What's most amusing about Alfonso's posts, other than his desperate resort to bluster and vulgarity, is that, amidst his unrelenting anti-US invective, he stakes all of his hopes and rests all of his arguments on the United Nations - an institution created in the United States and under American leadership. Somehow, while formulating his stated "whole-hearted" "hatred" for US foreign policy, he forgot that fact. He also forgets that, of all the countries in the world, only the United States, along with whatever allies at the time, has ever sought UN approval for military action. Just as he refuses to give credit to the United States for producing the United Nations in the first place, and for seeking over many years to defend and to build up the UN's credibility, he refuses to apportion any responsibility to the UN for its own mistakes and inadequacies. Any defects and inequities in Iraq sanctions, which were approved and directed by the UNSC as a body, he blames entirely on the US. He complains at great length about the evils of the sanctions, but his proposal - to continue working with the UN - would have implied their indefinite continuation, and he naturally refuses to credit the US for finally giving the Iraqi people a chance for lives free of their economic weight, not to mention chances for lives free of Saddam's terror and institutionalized larceny. Again: It's just the "UN process" that matters. This suggestion is obviously not a solution to the actual problem - it offers rather few i's or t's to dot or cross. At best, it would merely have deferred the decision about Saddam - contain, remove, or retreat - to a later date, with little prospect that it would be any easier, and great risk that it would be much more difficult. As for the other issues - multiple legal, moral, and strategic justifications for the war, quality of US evidence against Saddam on multiple scores, responsibility shown by other UN Security Council members, and so on - it seems to me there's no point in re-hashing the same arguments we've been through many times before, on this board and elsewhere. Alfonso has his opinions and proposals, and, at least as far as he is concerned, they do not appear susceptible to argument, information, logical test, or comparison.
A true fanatic he is, our Alfonso. He is not only impervious to argument or comparison, but to reality as well.
Dyke attacks 'unquestioning' US media Dominic Timms Thursday April 24, 2003 BBC director general Greg Dyke has delivered a stinging rebuke to the US media over its "unquestioning" coverage of the war in Iraq and warned the government against allowing the UK media to become "Americanised". Mr Dyke said he was "shocked" to hear US radio giant Clear Channel had organised pro-war rallies in the US and urged the UK government to ensure new media laws did not allow American media companies to undermine the impartiality of the British media. "We were genuinely shocked when we discovered the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies," said Mr Dyke. "We are even more shocked to discover the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the UK when it is deregulated later this year. "The communications bill currently before parliament will, if it becomes law, allow US media companies to own whole chunks of the electronic media in this country for the first time. "In the area of impartiality, as in many other areas, we must ensure we don't become Americanised." The BBC chief expressed his concern that American media owners would apply the same pressure to their output in this country. "You're surprised when you discover the biggest owner of American radio stations organised pro-war rallies - it's a long way from our idea of impartiality. "They [American networks] must be clear that the rules are different here. What is now defined as impartiality in the US is different." Mr Dyke singled out Fox News for particular criticism over its pro-Bush stance, which helped the Rupert Murdoch-owned broadcaster to oust CNN in the US to become the most popular news network. "Commercial pressures may tempt others to follow the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism, but for the BBC this would be a terrible mistake. "If, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point in the BBC," he said in a speech delivered at Goldsmiths College in London today. Mr Dyke revealed there had been a huge increase in demand for BBC news in the US since September 11, saying this reflected "concerns about the US broadcasting news media". "Many US networks wrapped themselves in the American flag and swapped impartiality for patriotism. What's becoming clear is that those networks may have misjudged some of their audience. "Far from wanting a narrow, pro-American agenda, there is a real appetite in the US for the BBC's balanced, objective approach." Mr Dyke also mounted a rigorous defence of the BBC's coverage of the war in Iraq after ministers publicly accused the corporation of bias towards the Baghdad regime. He refuted accusations that the BBC had been "soft" on Saddam Hussein, insisting the corporation's commitment to "independence and impartiality" was "absolute." Mr Dyke added the BBC had made "subtle daily changes" to the way it covered the war so it could "believe in and defend the integrity of our reporting". Citing the history of war reporting from Suez through Vietnam to Kosovo, Mr Dyke said British governments of every persuasion had sought to use the media to manage public opinion. "In doing so they have often sought to influence the BBC and, on occasions, to apply pressure," he said. Mr Dyke conceded the government had a right to pressurise the BBC, saying it would only become a problem if the BBC caved in to its demands. But he dismissed accusations from Downing Street that BBC correspondents in Baghad were Hussein's stooges as "absurd," saying that although journalists such as Rageh Omaar had Iraqi minders who occasionally restricted their movements, "they did not interfere with what was being broadcast". He did, however, admit the war had raised new dilemmas, one of these being the controversial practice of embedding journalists with troops. "Embedded correspondents may have given us better pictures and immediate insight of the battles but how much physical risk for our journalists and crews is acceptable in return for great pictures and commentary?" he asked. "How do we ensure their reports are placed in the proper context; how can we guard against 'embeds' being seen as 'in bed' with their hosts? "On this latter point, I think there is a need here for a serious piece of academic research on the impact of embedded journalism." US broadcasters' war stance under scrutiny Annie Lawson Monday April 14, 2003 Rupert Murdoch's Fox network is among the US media giants accused of tailoring its war coverage to curry favour with Michael Powell, the George Bush-appointed chairman of America's media regulator who is facing mounting pressure to scrap media ownership rules. Mr Powell, the son of US secretary of state Colin Powell, is under intense lobbying pressure from the US broadcasting industry to abolish safeguards that restrict limits on the number of TV and radio stations a company can own in a market. Fox, together with network heavyweights CBS and NBC, is pressing the US federal communications commission to dump rules that prevent a TV broadcaster from owning another network or a radio station and newspaper in the same market. Under the existing US regulatory regime, no broadcaster may reach more than 35% of the national audience and there are strict limits on how many TV and radio stations a company can own in any market. The Centre for Digital Democracy, a non-profit agency in the US that promotes diversity in digital media, believes news organisations in the US have a "serious conflict of interest" when it comes to reporting the policies of the Bush administration. Mr Murdoch has been criticised for imposing his pro-war stance on all News Corporation-owned media outlets. His unbridled support for President Bush has also raised eyebrows about the timing of his £4.1bn bid to control US satellite operator DirecTV, which is unlikely to be rejected by the FCC later this year. "It is likely that decisions about how to cover the war on Iraq - especially on television - may be tempered by a concern not alienate the White House," said Jeffrey Chester, the centre's executive director, in a recent article. "These media giants stand to make untold billions if the FCC safeguards are eliminated or weakened." Mr Chester accused the US media of adopting a "narrow-minded commercial mindset" , reflected by their failure to "effectively analyse and criticise the Iraq war policy" ahead of an impending ruling by the FCC on the media ownership regime. Sumner Redstone, the chairman of CBS owner Viacom, recently urged the US government to lift the ban on foreign ownership limits to allow British companies to buy into American TV and newspaper groups. Proposed reforms to allow American companies to buy ITV or Channel Five for the first time are also being considered but face fierce opposition in the House of Lords. Disney, which owns the ABC network, is calling for the relaxation of all broadcast ownership rules and is vehemently against a proposal to open network prime time to independent producers. Likewise the Gannett group, which owns USA Today, has argued against the rule that prevents a broadcaster from owning a TV station in the same market.
Sounds like Dyke is afraid of competition to me. Only the socialist slant to him is needed or "fair and balanced" is just plain wrong.
I totally agree. He mentions that after 9-11 ratings went through the roof due to his balanced yada yada yada. During the Iraqi war they showed there true anti-americanism. I watched this station several times during the war and they were certainly biased. Well now it is time for the Dyke to go down!
I got caught in a waiting room the other day with only six month old liberal news magazines to read. It was like reading the comics to read their projections for the war, the UN and many other world affairs. They couldn't have been more wrong. Now when I read these types of articles I tend to remember those old magazines and their accuracy in forcasting anything. You need to get it right to be credible.
Shiite Cleric Refuses American Contact Thursday April 24, 2003 4:19 PM BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A senior Shiite Muslim cleric said Thursday that the sect's highest authority in Iraq will refuse any contact with Americans and said they should leave the country and let Iraqis form an Islamic state led by someone untainted by foreign connections. ``Shiite scholars will agree on the right person that runs Iraq's affairs,'' Sayyed Ali al-Kathimi al-Waethi said in an interview at his modest residence. Al-Waethi represents the Hawza al-Ilmiya in Najaf, the supreme seat of Shiite learning, which issues directives that many Shiites follow without question and whose scholars are revered as spiritual authorities. Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq's people, have moved vigorously to assert power in the country. The United States has watched nervously, fearing that the moves are influenced by predominantly Shiite Iran and that Iraq could become a similar theocracy. Many Shiites, including the country's top cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani, oppose the idea of an Islamic state that is run by clerics. Al-Waethi, who is affiliated with al-Sistani, said ``religious scholars do not want to be in power. They will elect an observant person who is not like the former rulers.'' ``The right person does not have any connection with foreign countries,'' he said. Al-Waethi said that the Hawza has not had contact with American forces or with retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which is working to restore Iraq's services and develop an Iraqi-led interim government. ``We don't put our hand in the hand of the foreigners. People should rule themselves by themselves. The Americans should leave our country peacefully,'' al-Waethi said. In the two weeks since U.S. forces entered Baghdad and Saddam disappeared from view, Shiites have, under Hawza direction, organized local committees, doled out funds to pay salaries, collected looted property and sent militias to secure hospitals and electric plants. The Shiites - long repressed under Saddam's Sunni-dominated government and representing 60 percent of Iraq's population of 24 million - have divided their religious loyalties among at least three leaders. Yet their opposition to a prolonged U.S. presence on Iraqi soil appears uniform. After toppling Saddam's regime, the Bush administration is keen on setting up a broad-based, democratic government in Iraq - with representation from Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Asked if they will take part in any possible elections in the future, al-Waethi said ``let us wait until it happens.'' Thousands of Shiites demonstrated Wednesday against the United States during a pilgrimage in Karbala on Wednesday. Garner on Thursday said he believed Iranian influence was behind such demonstrations and that suspicion of Americans would cool.
I do also, it will be another one of those overexagerated events thats gets blown way out of proportion by all of the anti's. Iran better chill, any interferance will only be bad for them.