April 14
I made a separate page for my recent "blogversation" with Dread Pundit Bluto, a conservative blogger. Much easier for readers I hope than making you pick through the entries of the last couple weeks.
The big story today in Minnesota is a state senator came out of the closet. The twist is that he's a Republican. The timing matters because some Republican state legislators have been pushing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, particularly one, Sen. Michele Bachmann, who is trying to ride the issue to a US House seat. The gay Republican, who apparently doesn't get what an oxymoron that is, is Sen. Paul Koering from Fort Ripley, which is a rural area. He got some unwanted attention when he was the only Republican to join the Democrats in a procedural vote which stopped the amendment getting to the senate floor. However, he says he objected to the way the vote amendment was being brought up outside normal procedures, and thinks the voters should get to vote on it.
I'm not bothered if a homosexual agrees with many Republican positions. The question to me is how anyone can belong to a party that doesn't regard them as a full person, at least not one deserving equal rights. It also amazes me that someone from a minority that is widely disliked if not hated can accept the idea that the majority gets to vote on whether a minority gets rights. That's the very definition of "tyranny of the majority". Someone please explain how someone on the receiving end of the prejudice doesn't get that.
April 13
At least they're being open about the lie they intend to tell, so we don't have to figure it out. The Republican strategy isn't to answer the charges against DeLay, but to blame Democrats and the liberal media for mentioning it. Apparently DeLay wouldn't have done what he did if only no one had been impolite enough to mention it. I imagine DeLay knows what he did and just thought he was too powerful to be held to account, and he may yet prove correct about that. To get past the lie however, let us point out that Democrats and the liberal media didn't force him to let a lobbyist pay for a trip to South Korea, golf trip to Scotland, nor to disguise who paid for that trip and the one to Russia. The Democrats and liberal media didn't force him to take a free vacation on a beach in Saipan, nor to subsequently keep from the House schedule any bill to apply the labor laws in the rest of the US to Saipan's sweatshops. Democrats and the liberal media didn't pay his wife and daughter half a million dollars from DeLay's PACs and campaign committees. Democrats and the liberal media didn't write the speech where he called Terri Schiavo "lucid". They also didn't force him to change the Republican caucus and House Ethics Committee rules so he couldn't be investigated, to replace Republicans who voted to reprimand him (3 times!) with other Republicans who owe him. They didn't force him to do the things that got him spanked in the first place. They certainly didn't make him gerrymander Texas' US House seats to guarantee more Republican wins.
A Wall Street Journal editorial said DeLay has picked up Washington's smell. If they weren't such conservative ideologues themselves, the editorial board might realize he's a big reason Washington smells like that. It might be tough for Republican congressmen to figure out what to do, but it's easy for the rest of us. Tell your Representative that DeLay has to go.
April 12
The problem with Bush's nominees who have been controversial isn't that they are appointed by a president who has no right to be there, or that they hold opinions different than mine. Even if I disagree with the policy positions of a political appointee, even Bush's, I won't object to someone who is honest, respects the Constitution, and is competent for the job. I have been critical of Alberto Gonzales, like many liberals, because of his involvement in the Bush administration's use of torture. Someone so stained with human rights abuses shouldn't be Attorney General. In the case of Condoleeza Rice, she is a fundamentally dishonest person and helped sell the lies about 911 and Iraq. I object to John Negroponte because of his involvement in the Contra war and human rights abuses in Central America during his time as ambassador to Honduras (about which there's new information, in the form of diplomatic cables obtained by the Washington Post). So when I oppose John Bolton for UN ambassador, readers may rightly presume the reason is equally clear cut.
In Bolton's case, he shows the typical neocon attitude that only supporting opinions are allowed. According to testimony in his confirmation hearings, he attempted to bully and remove an analyst who disputed his assertion that Cuba was working on a biological weapons program. I wonder if he apologized when the analyst was proven right? Anyway, a former senior official at the state department, Carl Ford Jr., a self-described conservative Republican, presumably did his career no good by testifying about Bolton's outrageous behavior, saying "I have never seen anyone quite like Mr. Bolton. He abuses his authority with little people." Notice this isn't about Bolton's opinions on the UN. He's welcome to his opinions on the UN. He's not welcome to be an idiot as a diplomat.
April 11
It must be tough to be a Republican congressman right now. If you're a Republican congressman, you probably feel genuine gratitude for all Tom DeLay has done to win and hold your majority in the House. If you're a Republican congressman who hasn't lost his sense of ethics (which means you're not qualified for leadership), that gratitude is balanced by a sense of revulsion of just how DeLay won and held that majority (without the gerrymandering in Texas, the GOP would have lost a seat instead of gaining 4). Aside from party loyalty, you might owe your own seat to DeLay and his campaign money, not to mention your committee assignment once you got elected. At this point however, your instincts of self-preservation are making you want to run from DeLay and his problems. Then again, there's the fear of what he'll do to you while he's still powerful. So, you can't abandon him too soon or he'll wreak his vengeance, and since he thinks he's working for God he thinks he can do anything he wants; and if you stick with him too long you risk being dragged down with him. At some point, as the scandals mount, there comes a tipping point where it's better to abandon him than to be seen supporting him and you, poor Republican, can't tell where that point is, but you don't dare get it wrong. Now, the principled thing to do... oops, there I go thinking like a liberal again.
So okay, the outrage that this guy is allowed to hold any office at all by his colleagues, his party, or his voters is mixed with the fun of watching him be unmasked to the gullible. His own election might be guaranteed. Texas uses touchscreen voting machines in at least parts of the state. It was one of those states where Kerry votes were switched to Bush. I don't know if they're used in DeLay's district, but if so, the machine manufacturers won't let him lose. His colleagues might not have such a guaranteed win, and DeLay's changing from "The Hammer" into the widow at the priest's funeral.
While mentioning the subject of nefarious deeds in the last election, John Kerry has finally spoken out against the dirty tricks that helped to defeat him. I'm still mystified why he didn't raise this the day after the elections isn't of conceding so fast, and why he didn't speak up when the grassroots was raging about fraud in Ohio. Better late than never I suppose. In this case he spoke out about tricks and intimidation, like giving people the wrong polling place, or challenging voters with no cause. Though he hasn't spoken out about the real problem, voting machines that can't be audited, he is supporting The Count Every Vote Act, which will require a paper trail.
April 10
Following up the "blogversation" (his word, and a clever one I must say) with Dread Pundit Bluto finished up yesterday, his last paragraph mentioned three Aljazeera contributors in an unflattering light, and I want to give readers some context.
"We have Scott Ritter, who can always be relied upon to spout anti-American propaganda (and who predicted that the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam), but also has a taste for underage girls met in internet chat rooms (who unfortunately turned out to be police decoys)."
Ritter is probably the most familiar of the three, being a prominent opponent of Bush's war plans before the invasion. He was arrested in June 2001, and the case subsequently dismissed. It was leaked to the press in January 2003 during the heat of the debate over invading Iraq. Ritter was asked about the arrest at length by Aaron Brown. Here's the transcript. I haven't found where he said the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam. He did say, "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," and "We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable." He made it plain he predicted a Vietnam situation where we win the battles but can't defeat the enemy. It's too soon to know if he was right since US troops haven't left, but control over Baghdad has never been fully established. It's more a situation where US troops can go anywhere, but the insurgents often move right back in. He was however completely right in his assertions that there was no evidence to support Bush's accusations about Al Qaida ties and WMD. In Ritter's case, I thought Bluto went further than the facts support.
"Canadian Scott Taylor also writes propaganda for al-Jazeera from time to time, but his story of being abducted near Mosul seems like an obvious bid for self-promotion. Even his own government refused to confirm the details of Scott's tale." Taylor was kidnapped last September along with Turkish journalist Zeynep Tugrul, who was also serving as his translator. Taylor was interviewed on NPR. More important is that they told the same story in separate interviews with the Associated Press. A Canadian government spokesman said, "We won't comment, deny, endorse, do anything due to that no Canadian official was witness to the events he said he went through in northern Iraq." That same paragraph mentions that the Turkish embassy in Iraq helped secure their release and the government believes their story. It's also worth noting there have been more similar kidnappings, and journalists based in Iraq are unanimous in describing how dangerous it is. My take on it is there's plenty of reason to believe his story and none to disbelieve it.
"And the third propagandist (three examples indicate a statistical trend) is Mounzer Sleiman, who calls himself "doctor" and claims to be a "Washington-based expert" on Middle eastern affairs. Sleiman obtained his "doctorate" from Rushmore University, and unaccredited institution that reportedly often doesn't require a bachelor's degree for admission to higher degree programs."
Rushmore University is a small distance learning school. I found information about the school and it's MBA program in Business Week. I don't know how much vetting Business Week does. I don't know how common it is for graduate programs to accept students without a bachelors degree, but it's not unknown for graduate schools to admit students who make up the difference with real life experience. I didn't find anything about the school's accreditation. Maybe I'm too traditional, but I'm unimpressed that they don't have required courses or exams. So I don't know if a Ph.D. from there means anything or not. I did find Slieman as a featured speaker at Arab-American events, and he was described as a"Lebanese specialist in Arab security and military issues" on the BBC web site when he was a guest on Talking Point. There's a link to a recording of the program. Slieman is originally from Lebanon and left during the civil war.
April 9
Here's the last of my exchange with Dread Pundit Bluto about Aljazeera and whether it has an anti-US and pro-Islamist bias, continuing from the 5th. I want to add a disclaimer that I'm not responsible for anything Bluto included in his responses, nor is he responsible for anything I said. I hope readers found it of interest that bloggers on opposing sides of the political spectrum could have a civil discussion, and were willing to post opposing views on their blogs. I'll turn our discussion into a separate page since it was rather long, and will be more convenient than digging around trying to find it, so if it's not listed on the left now, check back in a few days. My response to Bluto:
Bluto,
Just to be clear, I didn't see their coverage of the Hariri's assassination. I saw their coverage of the anti-Syrian rally held right after Hezbollah's rally, and that's what looked like the western media. I also did as you suggested and searched for "terrorist". I looked over the first seven or eight articles in the search result, and I just didn't see what you described. Everywhere some word starting with "terror" was in quotes, someone was being quoted. I'm not saying you didn't see what you said you saw. Maybe they used to do that and stopped. All I can say is they don't seem to be doing it now. I should clarify too that I didn't assert they never say anything positive about the US. I just said they're not obligated to. If they want to be regarded as real journalists, they should stick to the facts. There's no guarantee those facts will make anyone look good.I discovered something else interesting. Ours isn't the only government that doesn't like Aljazeera. They've also gotten into the ill graces of Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Kuwait. Don't know about you, but those aren't my favorite governments. What appears to have gotten Aljazeera in trouble is they cover dissent in Arab countries, none of which are democratic. If they have a bias, it appears the have an anti-establishment bent. On yesterday's home page, they had a story about the shootout with insurgents in Saudi Arabia, which I doubt the Saudi government wanted them to run, and a story about a demonstration in Egypt which I didn't see covered elsewhere. Given my opinion of the Bush administration, and that the Arab dictators are, well, dictators, an application of the rule that you can judge someone by their enemies makes Aljazeera look pretty good. In fact, quoting Rumsfeld seems like an odd choice because you must have guessed that on this side of the blogosphere, he's not exactly respected. You might as well quote an Arab dictator knocking Aljazeera to make the point.
You cited as evidence of their support for terrorism that the Iraqi interim government kicked them out of Iraq, which they did immediately upon taking power, while Il Manifesto got to stay. It seems you're jumping to a conclusion. Remember that there's a war going on: every journalist covers the insurgency what they can. If Aljazeera gets more access than other foreign press, that may indicate support for the insurgents, or that they are regarded as more objective. Maybe being Arabs themselves allows them to move with more safety and get more stories. After all, every western journalist I've seen write or speak about their experience talks about how incredibly dangerous it is to leave their well secured hotel. That Il Manifesto stayed could mean they're perceived as less of a threat by the Iraqi government. After all, everyone with a TV sees Aljazeera, but the Iraqi readership for Italian newspapers is probably too small to care about. The web site is only in Italian, so I doubt the print edition is available in Arabic.
To wrap up, I'm not completely denying Aljazeera has a bias against the US or against Bush. I'm saying it hasn't shown itself while I've been looking at their web site. Maybe they have sympathy with terrorist groups, and I can't conclusively say they don't, but I doubt it. First, I didn't see the evidence of it and second, much about Aljazeera argues against it, like their start up funding by the Qatari Emir (we have a base in Qatar, and can figure Qatar among the US-friendly regimes), their dependence on advertising for most revenue, and their use of western-style journalism. For any anti-western bias, they seem to be trying to modernize the Arab world, at least in terms of TV news, and frankly, this will do more to democratize the Arab world than any number of bombs.
We rather got off the comparison to Fox, but that can be a subject for another time.
Bluto's response to me:
Eric,
A search for "terrorist" on al-Jazeera yields the results below. Quotes are generally missing when they can use qualifiers like "suspect" or "so-called". Why are quotes missing in number 10?2 - Guantanamo interrogations ineffectual (3/23/2005) Aggressive interrogation of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay yields information that is suspect at best, a new FBI document says.
3 - EU move disappoints Hizb Allah (3/12/2005) The Lebanese resistance group Hizb Allah has expressed disappointment over the European Union parliament's decision to back measures against it if it is found to engage in so-called terrorist activities.
4 - US denies shift on Hizb Allah (3/12/2005) The United States has said it was not softening its stance on Hizb Allah, despite its strong political influence in Lebanon, and still considers it a "terrorist" group.
5 - Canada urged to scrap terror law (3/8/2005) Canada's government is facing criticism over emergency measures which allow it to hold foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial.
10 - Chavez: US is a terrorist state (2/14/2005) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has branded the United States a terrorist state while rejecting Washington's criticism of Caracas for its arms purchase from Russia.
And here's a couple where the use of the "rabbit ears" seems gratuitous to me:
31 - US 'considering' postponed elections? (7/14/2004) US officials are looking at ways to postpone the 2 November presidential poll should "terrorists" attack the United States near election time, a US magazine is reporting.
32 - SE Asia of warned of chemical attack (7/10/2004) Links between Southeast Asian "terrorist" groups and al-Qaida combined with a burgeoning chemical industry raise the risk of a chemical attack in the region, a Japanese security official has said.
You mentioned several Middle Eastern governments that don't like al-Jazeera: "...Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Kuwait. Don't know about you, but those aren't my favorite governments."
These are all governments that are vulnerable to the people al-Jazeera champions (jihadi terrorists), hardly surprising that they don't appreciate al-Jazeera complicating their security and diplomacy. Jordan is, of course, a small country in close proximity to Israel, Syria, and Iraq. They've been accused of allowing Islamist fanatics to travel freely through Jordan en route to Syria and, eventually, Iraq. The Palestinian Authority is trying to negotiate with Israel. To do so, they must step back from terrorist acts perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Jazeera's support of these vermin complicates that task immeasurably. Egypt has recently suffered terrorist bombings. Refusing to call them terrorists doesn't exactly endear al-Jazeera to Mubarak. Kuwait? Kuwait has suffered more than any other Middle Eastern country from the Ba'athists that al-Jazeera loves so dearly.
Since the original comparison of al-Jazeera to Fox turned, not so much on Fox's actual news reporting, but its opinion shows, let's look at some of the Westerners al-Jazeera has chosen to editorialize for them. We have Scott Ritter, who can always be relied upon to spout anti-American propaganda (and who predicted that the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam), but also has a taste for underage girls met in internet chat rooms (who unfortunately turned out to be police decoys). Canadian Scott Taylor also writes propaganda for al-Jazeera from time to time, but his story of being abducted near Mosul seems like an obvious bid for self-promotion. Even his own government refused to confirm the details of Scott's tale. And the third propagandist (three examples indicate a statistical trend) is Mounzer Sleiman, who calls himself "doctor" and claims to be a "Washington-based expert" on Middle eastern affairs. Sleiman obtained his "doctorate" from Rushmore University, and unaccredited institution that reportedly often doesn't require a bachelor's degree for admission to higher degree programs. Damaged goods, all three, yet al-Jazeera is happy to offer them a pulpit because they are Westerners who preach that America is the Great Satan.
April 8
So when Tom DeLay said, "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," I wonder is he was thinking just of his fiasco with the Schiavo case, or if he was remembering how his president was appointed by the Supreme Court? Though to give Bush credit, this last time he managed to steal it without the court's help.
I did hesitate to be wry about it, because it's actually quite serious. DeLay said that in a speech to a conference called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith." The theocrats among American conservatives are serious about gutting the judiciary because it sometime rules against the positions of Christian fundamentalists. Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn R-OK, not only said he's in favor of impeachment, but even mass impeachment, whatever that is. Actually, I can guess what that means. He intends to remove large numbers of federal judges, presumably including Supreme Court justices, if they don't rule the way fundamentalists want them to rule. I don't recall having heard of even the fiercest dixiecrats trying this during the most tense periods of the civil rights movement, when conservatives first started their rhetoric about "liberal activist judges". They've never been bothered about conservative activist judges, nor do they seem assuaged by the Republican majority in the federal judiciary.
What's most worrisome is that the grab for power, which already includes gerrymandering, election fraud, taxpayer funded propaganda, and a steadfast refusal to investigate Republican scandals including war crimes, maybe extended to eliminating judicial independence from the whim of Congress, which really means the whim of rabid conservatives. What they're attempting is nothing less than the gutting of the republic.
On a closely related topic, the overreach in the Schiavo case that was the immediate cause of this anti-judicial campaign, the source of the memo that showed the naked ambition behind congressional intervention has been found. Brian Darling, legal counsel for Mel Martinez, a Republican senator from Florida and beneficiary of touchscreen voting, not only wrote the memo but declined to say so as Republicans accused Democrats of a smear campaign. The memo was crass but not a firing offense if he had just admitted it was real. For watching silently as not only were suspicions aroused but wild accusations made, he ought to have resigned. Sen. Martinez says he didn't know what was in the memo, even though this was written by a senior member of his staff and Martinez handed it on to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA, who was supporting the Schiavo bill. The stupidity of that last part is the only thing that makes Martinez' story sound plausible. All those Republicans whose suspicions of a Democratic smear were genuine and not just counter-smear must be feeling they were left hanging. At least many hedged their accusations with words like "probably", even if that's rather strong for no evidence. The ones who made unhedged accusations have some real explaining to do. The pleasing thing is the Republicans' grandstanding over Terri Schiavo has bit them in the ass yet again.
April 6
Al Franken has been saying on his show that we ought to keep Tom DeLay twisting in the wind doing ongoing damage to the Republicans. Assuming such finesse is even possible, not a safe assumption, I'm from more of the KISS school: Keep It Simple Stupid. DeLay is an awful person, and even if the Republicans might self-immolate by supporting him, let's just clean up the government by getting rid of this guy. Maybe he's lost as a symbol of corruption, but maybe the Congress will function better. Or maybe it's a no-lose situation: either he goes and it's like deodorizing the smell the Wall Street Journal referred to, or he stays and the Republicans have to keep explaining why they keep him around.
Responding to new allegations about DeLay, that he managed to have his PAC pay his wife and daughter half a million dollars (now be fair, maybe they did real work and were just grossly overpaid), and that he had a lobbyist-paid junket to Russia, Rep. Randy Cunningham R-CA said, "If they're going to go after Tom DeLay, we're going to go after Nancy Pelosi. It's just what they did to Newt Gingrich. And we're not going to take it.'' A couple things stand out. One, because they spend so much time on the politics of personal destruction, what used to be called "smear campaigns", they assume that's all this is against DeLay so they figure they can do the same against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and she probably figures they're going to try. Two, Gingrich wasn't brought down by his personal scandals. Remember the 1998 election, right after the impeachment of Clinton? Historically, in every midterm election of a president's second term, his party took a pasting. Every time. Except 1998, where the year started with Gingrich talking about winning a veto-proof majority and ended with the Democrats actually picking up seats. He quickly resigned. So was 1998 a fluke, or has the trend changed? If it's a fluke and you're a House Republican, you've got to be worried. You ought to be more worried that DeLay's backers are that unaware of what happened.
April 5
More of my conversation with Dread Pundit Bluto, continuing from the 2nd.
My reply to Bluto:
I didn't see Aljazeera's coverage while the demonstrations were in progress. I did a search on their site for "Hariri" and found a bunch of articles. I looked at their article from March 14th about the demonstration that followed the pro-Syria demonstration, and it looked like the coverage in the western media. That's not to naysay your characterization of their coverage, but I just can't confirm it. In general, looking at the English version of their web site, I'm not seeing an apparent bias, except for a lot more stories about the Middle East than on an American news site, which is pretty much what I'd expect from a Middle Eastern news site. Tonight the top story was about the death of John Paul II. It was very brief compared to American media, but the facts were right and they emphasized the same things.To get into that infamous liberal nuance, I naturally wonder if the Arabic site is the same as the English one, and I don't know what they broadcast beyond what I've heard second hand, which doesn't always sound good, but those sources might have had biases. There are a couple things you mentioned that seem odd, like the idea they're an outlet for terrorists. Aljazeera is based in Qatar and got started with money form the emir of Qatar, which puts their independence from the Qatari government in doubt but also argues against their loyalty to terrorists. Qatar is one of those secular regimes Al Qaida wants to overthrow. I've also seen pictures of Aljazeera female staff dressed western with their heads uncovered. This doesn't seem like an Islamist news channel.
The other thing that jumps at me is your assertion they don't show the US in a positive light. From an Arab point of view, there isn't much positive about the US, especially not the most salient aspects like we invaded them and killed a lot of people. More to the point, a journalist isn't supposed be concerned with showing a subject positively or negatively. That's a propagandist's job. A journalist should just get the facts right. If the facts make the US, or anything else, look bad, that's not the journalist's fault. Now, I've heard enough about Aljazeera to be skeptical of the claim all their reporting is objective, but a lack of stories the Bush administration would like hardly makes them propaganda. In fact, according to Hannah Alma, Baghdad bureau chief for Knight Ridder (scroll to "Reporting from a War Zone"), Aljazeera had earned the respect of other foreign journalists in Iraq, and their expulsion was seen as just politics. I guess my question is just what is the form of their bias --- which stories they follow, facts they get wrong, corrections they refuse to make, etc.?
Bluto's reply to me:
As you said, al-Jazeera never shows the US in a positive light. Liberals often accuse Fox of bias, yet Fox routinely reports stories that reflect badly on the US and/or the Bush administration. That's because they're bonafide journalists. The fact that al-Jazeera prints only negative stories means that they're either unbelievably bad journalists; or their motivation is not simply reporting, but pushing an agenda. Hell, Eric, even CBS has something positive to say about the US and the Bush administration occasionally.You mention that the al-Jazeera coverage of the Hariri assassination looked like the Western media coverage. You're right. That's because the Western media completely missed the significance of the Hariri assassination until the sheer mass of anti-Syrian protesters shocked them into awareness (I wrote about this in February here: http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/msm-screw-pooch-again.html). Al-Jazeera didn't miss the significance; they chose to downplay it, and to emphasize signs of support for Hezbollah and Syria.
"But we know for a fact that other times the terrorists have told journalists and I use the word inadvisedly, quote-unquote journalists, they've told journalists where they are going to be and what they are going to do.
"And the journalists have been there. And over and over and over again we've see that Middle Eastern television station Al-Jazeera that seems to have a wonderful way of being Johnny-on-the-spot a little too often for my taste," - Donald Rumsfeld
He's got a point. Al-Jazeera does know when terrorist events are going to take place, just as they are the outlet of choice for terrorist groups shopping videos around. You might also note that al-Jazeera chose to replay the Kevin Sites Fallujah Marine video, uncut. over and over and over again, while calling the video depicting the Islamist murder of Margaret Hassan "too graphic". And just by the way, the videotape was given to al-Jazeera by the murderers, or, as al-Jazeera calls them "fighters" or "captors". Iraqi suspicion of al-Jazeera was so strong that the interim government banned them from Iraq, an extraordinary step. Even Il Manifesto is still allowed in Iraq. That tells me that the Iraqis didn't expel al-Jazeera for what they wrote, Il Manifesto has written much worse, but because they believe al-Jazeera is actively aiding the insurgency.
Run the word "terrorist" through the al-Jazeera search engine. This word is always printed by al-Jazeera with quotation marks around it when referring to groups like Hezbollah, but, oddly, they don't feel the need for quotes when some lunatic accuses the US of being a "terrorist state". They also refer to the Iraqi insurgency as "the resistance" or "fighters", even when reporting on the targeting of civilians for murder.
April 2
I just saw something shocking. I recently heard that the fur industry skins foxes alive. I don't recall where I heard it, but I could scarcely credit it. I've also heard in the past that furry toys and trinkets coming from China were made from real cats and dogs. Tonight, my wife was sent a link to a video of the Chinese fur industry. The animals are indeed being skinned alive. It was obvious from the video. I couldn't tell if that was normal practice. I hope not, but even that it occurs at all is shocking, and I'm not easily shocked.
Personally, I've avoided buying Chinese goods at least since the massacre in Tiananmen Square because of China's human rights abuses. I already don't buy Chinese unless there's nothing else, and I still ask whether I need what I'm buying. It's a big reason I won't shop at Walmart. Maybe I can try harder. What I ask of readers is that you reconsider Chinese products. Even if you're not angry that no one was punished for Tiananmen Square, not put off by the use of prison slave labor, not bothered by the occupation of Tibet, the reliance on cheap labor with no right to organize, the transfer of technology to a powerful potential enemy, nor by the imprisonment of people with unpopular (at least unpopular with the government) political and religious views, at least don't buy those furry Chinese products because when you do, it's like you skinned a dog alive yourself.
You may recall recently that I mentioned another blogger, Dread Pundit Bluto picked up something I wrote about the columnist Sandy Shanks, who also wrote a column for Al Jazeera, which column was a topic for Bluto. He and I have decided to have an online conversation, something like the Breakfast Table at Slate. Taking off from how we connected, the topic is Al Jazeera, Fox News Channel, and their respective biases. Our first exchanges follow, and I'll add more as they come. At the end, I'll make them into a separate page, which I think will make them easier to follow. Bluto will put this on his site too.
Hello Bluto,
I once heard an interesting defense of bias in Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera just has the bias of it's audience, like Fox News Channel. That might not be so bad if we were to substitute "American media" for "Fox News Channel". American media had a definitive US bias, so it might be silly to expect Al Jazeera not to have an Arab bias. Of course, it bias leads American media to get things wrong, we call them on it. We expect professional journalists to try to be objective, get their facts straight, make corrections they get something wrong. If Al Jazeera wants to be taken seriously as a news organization, they have to meet those standards too, and expect to called criticized when they don't. If in fact they are a real news organization, then comparing them to FNC is an insult, though if FNC is the standard they meet, then they certainly deserve all the opprobrium hurled at them. However, the Arab countries have plenty of government propaganda already, their own versions of FNC. If all Al Jazeera accomplished was to be a multinational propaganda channel, it's hard to believe they could have built an audience, let alone inspired a competing independent news channel in Arabic. Whatever their faults, at least Al Jazeera offered viewers an independent channel, which right there was an improvement. As a news outlet outside their control, Al Jazeera constitutes a threat to Arab dictatorships, so even if Americans don't like their take on the war in Iraq, we should be glad they're there.
Eric
Hi Eric,
It's tempting for folks like me, when progressives complain about Fox News, to just say, "now you know how we've felt for the past forty years watching ABC, NBC, and CBS," but I'll just stick to your comparison of Fox to al-Jazeera. I monitor al-Jazeera's website regularly. For my money, al-Jazeera compares more closely to the old Soviet Union "news" organs TASS and Pravda. Al-Jazeera's journalistic fig leaf is about the same size as that of those former propaganda sources.
Al-Jazeera's story selection and slant is relentlessly anti-Western. You won't find a story on their site that portrays the US in a positive light. And, if they're forced to report a story about an American success, you can bet it will be updated in a few hours once they discover or invent a negative nuance to exploit. That's not journalism, it's propaganda. You can't honestly say the same about Fox. They're in competition with the other networks, and they can't simply ignore stories negative to the Bush administration - and they don't.
You call al-Jazeera's bias an "Arab" one, but is it? Look at their coverage of the Rafiq Hariri assassination and its "People Power" aftermath. Al-Jazeera's reporting was designed to downplay any connection to Syrian intelligence involvement, and under-report the spontaneous demonstrations that shook the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. For contrast, see the coverage of Dar al-Hayat - they fronted a cartoon depicting Hariri's "martyred" body for a week. Al-Jazeera was more concerned with trying to maintain the position of Hamas, which has aligned itself strongly with Syria. I thought that was quite telling. Al-jazeera is not the voice of the Arab street; it is the propaganda arm of terrorists.
See the archives for earlier entries.
