedly agree with you. They also work with incomplete intelligence and they obviously cause some collateral damage whilst attacking enemy infrastructure - though never in the tens of thousands of victims, of course, due to their use of smart weapons such as box-cutters. Anyway, collateral damage is a minor problem from the perspective of their leaders Osama bin Laden and Ajman al-Zawahiri. They feel they have bigger fish to fry than mere humanitarian concerns. The future of their ideals is at stake in a worldwide confrontation between Good and Evil.
Sadly, I do think you are summarizing their moral perspective fairly well. The one difference is that AQ attacks are designed to maximize civilian casualties in order to produce the most horrific possible psychological effect. US attacks may reluctantly kill civilians on a "wrong-place/wrong time but we had to hit the target basis," yet we studiously avoid this when possible. We even have film of a million dollar piece of ordinance getting diverted into a mudbank rather than hitting its targeted bridge in order to save Iraqi civilians that happened to be there. We are not perfect, but we try.
AQ, as you suggest, almost certainly views such efforts is ridiculous sentimentality. The important thing is the mission of advancing Wahabist style Islam and extirpating the state of Israel. Since the 9/11 victims were almost all infidel, their lives were of little consequence. In fact, their deaths as a tool to further Islam (as they define it) were no doubt a higher calling in AQ's perspective than was their continued existence in decadence.
The problem is, from the perspective of the USA, that we can't really "defeat" an opposition with this attitude -- we can only exterminate them. This is rather difficult for us, since we really aren't psychologically/ culturally "mean" enough to feel comfortable in this role. The cruelest the USA has ever been in the wake of a conflict -- probably the only time we did anything approaching a "boot on the neck" style occupation, was of our own Southern states following our Civil War (SFTS will second this, I'm sure) -- and even that wouldn't have been as strict if Booth had not killed Lincoln and galvanized the "revenge" impulse among Northern Republicans.
Side note: Had Booth shot Lincoln 2 years earlier he might have altered the war. Shooting Lincoln when he did only gave the really radical Republicans free reign to "reconstruct" the South.
Seamus
Adrian II
10-07-2005, 15:05
The problem is, from the perspective of the USA, that we can't really "defeat" an opposition with this attitude -- we can only exterminate them. This is rather difficult for us, since we really aren't psychologically/ culturally "mean" enough to feel comfortable in this role.I think the U.S. problem is not a lack of cruelty but a lack of understanding of the opposition. The opposition is not concentrating on your country, its 'distant enemy', but on the regional governments that it considers to be its 'near enemy'. This is an intra-islamic struggle. And your present 'extermination policy' only helps the opposition to multiply. Bombing Chinese or Arab tv-headquarters in the course of these operations may be alright from your perspective, but it is totally wrong from the perspective of those you would like to convince of your goodintentions. It is also rather disturbing to the likes of Simon and me, who would prefer to think there is a fundamental difference in values and modus operandi between Al Qaida and 'us'.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 15:46
I think the U.S. problem is not a lack of cruelty but a lack of understanding of the opposition. The opposition is not concentrating on your country, its 'distant enemy', but on the regional governments that it considers to be its 'near enemy'. This is an intra-islamic struggle. And your present 'extermination policy' only helps the opposition to multiply. Bombing Chinese or Arab tv-headquarters in the course of these operations may be alright from your perspective, but it is totally wrong from the perspective of those you would like to convince of your goodintentions. It is also rather disturbing to the likes of Simon and me, who would prefer to think there is a fundamental difference in values and modus operandi between Al Qaida and 'us'.
I am aware that the intra-Islamic struggle is more central to all the "Islamist" groups than is their struggle against the West. This has been true at least since the Shia/Sunni schism if not before. You are right in that many Americans -- even those who are politically aware -- are pretty clueless about this. They weren'r even really aware at all that Shia and Sunnis were so antithetical until the occupation of Iraq (and many still haven't figured it out).
I wouldn't exactly say we view such targeting as "alright." Put it in the "regrettable necessity" category and you'd be closer to our attitude. The other component of your point, that such actions seem counter to our declared good intentions, is always vexing for us -- a classic catch 22.
If we fail to neutralize such a facility, it may well be used to coordinate activities against us, leading to more dead Americans. If we strike such a facility, some portion of the population who isn't our enemy yet will shift into thinking of us as an enemy because of that action. If we do not strike, we suffer more of our own dead, adding to the morale of our opposition and convincing more of the population to join our opposition. If we do nothing at all, accept casualties from terrorism without striking back whatsoever, our terrorist enemies will declare victory and more recruits will flock to their cause. In other words, whatever we do or do not do, terrorist opponents will always recruit more to continue the fight.
I think that Simon and yourself, AdrianII, are hoping for a silver lining that will never materialize -- as are many of my countrymen. All the understanding in the world, all the nuanced concern for their beliefs and values, won't make a difference to the AQ-types. The radical elements of Wahabist/AQ islam seek to re-establish the caliphate under leaders of their own brand of Islam. From there, they turn off the oil (as the Taliban demonstrated, they are more than willing to accept the decrease in lifestyle entailed), and the West will be forced to acknowledge the Caliphate's place as a dominant world power. To them, this is a holy task, and all opposition -- most of whom are also followers of the prophet as you rightly note -- must be destroyed.
On one theme you suggest/imply, however, I fear you are correct. You imply, of course, that any actions by the US and the coalition of the willing are doomed to failure unless Islam itself moves to reject wahabism and AQ rather than appeasing it or trying to coexist with it, or trying to play off both ends against the middle as some of the sheiks do. That is the purpose behind our efforts in Iraq. To show a model of the future that betokens prosperity for Islam along with greater personal freedom. The hope is that such an example will create the "buy-in" among Islamic populations that undercuts the fevered Islam of AQ.
Some of my countrymen would rather retreat from the confrontation and stop getting yanks killed fighting for people who many say will never like us anyway. I understand this sentiment, but still feel the long-term goal of promoting freedom will be worth it.
Seamus
If we fail to neutralize such a facility, it may well be used to coordinate activities against us, leading to more dead Americans.
I think you need more than a "may well be" before you fire a missile at independent journalists. I think you need an "is".
All the understanding in the world, all the nuanced concern for their beliefs and values, won't make a difference to the AQ-types.
I agree. But what matters in this respect is not the AQ-types but the people who may become AQ-types, who hide and nurture AQ-types, who might provide intelligence on AQ-types, who will enlist in security forces that hunt AQ-types etc.
What appalls me is the fact seemingly a large majority of the Iraqi Sunni population, the people of Pakistan etc align themselves more with AQ-types than with George Bush. Any understanding, nuanced concern etc that George Bush can show to change that is appreciated. To be fair to the man, I think at some level he or his advisors understand this. But I fear his policies - the invasion of Iraq above all - are counter-productive because they do not give sufficient weight to this consideration.
Goofball
10-07-2005, 17:01
Does Al-Jazeera currently broadcast anywhere in North America?
The imp of the perverse just struck me and now I have a craving to have Fox News and Al-Jazeera on at the same time, picture-in-picture.
:duel:
Does Al-Jazeera currently broadcast anywhere in North America?
The imp of the perverse just struck me and now I have a craving to have Fox News and Al-Jazeera on at the same time, picture-in-picture.
:duel:
Now that is a perversion that would actually be funny - especially if you got O'Reilly to have an arguement with a Journalist from Al-Jazeera over the role of the United States in the Middle-East.
I wonder which one would come out looking like a rabid dog on that one.~:eek:
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 17:32
Does Al-Jazeera currently broadcast anywhere in North America?
It does . Get the details here Goof
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C9B9638B-BA27-4319-AFDC-5D800EA56421.htm
Goofball
10-07-2005, 18:48
Does Al-Jazeera currently broadcast anywhere in North America?
It does . Get the details here Goof
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C9B9638B-BA27-4319-AFDC-5D800EA56421.htm
Cool.
Thanks T.
It's broadcast in Arabic at least once it's in English we can understand somethng and judge for ourselves.
Leet Eriksson
10-08-2005, 00:24
Al Jazeera being broadcast in english is definitly a step in improving its image.
bmolsson
10-08-2005, 03:50
Freedom of speech can really be a bitch sometimes... ~D
Conqueror
10-08-2005, 16:01
On one theme you suggest/imply, however, I fear you are correct. You imply, of course, that any actions by the US and the coalition of the willing are doomed to failure unless Islam itself moves to reject wahabism and AQ rather than appeasing it or trying to coexist with it, or trying to play off both ends against the middle as some of the sheiks do. That is the purpose behind our efforts in Iraq. To show a model of the future that betokens prosperity for Islam along with greater personal freedom. The hope is that such an example will create the "buy-in" among Islamic populations that undercuts the fevered Islam of AQ.
If that is indeed the goal, then the current efforts are a horrendous failure. Post-Saddam Iraq is hardly a model of the future that would appeal to, well, anyone. And it doesn't seem like we can hope it to become such for a long time to come.
Regarding the attacks on Al Jazeera, I think it's very short sighted. It would be better to support them, even if you don't like everything that they broadcast. They could become a catalyst for shaping public opinions to be less accepting of extreme views and actions such as those of AQ, which could be vital in the long term. Bombing their offices might just steer them to the opposite direction.
Adrian II
10-10-2005, 21:24
They could become a catalyst for shaping public opinions to be less accepting of extreme views and actions such as those of AQ, which could be vital in the long term. Bombing their offices might just steer them to the opposite direction.In fact al-Jazeera did the U.S. a great favour during the Iraq invasion by taking their favourite religious oracle sheikh Youssef al-Qardhawi, who was vehemently opposed to the action, off the the air, officially on the grounds that he had to undergo meniscus surgery. The Qatar authorities prevailed on them, it seems, because that country was the theater headquarters of the U.S. Army during the invasion.
:book:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.