When it comes to coverage of the failed Iraq War, few outlets are more objective than Al Jazeera, the Middle Eastern TV channel. Their coverage beats that of the major American media hands-down.
Al Jazeera's website is often blocked in the U.S. If you try accessing it, notice your access to it is sporadic.
Disturbingly, American cable companies have also shunned the English-language version of Al Jazeera solely because its coverage is not pro-war. Predictably, Comcast - the Wal-Mart of the cable industry - refuses to carry it, for that reason.
A few American cities are lucky, however, in that their cable system offers Al Jazeera. Among them is Burlington, Vermont. But if the spittle contingent gets its way, it will be no more.
A right-wing hate group called the Defenders Council of Vermont - which has a formidable 11 members statewide - is trying to pressure the city's cable system to remove Al Jazeera. The Defenders Council calls Al Jazeera a terrorist propaganda organ because of its failure to support the war.
The claim that Al Jazeera is a terrorist outlet is a lie. But this lie is not atypical of the Freeper types who squirm around in concealed poo-poo Luvs while waiting for Netflix to send them their 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' DVD. According to these liars, anyone who doesn't support the war is a terrorist and a communist.
But Burlington's townsfolk say they're quite happy with Al Jazeera. For once, they get to watch decent war coverage. At a public forum, people staunchly praised the channel.
Nonetheless, the Defenders Council remains undeterred in its censoriousness. A spokesman for the group has hosted showings of a film attacking Al Jazeera. The film was produced by Accuracy in Media, a Washington-based right-wing klavern that defends Joe McCarthy and is responsible for forming Accuracy in Academia, which published right-wing hate paper Campus Report.
Predictably, many of those who want to drop Al Jazeera admit they've never even seen it! They just said they "have it on good authority" that it's biased against America.
If any network is anti-American and pro-terrorist, it's Fox News Channel. As an example of Fox News Channel's desire to give a voice to America-hating traitors, they welcome contributors like Liz Trotta, who thought it would be funny to assassinate Barack Obama. Yet I don't know of any American cable system today that doesn't carry Fox News. (One hotel chain in the Midwest dropped CNN while keeping Fox News, because they considered CNN to be not pro-war enough.)
Faux News even reported that Al Jazeera shows videos of terrorists (with their faces hidden under masks) beheading hostages in Iraq. Fox's claim, however, turned out to be an outright lie. (The claim was picked up by other news organizations, some of whom later corrected it.)
With Fox News Channel receiving almost total penetration, at least the Burlington, Vermont, cable system is willing to provide an alternative.
(Source: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWS02/806110312/1009/NEWS01;
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS02/806190309/1009/NEWS01;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/24/usa.terrorism)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Extremists want channel removed from cable
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Are the American people getting the fullest and clearest picture of the way American wealth and treasured lives are committed abroad?
ReplyDeleteIs US public diplomacy confident of getting a clear and accurate picture in crucial areas of diplomatic and security
engagements?
One can get two possible responses: One from people who are away from the trouble spots and have no direct contacts with
those in the field of action. But when you listen to those who are on the ground risking limbs and lives to collect and distribute facts to help ascertain what are the sources of insecurity and hostility to US interest in, say, Iraq. It is essential to determine the relation between media and security. Especially from the aspect concerning whether the present available sources are sufficient enough or would there be any advantage if other sources could be added to bring an
independent and fresh perspective.
Let's imagine that there is no Aljazeera any more. Would it solve the challenges US has faced prior and after the appearance
of this tiny 'matchbox size' outlet.
Is it by mere chance that a campaign is pursued to deny the American viewers get the other side of the picture that doesn't
usually make it on US media some of whom either co-opted by corporations and/or corruption?
It seems that the right of US viewers’ majority to have alternate news channels is being objected to by a handful but noisy
few. Interestingly, many of such vocal elements possess no expertise either about the society in the Middle East its media,
or the Arabic discourse on issues existing there. When it comes to decide if a foreign news channel is desirable or not,
independent but informed input can be sought from those who qualify such as a writer on Middle Eastern media Hugh Miles, Political Science Professor Marc Lynch in view of their fluency in Arabic or from A.S. Schleifer, (founder, Trans-national Broadcasting Studies journal (TBS) and Adham Center for Television Journalism director Lawrence Pintak due to theirs years of studying Arab media and society.
One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital concern
for American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions. Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant
and insignificant issues.
Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical
foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their
boundaries.Armed with diverse news sources, the American people can crosscheck and verify the government's position to rid themselves of half-truths from the corporate media, which remains a willing accomplice in keeping American viewers continually subjected to what former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls "Washington's Culture of Deception."