last year, in an effort to get a 'balance' of media opinion on world events, I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal's 'Opinion Journal' daily news email summary. They're a fairly conservative right wing outlet in the States, and they absolutely hate Fisk. And Chomsky. And Mike Moore (the Bowling for Columbine one that is). In fact, just about any left-leaning thinker.
Anyway, it's a great eye-opener into the sorts of opinions that the likes of Fisk and co are up against. The hypocrisy of the American right is sometimes breathtaking. This from today’s Opinion Journal...
We know from the account of Iraq's erstwhile bomb maker, Khidhir Hamza, that France and Germany have long supplied Iraq with weapons (and at scandalously high prices), but if they continued to do so after the impositions of sanctions, their actions were not merely venal but criminal.
What? And America hasn't supplied Iraq with weapons?
They also take pot-shots at other media organisations, usually the more liberal NY Times (which tries to find a more central approach to reporting the Iraq crisis), Reuters (who they send up as incompetent, and, they're often right, to tell the truth), and today, the BBC...
In an e-mail to his senior colleagues yesterday, Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy head of news, listed which categories of staff should not attend the march and rally in Hyde Park. They include all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and "anyone who can be considered a 'gatekeeper' of our output."
What does it say about the culture among Beeb employees that such a warning should even be necessary?
To me it says that the Beeb might be like any normal organisation anywhere on the planet where people might like to go and demonstrate against a potential war. The fact that the Opinion Journal can suggest that the Beeb's corporate culture is somehow deficient because the whole place isn't champing at the bit to go to war with Iraq says more to me about the culture of the Wall Street Journal and its affiliates than the venerable old British media outlet.
Anyway, I raise this in response to the various articles Fisk has made on the role of the media in the Iraq crisis as he does make valid points about bias and the way many (but not all, and mostly American) media has bought into the US arguments behind the need for war with Iraq. It's also worth remembering the Fisk himself is pretty close to the action, biased in his own way, and also needs tempering with information gleaned from other sources.
As I've been browsing about the web reading up on it all, the best bit of info I found related to UN resolutions. Dubya is harping on how the UN must act because Iraq is defying UN resolutions (despite the arms inspectors, allowing the U2 planes to fly over, etc etc), and that not acting shows the UN up to be 'toothless' and 'irrelevant'.
This, for me, is the ultimate hypocrisy. Many nations, including the US, have been in defiance of UN resolutions for years. Dubya has made no effort to explain why Iraq's defiance is so special. Weapons of mass destruction? Try North Korea, Pakistan, Israel.
In fact, speaking of Israel, one of the better things I found on the web was this comparison of two nations defying UN resolutions. Check it out... Iraq v. Israel. If you were an alien from Mars arrived on Earth to sort out world politics, who would you tackle first?
The Opinion Journal homepage link is below, for those who are interested. The 'Best of the Web Today' is what you're after if you want to get daily editorial comment on the world's news written in a right-wing tone that'll have you shaking your fist at your computer screen...
//For sure, some of it, but there's no arguing the fact that Israel is in definance of a whole lot more UN resolutions than Iraq.
And that means Israel is more of a threat than Iraq?
I don't remember the UN issuing resolutions against Mugabe's Zimabwe, Morrocco-occupied West Sahara or Khartoum-occupied Southern Sudan. Face it, the UN just has it in for Israel.
The UN may 'have it in' for Israel -- they just don't seem to back it up at all. That's kinda my point with the whole Iraq thing: Bush is arguing that the UN must sanction action, otherwise it's showing itself up to be toothless. But it's failed to act many times in the past in enforcing resolutions, so why should now be any different?
Zimbabwe and Southern Sudan, to the best of my knowledge, don't offer much of a threat to the wider world. Israel (and, admittedly, Iraq), are in the midst of the world's powder-keg.
// And that means Israel is more of a threat than Iraq?
Depends on who you are. If I was a Palestinian I'd say yes.
Oh My God!!! The responses to the Opinion Journal article are harrowing:
Look Who's Behind This
D.D. Shaw - Blaine, Wash.
The author got one thing right, the organizers of the antiwar protests are pro-Saddam. Their Web sites attested to the fact until the recent over-haul purged all the pertinent information and turned them into nothing but antiwar sites. I think that their motto was, any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of ours.
I find it's a good way to the juices flowing in the morning. A quick scan of the right-wing diatribes on the OJ riles me up a bit, and reinforces my liberal-lefty ways.
As our mate John Lydon would sing..."anger is an energy."
And they do nothing to reinforce the idea that American's sense of geography is a bit haywire...
"Osama bin Laden's son may be in Iraq, the Washington Times reports: "Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan."
Iran isn't Iraq guys. And I imagine slipping between the two is as easy as slipping between North and South Korea.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
ah fisk, he's a bit of a legend, ...
ah fisk, he's a bit of a legend, really.
last year, in an effort to get a 'balance' of media opinion on world events, I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal's 'Opinion Journal' daily news email summary. They're a fairly conservative right wing outlet in the States, and they absolutely hate Fisk. And Chomsky. And Mike Moore (the Bowling for Columbine one that is). In fact, just about any left-leaning thinker.
Anyway, it's a great eye-opener into the sorts of opinions that the likes of Fisk and co are up against. The hypocrisy of the American right is sometimes breathtaking. This from today’s Opinion Journal...
We know from the account of Iraq's erstwhile bomb maker, Khidhir Hamza, that France and Germany have long supplied Iraq with weapons (and at scandalously high prices), but if they continued to do so after the impositions of sanctions, their actions were not merely venal but criminal.
What? And America hasn't supplied Iraq with weapons?
They also take pot-shots at other media organisations, usually the more liberal NY Times (which tries to find a more central approach to reporting the Iraq crisis), Reuters (who they send up as incompetent, and, they're often right, to tell the truth), and today, the BBC...
In an e-mail to his senior colleagues yesterday, Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy head of news, listed which categories of staff should not attend the march and rally in Hyde Park. They include all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and "anyone who can be considered a 'gatekeeper' of our output."
What does it say about the culture among Beeb employees that such a warning should even be necessary?
To me it says that the Beeb might be like any normal organisation anywhere on the planet where people might like to go and demonstrate against a potential war. The fact that the Opinion Journal can suggest that the Beeb's corporate culture is somehow deficient because the whole place isn't champing at the bit to go to war with Iraq says more to me about the culture of the Wall Street Journal and its affiliates than the venerable old British media outlet.
Anyway, I raise this in response to the various articles Fisk has made on the role of the media in the Iraq crisis as he does make valid points about bias and the way many (but not all, and mostly American) media has bought into the US arguments behind the need for war with Iraq. It's also worth remembering the Fisk himself is pretty close to the action, biased in his own way, and also needs tempering with information gleaned from other sources.
As I've been browsing about the web reading up on it all, the best bit of info I found related to UN resolutions. Dubya is harping on how the UN must act because Iraq is defying UN resolutions (despite the arms inspectors, allowing the U2 planes to fly over, etc etc), and that not acting shows the UN up to be 'toothless' and 'irrelevant'.
This, for me, is the ultimate hypocrisy. Many nations, including the US, have been in defiance of UN resolutions for years. Dubya has made no effort to explain why Iraq's defiance is so special. Weapons of mass destruction? Try North Korea, Pakistan, Israel.
In fact, speaking of Israel, one of the better things I found on the web was this comparison of two nations defying UN resolutions. Check it out... Iraq v. Israel. If you were an alien from Mars arrived on Earth to sort out world politics, who would you tackle first?
[ external link ]
The Opinion Journal homepage link is ...
The Opinion Journal homepage link is below, for those who are interested. The 'Best of the Web Today' is what you're after if you want to get daily editorial comment on the world's news written in a right-wing tone that'll have you shaking your fist at your computer screen...
[ http://www.opinionjournal.com ]
Hmmm, well, that information has to be ...
Hmmm, well, that information has to be tempered by other sources - especially since it's Al-Jazeera supplying it.
For sure, some of it, but there's no ...
For sure, some of it, but there's no arguing the fact that Israel is in definance of a whole lot more UN resolutions than Iraq.
//For sure, some of it, but there's no ...
//For sure, some of it, but there's no arguing the fact that Israel is in definance of a whole lot more UN resolutions than Iraq.
And that means Israel is more of a threat than Iraq?
I don't remember the UN issuing resolutions against Mugabe's Zimabwe, Morrocco-occupied West Sahara or Khartoum-occupied Southern Sudan. Face it, the UN just has it in for Israel.
The UN may 'have it in' for Israel -- ...
The UN may 'have it in' for Israel -- they just don't seem to back it up at all. That's kinda my point with the whole Iraq thing: Bush is arguing that the UN must sanction action, otherwise it's showing itself up to be toothless. But it's failed to act many times in the past in enforcing resolutions, so why should now be any different?
Zimbabwe and Southern Sudan, to the best of my knowledge, don't offer much of a threat to the wider world. Israel (and, admittedly, Iraq), are in the midst of the world's powder-keg.
// And that means Israel is more of a threat than Iraq?
Depends on who you are. If I was a Palestinian I'd say yes.
//Depends on who you are. If I was a ...
//Depends on who you are. If I was a Palestinian I'd say yes.
I guess you're right - Iraq wouldn't seem a threat to them, what with Sadam sending fat checks to families of suicide bombers.
Well, that'd be the Israelis that ...
Well, that'd be the Israelis that should be worried then, surely?
// that'll have you shaking your fist ...
// that'll have you shaking your fist at your computer screen...
My fist was indeed shaking.
Oh My God!!! The responses to the ...
Oh My God!!! The responses to the Opinion Journal article are harrowing:
Look Who's Behind This
D.D. Shaw - Blaine, Wash.
The author got one thing right, the organizers of the antiwar protests are pro-Saddam. Their Web sites attested to the fact until the recent over-haul purged all the pertinent information and turned them into nothing but antiwar sites. I think that their motto was, any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of ours.
My God!
Fisk is starting to get Airtime on TV3 ...
Fisk is starting to get Airtime on TV3 and even more remarkably CNN.
The Revolution, may in fact, be televised after all.
I find it's a good way to the juices ...
I find it's a good way to the juices flowing in the morning. A quick scan of the right-wing diatribes on the OJ riles me up a bit, and reinforces my liberal-lefty ways.
As our mate John Lydon would sing..."anger is an energy."
And they do nothing to reinforce the idea that American's sense of geography is a bit haywire...
"Osama bin Laden's son may be in Iraq, the Washington Times reports: "Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan."
Iran isn't Iraq guys. And I imagine slipping between the two is as easy as slipping between North and South Korea.
those Lydon lyrics are kinda pertinent ...
those Lydon lyrics are kinda pertinent to the situation, actually...
I could be wrong
I could be right
I could be black
I could be white
I could be right
I could be wrong
I could be white
I could be black
Your time has come
Your second skin
The cost so high
The gain so low
Walk through the valley
The written word is a lie
May the road rise with you
Anger is an energy
...well, sort of...