A flourishing democracy takes root in Iraq

[Dâriûsh]

Yesterday the TV channel Al Arabiya was banned in Iraq (again, most likely for good). Al Jazeera was banned a while back.

I looked all last night for an English source but couldn’t find any. But today I have one from Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-08T135015Z_01_IBO846464_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-IRAQ-ARABIYA.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2).


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government on Friday defended its decision to close the Baghdad bureau of Al Arabiya television for "sectarian" reporting, despite criticism from media bodies which called the ban an assault on press freedom.

"If al Qaeda wanted reporters to work for it, it could do no better than the reporters for Arabiya," Yasseen Majeed, media advisor to Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said, a day after cabinet voted to close the channel's Baghdad bureau for a month, accusing it of promoting Sunni Muslim insurgent violence.

Arabiya, a pan-Arab satellite network watched by millions in Iraq, rejected the charges. Spokesman Nasser al-Sarami said its reporters adhered to objective reporting. He said Iraq had not informed the channel which story had prompted the ban.


"We have been trying to contact the Iraqi government on their reason ... but our calls have not been answered," he said at the station's headquarters in the Gulf emirate of Dubai.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists added its voice to other international media groups in condemning the decision by a government that is sponsored by the United States and which says it is working to instil democratic values.

"The arbitrary closure of Al Arabiya's Baghdad bureau flies in the face of the Iraqi government's promise to uphold freedom of the press," Executive Director Joel Simon said.

"In a democracy, police do not walk into a television station and stop broadcasts without warning or explanation."

U.S. officials have so far declined to comment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, is this meant to be positive or negative. It sort of comes accross both ways.

Are either channels bastions of hard-line Sectarian fundamentalism?

[Dâriûsh]

Sorry, is this meant to be positive or negative. It sort of comes accross both ways.

Are either channels bastions of hard-line Sectarian fundamentalism?

Heh. The title is very much intended to be sarcastic. ~;)


If anything, both channels are hard-line bastions of opinions the people in power disagree with.

[Pannonian]

Sorry, is this meant to be positive or negative. It sort of comes accross both ways.

Are either channels bastions of hard-line Sectarian fundamentalism?
Don't know about al-Arabiya, but al-Jazeera is the nearest thing to an Arab-grown BBC, with many of its journalists drawn from the BBC. Al-J is certainly the Arabic channel of choice for Israeli governments when they want to go on air, since it tries to allow both sides to voice their views. As a result, it upsets Arab governments who don't want to hear from the evil Jews, and it upsets the west who feel Islamic fundamentalists should be censored. In good old Iraq, it gets it both ways, hated by both the hardliners and the western puppets.

[Dâriûsh]

A note on that, in Iraq everyone is gunning for the Al Arabiya crew.

[AntiochusIII]

Hooray. At last. Now we shall declare victory. Look! Shiny new Iraq!

The We Want A Democracy Out of It (At Least) thing isn't going too well now, is it?

:dizzy2:

(Preparing myself to be flamed by the patriots and other sensibles -- and I don't care, quite frankly)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Heh. The title is very much intended to be sarcastic. ~;)


If anything, both channels are hard-line bastions of opinions the people in power disagree with.

Ah, okay......


Well with that in mind this is sad, if not pathetic. The only thing I might say in mitigation is that Iraq is in the middle of Sectarian violence, and maybe a certain amount of censorship is warrented. If the whole thing had been handled better we wouldn't be here now.

Personnally I'm more worried about the peace treaty Pakistan has with the Taliban at the moment.

The way I see it this was an invasion too far.

[Tribesman]

Personnally I'm more worried about the peace treaty Pakistan has with the Taliban at the moment.

Its funny that no one picked up to my inference to that in my last post in the "good news from Afghanistan " topic .
But it isn't really a peace treaty with the Taliban wigferth , its a peace treaty with the various tribal and fundamentalist groups in the border regions and a release of the captured militants from the region coupled with a military withdrawel by Pakistan from its own "territory" (though Pakistan like the empire before it has never managed to control it ).

Back more on topic , after BBC World and Euronews broadcast interviews from the region despite foriegn journalists being banned from entering the provinces in question . Is it good for democarcy that journalists were able to do it , or is it bad that they done it and they should be banned entirely from all of Pakistan for doing it ?
Rather disturbing interviews BTW for anyone who hopes Osama B might be caught in the area, but its good to know the bad news and see the mindset operating in the border region , and the mindset of the military and leadership of that dictatorship that is supposed to be a vital ally in this so called war on terror .

[Xiahou]

Don't know about al-Arabiya, but al-Jazeera is the nearest thing to an Arab-grown BBC, with many of its journalists drawn from the BBC. Al-J is certainly the Arabic channel of choice for Israeli governments when they want to go on air, since it tries to allow both sides to voice their views. As a result, it upsets Arab governments who don't want to hear from the evil Jews, and it upsets the west who feel Islamic fundamentalists should be censored. In good old Iraq, it gets it both ways, hated by both the hardliners and the western puppets.
Is that why Al-Jazeera runs 5yr old Al Qaeda propoganda videos? Because I was having a tough time figuring out the news value of a pre-9/11 bin Laden cheerleading video. ~:confused:

[Pannonian]

Is that why Al-Jazeera runs 5yr old Al Qaeda propoganda videos? Because I was having a tough time figuring out the news value of a pre-9/11 bin Laden cheerleading video. ~:confused:
Newspapers haven't hesitated to publish photos from that video, so why should a broadcaster hesitate to show the video? Like it or not, anything directly connected with OBL is prime news material. I'm surprised you question the validity of it, considering it claims to show OBL and at least some of the hijackers in the same footage, showing an undeniable link (beyond confessions). Hitler took care to ensure his personal signature wasn't to be found on any Holocaust documents, thus any historian finding a document with his authenticated signature on would also be news material, despite the age of the story.

[Tribesman]

Because I was having a tough time figuring out the news value of a pre-9/11 bin Laden cheerleading video.
Well thats no surprise is it , would you like some help on figuring things out ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Because I was having a tough time figuring out the news value of a pre-9/11 bin Laden cheerleading video.
Well thats no surprise is it , would you like some help on figuring things out ?

Please. As Pan-man noted, there were no "surprises" in the video, so other than a remembrance of 9-11-01, what was the news value?

[Tribesman]

Please. As Pan-man noted, there were no "surprises" in the video, so other than a remembrance of 9-11-01, what was the news value?
Yes there was , there was Osama with two of the terrorists involved , the news value , apart from it being the 3rd september release by al-qaida is that it's interesting to know what the nutters say .
I am sure your government and many others are going to spend many weeks looking through the clip shown plus the other 87 minutes of footage that were not shown .
Would you prefer it if the enemies propoganda was never seen by the public ?
Or would you like it taken further like the topic started about and shut down broadcasters who show things you don't like ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Please. As Pan-man noted, there were no "surprises" in the video, so other than a remembrance of 9-11-01, what was the news value?
Yes there was , there was Osama with two of the terrorists involved , the news value , apart from it being the 3rd september release by al-qaida is that it's interesting to know what the nutters say .
I am sure your government and many others are going to spend many weeks looking through the clip shown plus the other 87 minutes of footage that were not shown .
Would you prefer it if the enemies propoganda was never seen by the public ?
Or would you like it taken further like the topic started about and shut down broadcasters who show things you don't like ?

Well, "know thy enemy" is always good practice, but I am not at all sure that it makes it newsworthy. OBL was known to be claimed to be involved, was involved, and has been confirmed by all sources as involved -- a visual of him with two of the strike team is hardly "news."

As a source of info, I have no doubt that it will be combed thoroughly -- and not just the small vignettes in the news. If some useful data as to his whereabouts is gleaned -- unlikely -- that sounds good to me.

Of course I'd prefer nobody saw the propoganda, particularly if it isn't presented as part of a balanced analysis, but censorship to achieve that ends is a bit much. There is, of course, value in knowing the official position/policies of a group/nation/organization, so listening to the message in some format is necessary. It is also true that virtually every politician, most governments, and most organizations spend a lot of effort to propagandize -- how effectively is the real question.

As far as I can tell, the constant barrage of propaganda leaves far too many people assuming that all of the info is worthless and they opt for ignorance instead. Vexing.

[Soulforged]

It's a good move. What Iraq needs now, the priority, is not freedom of press, that's for established states only when there's certain maturity on the order of the estructure and everything can be canalized through the legal roads. Ideas are powerful if transmited. Now, if this government is not a just one then it will be destroyed again by other means, but meanwhile there should be a "minimum floor of agreement" so the situation can progress to better horizons.

Either that or anarchism... Don't ask me what I like, please...

[rotorgun]

I tend to agree with Soulforged. While a free press is a great idea, and almost sacrosanct in the United States, it is a priveledge that must be earned by the people in Iraq. How and why one must ask? How is by winning the war against the insurgents and those who would deny their countrymen from a chance at democracy. Why is simply because the Iraqi government must realise, much better than we who are not in their position, if a particular news agency has been infiltrated by their enemies. If suppressing enemy propoganda, hatred and subversive information is felt required, than so be it-all is fair in love or war. (I apologise for not knowing the authoer of this quote)

Think about it,

[Tribesman]

Of course I'd prefer nobody saw the propoganda, particularly if it isn't presented as part of a balanced analysis, but censorship to achieve that ends is a bit much.
I'd prefer if they showed the full 90 minutes and then gave a decent amount of time for people to rip the statements contained to pieces because the propoganda was crap , or they came across snippets where they had to say "yeah well Ok perhaps thats a valid point ...but if you look at it in a wider sense your take on it is crap" .
Though of course that wouldn't fit into a normal news broadcast or a normal size newspaper .:shrug:

[Pannonian]

Well, "know thy enemy" is always good practice, but I am not at all sure that it makes it newsworthy. OBL was known to be claimed to be involved, was involved, and has been confirmed by all sources as involved -- a visual of him with two of the strike team is hardly "news."

It's the most concrete evidence we have so far of his personal connection. Certainly far more newsworthy than the blanket coverage of the 9/11 commemorations. I've made the comparison that finding Holocaust documents with Hitler's signature on would be similarly newsworthy.



As a source of info, I have no doubt that it will be combed thoroughly -- and not just the small vignettes in the news. If some useful data as to his whereabouts is gleaned -- unlikely -- that sounds good to me.

Of course I'd prefer nobody saw the propoganda, particularly if it isn't presented as part of a balanced analysis, but censorship to achieve that ends is a bit much. There is, of course, value in knowing the official position/policies of a group/nation/organization, so listening to the message in some format is necessary. It is also true that virtually every politician, most governments, and most organizations spend a lot of effort to propagandize -- how effectively is the real question.

As far as I can tell, the constant barrage of propaganda leaves far too many people assuming that all of the info is worthless and they opt for ignorance instead. Vexing.
If it's information released by the enemy which will be examined in detail by my government for clues, I would like to see it as well with my own eyes. I do not trust my government to decide whether or not it is fit for common consumption.

[mystic brew]

Is that why Al-Jazeera runs 5yr old Al Qaeda propoganda videos? Because I was having a tough time figuring out the news value of a pre-9/11 bin Laden cheerleading video. ~:confused:

You are joking, right?

If any agency in the world had got hold of that tape they'd be running it heavily for weeks.

5 years old or not, it's new to us. Al-Jazeera is coming of age in the same way that sky news did during the first gulf war.
that it shows Bin Laden with some of the people involved in 9/11 seems newsworthy enough.

[Spetulhu]

And when you consider that the five-year anniversary is just around the corner... What news station isn't running articles about the WTC? :inquisitive: