iraq news
November 13, 2002 1:11 PM Subscribe
saddam makes it tough for reporters to work, but this two-person US team gets uncut news out of iraq daily in audio, video, and print.
a group of independent journalists and activists - spearheaded by Voices in the Wilderness and the Iraq Peace Team - are breaking ranks with the war chorus.
How can they call themselves 'independent' and activists at the same time?
They decry the 'corporate media' for having a 'pro-war' agenda and not being balanced, when they are backed by groups that have an 'anti-war' agenda...
Reading over some of the reports there, is sounds like english translations of press releases from the Iraqi Information Ministry...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:18 PM on November 13, 2002
How can they call themselves 'independent' and activists at the same time?
They decry the 'corporate media' for having a 'pro-war' agenda and not being balanced, when they are backed by groups that have an 'anti-war' agenda...
Reading over some of the reports there, is sounds like english translations of press releases from the Iraqi Information Ministry...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:18 PM on November 13, 2002
Thanks for this. On-the-ground reporting is the richest kind.
How can they call themselves 'independent' and activists at the same time?
Huh? "Independent" media means they're beholden only to themselves, not the limited spectrum of thought allowed by the need for advertising revenue. There's no inconsistency between being "independent" and engaging in activist journalism. The deeper question, of course, is how independent they really are, given the sensitivities of the Iraqi government. But the balancing act these guys are doing seems - at first glance - no more unhealthy or biased than that being done by Fox, NYT, BBC and the rest. That Iraqjournal.org may get better access because they're more clearly anti-war is something to keep an eye on, but it doesn't mean their reporting is inherently less trustworthy than the eggshell-walking we already know goes on at the corporate outlets.
posted by mediareport at 3:11 PM on November 13, 2002
How can they call themselves 'independent' and activists at the same time?
Huh? "Independent" media means they're beholden only to themselves, not the limited spectrum of thought allowed by the need for advertising revenue. There's no inconsistency between being "independent" and engaging in activist journalism. The deeper question, of course, is how independent they really are, given the sensitivities of the Iraqi government. But the balancing act these guys are doing seems - at first glance - no more unhealthy or biased than that being done by Fox, NYT, BBC and the rest. That Iraqjournal.org may get better access because they're more clearly anti-war is something to keep an eye on, but it doesn't mean their reporting is inherently less trustworthy than the eggshell-walking we already know goes on at the corporate outlets.
posted by mediareport at 3:11 PM on November 13, 2002
The words "we" and "us" and "our forces" are used so frequently by major corporate media personalities that it has become difficult to figure out if it is the Bush Administration or Rupert Murdoch and FOX that are gearing up to bomb Iraq.
Hear, hear. I'll stick with the independent journalists...at least they don't have flashy graphics telling you that its time for "Showdown: Iraq."
posted by iamck at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2002
Hear, hear. I'll stick with the independent journalists...at least they don't have flashy graphics telling you that its time for "Showdown: Iraq."
posted by iamck at 4:40 PM on November 13, 2002
« Older Believe who, again? | The Army Is Dumb Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PenDevil at 1:45 PM on November 13, 2002