Saturday, February 12, 2005
Certifiable
Via The Jawa Report comes a link to a site which Dr Rusty Shackleford calls "certifiable" and Armies of Liberation say is:
I should have been immediately skeptical when I saw this:
This led me to "Arab Media Watch" which took my fancy as it shares a similar name to this blog, and I figured, possibly a similar mission.
Evidently not.
The site's banner states:
Myth 1: 5 Arab armies tried to wipe out Israel upon its creation in 1948
Apparently, that was a myth, and in fact:
Another media myth: "Arafat has not done enough to stop terrorism"
Like many, I think dying was the only genuine thing Arafat ever did to stop terrorism, but here's my favourite "media myth": "Myth: Hamas are out to destroy Israel" which then details how Hamas really don't want to destroy Israel despite media claims as such.
The Hamas Charter however seems quite clear on the matter.
The "objective" Arab media watch continues by reprinting Al-Jazeera articles unchallenged and is so incredibly one-sided on matters pertaining to Iraq, not only is it non-objective, it could be Saddam Hussein's PR agency.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.... But do you really want to call yourself "objective" and pat yourself on the back? Even Indymedia don't always do that. If so, it's clear the Arab media still have a long way to go. But then, we knew that already right?
Where the hard left meets the vegans, the anti-masons, the occultists, the UFO crowd, the survivalists, the druggies, and of course the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-American, conspiracy theorists in Sweden.So, expecting to end up at Swedish Indymedia, I click away and end up here instead.
I should have been immediately skeptical when I saw this:
Joe Viallsbut curiosity got the better of me and I browsed the site for a few moments.
"Exposing Media Disinformation" gör en halvunderlig f.d. privatdetektiv.
This led me to "Arab Media Watch" which took my fancy as it shares a similar name to this blog, and I figured, possibly a similar mission.
Evidently not.
The site's banner states:
Arab Media Watch - for objective British coverage of Arab issuesIn order to see how "objective" it was, I clicked on the ubiquitous links pertaining to Palestine/Israel and discovered this gem entitled Media Myths.
Myth 1: 5 Arab armies tried to wipe out Israel upon its creation in 1948
Apparently, that was a myth, and in fact:
the aim of the Arab armies was not to wipe out Israel but to stop its aggression against the Palestinians.It gets better...
Another media myth: "Arafat has not done enough to stop terrorism"
Like many, I think dying was the only genuine thing Arafat ever did to stop terrorism, but here's my favourite "media myth": "Myth: Hamas are out to destroy Israel" which then details how Hamas really don't want to destroy Israel despite media claims as such.
The Hamas Charter however seems quite clear on the matter.
Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.and so on.
...
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
...
The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters
The "objective" Arab media watch continues by reprinting Al-Jazeera articles unchallenged and is so incredibly one-sided on matters pertaining to Iraq, not only is it non-objective, it could be Saddam Hussein's PR agency.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.... But do you really want to call yourself "objective" and pat yourself on the back? Even Indymedia don't always do that. If so, it's clear the Arab media still have a long way to go. But then, we knew that already right?
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the warning, I shall merely add it to the ever-growing list of names that I have been called as the sum total of any rebuttal.
Steven in Sweden,
I don't know Jane personally and she is as welcome to comment here as you are.
I can't see from your comment specifically what your problem is, so it is difficult to respond. Last time I checked I was not involved in any religious war, but did have some major issues with the reporting of Indymedia.
No, I didn't "agree" with the reporter on the movie Hotel Rwanda, but wrote my critique (recommendation actually) and then noticed others had drawn the same conclusion. Good for them, nothing to do with me.
Thanks for offering to watch my ass, I have been going to the gym and working out. It's quite firm at the moment.
Regards.
I don't know Jane personally and she is as welcome to comment here as you are.
I can't see from your comment specifically what your problem is, so it is difficult to respond. Last time I checked I was not involved in any religious war, but did have some major issues with the reporting of Indymedia.
No, I didn't "agree" with the reporter on the movie Hotel Rwanda, but wrote my critique (recommendation actually) and then noticed others had drawn the same conclusion. Good for them, nothing to do with me.
Thanks for offering to watch my ass, I have been going to the gym and working out. It's quite firm at the moment.
Regards.
Boring. The gym remark is the type of humour you'd expect from some corny frat boy.
Your major problem with indymedia seems to be that people who write there are at large poorly informed conspirationists working against (and this seems to be the sore spot) american and israeli politics. I can see how that is bothersome, and an alternative voice is definately called for. But the problem I am starting to see with your site is that it is so biased in itself. The examples of which are exactly what I meant I would start reporting on.
But I tell you, it is not solely on account of your site. You have a giant network. All it is, is simply another bias.
Your major problem with indymedia seems to be that people who write there are at large poorly informed conspirationists working against (and this seems to be the sore spot) american and israeli politics. I can see how that is bothersome, and an alternative voice is definately called for. But the problem I am starting to see with your site is that it is so biased in itself. The examples of which are exactly what I meant I would start reporting on.
But I tell you, it is not solely on account of your site. You have a giant network. All it is, is simply another bias.
Comment Permalink # posted by 
: 3/01/2005 04:46:00 AM
: 3/01/2005 04:46:00 AM
Okay, I'm boring. C'est la vie.
I appreciate your opinion, however if identifying and documenting (variously) fraud, deception, libel and shoddy journalism makes me biased, then so be it.
I would happily adopt a more centrist viewpoint in line with my own politics if the content of Indymedia allowed it. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and as I have suggested, a potentially worthwhile resource has been hijacked and nosedived accordingly.
It doesn't need to be left versus right or anyone against anyone. It DOES need to be honest and reliable. At that, Indymedia has failed, badly.
I appreciate your opinion, however if identifying and documenting (variously) fraud, deception, libel and shoddy journalism makes me biased, then so be it.
I would happily adopt a more centrist viewpoint in line with my own politics if the content of Indymedia allowed it. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and as I have suggested, a potentially worthwhile resource has been hijacked and nosedived accordingly.
It doesn't need to be left versus right or anyone against anyone. It DOES need to be honest and reliable. At that, Indymedia has failed, badly.
One more thing: I give credit where credit is due. I would dearly LOVE to point out some positive output from Indymedia, however such examples are all too rare. If that lends itself to the 'bias' you refer to, I can't apologize for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
