POLL: Where's the Opposition? Should Peter Arnett have been fired?

Remove all ads!

Arnett was fired not because of criticism the US President but for declaring his opposition on the collaterall losses. He said that the US army was too violent with the civilians and that he didn't like. He expressed his opposition and they didn't like it because it showed a "bad" face of the USA.

 

At Llandon

I think Ragusa knows pretty well what Propaganda is, his coming from the homeland of it.

And I think, Propaganda nowadays works far more subtle than just faking pictures. Faking pictures would be for amateurs anyway.

I think Laches put it best:

The reporters are "embedded" (= in bed with the army), the military has a big influence on where the go and what they see.
So if the military knows, that at some place something critical will happen, they send the troops incl. the "embedded" reporter the other way.

So what get you get is truth. But not the whole truth, only a fraction of it.

It's a pact with the devil. The big Channels need pictures and the pentagon came and offered a way to get them.

A certain price has always to be paid (hey, nothing's for free)

 

I don't buy that.

First of all these reporters are career JOURNALISTS. They report on events and people all the time from all over the world. Do you honestly think that being in the field with troops will actually make them comprise their professional integrity? That they will begin to "like them" and thus only report favorabily with them? That's a crock.

And granted the military has some control over where they go...but have you noticed the huge number? I'm nt sure myself on the actual figures, but they seem to be EVERYWHERE. Hell I've seen reports from Brits, Itialians, Germans, and there are even Al Jazarra embedded reporters. Not to mention the scores of reporters from the American news channels. True it is not the whole picture, but it is giveing a historical amount of the picture. One that is unprecedednted in warefare.

It's funny...Here I am debating this, while at the same time I jsut finished watching one of the most amaising things I have ever seen on television. Split screen, Iraqi info minister on one side talking about how there were no US troops in Baghdad...while at the same time watching live video of US troops inside the presidential palace, and camped out under the two big swords of the Iran/Iraq war memorial. Now who and what do you believe?

 

I believe that.

But I wonder what else is happening in the streets of Baghdad.

 

Where's the opposition? It's gone and dead. Randy David, one of the political analysts here in the Philippines, has this to say. He made this about a few days before America's invasion of Iraq:

The article is here: http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/mar/16/opi_rsdavid-1.htm I copied and pasted the article above, in case the page is down.

 

Good God.

Have ANY of you listen to or read the Arnet interview.

He didn't say that he felt that the war was wrong.

What he did say was that public opposition in the US was growing stronger and stronger every day since the war started, and that public opinion was growing over the war. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Quite the contrary, public support for the was is MUCH higher now than it was before the war, and has been growing every day.

He also said that the first war plan failed, and that the US was drawing up a new war plan. Once again he was totally incorrect. The war plan has gone precisely to plan. Sure there were many people who were excited at the start that Saddam might have been killed in the beginning, and it might be a cakewalk...but no one ever said or claimed that the war would be quick or easy. It's been less than three weeks now, and we are already in Baghdad. True, the population didn't rise up on the first few days of the war, but they surely seem to be now. Even Al Jazarra is admiting to that! Here is a quote and a link.

"The troops are not facing any resistance from the people, the locals are pouring out into the streets to greet their advance, some people told us that they were fed up with 23 years of war and that all they wanted was peace.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=1979&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

So what Arnet said was clearly wrong.

Here's why it was stupid. Just like the Iraqi Minister lying to the people of Iraq about the US troops not being in the city, Arnet told them that the American public didn't want to fight, and that people of Iraq weren't rising up against the government. That in turn made those in Iraq that did want to over throw the government think twice about voicing their opinion.

 

I agree with Mithrantir that he was stating his opposition to the excessive amounts of violence. As it was stated in the Geneva Convention, concering the fourth accord stated that the armies will not torture, poison, or kill large numbers of people not involved in the war. And it was also the US who pushed for these accords. I was also the same United States who dropped a bomb on a mall, causing the death of several civilians and injuring even more. It was also the same United States, who stormed a small village, injuring several Aghganis, just to lure bin Laden out of hiding. It was also the same United States who cause the death of around 500 Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and injuring 4000 more.

 

Blackthorne TA, please. Most of these people have access to a Radio and are probably pondering right now, if what they hear from BBC World Service and Voice Of America is true and if it's safe to go outside. Obviously; what's the point in setting up a whole lot of radio broadcasting stations in Saudi-Arabia, Kuweit and Turkey, if the US and the British Goverments would think, Iraqis wouldn't listen to them.

They probably get even turkish, syrian, iranian, kuweiti and jordanian stations.

[ April 07, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

omg.

There are a few who are not using their brains. If you've ever looked around newsgroups or public proxy lists, you know that Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Jordan have government controlled internet access. That is, unless you use tunnelling, you cannot go to a whole slew of domains. And said tunnelling is illegal, as well.

My point:

The don't get BBC. Shortwave radios are considered Un-Authorized, and you will get strung up and clubbed for it. Same deal with satellite dishes, including those nifty little digital 18" ones. A few have them, but AM only reaches so far. That leaves the majority with local news only.

Like I was saying before, you have to judge from their perpective. The reality of it is they have nothing even remotely near "un-censored". Whereas Germany and France and Britain have the luxury of choosing whether or not to ban the violent Unreal Tournament from their country, Iraq doesn't even know it exists.

Information, in the Arab world, is a luxury.

I would also point out that intelligence works both ways. If you have agents in a foreign country, and you act on the information they are giving you, you run the risk of exposing them and preventing further agents from joining you (out of fear). This precludes you from having any kind of clue when someone wants to roll a bomb or two up to your front door. Counter-Counter Intelligence.

Plans within plans within plans...

 

Sure as hell do they have radios over there. You can't stop radio. It's to easy to build and hide one. Anyway, North-Irak is since 10 years controlled by the kurds.

Listening to radio actually was a great hobby in the years of WWII in occupied Europe.

And in nations like saudia-arabia and jordan they're watching CNN and Al-Jazera (or how ever it is spelled) parallel. Why do you think they make so a big fuss about Al-Jazeera, because it can only be received in Bahrein ????

(... talking about "using brain"...no manners at all ...)

[ April 08, 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

"You can't stop radio"

You sure can...quite easialy. All one needs to do is broadcast on the same frequency. It was doen throughout the Soviet Union during the cold war...and is done in Cuba to this day.

Now I don't know if the Iraqi's are doing that or not...but they do have the ability to.

 

Well, I hope they don't have the ability to, because your military said that they bombed strategical key-structure.

Now, a broadcasting station, which would interfere with the messages from the "liberators", would be considered strategical key-structure, wouldn't it ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm#media

qed.

[ April 07, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I have to admit that in the Arnett case I am prone to agree with BTA. Arnett was just stupid and wanted time in the light.

However he is the exception that confirms the rule. US reporters and journalist do see their careers turn to shambles if they try to say anything against government policy, they get no invitations to pressmeetings, no one answers their questions they are forced to work for small obscure medias and so on. The Bush administration and the big media corporations are walking a very precarious line right now and have been doing so since 9/11.

 

Forgive me if I am wrong. But my understanding is that reporters are there to ask questions, get the facts, and give that information to the public. A true journalist in a reporting capacity should not give opinions. They should report on the facts as they see them, and should QUESTION the people involved to find out at the very least their version of the truth, but they should not, in a reporting capacity express their opinions. They should and do however ask tough questions. Reporters are supposed to be objective rather than subjective.

Now reporters are allowed to have personal views and feelings. Many well known reporters and journalists write nationally published EDITORIALS and Columns. Any one who opens either a national or local news paper can read these opinions every day. I for one read just about all of the ones I can, even the many "letters to the editor" that are published every day from everyday citizens.

"US reporters and journalist do see their careers turn to shambles if they try to say anything against government policy, they get no invitations to pressmeetings, no one answers their questions they are forced to work for small obscure medias and so on"

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. If it were true the entire staff of 60 minutes, as well as hundreds of other well known reporters would have been out of work a long time ago. One only needs to open a news paper, or surf the net for that matter to find plenty of dissent among the American press. Statements like that make me wonder if you read or watch any American media at all.

 

A precarious line that Bush and his people are crossing with impunity, more now that they feel superior and can do anything. This U.S. administration has no need for opinion, nor cares what anyone says. It seems that it sees itself above anyone else. And America is in a dangerous situation where this can lead to abuse. Soon it might not be "tha land of the free" anymore. That line is being crossed.

 

I dont read or see much Llandon and I am generalising alot. Most of my opinions of this is from documentaries where the American media climate has been explored. What I said in that post was a paraphrasing from what an American journalist had said.

Even if 60 minutes might be against the war, I dont know but they seem to be according to you so doesnt that mean much. First they are way too big to obviously do something about. Secondly so are the entire 60 minutes crew very nice boys and girls, trying to not upset too much especially when it comes to foreign policies. That is one of the few American shows I try to see regularly.

 

Sorry but BTA do you really believe that the only reason the simple Iraqi people fight is because they are told so; Maybe they fight because they don't want outsiders meddle with their problems.

And one question BTA do you question what YOU hear from the media in your country; Or you accept them as they are because you "trust" your goverment;
Should you trust your own goverment; Have you thought about this;