All kidding aside, how does AlJaz manage to be at the site of "incidents" almost immediately after they happen???
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Enemy on Our Airwaves |
| 2005-11-04 |
| EFL WSJ article (Editor's note: Sen. Carl Levin is opposing Mr. Smith's confirmation as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs because of the senator's objections to this article, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal, April 25. A related editorial appears here.) The collaboration between the terrorists and al-Jazeera is stronger than ever. While the precise terms of that relationship are virtually unknown, we do know this: al-Jazeera and the terrorists have a working arrangement that extends beyond a modus vivendi. When the terrorists want to broadcast something that helps their cause, they have immediate and reliable access to al-Jazeera. This relationship--in a time of war--raises some important questions: • What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video? • Does it pay for material? • Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.) • Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice? While I was in Iraq in 2004, Al-Jazeera was expelled from the country by the Iraqi Governing Council for violating international law. Numerous times they had advance knowledge of military actions against coalition forces. Instead of reporting to the authorities that it had been tipped off, Al-Jazeera would pre-position a crew at the event site and wait for the attack, record it and rush it on air. This happened time after time, to the point where Al-Jazeera was expelled from Iraq. The airing of the Ake video, however, demonstrates that it can still operate on behalf of the terrorists even from outside the country. Is it fanciful to think that network news executives would have the fortitude not to air any video shot by terrorists? They already stop short of airing everything, so why not refuse to touch the stuff altogether? At the very least, is it not reasonable to raise questions about the sources and methods used to obtain this material? The war in Iraq will likely drag on for some time. More lives will be lost and more hostages will be taken and more videos will be made. Now we should engage the terrorists on the airwaves as we do on the ground. Mr. Smith spent nine months in Iraq as a senior media adviser to Ambassador Paul Bremer The MSM is clearly involved in WOT operations as it acts as an agent for al-Jizz and through them, al-Q. Smith properly identifies them as a fifth column. Is it shocking a Quisling like Levin would stand up for them? |
| Posted by:Shaish Ebboter8366 |
| #3 Levin = fat, bald, demo, turd. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-11-04 19:07 |
| #2 That's easy, Ed. They just get there before the incident happens, and stick around. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2005-11-04 17:15 |
| #1 Enemy on our airwaves? All kidding aside, how does AlJaz manage to be at the site of "incidents" almost immediately after they happen??? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-04 16:16 |