sorry if the above quote is not exact, but that is what he said. in his opinion, since they play the videos of the hostages, the beheadings, etc, they are giving the terrorists incentive to take hostages and torture them. he believed that al jazeera should be labelled a terrorist organization, have the station banned in this country, kick their employees out of this country, and put pressure on qatar to get them shut down. finally he said how he refused to aire the abu grahib (sorry for the butchering) footage or photos because it could lead to violence against our soldiers. my biggest question is this, is it that much worse to show the actual footage than to only discuss the story? if bill wouldn't even discuss it, i think he would have a better foot to stand (although the wrong one imo), but it is discussed and imo that is doing basically the same thing. also, is it not the job of journalists to report what goes on? turning a blind eye to reality is wrong imo. anyway i would just like to read your opinions and i will chime in later, gonna head out now. c ya
Its an exaggeration, but yes, I think that they are doing great service to the terrorists by airing footage -- the kidnappings would lose half of their use without the tv footage. ...it's kind of like when our networks were p1ssed off that Bush conned them into airing an hour of his stump speech last month. There was nothing newsworthy about it, just propoganda. Same with the hostages, except much much worse.
I agree with your post. Bill O'Reilly certainly has exaggerated opinions and this is no different. Besides Al Jazeera is the Fox News of the middle east as far as biased news channels go. What does he expect anyways They have been the same footage here so what's the big deal. Perhaps he needs to "blow off some steam".
Somewhat on topic, has anyone seen Control Room? I meant to see it this summer but never got around to it. I did hear it's good though.
I've seen it. Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic film. Everyone on this board should check it out. More or less, I honestly believe that their journalistic integrity is somewhat on par with our media's. In fact, one of the execs at al jazeera, I believe, makes the Fox comparison a few times. The bottom line is that while they do try to be journalistic, they are still sort of new at the whole thing, and they end up trying a little to hard to put out the "islamic perspective". And while I can understand their desire to do so in the fact of all the western medias perspective, they need to eventually discover that they are doing a disservice to the arab world by trying to put a perspective on it, something our media is also failing to grass. However, they are far from terrorists. In fact, there is one particularly great part where the head of al jazeera chews some dude out for booking a guest who is obviously some wack-job there to promote the idea of america as evil. I think that if you see this movie, you would have a very difficult time saying they are terrorists. Perhaps they do aide the anti-american sentiment a little bit, but can you really blame them? That's their perspective, and while we'd like to think that our media is free from perspective, all you have to do is look at the fact that people like Oreilly won't show abu graib photos.
By their very own definitions of terrorism - Surely the US Administration are terrorists? Don't they define terrorism or a terrorist as somebody who illegally seeks to murder those of a nation which poses them no threat.. if not, what is their definition of Terrorism?
Control Room torrents. http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2850/Control.Room.LiMiTED.************.XViD-ALLiANCE.torrent http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2674/Control Room.torrent
A spokesman of the German ZDF station said that they as well as most other European stations would air at least the Al quaida tapes (and the tapes showing how westerners got killed were only shown in the Inet, not on Al) if they woulod be mailed to them... opensightly AQ chose to send them AD, so they show them. If they wouldn't, it would just be spread through the Inet - same result, just less money for AD. And then again, for many ppl in the arabic world Bush, Cheney, Sharon and Rumsfeld are the terrorists, so what do you think would happen if AD would be shut down? more ppl over there would watch Fox News? certainly not. there would be just less controlable information flowing through the Internet, and than terrorists could just tarn themeselves as serious news agency's and make they'r work even 'better'. Is that what Fox wants? It is just journalism what AD does... maybe not the kind Fox does or want to be done, but still it is...
Let's see here... By O'Vibrator's logic, AJ are "terrorists" because they cover terrorist activities and thereby give terrorists further incentive to commit their atrocities. Well, the entire U.S. media also cover terrorist activities and thereby give terrorists further incentive to commit their atrocities. Ergo, the entire U.S. news media, including O'Vibrator hisownself, are terrorists. Does this mean that the terrorists have already won?
At the RNC, the Bushies invoked 9/11 as a reason to support their candidate. using a terrorist attack on the US for political gain is pretty sleazy, but i personally wouldn't call it support for terrorist actions. However, when a partisan hack like O'Reilly claims that comprehensive coverage of terrorist activities is an act of terrorism, then wouldn't you think that using terrorist acts for political gain is an act of terrorism/ Do these guys sleep at night? No wonder Republicans have more nightmares than the rest of us.
I think the squelching of the freedoms of the press is obviously an important step in fighting terrorism. I imagine the founding fathers would agree with that as well. Of course, this is Oreilly. I mean, who cares?
you're an idiot... he wasnt arguing against comprehensive coverage he was arguing against showing these beheadings and acts of terrorism, that in turn, encourage more beheadings and acts of terrorism. You can't even begin to argue that what they're doing is "comprehensive" coverage... They're rallying fundamentalist muslims to continue their hatred of the west..
well you're not going to get one unless aj actually comes out and says "we're just rallying fundamentalist muslims to continue their hatred of the west" and i dont think theyre gonna do that anytime soon.. you cant truly prove their motives, unless they come out and say it.. by that logic its suggested that michael moore and the swift boat vets are making "documentaries" because theres no link that proves theyre not, which i think everyone will agree, is not the case.
You won't get any because it's probably not true. For those people, (it's usually the same ones), that take part in debates about terrorism on these boards may I respectfully suggest they make a bit of a study of the history of terrorism in Northern Ireland and why it has largely now stopped. In relation to this issue I would just like to point out that the conservative gobernment, under Margaret Thatcer, insisted that we weren't allowed to hear what the political wing of the terrorists, (Sinn Fein), were saying because it gave the terrorists, (the IRA), the 'oxygen of publicity'. In TV and Radio interviews for many years they were allowed to appear on our TV and Radio programmes but their voices were 'spoken by an actor' as the phrase went. We were, frankly, an international laughing stock. Having said that, at least we allowed their words to be spoken.