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

Remove all ads!

"What I said in that post was a paraphrasing from what an American journalist had said"

Was this a Journalist that had been fired because he spoke out agains the US government, and lost his job? Apparaintly he hasn't been silenced to the point that you were unable to find his work.

"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."

So are you saying that a Journalist/reporter CAN question the US Governmental policy if he/she is well known? It's only the small unknown journalists that lose their jobs?

Are you also saying that you watch 60 minuits reguarly, but don't know if they are for or against the war? Maybe the translation from Sweedish to English is a little confusing in this part of the post?

In any case, I was just using 60 Minuits as an example of one of the MANY shows/news orginizaions that regularly question American policies. Like I said, to make the statement that journalists in this country don't question the government, or ask governmental officials tough questions is quite simply not true. To suggest that journalists would be fired or black listed for question the US governmentabout it's policies is completely false.

 

Joacquin

LLandon wrote (at Joacquin)

I think he made himself perfectly clear. You quoted him wrong.

 

How on earth did I quote him wrong?

"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"

I dont know but they seem to be according to you so doesnt that mean much "

Now I for one find this paragraph to be confusing.....why not let him answer so I can have a better understanding on what he is tryig to say.

 

It is a hellishly confused paragraph, I readily admit that. What I meant is that I try to see 60 minutes as often as I can. It is broadcasted with atleast a weeks delay here, often more so many of the issues are old when I see them. What I have noticed is that you might think they are critizing the government but I just dont think that, they might bring up minor issues but they are viewing the world through the exact same lenses and perceive it as the same way as the US government. I mean there are alot of interesting things they could do about the people in the current administration that are really shady and on much of what is going on abroad but they never seem to do so. Which is sad because it is a often a good show and I like how they often go after the big corporations.

It should also be obvious that it is not possible to silence a show like 60 minutes that would be too visible. However as you said it is the small, reasonable unknown people that ask uncomfortable questions and write about uncomfortable happenings.

I do not think appearing no a Swedish documentary is really having a voice, the reporter I was paraphrasing was efficently silenced in the States.

 

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I thought I might need to go find a super secret decoder ring! To make comments suggesting that the US government silences journalists, based only on the interview of a low level reporter in a Swedish documentary, while at the same time not reading or watching(" I don't read or see much Llandon and I am generalizing a lot. Most of my opinions of this is from documentaries) many US media reports yourself, is irresponsible. Try making an effort to watch more, and more importantly read more editorials and reports from Americans before making such ridiculous statements. Like I said earlier, there is plenty of dissent, and plenty of hard questions being asked daily by the American press. If you had more of an opportunity to read or see more, I think you will agree with me.

As far as 60 minuets is concerned...please remember that I used that show as just an example of 1 of MANY different news outlets. Do they question the Government every week? Of course not. But I submit it would be VERY difficult to watch TV here for a week, or read even the local paper here for a week, and not read or see a whole lot of dissent and questioning of the government.

[ April 08, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: Llandon ]

 

Llandon -- You must be living in a different America than I am. What dissent? Who's asking hard questions? What have you been reading - The New Yorker? It isn't the American media, it is the foreign reporters who almost always ask the hard questions at press briefings.

As for 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney is the biggest critic of the Bush administration and he's so old that nothing scares him anymore. Take your choice: CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC - they all are in line with this president and his war, and have been his "ministry of propaganda." Maybe CNN is the only place where there is some mild dissent, but even there it's still pretty tame.

 

Don't forget that the above mentioned news networks are all in a major ratings war right now. Few, if any of them are doing anything but cover the war minute to minute because the war has an 80% approval rating right now from our citizens. The last thing they want to do right now is come off as insensative to our troops who are fighting and dying over there as we speak, espacially now that it looks like we're spanking them and it will be over very soon. I mean, god forbid, we might change the channel. Besides, I don't think they really have time to debate or criticize right now anyway - what with all the live feeds and reports from Iraq and a new victory or discovery seemingly every 5 minutes. I'm sure they probably could squeeze it in, but at this point it would seem moot.

Also, I see plenty of hard questions being asked, mainly at press briefings with US generals and Sec. Rumsfeld. The problem here is that Rumsfeld is great at making reporters feel like they just asked a stupid question, and the generals will just say something like "I don't have that information at this time," which may very well be the case.

[ April 09, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Just to clear thing up a bit.

1) What kind of dissent is NOT being reported on? Are the anti-war protests NOT being covered? Are we NOT being shown and told of Iraqi civilian casualties? Are we NOT being told of American casualties?

2) Once again, do you really believe that the US military and the US government DO, in fact, have control over the US media? Do you really believe that reporters don't report the real story, or express their true feelings because they feel like they will be fired, or worse, if they do so?

3) What, EXACTLY, are the hard questions that should be being asked that are not, or have not, already been asked?

 

Sorry, but I had to post this quote from Rush Limbaugh here ...

 

I did not read all of this thread, as it would likely anger me and make me spout bad things, so I will simply reply to the post starter.

Mr. Arnett went on television, doing an interview with the enemy, stating that Coalition war plan was not going as planned. That qualifies as aiding and abating the enemy. Simply put, that is treason. Free speech does not apply in this case. He could have openly condemned the was on American TV, but to go to the sadistic Baath party, and blow smoke out his ass to them (he knew jack about the coalition plans), is just ludicrous. MSNBC made a good move in firing him.

In regards to the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, and Pearl Jam, I will have to answer seperately.

The Chicks and Pearl Jam can state their opinions, but they will have to deal with the consequences. It seems to me that the overhwhelming response by Americans to the Chicks statement(throwing CDs at the Label's office, stations refusing to play their songs, people boycotting their CDs, etc) that America supports its President and her servicepeople in Iraq.

Michael Moore . . . . god I hate that SOB. Any attempts to discuss him will bring open rage. Lets just say that I if I way him in person, somebody better hold me back. Keep his sorry ass in jail.

 

Well, Bateluer, just one question: How naive can one be?

If it upsets you do not read it? If it is critical do not listen to it? Or even better condemn it? Well, that must be freedom. Sounds like a question of either with us or against us...

However, do you actually believe US/embedded journalism gives you the even half of the picture?
Like the Iraq pictures of a war with lots of firing & explosions and almost no or a little blood?
I have read and watched German, French, British as well as US newspapers and television. Plus talked to people in Spain. It is absolutely amazing watching CNN (Europe I should say after that.
I can only encourage you to become more critical. Or even better, learn foreign languages, open your mind and read it yourself.

EDIT: Just a couple of typing errors corrected.

[ April 10, 2003, 03:22: Message edited by: Sarin ]

 

"If it upsets you do not read it? If it is critical do not listen to it? Or even better condemn it? Well, that must be freedom."

Actually, I for one think that can be considered freedom.


"However, do you actually believe US/embedded journalism gives you the even half of the picture?"

Ah...Yea, I do. The full picture, obviously not. But I can sure live with 1/2. Especially when it 1/2 a picture that few, except the ones involved in combat, have ever had the opportunity to see live before.

"Like the Iraq pictures of a war with lots of firing & explosions and almost no or a little bloood?"

Well sure there is blood. People watching CNN might not be seeing all of the blood and gore, and the civilian casualties, and the death tolls. But these things are not being covered up. They are not being ignored. I have seen "dead people", and dead children, and dead soldiers. I've seen little kids missing hands, and arms, and feet. I've seen poople crying over their burned out homes. Do these images bother me? Of course they do. Am I somehow less informed about the war, or question the reasons behind it less? Absoutely not. Does it make me less critical? Nope, not really. The only thing that actually watching endless clips of the horror of war would do, would make me more emotional. I think I have a pretty good handel on what is happening over in Iraq. Is there some magical bit of information that I am missing?

 

"Actually, I for one think that can be considered freedom."

Absolutely right. But certainly not what I meant Freedom to ignore right

"The only thing that actually watching endless clips of the horror of war would do, would make me more emotional. I think I have a pretty good handel on what is happening over in Iraq. Is there some magical bit of information that I am missing?"

Emotinal for the people or what? Well, that might not be too bad. BTW, from where do you get your "pretty good handel"? USA-Today?

Do you really think the US / Bush administration only wants "to free" the people of Iraq? Come on.

 

"BTW, from where do you get your "pretty good handel"? USA-Today?"

Actually, I only read the local paper in my home town. I also read the web editions of CNN and Al-Jazeera several times a day. I also check from time to time the LATimes and the Washington Post.

As far as telecision is concened I jump around alot between the BBC, CNN, and Fox. I also find CSPAN curiously interesting from time to time. And lets not forget the Bill Maher Show. And lets not discount the "wonderful" coverage of local television news.(Columbia, Charleston, and Florence/Myrle Beach in SC, and Wilmington NC).

"Do you really think the US / Bush administration only wants "to free" the people of Iraq? Come on."

No, I don't.

Here is a question for you...Why have Germany, Russia, and France been so opposed to the conflict? Do you really thing that the reason is concern for Iraqi civilian casualties? Kinda funny how they were the principal backers of Saddam both economically, and militarially isn't it? Kinda funny how they are the three contries with the most to lose when Saddam is overthrown.

 

"Here is a question for you...Why have Germany, Russia, and France been so opposed to the conflict? Do you really thing that the reason is concern for Iraqi civilian casualties? Kinda funny how they were the principal backers of Saddam both economically, and militarially isn't it? Kinda funny how they are the three contries with the most to lose when Saddam is overthrown."

Well Llandon, in 1998, 1999 & 2000 the amount of overall German exports to Iraq was 0,02%, 0,01% & 0,02%. Imports amounted to 0,02%, 0,02% & 0,01% respectively (source: DIHT -> German Chamber of Commerce). That is absolutely overwhelming, isn't it? Mainly due to the oil for food programme, I assume.

In 2002 Germany received 105 Mio Ton. of oil. Top 12 nations did not include Iraq; with no. 1 being Russia 31.6 Mio Ton. and no. 12 being Angola with 1.2 Mio Ton.

What about the perspective of the US (installed Iraqi government) being able to assume the role of a price-setter within the OPEC and, thus, dominating/dictating the oil price (vetoing within the OPEC etc.)? Hence, also gaining more independence from Saudi Arabia. The advantages for the absolutely heavy oil dependant US are quite obvious.

Furthermore, who enabled the reign of the Baath party in the first place?

BTW and in no relation what so ever to your reply/post: I almost forgot about "liberation and the normal amount of looting" as my favourite US-politician D. Rumsfeld just put it today ... <shaking in utter disgust> ... As far as I can remember, Germans did not need to guard their homes or hospitals after the wall came down. So D. Rumsfeld seems to have a magnificent "lifetime" memory.

 

I only bring it up since Sarin's post makes it sound like Germany's stance may not have been self-interested.

Here is the gauntlet, EVERY ACTOR IN THIS MESS ACTED OUT OF SELF INTEREST. There, pick it up if you want. It is silly in my opinion for any nation to scoff about humanitarian justifications about the war when the nations opposed to the war obviously didn't give a damn either. Whether it's the above quote, or the billions in debt to Russia and France and the billions in oil deals to those nations as well as China or whether it was.... point is: any assertion that there is a high horse here is a falsehood.

EDIT - forgot to give a source, from David R Sands of the Washington Post - no link.

 

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=4174

Dubai:Tuesday, December 05, 2000

I think the point Laches made is pretty it. Every nation has it's interest in it. But the USA, which is, as a result of it's energy-policy, a heavely OIL-dependend country, has the biggest stakes in it. (hope this makes sense in English).

when conversing with americans, they seem not aware of the fact, that Iraq is one of their most important Oil-suppliers. A lot of americans tend to deny it.I ask myself if this may have something to do with bad/biased reporting in the USA.

[ April 12, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

BTA, could you please add a link that supports your figures ?

1. The article i linked above states, that the economical impact of that threatend boycott would have forced the US-Goverment to throw some of their oil-reserves (for emergencies) on the market and ask Saudi-Arabia, if it's able and willing to fill the gap. This was done to keep the oil-price for americans on a reasonable level. (Ooh, ever visited a British Gas-Station)

IMHO, that makes Iraw to an important supplier. And of course, Iraq will grow a more and more important and needed supplier of Oil.

By the way, isn't nigera a cruel dictatorship ?

2. The Tensions between Saudia-Arabia and the USA and American fear of a change in Saudia-Arabia imply for Wolfowitz a need to act to secure the ressources, which the USA is dependent on.

Saudi-Arabia is the most important producer of Oil World Wide. The only country that has a potential to replace it (production wise) is Iraq.

US-dependence on Saudi-Oil (Countries which get Saudi-Oil:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html

Tensions with Saudi-Arabia ?

Remember Osama-Bin Laden and his nationality ?

Fear of change in Saudi-Arabia ?

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.14835/news_detail.asp

(Sidenote: I quoted this text because he shows the main reasoning of the Wolfowitz-Doctrine concerning the Middle East Oil-Ressources. The rest of this text is pure racist bull****, written by a Indian f a s c h i s t, who obviously can't hide his hatred for Pakistan and muslims. And I really wonder, in what this guy made his PHD. "Faustian pact" "confusion in the islamic soul". Except for a listing of the known facts concerning ressources, the text is worthless. His associates in mind are obviously Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jörg Haider.)

Yago thanks Sprite for this helpfull link that gave him many hints on what is going on in the world and the most disturbing text he read since a long time

[ April 13, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

As far as oil imports, quoting myself from Jan (is that arrogance or what?)and a link there too:

Now, from the above you'll see Iraq is a relatively small supplier to the US. The oil business is pretty fluid though. It doesn't matter whether the US buys any oil from the mideast as it is a world market. Increase oil in the world and you decrease prices no matter who you buy from. So, I think BTA's numbers really are pretty much spot on but the benefit to the US will happen even if we don't buy a drop from Iraq. The rest of the world gets the same benefit.