New US paper aims at Afghan war truth

April 5, 2002 1:17 AM

New US paper aims at Afghan war truth What do you do when you are fed up with the biased and slanted coverage that the major news organizations are giving the "war on terroirsm"? Start your own newspaper of course.
"A newspaper aimed at providing news of the war in Afghanistan is to be launched this month. Its editors argue that the mainstream media in the US are not providing a full picture of the war and its effects. "
posted by futureproof (25 comments total)

Phew... I much prefer cynicism to blind "patriotism." Hopefully this can be a progressing trend.
posted by Aikido at 1:55 AM on April 5, 2002

Nuh-uh. Leftist news sucks because it focuses on the news about the people. The real news is about what it is that kills and controls them. Don't get caught up in the quandary of the people dear god! You're liable to get a case of the bleedin' heart.
posted by crasspastor at 2:05 AM on April 5, 2002

Although I look forward to and applaud a little published cynicism regarding the WoT, I feel , well, cynical about how unbiased it will be....
posted by Espoo2 at 2:24 AM on April 5, 2002

Something critical, I think we can all agree, must be published. Anything critical is a good thing. As it, ideally, invariably leads to discussion.
posted by crasspastor at 2:38 AM on April 5, 2002

Are we still at war?

Maybe they should have started this back when anyone actualy cared.
posted by delmoi at 4:16 AM on April 5, 2002

I agree, will it really be "unbiased?" If they provide all angles, then I'm interested.

I am bothered by the total flag-waving, no-questions journalism that seems to be surrounding Bush and this presidency and especially the middle east crisis. It's like people are acually believing Bush's feelings that "if you question the war, you're un-American." Our traditionally liberal press seems to have lost its' collective balls.

Of course it will be knocked off by others as "those kooky San Franciscans," but I hope it generates some dialogue and maybe pressures the mainstream press to start looking at things with a little bit more discerning eye.
posted by aacheson at 6:52 AM on April 5, 2002

Dear Lord, if you want biased leftist invective, there's The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, CNN, NPR, etc. etc., who all do a much better job than some Bay-Area prog-rag is gonna do.

What is it exactly that the major media isn't covering in Afghanistan that you want or need to know?

In some respects I hate knee-jerk cynicysm more than I hate knee jerk patriotism. At least in pariotism there is some shred of idealism left.
posted by evanizer at 7:03 AM on April 5, 2002

Dear Lord, if you want biased leftist invective, there's The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, CNN, NPR,

Quick, get your tin foil helmet!

What is it exactly that the major media isn't covering in Afghanistan that you want or need to know?

well...I don't know...because it's not being covered....

In some respects I hate knee-jerk cynicysm more than I hate knee jerk patriotism. At least in pariotism there is some shred of idealism left.

You're confusing cynicism with skepticism, as many others have in recent months. The fact that someone is starting a newspaper pretty much disproves the charge of cynicism. And a healthy skepticism of gov't approved news is a requirement for any patriot, IMO.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:12 AM on April 5, 2002

communist!
posted by evanizer at 7:46 AM on April 5, 2002

Look, if they want to criticize the WOT, QUOTE FACTS. Give us EVIDENCE, HARD DATA, not just whiny feelings of opposition. Just surfing the Internet I can find amazing facts about the conduct of the WOT, and Afghanistan, and Central Asia, and government duplicity, hypocrisy, and the lowest order of vested swinish self-interest.
But do these guys publish *that* stuff? HELL NO! They are so convinced of their brilliance that they FEATURE interviews with CELEBRITIES!
Danny Glover this issue. Who next? Britney Spears discussing Petro-Mercantilism and Globalist-Darwinism?

Here's the *real* opposition press:

http://mprofaca.cro.net/mainmenu.html

Why opposition? Because it's the *rest* of the story, not just government propaganda and recycled AP wire stuff.
posted by kablam at 7:56 AM on April 5, 2002

well...I don't know...because it's not being covered....

yes - The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor,CNN, NPR, et al. are "govt. approved" and have all conspired to not cover an element of the war so you will be kept compliant and in the dark...now that's the real tin foil helmet idea.
Who published the Pentagon papers anyway?
posted by quercus at 7:56 AM on April 5, 2002

Well, I am certainly impressed, because Lord knows the teeming millions were simply starved for the all-important news about what Danny Glover thinks about the war. With shocking scoops like this, War Times is building a reputation already!
posted by dhartung at 8:23 AM on April 5, 2002

dhartung, ever since September 11, I've had but one question: "I wonder what Danny Glover thinks of all this?" As I kept hearing from celebrity after celebrity, from Richard Gere to Charlton Heston, I kept waiting for Mr. Glover's wisdom to enlighten us all. Thanks, War Times!

futureproof's use of the words "biased" and "slanted" has to make this one of the most unintentionally ironic FPPs to come down the pipe in a good long time.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:48 AM on April 5, 2002

Here's a direct link to the first issue of War Times:
   War Times - Premier Issue (712KB PDF)
posted by Owen Boswarva at 12:52 PM on April 5, 2002

quercus auto-wrote:
---"yes - The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor,CNN, NPR, et al. are "govt. approved" and have all conspired to not cover an element of the war so you will be kept compliant and in the dark.."

Maybe you could show me where I suggested anything resembling that? My statement "well...I don't know...because it's not being covered...." was a tongue-in- cheek response to evanizer's tautologous question.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:10 PM on April 5, 2002

Ty I was responding more to the whole "US press is biased-we need a new paper" idea than your personal rsponse, I just thought the pulled quote was emblematic.
I assumed you were calling the mentioned media "govt. approved." Perhaps you can clarify. If you meant e.g. Ari Fleischer- I agree we should take official pronouncements with a grain of salt.
Many say you can't trust the US press-never explaining why if you can't trust the press of the world's longest running representative republic-you can trust the press of other regimes.
posted by quercus at 1:45 PM on April 5, 2002

quercus,
I think the mainstream U.S. media do pretty well, by and large, reporting the news, and their various biases more or less balance themselves out. In a war situation, though, most news is official news, and in order to get valuable inside info a reporter/news organization must play by stricter official rules, and are rewarded with 'attaboy interviews. Most reporters grudgingly admit this fact.

Bottom line, I think more news sources are always a good thing.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:09 PM on April 5, 2002

evanizer- here's some communists on afghanistan.

Afghan News Channel
Afghan News Network (wire services include Xinhua)

Empty American Promises Embitter an Afghan Village - LA Times, 3/26/02
Afghanistan and the Wider War - Project on Defense Alternatives
posted by sheauga at 9:36 PM on April 5, 2002

www.afghanweb.org
This site is the work of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting's media training project in Afghanistan. Like other IWPR projects in the Balkans, Central Asia & the Caucasus, it sets local reporters to work with international editors and visiting trainers to produce news and features in local languages and English, in print and on the web, for the widest possible readership.

Reporters without Borders - the difficulties of reporting from the region.
posted by sheauga at 9:52 PM on April 5, 2002

Spiked politics
Dack
Westerby Report
Rantburg Afghan coverage
posted by sheauga at 7:09 AM on April 6, 2002

Cursor
Red Rock Eater
Iran News Agency - IRNA headlines
The Economist - Afghanistan
EFE - Spain - Afganistan
posted by sheauga at 7:54 AM on April 6, 2002

If you're going to start a new newspaper, shouldn't you start with the truth? On their editorial page they cite the "4000 Afghan casualties" hoo-ha again as well as the "harsh winter" that will kill "seven million" Afghans. They also go on to say that media non-coverage of the miniscule "anti-war" effort is poart of some conspiracy.

Tinfoil helmets, indeed.
posted by owillis at 10:48 AM on April 6, 2002

Hemp epoxy helmets owillis.
posted by crasspastor at 11:36 AM on April 6, 2002

If you're going to start a new newspaper, shouldn't you start with the truth?

Come on, owillis, I know you're smarter than that.
posted by Ty Webb at 6:13 PM on April 6, 2002

Stories from Afghanistan,
via the Bitter Shack of Resentment.
posted by sheauga at 6:34 PM on April 6, 2002