| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq council ’to ban Arab networks’ |
| 2003-09-23 |
| The US-appointed Governing Council in Iraq has decided to ban two leading Arabic news channels from the country for allegedly inciting violence. CNN & the BBC? Member Samir al-Sumaidy said the council had discussed "abuses by certain Arabic media, particularly al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya" and "tough and dissuasive measures" would be taken against them", French news agency AFP reported. Oh, them. The news channels have angered Iraqi officials in recent weeks by broadcasting pictures of masked men calling for attacks against US-led occupation forces. The US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, must approve such a move before any action can be taken, and both networks said they had received no official notification about a ban. "We have not been advised officially of such a decision. Our office is still open, our people are still working. It’s business as usual," said al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout. Pack your bags. Media reports say the Governing Council voted to expel reporters from both channels for a month. The UK’s Times newspaper quoted council member Mudhar Shawkat as saying: "Inciting violence is what these channels proclaim. They show men in masks carrying guns and call them ’resistance’. They’re not resistance, they’re thugs and criminals." Mr Shawkat said the council’s attitude towards the broadcasters hardened after the attempted assassination of council member Aqila al-Hashimi at the weekend. I can see how that might do it. Qatar-based al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, which is based in Dubai, have a large team of The arab world will bitch and moan, but they will do that anyway. Back the council. Al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have defended themselves against charges of bias, saying they present the views of all sides. Al-Quaeda’s side, Hamas’s side, Iran’s side, Syria’s side..... |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #11 Don't throw out Al Jeezera. Infiltrate the sucker. Just don't let any Isalmic chaplians volunteer for the mission. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-23 6:34:56 PM |
| #10 Makes me nervous to have government censorship of media as one of the first major acts of a government we are trying to create. What we need is powerful, persuasive, popular alternatives to Al-Jiz. I think a big investment in creating U.S-friendly media outlets would pay bigger dividends over the coming decades than just about any other reconstruction project I can think of. |
| Posted by: sludj 2003-9-23 6:20:45 PM |
| #9 Oh, and the Al-Jazeera employee who was acting as courier between Saddam and Osama. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-9-23 3:20:53 PM |
| #8 Pay no attention to Al Jiz's guy sitting in some Spanish clink for associating with terrorist groups. Just doing the research... nothing to see here. Really. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-9-23 1:50:57 PM |
| #7 Let's recall the incident soon after the major combat ended in which an al-Jazeera crew was hustled out of Basra and back to Kuwait for their own safety, after locals started attacking the car when they learned it was al-Jazeera. Funny, Iraqis (the majority who weren't on the payroll for the despot) regard al-Jazeera as collaborators with the ousted criminal regime. But to hear the absurd western media describe it, al-Jazeera's in hot water for doing "controversial" and "critical" reporting. Right. About this same time, poor Tom Friedman in the NYT sneered about the need to do better PR in Iraq, because "FoxNews wasn't watched there" -- the same day, in the same paper, was a dispatch from northern Iraq about the explosion in information, satellite TV, and the excitement of Iraqis to have access. The reporter inquired about the favorite non-Arabic language news outlet for these newly liberated news consumers. Answer: FoxNews. Ouch. |
| Posted by: IceCold 2003-9-23 12:32:04 PM |
| #6 Are you sure they didn't also ban CNN and BBC? Talk about BIAS! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-9-23 11:55:27 AM |
| #5 RC - on the money - they've been caught paying for demonstrations, had their cameras set up early at riot/ambush sites, etc. Active participants, not journalism |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-23 10:34:47 AM |
| #4 "Inciting violence is what these channels proclaim. "They show men in masks carrying guns and call them ’resistance’ Hoo boy! That could be Sharon going on about BBC, AP, Reuters et al. Even the NYT fits this category. It's funny when the shoe is on the other foot! |
| Posted by: Barry 2003-9-23 10:03:27 AM |
| #3 First sign that your network may be spouting anti-US propaganda: Your spokesman's name is JIHAD!! Man...I couldn't make this stuff up... |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-9-23 9:19:46 AM |
| #2 If the Governing Council can get away with banning the incitement of violence in media, they might go further and ban the preaching of the Sunni triangle Mullahs. Of course, if people really took the incitement to violence as a problem, there would have to be some hard thinking as to whether Islam itself should be banned. Hmmm. Actually that's pretty close to the actual position of the people over at faithfreedom.org. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-9-23 8:53:30 AM |
| #1 Haven't they been caught paying people for starting problems? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-9-23 8:52:25 AM |