Fisk Interview

November 8, 2005 3:42 PM

Staggering reading by Robert Fisk then an interview with Fisk by Amy Goodman - from a 9/2005 program at the ever-wonderful Lannan Foundation.
posted by nromanek (18 comments total)

it's incomprehensible ths sort of stuff doesn't get more attention in your wild US of A.
posted by Substrata at 4:15 PM on November 8, 2005

Robert Fisk has many enemies, because he openly sympathizes with the Palestinian cause and is a liberal and Arabist. However, there is no journalist working today that I know of, who is Western, who has the knowledge and contacts in the Arab world.

Even if you disagree with his personal beliefs (which are actually quite critical in nature), his reportage is essential.
posted by cell divide at 4:15 PM on November 8, 2005

Essential? I can not recall the placesa nd times that Fisk has made statements that were later proven to be simply wrong in his reporting. Fish is the Chomsky of Britain: anything and everything his country does is bad, wicked and wrong....and that is why so many of those who live in places Fisk likes immigrate to wicked countries such as England and the US.
posted by Postroad at 4:35 PM on November 8, 2005

Fisk - The guy that echoed the laughable Iraqi Minister of Information. I remember Fisk going on and on about how there were no Americans at Baghdad International Airport, and how the Americans were "lying". Of course, the next day the Americans pretty much controlled the airport.

Fisk is one of those reporters I cannot stand (along with B. O'Reilly, G. Riviera and a few others, mostly on the right). He cherry picks the data he reports to foster his worldview on others. He is a propagandist more than a reporter.
posted by forforf at 4:47 PM on November 8, 2005

... anything and everything his country does is bad, wicked and wrong...

Which is exactly like Chomsky, because that's all he says in his books!

Hey, I didn't know you could say stuff about books without, you know, reading them. I've been wasting so much time.
posted by odinsdream at 4:47 PM on November 8, 2005

Not so incomprehensible, Substrata. There is a formidable propaganda system in the USA - many, many powerful news outlets all repeating the same inconsequential trivia. It is very difficult - to a degree many non-Americans would find shocking - to get any substantial reporting or critical analysis from the mass media. Even outlets once fairly well-respected (NY Times, Washington Post, Public Broadcasting) now hardly bother denying they are mere mouthpieces.

Phew! Getting het up there.
posted by nromanek at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2005

Which is exactly like Chomsky, because that's all he says in his books!

Perhaps any discussion of Chomsky, as opposed to Fisk, could go into this recent Chomsky thread?
posted by russilwvong at 5:04 PM on November 8, 2005

I think we could use a few more of him in the journalistic world. One of my favorite quotes comes from this interview:

Yes, that is the malevolent influence of history. We live under its dark shade and we cannot break free from it. No Palestinian can break free from 1948. No Israeli can really break free from 1933–45 in Europe. We search desperately for justice from history and history is a very, very cruel dispenser of justice. I don’t know what the answer is.

But I notice it and I feel it and I live with it. One of the problems, I think, is that we live through the old. We keep saying that if we want to have a new life we must re-educate the young, but I think we must re-educate the old so that the young can be free.

posted by blendor at 6:01 PM on November 8, 2005

Well you have to hand it to Goodman, who is on the air every single day bringing the truth to the masses. She doesn't stop at anything. I met her last May and shes as calm as when she is reporting. I admire her greatly.
posted by wheelieman at 6:05 PM on November 8, 2005

That's a great site in general. Plenty to listen to there. Thanks!
posted by carter at 7:02 PM on November 8, 2005

Fisk is a fantastic reporter. Someone who actually understands what he is reporting about and doesn't just echo press releases. If only there were more journalists like him.

He may get things wrong and he certainly has opinions, but that is because he is really, really well informed and it's difficult to become so without getting opinions on the way. But he is pretty damning of everyone so he doesn't have too much bias.

He did a great interview in Australia on a current affairs show here called Lateline.

A quote from the interview:


ROBERT FISK: I don't think there's going to be democracy in the Middle East and I don't really think we want democracy. One of the problems of democracy in the Middle East is that, if it really exists, the Arabs may not do what we want them to do, and it's much more easy to have dictators, generals, businessmen running countries on our behalf, rather than saying, "Let's have a fair vote", because in many cases, we may find Islamist governments take over, which we don't want. Remember, originally, the Americans didn't actually want elections in Iraq. It was only later, when the Shiites of Iraq threatened to join the insurrection with the Sunnis, that suddenly America became a proponent of democracy in Iraq. No, I don't think the West wants real democracy out here because it may not turn out to be the kind of democracy we want. We are much happier with military governments or shadow military governments, as in Algeria. We didn't object when the Algerian authorities closed down the second round of elections when they thought that Islamists might take power. It's constantly the refrain of the Baath Party in Syria, of Mubarak, that if real democracy came to the Middle East, it would be Islamists who would take over, and we don't want that. We saw what happened in Iran, where, with all the flaws inherent in it, there are real elections.
posted by sien at 7:41 PM on November 8, 2005

speaking of chomsky - he pretty much hit the ball out of the park two weeks ago on ian masters. the right could only dream of having men of this caliber on their side.

who on the right or the tepid middle of the mainstream media has has the courage to stand up to wealth and power like these men have?

the arc of truth and justice is long - unfortunately for the dimwits that continue to support the likes of bush, cheney, robertson and falwell.
posted by specialk420 at 9:18 PM on November 8, 2005

I can not recall the placesa nd times that Fisk has made statements that were later proven to be simply wrong in his reporting.

Find any reporter who does on-the-ground reporting, inside and very close to the war zone that doesn't report false information, and I will give you a prize.

Fisk may even be more inaccurate then the average reporter, I'm not sure. But the fact is, he gets stories, which are true, which no other reporter writing in the English language, gets. And for that he is a very useful person.
posted by cell divide at 11:09 PM on November 8, 2005

Oh, specialk420, I and my iPod thank you. :)
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:09 AM on November 9, 2005

Fish is the Guru on Middle East affairs to the British left, but he's still a pasty-white Lawrence of Arabia wannabe.

We saw what happened in Iran, where, with all the flaws inherent in it, there are real elections.

Wow, that's a real LOLer from Fisk. Here are some quotes from a Human Rights Watch report on the recent election:

"On June 17, 2005, Iran holds its ninth presidential election, as well as mid-term elections for the seventh parliament. As in all previous elections, candidates wishing to compete in these elections must first win approval by the powerful Guardian Council, a twelve-man body accountable only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, an unelected figure who represents the highest political authority in the country.

...Iran’s election laws grant sweeping and arbitrary powers, known as “approbatory supervision [nizarat-e istesvabi],” to the Guardian Council. “Approbatory supervision” allows the Guardian Council to subjectively disqualify even candidates who satisfy the discriminatory criteria stated in the election laws.

The Guardian Council has consistently approved only candidates already associated with the ruling elite, known in Iranian political jargon as the “insiders” [khodi]. In all previous elections, both parliamentary and presidential, “outsiders” [gheir-khodi] who were not part of the ruling circle, were excluded from competing.1

On May 22, the Guardian Council announced that only six of the 1,014 candidates who registered for the upcoming presidential elections were qualified to be placed on the ballot. Five of these candidates, known to adhere closely to the political views of the Guardian Council"

Does it occur to Fisk that Iran's pro-Liberal leftists feel they have no real voice in the election anyhow, and consequently didn't bother with it? Why doesn't he cite the previous election, in which a reformist was elected? Khatami proved the position of president to be totally meaningless and an ineffective mean of reform. Iranians who want change know to look elsewhere than the "real elections".
posted by ori at 10:00 AM on November 9, 2005

Arabist.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck is an Arabist?
posted by poweredbybeard at 12:22 PM on November 9, 2005

An expert on the Arab world. A couple examples: William Polk. Hume Horan.
posted by russilwvong at 12:55 PM on November 9, 2005

ah, thank you.
posted by poweredbybeard at 1:46 PM on November 9, 2005