Find alternatives to American news

Question:

Get a shortwave receiver. Last night I listened to Deutsche Welle (not too helpful, I missed the English-language broadcast and my German is pretty weak) from Koln, Radio France (Spanish spoken with a french accent is kind of different, but still easy to follow), a couple of Chinese-language broadcasts covering news about the gulf war, Radio Havana’s English-language news (and Radio Marti broadcasting *to* Cuba), and BBC’s international service. Wonder what I’ll be able to get after I build a real antenna… Btw, the Radio Havana broadcast sure did lay things out in black and white. Everything seems so much simpler now. — The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day.

Response:

American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. to say that the news is censored is a little off the mark. aside from the talks to the reporters in hotels (which they can’t leave), the news is being written by the government.

Wake-up guys!!! This is a *war* and not a show! The DoD is more concerned about winning it rather than spectacular newscasts. After the war is won (by the allies, of course) the newspaper men can do all the reporting they wish. Since when the general population became war strategists?

Response:

Nick Rothwell writes: [...] it would be interesting to hear what the Moscow news coverage is like. Radio Moscow is surprisingly enlightened about some things, and a different perspective might reduce some of the parochialism floating around here. The UK (and presumably, the US) news coverage is extensive (or, continual) but there’s very little actual footage, apart from planes taking off. The fact that it took 24 hours for the Iraqi TV pictures of the hostages to break over here is interesting. So is the fact that the American B52’s weren’t mentioned at all for the first 3 days of the conflict.

I’ve cranked up my old NC-190 shortwave radio and taken a listen to Radio Moscow for the past couple of nights. They haven’t said anything particularly enlightening. Their broadcasts mostly consist of putting their own "spin" on news we’ve already heard. They’re reporting seems to be more sympathetic to the Iraqis than that of other countries, but they aren’t passing off Iraqi propaganda as truth. I figure that’s because they’re not a belligerent in this shindig, and can take a more detached and (dare I say it even-handed view of the fighting. The one thing they did say that would contradict western news coverage is that the Iraqis have shot down a stealth "fighter." No doubt that’s something the Pentagon might want to cover up (at least for the time being). I’ll believe the Russkis it when I see it, though. BTW – What ever happened to Vladimir Posner? To me, he was the highlight of Radio Moscow’s broadcasts back in the "we must kill moose & squirrel" days of the Cold War. That bastard could eat Ted Koppel for breakfast in a debate. ]:-) — University of Maine Special guest quotes: "Peace, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting." "War, n. A by-product of the arts of peace." - Ambrose Bierce, _The_Devil’s_Dictionary_

Response:

I know that this disappoints some Americans, but I don’t know which makes me sicker, those "gung-ho" armchair generals who want to kill innocent civilians, or the antiwar (so called) pacifists who want more blood on TV to "bring the horror of war home to the American public."

Does this mean you want to know NOTHING about the human impact of this war? The most basic piece of information I would want to know – what are the casualties? – is something it is in the interests of neither the Baath nor the American state to reveal. So far the only journalists who seem to have tried to discover it are the staff of Turkish Radio (estimate: 150,000 Iraqi casualties; I have no idea where they got that from). The declared strategy of the Allied forces is to "soften up" the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. The munitions available for that are cluster and fuel-air-explosive bombs. High-tech anti-personnel weapons like that were last used during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, on a much smaller scale. Estimates of deaths from that range from 20,000 to 50,000. I can’t believe the casualties – remember, mostly conscripts, many Kurdish, kept at their posts by the guns of the Republican Guard at their backs – can be under five figures by now. — — Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home

Response:

American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. I haven’t heard a single American journalist say this. CNN, over just about every piece of tape they play, supers a caption that goes "cleared by American/Iraqi/Swiss/Lilliputian military". DoD asked them to clear things. CNN, not being experts in what is or is not dangerously sensitive, comply.

Earlier today (Tuesday Jan 22) I saw a report on CNN about the weather in the Iraq-Kuwait area. The weatherwoman started out by noting that the pictures were from a European satellite and were available to anyone, not classified. She then said that military was not permitting CNN to give forecasts of the region, but that she’d just talk about the information freely available in the satellite pictures. She then went on to give a pretty detailed *forecast* for the region based on the pictures! They then cut back to the anchorwoman, who said something like, "We have just been told that we will no longer be able to supply any form of weather coverage of the gulf region." It appears to me that CNN did not comply with the request from the military and was reprimanded within seconds. Michael Hall | Basic strategists do it with luck. {rutgers!} bcr!flash!hall | Card counters do it with penetration.

Response:

[...] to say that the news is censored is a little off the mark. aside from the talks to the reporters in hotels (which they can’t leave), the news is being written by the government. [Robert starts answering me here...] Get real. The ground war has yet to begin, and the broadcast press apparently feels that the public is hungry for all the "news" it can get. These two things don’t translate into overwhelming censorship.

As far as I can tell, I do exist in reality, thank you for your concern that I attempt to "get real". I know that this disappoints some Americans, but I don’t know which makes me sicker, those "gung-ho" armchair generals who want to kill innocent civilians, or the antiwar (so called) pacifists who want more blood on TV to "bring the horror of war home to the American public." (No flames, please. If your mouth doesn’t froth when you talk about the war, this wasn’t directed at you. If you flame all the time, then this may have been directed at you, but I’m not a fun guy to flame–I tend to prefer facts as weapons.)

Well — all smiles about this last paragraph aside, I think there is a lot more that they could be reporting without being the slightest bit in danger of disclosing secret information. I really think they are being far far to micro-detailed in their analysis (it’s really not much in the way of news) of events over there. We don’t need to know how many shots were fired by each side or were. That doesn’t really affect anything that the people back here need to know. What we do need to know is the bigger picture — bigger than the battle plans which we also don’t need to know. Think big… real big. Like — what the hell is George Bush doing now?? What is he planning to do about how this is screwing up the economy here at home? What’s happening in the UN? How about some ideas about how all this might play out in the future? How about some ideas about what the future foreign policy of the US will be if this works out ok — or if it doesn’t? This gulf coverage is sort of like watching a football game through a telescope aimed at the goalpost. Really — why would I care what the weather in Iraq was like today? I hear the projected high and low is 75 and 45 farenheit, but there doesn’t seem to be any record of the temperatures over the last few years for any part of the region over there. Isn’t that just so interesting? No — actually it bloody well isn’t. People are dying and we are projecting the damn weather for the viewers at home? How incredibly misguided. No flame here — just a message to point out that there is plenty of information that could be sent out to us USAers besides the latest weather, fluff pieces about uhaul cannons, and where missiles are landing. The stuff I want to see is real talk about real policy. — Rodney

Response:

to say that the news is censored is a little off the mark. aside from the talks to the reporters in hotels (which they can’t leave), the news is being written by the government.

Indeed. This policy was instituted shortly before the war began, and the news directors from the 3 major networks are suing the President (as commander-in-chief) for infringement of their 1st amendment rights. — Software longa, hardware brevis mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore

Response:

very little actual footage, apart from planes taking off. The fact that it took 24 hours for the Iraqi TV pictures of the hostages to break over here

The POWs were conspicuously absent from American TV for several hours (I missed the breaking of the story and maybe they were shown then, but there were prime opportunities for the pictures to appear before I did see them, and they’ve been everywhere ever since). You could _feel_ the anchors’ silent hopes that the violent ethical arguments going on in the control rooms and the executive offices at the networks would prevail in the way that they eventually did. It’s likely they were waiting for families of POWs to be notified; it’s possible they were looking for permission from those families (though I doubt it; "assent" is more apt). is interesting. So is the fact that the American B52’s weren’t mentioned at all for the first 3 days of the conflict.

Here, B-52s were in the speculation from the first few minutes, but nobody got any official word on it until the briefing the next morning, and many military spokesmen were saying they knew nothing of B-52s well into the third day. We still can’t get any pictures of the churned desert that should be the result of the carpet bombing. –Blair "Your own private Idaho."

Response:

They can’t really do much of anything aparently. Their reporters have been put in a pool, and they are given little stories to write up by the military…. to say that the news is censored is a little off the mark. aside from the talks to the reporters in hotels (which they can’t leave), the news is being written by the government. Get real. The ground war has yet to begin, and the broadcast press apparently feels that the public is hungry for all the "news" it can get. These two things don’t translate into overwhelming censorship. Certainly the live coverage of SCUD missle attacks has not been censored (which are news), even though some of the coverage has gone over the line into providing militarily sensitive information. (This is not a flame, in fact it reflects closely the way the British reported V1 and V2 attacks–report hits factually, but play fast and loose with the locations of "near misses" and attacks with small amounts of damage to deflect the aim points away from London.) No army–ours, Iraq’s, or Hitler’s–is going to broadcast to the enemy the current location of troops preparing for action (or the time or direction of that action). This is why the "puff pieces" cited above are mostly footage for troops as they depart for new positions. You and I may think one part of a desert looks just like another, but I’m sure that Iraq has photointerpreters looking at every piece of fluff on the tube to see if they can pick out some landmarks. (Saddam’s photointerpreters certainly aren’t spending much of their time on BDA, and gun camera footage. If I was still in the Army, and in Saudia Arabia, I would refuse to sleep within a mile of anyplace any video footage was shot for "home consumption." If and when ground action starts, then there will be enough blood and guts on the network news to satisfy the apparent craving of all parts of the American public (including network news producers). Until then, (and I hope THEN never comes) the only story from the Gulf will be the slow methodical destruction of the Iraqi war machine, with the emphasis put on bending metal, not spilling blood. I know that this disappoints some Americans, but I don’t know which makes me sicker, those "gung-ho" armchair generals who want to kill innocent civilians, or the antiwar (so called) pacifists who want more blood on TV to "bring the horror of war home to the American public." (No flames, please. If your mouth doesn’t froth when you talk about the war, this wasn’t directed at you. If you flame all the time, then this may have been directed at you, but I’m not a fun guy to flame–I tend to prefer facts as weapons.) — Robert I. Eachus Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire world. And they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. President George Bush, January 16, 1991

Response:

Of course, you’d like to help the enemy, wouldn’t you? Let’s hope you’re being facetious in a clumsy way and not just stupid. Stupid doesn’t help your arguments any.

This "help the enemy" argument is being constantly used by the Pentagon when they parrot their "I cannot reveal that for reasons of operational security" bullshit. This morning (1/22), I was watching the statements by an Army and a Navy official. During the statement, the Navy guy showed a video of a Navy plane bombing a big Iraqi facility next to the river, and indicated the heavy AAA fire coming up from the ground. When asked what the building was, he brought up his "op. security" statement. Say what?! The Iraqis KNOW that they have been hit!!!! What is the problem in revealing what building that was? I can understand not revealing Allied offensive plans, but frankly, these Q/A sessions are getting to be a waste of time. Almost every question is met with the same standard reply. I have a feeling that the press is becoming increasingly irked by this attitude of the military officials. This morning, one pressman insisted on information about today’s weather, while the military guy insisted that he was not a weatherman and did not know! It was starting to get ugly, when someone else intervened!! I can’t help but wonder if some residual animosity towards the press from the Vietnam years is causing the military to provide as little help to the press as possible. — Sam Sivakumar | " Disneyland has its share of mysteries…. like, Lithography Dude | why does Donald wear only a top and no bottom, Basketball Nut | while Mickey wears only a bottom and no top? " | — Sam Malone

Response:

One of the stated goals of the air attack is to disrupt communication. If the attacks have been successful it is entirely possible for a target to be hit in one area without another area knowing about it. If some network, say CNN, broadcasts this information, it wouldn’t matter that communication lines have been disrupted. The military leaders could be informed simply by watching television. University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!ifs.umich.edu!jwh Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943

Response:

I would like to say that I am disappointed with the quality of coverage the Networks (CNN included) are providing. American news is censored. …the Pentagon has to approve all news reports before they are broadcast. … There are alternatives to American media. They are not as hampered by the Pentagon as the American media is.

Huh? The Pentagon censors what they allow the American media to broadcast but not what they allow the media from other countries to broadcast? Aren’t all the media in the same boat? They all have access to the same information and are free to broadcast what they will from then on. If (for example) the British allow the BBC to freely take pictures of British troops, couldn’t ABC do the same? And while we’re at it, Vietnam was a little before my time. Could someone explain what the press broadcast that made the Pentagon so paranoid? I fully appreciate the dangers of censoring the media, but if a free press is going to do what CBS did with the SCUD landing sites in Israel, I can understand the Pentagon’s restrictions. — John H. Kim | (This space to be filled when I uunet!jarthur!jokim | to use as a disclaimer)

Response:

I would like to say that I am disappointed with the quality of coverage the Networks (CNN included) are providing. First, a disclaimer. I do not want a war in the Middle East and think it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. The Guardian (very leftist)) are available in libraries. If you are lucky enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War.

Ahem! The Manchester Guardian is _not_ "very leftist" by any stretch of the imagination. While decidedly independent liberal, its reporting is generally about as objective as you can find. I also think you are being somewhat unfair to CNN who seem to be doing a good job all things considered. Could it just be that you do not like what you hear? A question to those protesting the war: What do you think should be done, given the current situation. Do you seriously believe that the US and allies should unilaterally disengage? Given that the vote in Congress was in favour of war, do you believe representative democracy has failed? Had the vote gone the other way, do you believe that pro-war demonstartors should have gone to the streets and pressured the US government to go to war? Should the President in that case take any notice of them? For the record, as I have stated before on this group, I was in favour of the UN attack. I am surprised it has gone as well as it has and hope it will remain as successful. I also applaud Israel for its restraint, so far, you could say that finally some nation has transcended machismo and war and "broken the cycle", nicht wahr? (Having said that they’ll probably now bomb Iraq just to prove me wrong! — |Steinn Sigurdsson | standard disclaimer | |Physics, Caltech | |

Response:

Troop positions/downed aircraft are certainly "sensitive" pieces of information which clearly shouldn’t be broadcast until the enemy also knows of their position. To do so would adversely jeopardize their lives. As would the position of downed aircraft, since rescue attempts might be underway and they could jeopardize human lives. Not to mention helping the enemy.

There are certainly Ministy of Defence restrictions on news broadcasting here in the UK. The news services mention them repeatedly. Of course, you’d like to help the enemy, wouldn’t you?

Whoops, my infantilometer just peaked. the Pentagon has to approve all news reports before they are broadcast. They have total control over all news coming out of the Middle East. This is a plain lie.

Well, it’s the plain truth in the UK. If you are lucky enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War. Yes, most of you commie-lib types WOULD like to listen to Radio Moscow for your information.

Gee, what an *asshole… *Ahem*, pardon my French, but it would be interesting to hear what the Moscow news coverage is like. Radio Moscow is surprisingly enlightened about some things, and a different perspective might reduce some of the parochialism floating around here. The UK (and presumably, the US) news coverage is extensive (or, continual) but there’s very little actual footage, apart from planes taking off. The fact that it took 24 hours for the Iraqi TV pictures of the hostages to break over here is interesting. So is the fact that the American B52’s weren’t mentioned at all for the first 3 days of the conflict. — Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "Theres menners f’ yer! Te-oo banches o voylets trod into the mad."

Response:

American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. I haven’t heard a single American journalist say this.

well -I’ve been watching that commie-lib station CNN and they talk about it every twenty minutes or so. They can’t really do much of anything aparently. Their reporters have been put in a pool, and they are given little stories to write up by the military. They roll these things one after the other. Mostly they look like recruitment films and that sort of thing. The first ones were of fighters being loaded with weapons, then ones about how fast they could reload a plane, then some with the ground troops, some with guys on ships, some with tank people and the latest was with some people with trucks that have u-haul trailer cannons on the back. that "may look small, but can do a lot of damage". That seemed to be the point of that one. to say that the news is censored is a little off the mark. aside from the talks to the reporters in hotels (which they can’t leave), the news is being written by the government. — Rodney

Response:

Another one crawls out from under his rock: American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. I haven’t heard a single American journalist say this.

CNN, over just about every piece of tape they play, supers a caption that goes "cleared by American/Iraqi/Swiss/Lilliputian military". DoD asked them to clear things. CNN, not being experts in what is or is not dangerously sensitive, comply. They’re nice people, and they don’t mind going along with "security." They also claim up one side and down the other that it’s censorship; although they don’t seem to be fighting against it. It’s a fair bet whether they let themselves be coerced into holding off some stories they really would want to report because they don’t want to be kicked off a large number of the bread-and-butter stories. Of course, you’d like to help the enemy, wouldn’t you?

Let’s hope you’re being facetious in a clumsy way and not just stupid. Stupid doesn’t help your arguments any. well as preventing the showing of pictures of wounded soldiers, impromptu interviews, etc etc. I believe these restrictions were removed over a week before the attack.

Relaxed; never removed. There’s still the requirement that all press in the theater be accompanied by a "minder," who is a soldier and will have orders to prohibit access to rather overlarge safety or security zones. The "minders" also have a tendency to cut off interviews and prohibit certain questions that are not security-related. The networks have internal rules about the sort of things they will broadcast, however: such as not showing the faces of the dead until they can verify that the next-of-kin has been notified by the military. This is a plain lie. You’d better tell Sam Donaldson, among others, who broadcast "unconfirmed reports" of various events that they are being censored.

Live, they get away with it because the military doesn’t have the ‘nads nor the personnel to pull the plug on a reporter on the roof of the Riyadh Hilton. But if you see tape of that event repeated some hours later, the "cleared by" notice is affixed, and often some of the information the reporters said during the live event they make great pains to indicate they’ve been asked not to say again. In fact, if this were true, why even have reporters over there at all?

This question has been asked, in discussion shows involving members of the media. They resent the lack of freedom to access the news, and the fact that in order to show it they have to pass it through the military censors. (I don’t know the coercion the military uses, but it probably involves threatening to kick all of that organization’s personnel out of the Mideast; while it would be a PR gain to some network to experience this and fight it and win, it would be a journalistic and commercial disaster to be out of the action for the duration of that fight. They’re all choosing acquiescence.) Since the military is controlling everything, why not just stay home and take the press releases from the Pentagon? No need to risk your life unnecessarily.

Well, now, Audie Murphy, that’s exactly what YOU are doing, isn’t it? I see, you must be watching CBS. The Christic Broadcasting System.

Whoa! What brought THAT on? What next? Are you going to start seeing huge spiders on the walls? Someone get this guy a blanket, and find out where he got the bad acid… enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War. Yes, most of you commie-lib types WOULD like to listen to Radio Moscow for your information.

For another perspective on it, perhaps, but only someone who is afraid of another perspective would be so naive as to believe that those who listen to Radio Moscow are so naive as to believe all of its coverage. –Blair "Do people like this just result from an inadequate educational system, or are they being manufactured by their parents to punish America for being a free nation?"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to say that I am disappointed with the quality of coverage the Networks (CNN included) are providing. First, a disclaimer. I do not want a war in the Middle East and think it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. The Guardian (very leftist)) are available in libraries. If you are lucky enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War. Ahem! The Manchester Guardian is _not_ "very leftist" by any stretch of the imagination. While decidedly independent liberal, its reporting is generally about as objective as you can find. I also think you are being somewhat unfair to CNN who seem to be doing a good job all things considered. Could it just be that you do not like what you hear? A question to those protesting the war: What do you think should be done, given the current situation. Do you seriously believe that the US and allies should unilaterally disengage? Given that the vote in Congress was in favour of war, do you believe representative democracy has failed? Had the vote gone the other way, do you believe that pro-war demonstartors should have gone to the streets and pressured the US government to go to war? Should the President in that case take any notice of them? For the record, as I have stated before on this group, I was in favour of the UN attack. I am surprised it has gone as well as it has and hope it will remain as successful. I also applaud Israel for its restraint, so far, you could say that finally some nation has transcended machismo and war and "broken the cycle", nicht wahr? (Having said that they’ll probably now bomb Iraq just to prove me wrong! — |Steinn Sigurdsson | standard disclaimer | |Physics, Caltech | |

Response:

American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it.

I haven’t heard a single American journalist say this. The Pentagon had originally drafted a plan that prevented all mentioning of troop positions, downed aircraft, etc etc — security stuff, as

I believe these restrictions were removed over a week before the attack. the Pentagon has to approve all news reports before they are broadcast. They have total control over all news coming out of the Middle East.

This is a plain lie. You’d better tell Sam Donaldson, among others, who broadcast "unconfirmed reports" of various events that they are being censored. In fact, if this were true, why even have reporters over there at all? Since the military is controlling everything, why not just stay home and take the press releases from the Pentagon? No need to risk your life unnecessarily. You’ve already seen the results of it. In 3 days, very little news, 4 minutes of TV footage…

I see, you must be watching CBS. The Christic Broadcasting System. If you are lucky enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War.

Yes, most of you commie-lib types WOULD like to listen to Radio Moscow for your information. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /

Response:

This "help the enemy" argument is being constantly used by the Pentagon when they parrot their "I cannot reveal that for reasons of operational security" bullshit.

It’s not bullshit, unfortunately; it’s a valid reason for the press to take care what they say. Contrary to what you said later, the enemy has as much difficulty assessing its own damage as we do of assessing the damage we cause. More, in fact, since this particular enemy can’t use airplanes to take pictures of the situation (strains of ‘Rule, Brittania’ rise in the background). The sad fact is that if you give the enemy any info that they may kill an allied soldier with, you become an accomplice. This is how the media are beginning to see it as well; they may report things as fast as they come in, but once they realize the military value of the info, they clam up. 99% of the time they should be applauded for helping to save Allied lives. It’s that 1% of the time where the military uses these reasons to cover up its blunders and misdeeds that we have to be very, very careful to dig for. Sure, it makes being an informed American a tough job, but it’s better than slathering the airwaves with maps of unhit targets merely for our salacious entertainment, letting the enemy reorganize theater-wide strategy to protect them better. I can’t help but wonder if some residual animosity towards the press from the Vietnam years is causing the military to provide as little help to the press as possible.

It’s worse than that. The "problem" has reportedly been well-documented by the military, studied in military research circles, and the methods of "preventing" it taught at military War colleges. It’s not just a bunch of old soldiers getting back at the press; it’s a militarized, organized system for foiling the press at every turn. If the press starts getting in the way and this prevents it, then it’s a good thing; but if the press starts getting shut out of valid, important, nonlethal news to which they are entitled, then we have a number of generals to try for crimes against the First Amendment. –Blair "The commie haters hate it when their favorite commies turn out to be more American than they."

Response:

American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say [stuff deleted] You’ve already seen the results of it. In 3 days, very little news, 4 minutes of TV footage… However, there are alternatives. BBC news is broadcast in most of America on one or the other public radio stations. European newspapers (Die Zeit, Le Monde, London Times, even the Manchester Guardian (very leftist)) are available in libraries. If you are lucky

What makes you think that the BBC is not censored in any way? There are regulations placed on the BBC by the British government aswell. I don’t know if they are as strict as the US ones, but don’t assume that Britain is a bastion of the free press. By the way, I think that describing The Guardian (hasn’t been called the Manchester Guardian for years!) as very leftist is a bit misleading. It is less right wing than the rest of the British daily papers, but hardly commie. Then again, compared to the flavour of US politics, maybe you’re right (no pun intended). Tony Shaughnessy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First, a disclaimer. I do not want a war in the Middle East and think we should pull out. This colors the statements I am going to be making, but I can at least TRY to be objective. American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. The Pentagon had originally drafted a plan that prevented all mentioning of troop positions, downed aircraft, etc etc — security stuff, as well as preventing the showing of pictures of wounded soldiers, impromptu interviews, etc etc. This was thrown out as being too baroque and replaced with a simple provision – the Pentagon has to approve all news reports before they are broadcast. They have total control over all news coming out of the Middle East. I do not know if they are really doing anything sinister with this power.

In Australia all we get is replays of American news on the gulf war. I think that the censorship exists primarily not for US security interests, but for the purposes of trying to control the anti-war movement in the US and elsewhere. I would like to know what is really going on in the middle east, but we have no access to it here. In fact our total of 5 TV stations have just about gone back to normal programming now. There are alternatives to American media. They are not as hampered by the Pentagon as the American media is. Explore them, and become informed. (for what its worth, I am coordinating an effort to write a weekly news digest gleaned from international news. I am a fulltime student, and that comes first. Is anyone out there doing this already? I don’t have time to do it properly. If you are from a country other than America and have some information of use (like electronic forms of news), PLEASE contact me)

I am willing to help in any way I can. I think what you are trying to do is very important. Tony Hartin

Response:

On Friday 18th January, Melbourne saw its biggest protest march since the moratoriums against the Vietnam war. About 20,000 people gathered in our city square about 5.30 pm to here several speakers call for the US and Australia to get out of the Persian gulf. The rally then marched around the centre of the city and finally to an army barracks about 2 kms from the city centre. By the time we reached the army barracks the rally numbers had reached about 70,000 as people finishing work joined the march. One of things that is particularly encouraging about our protest movement is the extent and spontaneity of anti-war groups set up in work places, campuses, churches, etc.. We hope that we may soon be able to organise wide-spread civil disobedience and strike action around the gulf war issue. Workers from the government printing offices in Melbourne have told us that they have been instructed to print conscription forms. If the government is senseless enough to dare bring in the draft, I think our next protest march will have half a million people in it. The media tried to play down the extent of the protest movement. The official police estimate of the size of the rally was 8,000; this was a ridiculous underestimation. Other cities in Australia held protest marches on Saturday 19th of January. The total turnout was about 150,000. Tony Hartin

Response:

A question to those protesting the war: What do you think should be done, given the current situation. Do you seriously believe that the US and allies should unilaterally disengage? Given that the vote in Congress was in favour of war, do you believe representative democracy has failed? Had the vote gone the other way, do you believe that pro-war demonstartors should have gone to the streets and pressured the US government to go to war? Should the President in that case take any notice of them?

Thanks for the questions. This is the sort of thing that is supposed to happen in this country. People ask questions, then other people answer them and ask questions of their own. Eventually, we come to an understanding. I think that it is too late for us to get out of this war. But — I think that it is important to protest the war to make sure that the administration knows that we will not tolerate this sort of thing in the future and we are going to make sure that he knows that we are going to hold him to his word that this will not be another Vietnam and that this will be short and sweet with minimal casualties. Has democracy failed? No — I don’t think so. I think that the most popular opinon won. The problem is that by the time we were allowed any voice in the matter, Bush had single handedly backed Iraq into a corner, got a resolution signed, and shipped 400,000 troops into the gulf. Then, it was obvious that we were going to war. If we had voted at the start whether we would go to war or not, the vote could have turned the other way. IF the vote had gone the other way, should the pro-war people take to the streets and protest? Sure. Why not? This is America after all and we do have many rights to speak out. It’s sort of hard to imagine what a pro-war march would look like — it sounds sort of violent to me. The counter protests to the peace protests are mostly on the mistaken assumption that the peace protestors are anti-troops and want to see them hurt. The counter protests are pro-US or pro-troop morale. I can understand what they are saying, but I think that instead of being the government’s little sheep, we should protest as much as possible to prevent tiny country "butt kicking" from becoming our foreign policy as it seems to be doing. As for the President taking notice of the hypothetical pro-war protestors, that’s up to the President — just as it’s up to him to decide if he wants to watch the pro-peace protestors now. Of course, he has to be held responsible for his actions either way. — Rodney

Response:

I would like to say that I am disappointed with the quality of coverage the Networks (CNN included) are providing.

First, a disclaimer. I do not want a war in the Middle East and think we should pull out. This colors the statements I am going to be making, but I can at least TRY to be objective. American news is censored. You’ve heard the American newspeople say it, and if you’ve been following, you’ve heard the DoD say it. The Pentagon had originally drafted a plan that prevented all mentioning of troop positions, downed aircraft, etc etc — security stuff, as well as preventing the showing of pictures of wounded soldiers, impromptu interviews, etc etc. This was thrown out as being too baroque and replaced with a simple provision – the Pentagon has to approve all news reports before they are broadcast. They have total control over all news coming out of the Middle East. I do not know if they are really doing anything sinister with this power. You’ve already seen the results of it. In 3 days, very little news, 4 minutes of TV footage… However, there are alternatives. BBC news is broadcast in most of America on one or the other public radio stations. European newspapers (Die Zeit, Le Monde, London Times, even the Manchester Guardian (very leftist)) are available in libraries. If you are lucky enough to be near a shortwave radio, Radio Moscow has been providing interesting coverage of the Gulf War. There are alternatives to American media. They are not as hampered by the Pentagon as the American media is. Explore them, and become informed. (for what its worth, I am coordinating an effort to write a weekly news digest gleaned from international news. I am a fulltime student, and that comes first. Is anyone out there doing this already? I don’t have time to do it properly. If you are from a country other than America and have some information of use (like electronic forms of news), PLEASE contact me)

Response:

Filed under: Civil disobedience

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism