Who Covered The War Best? Try al-Jazeera (Commentary)

[Miss Modular]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vphas173240721apr17,0,716213.story?coll=ny%2Dviewp oints%2Dheadlines

Who Covered The War Best? Try al-Jazeera
By Frances S. Hasso
Frances S. Hasso is assistant professor in the Gender and Women’s Studies Program and the Sociology Department at Oberlin College in Ohio.

April 17, 2003

Throughout the war in Iraq, al-Jazeera has been accused, both by U.S. and Mideast officials, of being a propaganda tool. But continued attacks on the Arab satellite network, most dramatically exemplified by the recent U.S. bombing of a newsroom in Baghdad that killed a correspondent, shows that al-Jazeera's approach to covering the war - both critical and multidimensional, with an ideological commitment to democracy, openness and pluralism - has seriously threatened the political projects of the world's most powerful.

Al-Jazeera's extended, uncensored, on-the-ground coverage of the invasion has demonstrated, contrary to U.S. and British claims, that this has not been a bloodless, costless and clean war. The coverage has reflected the Arab recognition that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was a tragedy, but it has also questioned the claim that the war has been motivated by interest in regional democracy and liberation.

In addition to showing images largely censored by the U.S. media of the death, destruction and pain of war on all sides, al-Jazeera has conducted interviews with Kurdish leaders who have explained their alliance with the United States and Britain on the basis of the historic violence of Baathist Arabism, visited a small town in Iran that is the haven of Iraqi Shia refugees who fled Hussein's rule and shown the anger, as well as political sophistication, of anti-war demonstrators in the region.

Al-Jazeera viewers have also received live, full coverage of press statements and conferences held by U.S., Iraqi, United Nations, Arab League, European Union, French, British, Egyptian, Saudi and other officials, thus always reflecting multiple realities throughout the war that are once again not covered routinely by the U.S. news networks.

In covering the war, al-Jazeera was unique in the number of independent reporting teams distributed throughout the region, some of whom have been beaten by Kurdish forces, banned by Iraqi government officials, and reprimanded almost daily by U.S., Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Saudi, Jordanian and other state and military officials at press conferences. These states recognize the destabilizing potential of al-Jazeera's brash willingness to ask difficult questions and give voice to the marginalized majority.

Charges of al-Jazeera Arab and Muslim bias ring untrue given the U.S. television media's crass nationalist apologetics, best demonstrated by Fox News and CNN, and their heavy reliance on superficial sound bites, interviews with current or former government officials, and expertise from a narrow ideological range. Rather than being an anti-Western propaganda tool, al-Jazeera is popular in the Arab world because it addresses issues that are already on the minds of people in the region: U.S. foreign policy and militarism, Israeli occupation, poverty, democratization, gender inequality, and the role of religion in public life.

What Arabic-speaking viewers see in al-Jazeera and similar news outlets is hope - the possibility of democratic change facilitated by an independent and critical media. Indeed, viewers in the United States would benefit from an English-language television station that followed the al-Jazeera commitment to democracy, debate and accountability.

[Ronnie Raygun]

HAHAHA!

[VinceZeb]

Wow. I am awestruck. Considering the person who wrote this is a professor in Women's and Gender Studies (which means she got a degree that does not exist in the real world, and the only thing she could do is teach her major and waste other people's money), that should tell you a lot right there.

[mburbank]

I thought you liked all different kinds of women.

Who defines this 'real world' of yours Vince. Is there a rule book, or do you just kind of make it up like a Submarine letter?

And honestly. You should be the LAST person here criticizing someone on how the validity of their eductation as refelctd by their writing.

[Abcdxxxx]

Throughout the war in Iraq, al-Jazeera has been accused, both by U.S. and Mideast officials, of being a propaganda tool. But continued attacks on the Arab satellite network, most dramatically exemplified by the recent U.S. bombing of a newsroom in Baghdad that killed a correspondent, shows that al-Jazeera's approach to covering the war - both critical and multidimensional, with an ideological commitment to democracy, openness and pluralism - has seriously threatened the political projects of the world's most powerful. .


Modular - was this posted as a joke? It was right? That first paragraph alone is pure comedy. Is it any wonder why impressionable college students are walking around convinved slavery exists in Israel? Meanwhile... here is a gender studies teacher promoting the biggest propaganda tool for some of the worst oppressive abuses towards women history has ever seen. Good lord.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

In addition to showing images largely censored by the U.S. media of the death, destruction and pain of war on all sides, al-Jazeera has conducted interviews with Kurdish leaders who have explained their alliance with the United States and Britain on the basis of the historic violence of Baathist Arabism, visited a small town in Iran that is the haven of Iraqi Shia refugees who fled Hussein's rule and shown the anger, as well as political sophistication, of anti-war demonstrators in the region.

Al-Jazeera viewers have also received live, full coverage of press statements and conferences held by U.S., Iraqi, United Nations, Arab League, European Union, French, British, Egyptian, Saudi and other officials, thus always reflecting multiple realities throughout the war that are once again not covered routinely by the U.S. news networks.

Have they not done these things? Are these lies?

[Abcdxxxx]

It's a lie if you think they've done it in a "critical and multidimensional" way "with an ideological commitment to democracy, openness and pluralism" . I think the proper commentary would be to say "yeah they did okay for creepy Al Jazeera and they showed a lot more stuff that the newtorks didn't" but anything else is really just reaching to kiss their ass.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, I agree that this seemed to be a bit of a fluff piece, but I was just curious as to whether or not they actually did the stuff she claims, because this was the kind of coverage I was looking for but never got from CNN and the NY Times.

[Abcdxxxx]

Cable news got a LOT of their feeds from Al Jazeera...not just pool cam. stuff. Just keep in mind that even at it's most liberal and far reaching it's still Al Jazeera. They're always first in line at the "Baby Milk Factory". Just remember, there were a lot of microphones out there asking serious questions to that Information Minister.

CNN actually admitted they've altered their reporting for political reasons to keep offices open in sketchy parts if the world including Iraq.

[Miss Modular]

Honestly, I can't say anything one way or another regarding al Jazeera's coverage. I've never watched the network, so I have no way to judge. I just thought it was interesting that someone nominated al Jazeera of all TV networks as having the best coverage of anyone.

Personally, I liked CBC's (via CSPAN) coverage the best.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Someone"? It wasn't just a "someone" though was it Miss Mod.

Here's a little background from your favorite liberal feminist author.

................................

Frances S. Hasso
Assistant Professor (2000)
Rice Hall 115
(440) 775-6783
email: frances.hasso@oberlin.edu



B.A., University of California, L.A., 1987
M.A., Georgetown University, 1990
Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1997



Frances Hasso is an Assistant Professor of Women's Studies and Sociology. Her research and teaching interests are eclectic, interdisciplinary, comparative, and transregional, addressing issues of gender, race/nation, post-coloniality, identity, inequality, social movements, and epistemology. A significant proportion of her empirical research has focused on gender and nationalism in the Middle East. She has taught a range of courses, including social theory, race & ethnicity, gender roles & status, social inequality, research methods, urban studies, introduction to women's studies, and introduction to sociology. At Oberlin, she will be teaching introduction to women's studies, feminist theory, feminist research methodologies, global feminisms, women and social movements, and gender and the state in the Middle East. In 1995, Frances received a Social Science Research Council/American Council of Learned Societies Dissertation Fellowship. She also received the Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Grant in Women's Studies in 1996. Her publications include: "'The Women's Front:' Nationalism, Feminism and Modernity in Palestine" (Gender & Society, 1998); "Frontlines and Borders: Identity Thresholds for Latinas and Arab American Women," co-authored with Laura M. Lopez, in Everyday Inequalities: Critical Inquiries, edited by Jodi O'Brien and Judith Howard (Blackwell, 1998). "Modernity and Gender in Arab Accounts of the 1948 and 1967 Defeats," was published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 32 (November 2000): 491-510. Another article, "Feminist Generations? The Long-Term Impact of Social Movement Involvement on Palestinian Women's Lives," was recently published in the November 2001 issue of the American Journal of Sociology (vol. 107 no. 3).

.......................................

Don't pretend to be objective.

I thought that MSNBC and Fox had the best coverage.

[VinceZeb]

I'd have to agree that MSNBC and FNC had the best coverage. CNN is a liberal talking-points tool and the BBC was so biased that even it was kicked off an English vessel.

[mburbank]

Vince, saying CNN is a liberal tool is like saying you are well spoken.

Abcdxx "They're always first in line at the "Baby Milk Factory"."

True enough, but we're always last in line if we go at all.

[AChimp]

MSNBC, FOX and CNN were all full of shit, especially with their embedded reporters cheering the soldiers on rather than reporting.

CBC showed footage from networks around the world (U.S., British AND Arabic). The CBC's coverage was balanced and showed both sides of the conflict. They even showed that Iraqi video of the dead marines that the American networks didn't have the cajones for.

[Ronnie Raygun]

No. American news outlets had respect for the family's involved.....something you can't comphrehend.

"especially with their embedded reporters cheering the soldiers on rather than reporting."

Awww. I'm sorry they were their to show just how well the war went.....and usually stopped and anti-American conspiracy theories before they could get started. Give one example where they were cheering and not reporting.

You can't therefore you lose.

You points are weak and unjustified.

[Ronnie Raygun]

No. American news outlets had respect for the family's involved.....something you can't comphrehend.

"especially with their embedded reporters cheering the soldiers on rather than reporting."

Awww. I'm sorry they were their to show just how well the war went.....and usually stopped and anti-American conspiracy theories before they could get started. Give one example where they were cheering and not reporting. In fact, some of them died doing their job. Show some respect.

You can't therefore you lose.

You points are weak and unjustified.

[Protoclown]

Quoting yourself now, Ronnie? Cute.

I love how you automatically say Achimp loses before you even give him a chance to post something that refutes what you said.

Priceless. But face it, man. VinceZeb has you beat. You're going to have to work hard to earn more hatred than him.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I didn't quote myself.

Second, he can't respond to that.....and he knows it.

[Protoclown]

No. American news outlets had respect for the family's involved.....something you can't comphrehend.

"especially with their embedded reporters cheering the soldiers on rather than reporting."

Awww. I'm sorry they were their to show just how well the war went.....and usually stopped and anti-American conspiracy theories before they could get started. Give one example where they were cheering and not reporting. In fact, some of them died doing their job. Show some respect.

You can't therefore you lose.

You points are weak and unjustified.

UH-OH! LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY IS A BIG FAT LIAR! How can you deny something that is STARING YOU IN THE FACE not two posts above your last one? I mean, in all likelihood you did it accidentally, but still. This is a PERFECT example of your distorted world view. It's right there in plain sight of EVERYONE and yet you still deny it.

[pjalne]

http://www.encyclopedia-obscura.com/ext/ronnie.jpg

[Protoclown]

:lol

[Ronnie Raygun]

Proto, it's more likely that you had something to do with it.

I did not quote myself.

[pjalne]

You wanted to edit your post, and you accidentaly quoted yourself instead. The quoted post includes the sentences 'In fact, some of them died doing their job. Show some respect,' the original doesn't.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Then Proto was right.

....and I thought it was a conspiracy.

[mburbank]

This is very neaarly a historic moment for you Ronnie. You admit Proto was right. Now take that ginat leap of faith and say that if he was right, you were wrong.

Say you were wrong. If you can. It will be growthful for you.

While you're at it, you can acknowledge that someone can be wrong without lying.

And then you can say:

I'm just a boring, pale didactic cypher.

and then you can say:

I'm going to look incredably lovely in my Easter dress.

[AChimp]

No. American news outlets had respect for the family's involved.....something you can't comphrehend.
:lol

Yeah, but the American news outlets invade the privacy of others all the time. Sorry Ronnie, the fact that the tape was released by the Iraqi government made it news.

Give one example where they were cheering and not reporting.

You can't therefore you lose.

You points are weak and unjustified.
Not cheering literally, you ass. Their reporting was completely one sided. There was one interview in the first few days of the war with a guy embedded with a tank squadron/platoon/brigade/whatever that focused more on how much fun it was to drive really fast in a Humvee and how morale was high among the soldiers, rather than what was going on in their surroundings. This was on CNN, and I saw it with my own eyes.

Bottom line, most of the reporters were more concerned with talking about how things were going with the soldiers and themselves ("Uhh... I had to put on a gas mask again today... then we hid in a bunker for a few hours. It was... uh... hot." -- I shit you not, I heard practically those exact words from one reporter) rather than how things were going in Iraq.

EDIT: I won't show any respect to fools who want to sit in the line of fire and film it. I will, however, show a little bit of sympathy for the ones killed by American fire.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Yeah, but the American news outlets invade the privacy of others all the time. Sorry Ronnie, the fact that the tape was released by the Iraqi government made it news."

So what? They showed parts of the tape that wasn't graphic in nature. Why did you feel the need for them to show that? HAHA! Could it have been because you thought that if the American public would have seen those pics that it would have demanded that we pull out of Iraq thus making Bush and his right wing American administration a failure? It makes sense now.....But no, that would not have been the reaction of the American public.

"Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:49 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ronnie Raygun wrote:
No. American news outlets had respect for the family's involved.....something you can't comphrehend.



Yeah, but the American news outlets invade the privacy of others all the time. Sorry Ronnie, the fact that the tape was released by the Iraqi government made it news.

Quote:
Give one example where they were cheering and not reporting.

You can't therefore you lose.

You points are weak and unjustified.

"Not cheering literally, you ass. Their reporting was completely one sided."

Oh! I get it....You don't understand the human aspect. You need to put yourself in their shoes. If you were a reporter embedded with the marines on the front lines you get your info. either from what you're told or from what you see with your own eyes. That's exactly what they did. Also, the reporters are Americans who are being protected by American military in the field. Your whole point is completely STUPID.

"There was one interview in the first few days of the war with a guy embedded with a tank squadron/platoon/brigade/whatever that focused more on how much fun it was to drive really fast in a Humvee and how morale was high among the soldiers, rather than what was going on in their surroundings. This was on CNN, and I saw it with my own eyes."

OHHH! BIG DEAL! What wrong with putting a little human aspect on things. If you watched the news as often as I do you might understand that 99% of the coverage was about "what was going on in their surroundings". I thought it was good when they would take a little time out to let one of the guys say hello to his wife and kids. For all he knew, it might have been the last time. Besides, the morale of the soldiers is important in a war, you idiot.

"Bottom line, most of the reporters were more concerned with talking about how things were going with the soldiers and themselves ("Uhh... I had to put on a gas mask again today... then we hid in a bunker for a few hours. It was... uh... hot." -- I shit you not, I heard practically those exact words from one reporter) rather than how things were going in Iraq."

That's not true, not at all. They did say what their day was like at times because at the time that's probably all their was to report. In a war zone that's probably all you know at times. I think you are just bitter and ignorant to this whole situation.

"EDIT: I won't show any respect to fools who want to sit in the line of fire and film it. I will, however, show a little bit of sympathy for the ones killed by American fire."

Just a little? Why just a little? "Killed by American fire"?

Thankyou Chimp for properly demonstrating the attitude of the Anti-American left. It strenghtens my resolve.

[AChimp]

:lol

You try to hard, Ronnie.