From the Why-Would-Anyone-Be-Surprised Department -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:22:01 04/07/03 Mon
Author: SurveyGuy
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 68.81.153.209
Subject: From the Why-Would-Anyone-Be-Surprised Department

MEDIA MATTERS
Arab media slammed over war coverage
Editor of Saudi daily says reporters lying to try to bolster morale

The editor in chief of a London-based Saudi newspaper has criticized Arab media coverage of the war in Iraq, saying Arab media is simply acting as a mouthpiece for Saddam and censoring everything that doesn't fit established opinion.

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed of the daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat presented his views in three recent editorials translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Snipped . . . Click on headline to read entire article

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> What? Arab news slanted and bias? Tell me it isn't so! -- William, 02:49:41 04/08/03 Tue (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> What is striking is an Arab editor of an Arab paper stating it. Now THAT is a big(and pleasant) surprise. Mr. Al-Rashed seems to be a man of integrity. -- SurveyGuy (Our opinions matter mostly to ourselves. ), 09:30:10 04/08/03 Tue (NoHost/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Why should this come as any surprise, when (what's left of) their government keeps insisting that the Americans are not in Baghdad, never have been, are committing suicide by the thousands, and are being wiped out by the (now nonexistent) Republican guard, and that Saddam Hussein is still alive and milling about with commoners on the streets.... An interesting set of contradictions to say the least. As go the leaders, so go the nation that follows... -- Spock, 10:50:22 04/08/03 Tue (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Furthermore, how do you like liberal American journalists who were first complaining about how LOOOONNNGGG this war was taking (5 days in) and now that we're mopping up in Baghdad, they're complaining about how it wasn't a fair fight, and we're just being bullies because we took all our big guns into this little disadvantaged (terrorist) country. Methinks I smell a bunch of rats...which is more than I could say for them, since they keep cutting off their noses to spite their (two) faces.... -- Spock, 10:54:14 04/08/03 Tue (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> What he says is true, but the same is true (in reverse) of much of the Western press. You won't find the latter publishing the pages of horrific civilian death pictures that we're seeing over here. All papers are businesses, they'll publish what their readership wants to see and avoid whatever will shock or offend their public. -- Chris Henry, 07:00:01 04/09/03 Wed (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> However, does this explain why our forces have twice bombed the Al Jazeera offices? Kabul, November 2001, and Baghdad, April 2003. Or the attack on the journalists' hotel in Baghdad yesterday? It's a bit naive to say "we were returning fire" when there are dozens of professional journalists from all countries and persuasions saying the opposite. -- Chris Henry, 07:09:37 04/09/03 Wed (cache2-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.12)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Maybe it does. Journalists "of all persuasions" have been exposed as liars too often for me to put any credibility in what they report. As pictures were shown of jubilation in Bagdahd, the anchor is saying "the mood in Bagdahd was subdued" while all the while the video behind him showed exactly the opposite. I will wait for further details. Your theory doesn't explain why big three stations continue with spin as their viewership declines. The reason is they are idiologs. Business has naught to do with it. -- SG (I 'd have bombed Al Jazeera myself after they showed videos of tortured POWs. Let Al Jazeera think that was the reason, true or not.), 18:07:35 04/09/03 Wed (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Chris, why so quick to second-guess and condemn the U.S. military...who are right THERE getting shot at on the front lines despite what the Iraqi Minister of Spinformation keeps saying? I heard one military commentator this week saying that given a choice between hearsay/bystander perception and the soldier in the foxhole, he's gonna believe the soldier in the foxhole. Targeting a news office seems a pretty namby-pamby target (except for SG's stated justification) in the grand scheme. (cont'd) -- Spock, 11:32:21 04/10/03 Thu (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I'd say if the Iraqi regime has adopted a strategy of setting up snipers where return fire endangers civilians, it's par for the course. BTW, there is no such thing as a "safe" war, and its foolish to think no one outside the military will get hurt. Doesn't mean it's intentional. If you hit a rabbit while driving, does that mean you meant to? -- Spock, 11:35:08 04/10/03 Thu (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> We all accept that mistakes happen. What I personally don't like are official lies and cover-ups, especially when time has elapsed and the true facts that can be determined. In this case, large numbers of reporters were able to confirm the truth, and hence the lies of our own spokesmen. If they lie about this, how do we know when they tell the truth? -- Chris Henry, 02:45:45 04/13/03 Sun (pc-80-194-21-80-bf.blueyonder.co.uk/80.194.21.80)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Large numbers of reporters lied to us about what Clinton and the Dmoicrats were doing for 8 years and what a great statesman Fidel Castro and Arafat are and about that false story with nerve gas in Vietnam. Why should we believe reporters who started out hostile before anything happened any more than anyone else? Reporters lie and distort constantly. Few report neutrally. Many have been caught in outright lies as well as plagiarism. -- SG, 11:24:28 04/13/03 Sun (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]