Does this mean Fox News will stop broadcasting Bush speeches?

bloggs · 28-08-2003 1:29pm #1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3186825.stm

The Saint · 28-08-2003 1:54pm

"Speeches", is that what they're called.:p

Hobart · 28-08-2003 3:20pm

This is hardly news. Are you surprised that the US of A would react in such a way to somebody who appeared to give time to an organisation which disagreed with a policy of thiers???

gandalf · 28-08-2003 4:11pm

"Whats that mister President, erase the freedom of speech line from the constitution......"

What a pack of hypocrites !!!!

Gandalf.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-08-2003 12:17am

Good grief, it really does take the piss out of the idea that we have freedom of media.

Lukin Black · 29-08-2003 12:30am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Good grief, it really does take the piss out of the idea that we have freedom of media.

Hmm, more along the lines of "You're free to publish/broadcast what we want."

Éomer of Rohan · 29-08-2003 12:41am

I was actually having an argument about this with a friend. The media controls the state effectively since we supposedly live in a democracy, or some form thereof. Corporate interests control the media, broadsheets and tabloids alike - remember we have seen a decrease in people reading political and factual books before someone jumps in with how much subversive literature Rupert Murdoch Inc has published - and the newspapers and tv channels alike are merciless in their right wing jingoism. Ergo, Corporations can control the state. I swear, Noam Chomsky doesn't know the half of it lol.

Hobart · 29-08-2003 12:43am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Good grief, it really does take the piss out of the idea that we have freedom of media.

Whats this "we" sh*t? Last time I looked there was a thing called the Atlantic between us and the USA.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-08-2003 12:50am

So? There's the same plus all of Europe between Cuba and the USSR but people always mentioned them in the same breath when they were having that type of argument. We're the 52nd and 53rd States respectively ffs.

sceptre · 29-08-2003 12:53am

Originally posted by Hobart
Whats this "we" sh*t? Last time I looked there was a thing called the Atlantic between us and the USA.

I'm sure Eomar mentioned Rupert Fox Times Sky and Sun Murdoch for this very reason.

Hobart · 29-08-2003 1:07am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So? There's the same plus all of Europe between Cuba and the USSR but people always mentioned them in the same breath when they were having that type of argument. We're the 52nd and 53rd States respectively ffs.

I presume that this is your opinion [edit] And just to be totally open about this I should clarify that I work in the Irish Newspaper/TV/Media business [/edit].

smiles · 29-08-2003 1:48am

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

<< Fio >>

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 29-08-2003 3:18am

The most idiotic thing you could do in these circumstances is openly condemn the media stations. The Bush administration should take a close look at where that's gotten the Blair government and wise up.

Or ideally they won't wise up and Dean'll win in 2004. From Al-Arabiya's perspective, getting access to groups like this is a huge scoop- as big a scoop as Dan Rather's interview of Saddam Hussein. Interesting that the administration didn't condemn him for being a Hussein sympathizer and helping Iraq's propaganda machine.

The only troubling thing about these stations' behavior is this: broadcasting terrorist propaganda wholesale is little better than being a filler for party political broadcasts, probably worse in many ways. Conducting interviews fine, reporting from covert sources fine- broadcasting messages from terrorist groups without interviews or context? That's something we should question, although certainly not as aggresively as the Bush administration.

Another interesting sidebar here- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was caught after one of his couriers delivering a tape to Al-Jazeera was tailed in Pakistan by the NSA. Would be interesting to see if the administration used arab media sourcing as a form of covert surveillance.

Lastly- I agreed with what you said as long as the targets were US/Brit soldiers Fio. As soon as these fighers killed diplomats and civilians, some of whom had dedicated their lives to peace- my conscience asked me whose freedom they were truly fighting for. Freedom for Iraqis through battling occupation is understandable- attacking treaty organizations and aid agencies is inhuman. Given that these types would relish the scaling down of the Red Cross presence- I fail to see how that objective makes Iraqis any freer (unless from this world of course)

Turnip · 29-08-2003 5:20am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I was actually having an argument about this with a friend. The media controls the state effectively since we supposedly live in a democracy, or some form thereof. Corporate interests control the media, broadsheets and tabloids alike - remember we have seen a decrease in people reading political and factual books before someone jumps in with how much subversive literature Rupert Murdoch Inc has published - and the newspapers and tv channels alike are merciless in their right wing jingoism. Ergo, Corporations can control the state. I swear, Noam Chomsky doesn't know the half of it lol.

Ah c'mon. No evil corporation controls the interweb, or the BBC or RTE. The Guardian is not owned by a corporation. People just prefer the Sun. It's got tits. So it sells more. And regarding declining book readership, how many copies have No Logo and Stupid White Men and The New Rulers Of The World and other left wing books sold?

napalm@night · 29-08-2003 1:31pm

Freedom of the press...within reason what if rte put on a broadcast saying they were going to kill and torture your family and children and then broadcast it live....Now thats freedom what would you say about that..and anyway you cant blame them for trying...war is as much about winning the press and it is the land on the ground

bloggs · 29-08-2003 1:58pm

Originally posted by napalm@night
Freedom of the press...within reason what if rte put on a broadcast saying they were going to kill and torture your family and children and then broadcast it live....Now thats freedom what would you say about that..and anyway you cant blame them for trying...war is as much about winning the press and it is the land on the ground

I think the American public need to see both sides to this. Most of them get their news from the Bush propaganda machine (aka Fox News) and as far as they are concerted, things are going pretty good in Iraq. Compare this with what is really happening. It's turning in to a British Army's Northern Ireland or perhaps down the road to another Vietnam. Just read today that another US soldier was killed, along with a bomb attack at a Shia Temple, this is every worrying.

Hobart · 29-08-2003 2:46pm

Originally posted by napalm@night
Freedom of the press...within reason what if rte put on a broadcast saying they were going to kill and torture your family and children and then broadcast it live....Now thats freedom what would you say about that..and anyway you cant blame them for trying...war is as much about winning the press and it is the land on the ground

What IF RTE or BBC or Whomever broadcast a speech from 2 overrated dicators which said that a country rich in a natural resource was a bad bad country. What If they said that they have evidence of a huge gun pointed at our heads, which turned out to be false? What If those dictators said that "Hey we know that civilians will suffer, but that's war buddy!". What If after the war everything turned out to be a total lie. What if they then threatened other countries with censorship and lack of aid if they dared to contradict or disagree with them?

Freedom of the Press?

Then again. It would probably never happen. Would it?

Éomer of Rohan · 29-08-2003 7:22pm

Qutoed from Turnip
Ah c'mon. No evil corporation controls the interweb, or the BBC or RTE. The Guardian is not owned by a corporation. People just prefer the Sun. It's got tits. So it sells more. And regarding declining book readership, how many copies have No Logo and Stupid White Men and The New Rulers Of The World and other left wing books sold?

Less than Harry Potter and other such mindless bullsh**.

And as for the internet, so you mean the American government don't actually monitor what is on it and promptly shut it down whenever they object to it? Eg, Anarchist Cookbook, Pro-9/11 websites etc etc.

W.R.T. the Sun, the tits are little to do with it - it's the sports pages. See the quote below for what I think a democracy should be about before it is about plain hedonistic pursuits.

Turnip · 30-08-2003 5:51am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Less than Harry Potter and other such mindless bullsh**.

The Harry Potter books have a significant left wing slant. JK Rowlings cited Jessica Mitford as her all time hero actually. She even named her daughter after her.

Your communist utopia seems to be a grey and dreary place where kids aren't allowed use their imagination and have to sit around listening to bloody marxist cant all day

Éomer of Rohan · 30-08-2003 6:11pm

Well now, my problem with Harry Potter is the number of adults who claim to have enjoyed the book - and that makes me despair of the education system. I read Lord of the Rings when I was 9 and ever since it has been my favourite fiction book. I enjoy Robert Jordan and Terry Pratchett if we are to continue on the path of describing which fantasy authors are worthy. Anyway, the point was that Harry Potter is mindless rubbish - inferior literature rather than something that can stimulate thought and opinion in a higher manner - which is actually the opposite of what you thought since to have a better form of literature would stimulate the imagination moreso, if our youth were taught to deal with, for example, long words (and Northern Ireland is notoriously bad, having one of the worst literacy rates in the UK - which is a contradiction since it has the best education system).

Call it snobbery of a sort if you wish but I do not believe it is coincidental that much more effort goes in to creating fansites for such rubbish as Harry Potter (and the LotR movies for that matter) than into considering what questions directly affect our lives.

bonkey · 31-08-2003 1:28pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Well now, my problem with Harry Potter is the number of adults who claim to have enjoyed the book - and that makes me despair of the education system.

So what are you saying? That if an adult enjoys Harry Potter, their education has been lacking??? Thats not just snobbery - thats patently ridiculous.

I read Lord of the Rings when I was 9 and ever since it has been my favourite fiction book.

So what? Are you trying to establish that your education is of a higher standard then mine (me being an adult who enjoys the Harry Potter books) on the grounds that your favourite work of fiction is more complex than the Potter Books?

My favourite works of fiction are more complex than the Potter books too. My education was not lacking. I still enjoy the Potter books.

Call it snobbery of a sort if you wish

Certainly. You are a literary snob.

but I do not believe it is coincidental that much more effort goes in to creating fansites for such rubbish as Harry Potter (and the LotR movies for that matter) than into considering what questions directly affect our lives.

Yup. Its linked to a concept called escapism. Its the same reason that more money goes into making movies about fun stuf, why more money goes into sports, and indeed into virtually every single aspect of the "free time industry". Most people do not want to spend their free time doing more work - they want to do it relaxing and doing whatever it is they enjoy. That may be campaigning for a communist world for you, but for most others it is doing things like watching tv, reading books, going to the movies, listening to music, taking part in sports, etc. etc. etc. All of these areas have more time, money and effort thrown into them than considering questions that firectly affect our lives.

To slam Harry Potter on the grounds that it is one of those things is patently ridiculous. Your self-confessed favourite book (LOTR) has more web-sites, time, etc. invested in it than those questions too....even before the movies were considered. But you aint knocking it....only the movies of it, and the Harry Potter books.

Hell, I was accessing LOTR stuff, finding LOTR fonts etc , on the internet before the WWW and the concept of web-sites even really existed....before anyone had heard of NCSA Mosaic. Even back then, finding stuff like that was easier than finding "serious" material of a non-IT-related nature. Does this make the LOTR books drivel as well? More importantly - why do you criticise HP for this, but not LOTR?

Lets be even-handed about this Dave...prior to Harry Potter, LOTR was the most popular book on the planet, and had its sycophantic advocates in droves.

It still has them, and by and large, the sycophantic LOTR fan is pre-movie, has read the book dozens of times, is older than most of the web-site spawning HP fans, and generally spends far more time on LOTR than on considering "important" issues about our world.

And yet you still maintain that it is HP which is loatheable for these reasons?

Your main objections seem to be that your fave book has been knocked from its pedestal of "most popular book ever" (or at least is in danger of this happening), and/or that being made into a movie has somehow cheapened it.

You're right. It is snobbery.

Anyway, the point was that Harry Potter is mindless rubbish - inferior literature rather than something that can stimulate thought and opinion in a higher manner -

Interesting take.

I can't see how any book which encourages people to read is a bad thing. If you're bemoaning the lack of standards of education, I fail to see how anything which sets people on the road to improving their abilities is a bad idea.

As for HP being mindless rubbish - the concepts contained within the book are light-years more complex than the writings of C.S.Lewis (e.g. the Narnia chronicles) - one of the all-time greats in the genre. Just how high do you want to set the bar? Given that you list Pratchett, I would be inclined to say that the bar is set at "If I don't like it, its drivel".

Indeed, I can't see how anything which requires the user to consider and understand (to a minimal degree at least) a world which works on rules different to our own is "mindless". Your objection sounds more like parents of every generation objection to the "brain-rotting" rubbish their kids listen to. Every sngle generation believes their music is ok, but what follows is mind-rotting drivel. You seem to be saying more or less the same thing here - you don't like it so it must be mindless rubbish.

Finally, given that your entire political belief is based on people giving up the system which rules our lives almost entirely, and instead comitting themselves to an idea or concept which has hithertofore never been seen in the real world (assumption based on your frequent denials that Nation X was really an implementation of what you support, regardless of what X happens to be), I would have though that anything which engenders the ability to perceive, understand, and think about a mythical, alternate world would be helping, rather than hindering your cause.

jc

p.s. As a matter of interest, are you basing this critique on anything less than a complete reading of all 5 books in the series? If so, it begs the question of what qualifies you to make the comments in the first place.

Piliger · 31-08-2003 6:55pm

Originally posted by Hobart
This is hardly news. Are you surprised that the US of A would react in such a way to somebody who appeared to give time to an organisation which disagreed with a policy of thiers???

An interesting view . . . to equate the US President of the US with international murdering terrorists.

Your position is transparently clear.

Piliger · 31-08-2003 6:58pm

Originally posted by smiles
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

<< Fio >>

Only if he is an amoral psychopath.

Victor · 31-08-2003 7:04pm

Originally posted by Piliger
to equate the US President of the US with international murdering terrorists.

Yeah, Donald Rumsfeld seems a least someway competent (if extreme), nothing like Bush.

Originally posted by Piliger
Only if he is an amoral psychopath.

Which one? Smiles referred to a number of people in her quote.

Piliger · 31-08-2003 7:15pm

Originally posted by Victor
Yeah, Donald Rumsfeld seems a least someway competent (if extreme), nothing like Bush.

Well I suggest you have a disgusting sense of morality and democracy to hold such a view.

Which one? Smiles referred to a number of people in her quote.

She said: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I said only if such a man were an amoral psychopath.

Victor · 31-08-2003 7:24pm

Originally posted by Piliger
Well I suggest you have a disgusting sense of morality and democracy to hold such a view.

Why? Rumsfeld has had his hands in various wars for the last 30 years - From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. He gave specific approval for operations in Iraq where civilian casualties were not only expected, but expected to be serious and the military weren't willing to approve by themselves. But yet as someone who has ordered civilians to their deaths, still sits in Bush's cabinet (no George, not the trophy cabinet).

And yes I detest the USA's executive democracy (a voted dictatorship).

Originally posted by Piliger
She said: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. "I said only if such a man were an amoral psychopath.

Which man? - (a) "One man", (b) the "terrorist", (c) "another man" or the (d) "freedom fighter"?

Éomer of Rohan · 31-08-2003 9:37pm

Quoted from Bonkey
Yup. Its linked to a concept called escapism. Its the same reason that more money goes into making movies about fun stuf, why more money goes into sports, and indeed into virtually every single aspect of the "free time industry". Most people do not want to spend their free time doing more work - they want to do it relaxing and doing whatever it is they enjoy. That may be campaigning for a communist world for you, but for most others it is doing things like watching tv, reading books, going to the movies, listening to music, taking part in sports, etc. etc. etc. All of these areas have more time, money and effort thrown into them than considering questions that firectly affect our lives.

To slam Harry Potter on the grounds that it is one of those things is patently ridiculous. Your self-confessed favourite book (LOTR) has more web-sites, time, etc. invested in it than those questions too....even before the movies were considered. But you aint knocking it....only the movies of it, and the Harry Potter books.

Hell, I was accessing LOTR stuff, finding LOTR fonts etc , on the internet before the WWW and the concept of web-sites even really existed....before anyone had heard of NCSA Mosaic. Even back then, finding stuff like that was easier than finding "serious" material of a non-IT-related nature. Does this make the LOTR books drivel as well? More importantly - why do you criticise HP for this, but not LOTR?

I'm going to avoid going into a literary critique quite simply because this is a politics board, but in my defence, it is the Harry Potter books and the LotR movies that I lambast (even though I enjoyed the two as yet realeased movies) simply because it is these into which the media and other sources poured unparalleled attention - I did not see any programs on about the BOOK LotR but god knows how many about the movies; similarly the Harry Potter books and the mass commercialisation that accompanied them both.

Maybe this is because LotR was written in the wrong era for that.

It seems to be a 90's and post 90's thing to have fads in marketing terms; during the nineties we saw Tracey Island (and may yet again), Buzz Lightyear, the Power Rangers and a host of other mass commercialisation drives.

And I have read the first, second and fourth books. I did not bother with the others.

As for escapism, I see a huge problem in that. Marx called religion the opium of the people, the modern version is the celebrity media culture cage as I call it and it is damaging even the limited form of democracy we have, leaving my idyll out of it.

Does this mean Fox News will stop broadcasting Bush speeches?

Comments