The Abu Ghraib Scandal: Who’s Shame is it?

#62 by Saminasha on May 25, 2004 9:57am PT

”Are you implying that the US`s mainsteam media provides a comprehensive forum for all of the viewpoints on the war?
When was the last time you saw Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, the journalists at Al Jazeera on mainstream tv?”

I have been hearing this or things similar to this from so many of terrorist apologist/Leftwing cuckoos that it is not even funny anymore! These people have no understanding and knowledge of how media works and most like have no clear definition of “Main Stream” media.

The media includes all print and electronic media and now Internet has become a major source of news too. In reality all current surveys find that people are relying more and more on Internet for news.

There are more than 10 big news and other channels in the US now along with many regional and big city media outlets so to define mainstream would be a pain in the butt.

The complaint is not against all main stream media channels, the complaint is against the TV/cable channels. As Chomsky, Susan and Gore Vidal are published in major newspapers, and on the Net regularly. Susan Sontag wrote a power full piece which has appeared in Guardian recently. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1223273,00.html.

But no! these fickle brain want her to appear on the TV otherwise the main stream media is not independent.

Cho-tia-msky has appeared in many newspapers and so has Gore Vidal. Gore Vidal is such a huge cultural icon that nobody can dare ignore him. But whenever he appears on the TV, all he is talking about is diehard leftwing propaganda. How much value that has for any TV outlet on a daily basis?

Cho-tia-msky wrote a popular book in the 1960s perhaps. He is just putting out the same book in different wrappers. Who long people are going to listen to the same old crap?

If Cho-tia-msky would like to be heard he can always go to the insane people’s corner in the Hyde park and there will be some to pay attention to him.

This main stream or whatever it is, is located in the US and it caters to people in the US not in the Middle East. It addresses to what the “most” people of the US would like to hear not what fickle brains would like to hear. To these lames, media is not independent, if it does not present their weird theories and these theories represent a microscopic minority.

Now what is media independence? People and Corporations buy media outlets to present their thoughts, viewpoints and to support their side of the story. If you don’t like what they are saying don’t listen to them or read them or do whatever the hell you wanna do. In the US, all you have to do is to be a citizen to start a media channel, why this moaning and bitching crowed, not go out and start their own something if they are not happy with what they hear?

”Are you implying that the US`s mainsteam media provides a comprehensive forum for all of the viewpoints on the war? “

Media is under no obligation to provide a comprehensive forum to all. Freedom of press is no legislation. Freedom of speech is protected and everybody is free to define how much and what form they would like to use.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Stuka # 63 - Urstruly has posted a FACT. The FACT being: there were on average 14 murders per month in Baghdad. Now there are 357. Bronx may indeed be worse than Rawanda, but pre-invasion Baghdad was not !

As for your doubts about me being an American, I don`t need to convince you of that. But let me introduce you to a noble concept of citizenship. You have to stay vigilant and responsible and you have to keep a sharp eye on your government`s actions. This is more so when one is a citizen of a country which has the power to destroy the world. You have to make sure that when your government talks about ``freedom`` it is in fact not enslaving. You have to make sure that your country is not hijacked by the thugs and murderers who preach us the rights of unborn child and fetus, yet kill pregnant women and children with impunity.

Malik # 67

Even more so, we must scrutinize the role of Red Cross and other Human Rights organizations in the Abu Ghraib tragedy as well. We have to question them why they kept sweeping the truth under the rug for one whole year. We must question why and how they collaborated with homicidal maniacs, war criminals, and crusaders and hid the truth. These organizations have been at the forefront `preparing` a case against Iraq by brainwashing people in the Christiandom. We must question them why they have lowered themselves from the status of humanity to this level. We must question their credibility and claims.

The Western media, well that is the device of satan himself, that is hopeless - less said the better.

Harish,

So your argument is that:

1. We should be thrilled that the full spectrum of viewpoints on the war is only represented in independent media, while the most mediocre minds-like Ben Stein`s third grader harangue (``US=GOOD! IRAQ=EVIL!``) get 24/7 access to television media.

2. People like YOU decide which thinkers from this huge spectrum are worthy of this media time-oh yes, that sounds like right wing Indian democracy...

3. The media is under no obligation to provide the full spectrum of opinion in America, but GOSH DARNIT isnt America`s diversity just grand?!


Makes perfect sense...

And would you like to explain which media monopolies exist in the US?

Malik

A couple of days ago I saw Michael Moore`s `Bowling for Columbine` at the HBO. The HBO has been showing it for over a year now but I did not bother to see it before thinking that it will only highlite the tragedy at Columbine High and I did not want to see the gory details of the masacar. But watching this documentary proved to be a shocking surprise. It gives you a deep insight into the American culture and society and why it is so violence prone. It sytematically abolishes all the myths that we have about America as a gentle law abiding society and takes us deep into the mind of an American and how he is so violent demestically as well as internationally. The Oscar was well deserved and so was the first prize at Caans. I can hardly wait to see his `Fehrenheit 9-11`. I hope it is not banned is USA.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Salaam Alaikum!

HP,

Recently, Colin Powell has recanted on his ``weapons mobile laboratory`` that he used as ``substantial`` evidence that Saddam had not only WMD, but also mobile WMD. I have yet to see ``mainstream`` media (excluding Meet the Press) ponder on it--much less mention it.

--Ibn

Malik/Urstruly:

There was minimal crime and no law and order problem in Nazi Germany. I assume that is your ideal society???

URS:

Would you care to share your observations from ``Bowling for Columbine``? It would be real nice if you can take out a few minutes on a daily basis to write a detailed overview of the movie and submit it to Chowk. How`s that? Doable or Impossible?

Stuka # 75 - You wrote ``There was minimal crime and no law and order problem in Nazi Germany. I assume that is your ideal society??? ``

No two situations in history are always EXACTLY the same. Germany was a threat to other countries and had occupied most of europe. Iraq was an impoverished country under the most brutal sanctions.

If you are really bent on deriving a lesson from history, then consider the lesson of ``appeasement``. Just like europe seems to have learned that Nazis should never have been appeased when they occupied Checkoslovakia, I can argue that american regime should not be appeased either now that they have invaded and raped Iraq.

Dear Author
``The great thing about a democratic system is that citizens have the right to vote for a change when their government falls short of expectations.``

As an American you have a President who claims to have divine sanction to send the US Army to war. If you have a problem with this, you can vote him out of power.

As a Pakistani, you have a whole Army which claims to have divine sanction to do anything it pleases.. Do you have a problem with this and do you want them out of power?

#74 by knowledge123 on May 25, 2004 2:12pm PT

”Recently, Colin Powell has recanted on his ``weapons mobile laboratory`` that he used as ``substantial`` evidence that Saddam had not only WMD, but also mobile WMD. I have yet to see ``mainstream`` media (excluding Meet the Press) ponder on it--much less mention it”

I don’t know how you want me to take this but by the time Powell came clean, the WMD and the non-existence of it, had already lost steam. It clearly was not newsworthy any more. Now the question is why Powell did not come clean when people still believed that Iraq had WMD? If he had said that right after the war that it was all fake and their were no labs the news would have spread over the world like a wildfire.

It is not that Powell did not know from the beginning that the whole WMD thing was made up but he hung on to it. Now, he comes clean for the record, for prosperity. It was pure dishonesty on Powell’s part.

The US media is in for money and to pursue its own goals and dominance. It is a commercial enterprise. Why should anybody be naïve enough to believe that it is there to provide just news. The new media makes and breaks the news based on the monetary value the news have.

Did you know that Fox news in the US is watched by more(almost) American than all news channel’s put together? Fox saw a niche. A conservative and redneck America that was being ignored by the CNN and ABC and CBS types. Fox is running wild with it. It is making more money than any other news network. Why should it give up its core market because some liberals are not happy with it? As the conservative America starts moving away from Bush, you will see changes in Fox too.

Saminasha #51

[When was the last time you saw Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, the journalists at Al Jazeera on mainstream tv?]

I`m not saying that the media in the US is free. It is the same everywhere, manipulated by a few rich and powerful. But then, you must thank the American system that you ever got to know or hear Chomsky, Vidal, or Sontag, even if it was not on mainstream TV. Just think what would have happened if it were an Islamic country. Simple. They would have been silenced long ago. Look at Shaheen Sehbai, who was forced into exile just because his views differed from the great General`s. Or Najam Sethi who a few years ago was beaten up and incarcerated by Nawaz Sharif. All this just because these gentlemen dared to air the alternative POV. Tell me how many media men/intellectuals in the US have ever been mistreated because they dissented? Chomsky is the harshest critic of America`s policies

Saminasha #70

{We should be thrilled that the full spectrum of viewpoints on the war is only represented in independent media, while the most mediocre minds-like Ben Stein`s third grader harangue (``US=GOOD! IRAQ=EVIL!``) get 24/7 access to television media}

No, you should instead be thrilled because you still get to know the truth. Is it mainstream only if it is on TV?

{oh yes, that sounds like right wing Indian democracy}

And your views sound so much like an Islamic apologist`s.

{The media is under no obligation to provide the full spectrum of opinion in America, but GOSH DARNIT isnt America`s diversity just grand}

And if it weren`t for this diversity, the truth would never have come out, as happens all the time in most Islamic states/dictatorships. You think something like the AQ Khan scandal could have ever been silenced so easily in the US as it happened in Pakistan? Even the playboy President Bill Clinton`s escapades with Monica Lewinsky were unforgivingly put under the scanner.