U$ bombs independent media in Afghanistan

On November 13 the united states bombed the only
independent (not imperialist controlled)
television station that is providing on-the-ground
coverage of the imperialist attacks on
Afghanistan. Al Jazeera, a Muslim station with its
headquarters in Qatar, is the only TV news station
with an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. The station
had given its location to authorities in
Washington so that they could avoid bombing this
non-military target. Nonetheless bombers
destroyed the office on November 13th.
The Pentagon denied that it had deliberately
attacked Al Jazeera but could not
explain why it hit the office.

A spokespersyn for the station suggested that the
united states was waiting to bomb the office until it was
no longer the only broadcaster based there. This
attack followed the BBC reopening its Kabul office
by only a few days. In fact, the united states
coincidentally timed the bombing shortly after Al Jazeera told
its reporter in Kabul to leave, fearing for his
safety under the rule of the Northern Alliance.
The United $. would have heard that phone conversation
but would not have known that the reporter, after
receiving assurances from the Northern Alliance,
decided to stay but did not inform his central
office in Qatar of his decision. The death of a
well known reporter makes for much worse publicity
than the destruction of a building.(1)

According to a press release from the Committee to
Protect Journalists, after initial denials of the
attack on Al Jazeera "Spokespersons from the U.S.
Central Command have since clarified that U.S.
aircraft dropped two 500-pound bombs on the
building housing Al-Jazeera, based on indications
that it was a 'known al Qaeda facility.'"(2)

Al Jazeera has provided on-going coverage of the
bombing, describing the devastating impact on the
Afghan people in graphic detail. It also broadcast
two statements, delivered to the station by Al
Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden. Financed by the emir
of Quatar, the station originated in 1996 after
Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani took power of
Quatar in a coup which overthrew his father.(3)
With a global audience of 35 million
Arabic-speaking viewers,(3) the
western media vilifies it for its clear political
bias. Although it does not broadcast stories that
are critical of Quatar, the emirate does not
appear to exercise influence over the coverage of
stories outside Quatar's borders.

The New York Times magazine ran a story about Al
Jazeera on November 18 which attacked the station
for bias(3). Concluding the article the NYT writer
says about Al Jazeera "[f]or the first time, Arabs
with a satellite dish now have access to
uncensored news" but "Al Jazeera's virulent
anti-American bias undercuts all of its virtues."

MIM finds this story so hypocritical that it is
worthy of extensive comment. We remind the New
York Times that it was just one month ago that
they reported on all the major u.s. TV news
stations agreeing to the Bush administration
"request" that they abridge video statements from
Osama bin Laden to remove "inflammatory"
language.(4) This was after these stations
accepted, without question, the Bush
administration claim that Osama bin Laden was
behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and
that more than 60 nations now represent enemy
forces because of their support for "terrorism."
And it was these same stations that continue to
neglect to report that the United $tates helped finance and
support the Taliban into power in Afghanistan.

All news stations and publications represent some
form of bias. In the United $tates the mainstream media
represents the government and the multinational
corporations that they serve. Independent media
represents the political line that its writers and
publishers promote, or the line of its financial
backers. This is no secret. But the mainstream
media in the United $tates likes to pretend neutrality
while reporting based almost exclusively on state
department sources. In fact, according to the
London Guardian, the Pentagon spent millions of
dollars buying up "highly accurate civilian
satellite pictures of the effects of bombing in
Afghanistan. The decision to shut down access to
satellite images was taken last Thursday, after
reports of heavy civilian casualties from the
overnight bombing of training camps near Darunta,
north-west of Jalalabad."(5) U.$. news media
neglected to complain about or even report on
this.

According to the NYT, the bias of Al Jazeera is
"an aggressive mix of anti-Americanism and
anti-Zionism, and these hostilities drive the
station's coverage, whether it is reporting on the
upheaval in the West Bank or on the American raids
on Kandahar."

The NYT article criticized that "Al Jazeera loves
grisly footage and is never shy about presenting
graphic imagery." We wonder where the NYT was
during the Iraq war when the Amerikan public was
presented with a constant barrage of media
coverage of bombs falling on the people of Iraq.
There is also the proliferation of cop shows on
Amerikan TV which show actual police chases and
arrests, the graphic display of violence in
fictional cop and courtroom dramas, and the
graphic eroticisation of politics from Clinton to
Condit. Amerikan TV loves grisly footage and knows
that this is a sure way to increase viewership as
the Amerikan people are riveted by sex and
violence.

The NYT goes on to say that on Al Jazeera "the
Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an
abandon that would make the Fox News Channel
blush." This criticism includes a promo with
images of Palestine: "a crowd of Israeli settlers
dance with unfurled flags; an Israeli soldier
fires his rifle; a group of Palestinians display
Israeli bullet shells; a Palestinian woman wails;
a wounded Arab child lies on a bed. In the
climactic image, Palestinian boys carry a banner
decrying the shame of the Arab world's silence."
All of these images are daily reality for the
people of Palestine, but apparently the NYT has
bought the U.$. line on Israel 100% and considers
any anti-Zionist images (reality) to be
propaganda. Meanwhile the Amerikan news stories
repeat the u.s. government line shamelessly and
pretend that the violence in Palestine is, at
best, a clash between two peoples fighting over
land rather than a colonized people fighting
against the u.s. backed Israeli state. These
images from Al Jazeera alone are more accurate
than all the U.$. mainstream media stories about
Palestine.

In addition to reporting on the struggles of the
Palestinian people, on October 21 Al Jazeera
provided footage of Bright Star, a joint
Egyptian-American military exercise, off the coast
of Egypt. This demonstration of the Egyptian
military cooperation with the Pentagon was not
supposed to reach the eyes of the public.

Another complaint the NYT story has about Al
Jazeera is that its reporters are "fiercely
opinionated." As if this is a crime in and of
itself, the NYT reports "Since their primary
allegiance is to fellow Muslims, not Muslim
states, Al Jazeera's reporters and editors have no
qualms about challenging the wisdom of today's
Arab rulers." MIM considers this a compliment. The
article goes on "Indeed, Al Jazeera has been
rebuked by the governments of Libya and Tunisia
for giving opposition leaders from those countries
significant air time. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, for
their part, have complained about Al Jazeera's
extensive reporting on the misery of Iraqis living
under sanctions." Apparently the NYT prefers the
bias of the Amerikan media which ignores the
suffering and death of the Iraqi people at the
hands of u.s. bombs and sanctions.

Criticizing Al Jazeera's coverage of the second
Palestinian intifada in 2000 the NYT gives away
its priorities: "Al Jazeera's reporters exalted
the 'children of the stones,' giving them the same
amount of coverage that MSNBC gave to Monica
Lewinsky." Apparently it is more important that
media cover stories about sex than stories about
the deaths of Palestinians at the hand of Israel.

The NYT admits that Al Jazeera interviews
Israelis including Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres,
as a part of its coverage of the intifada. But the
article calls this "crafty," "mimicking Western
norms of journalistic fairness while pandering to
pan-Arab sentiments" because at the same time it
was airing these interviews Al Jazeera "pressed on
with unrelenting anti-Zionist reportage that
contributed to further alienation between Israelis
and Palestinians." If the NYT really believes
anti-Zionist reporting is what alienates Israelis
and Palestinians they need to get out of the media
business because they are too stupid to be
informing the public. The war between Palestine
and Israel is not about alienation, it is about
colonization and military occupation.

The NYT article mocks Al Jazeera for its talk
shows including "Without Borders," "Opinion and
the Other Opinion" and "The Opposite Direction."
As clearly political shows which broadcast
opinions about politics and religion, MIM can say
without watching them that these programs are far
better for the viewing public than Jerry Springer
and it's may offspring of sex talk shows which are
so prominent on all the major mainstream Amerikan
stations.

Praising other Arab television stations which
reach wider audiences than Al Jazeera, the NYT
article mentions "[t]he oldest, most successful of
the pan-Arab satellite stations is the
London-based Middle East Broadcasting Centre."
This station is controlled by an in-law of King
Fahd of Saudi Arabia and "[i]n addition to
broadcasting the region's most popular program,
'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' MBC has five news
broadcasts of its own. MBC's news programs come
across as blandly professional. Compared to Al
Jazeera, its reporters are staid, careful not to
incur the wrath of Arab rulers or to challenge the
established order." MIM does not see this as
praise, but apparently to the author, a professor
at Johns Hopkins University (yep, this is the crap
we teach our students in our "best" schools), it
is "bias" to challenge the established order, and
"professional" to bow to the will of the Arab
rulers.

The Amerikan government is now strategizing about
how to win the sympathy of the Arab and Muslim
peoples (get them to love their oppressor). And
part of the strategy may include buying
commercials for the Amerikan government on Al
Jazeera. Top Amerikan officials have also begun
appearing on the station for interviews.(6) But
the author of this review laments that this will
do no good because "anti-Americanism is a potent
force that cannot be readily dissolved." MIM has
the solution for dissolving anti-americanism and
we'll happily share it with anyone who will
listen: stop amerika from acting as global ruler;
let the people of the world determine their own
governments free from foreign intervention and
multinational exploitation, and pay reparations
for the hundreds of years of genocide,
exploitation and oppression. Then the people will
have no cause for anti-americanism.

Notes:
1. London Guardian, November 17, 2001 
2.Committee to Protect Journalists November 13, 2001
press release
http://www.cpj.org/news/2001/Afghan13nov01na.html
3. Nov 18, 2001, NYT magazine. Article by Fouad
Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the
School of Advanced International Studies at Johns
Hopkins University. Lest anyone think this was
just one opinion article by a professor in the
NYT, in addition to being a regular contributor to
the NYT and The New Republic Ajami is also a
contributing editor U.S. News and World Reports
and a member of the editorial board of Foreign
Affairs. He is determining what is said in the
print media throughout the u.s. 
4. The New York Times, 11 Oct 2001. 
5. London Guardian, October 17, 2001. 
6. MSNBC October 18, 2001
http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp?0si=-