One of the Bush administration’s stated goals is to bring a fully functioning democracy to Iraq. And as an obvious part of the transition, the Iraqi Governing Council has to be given some free reign to actually govern the country, so the U.S. cannot interfere with every decision of the Governing Council.
But this decision really disturbs me. It seems to me beyond dispute that a cornerstone of a strong democracy is a free press. And that a free press can and will produce stories that can be seen to be disrespectful and harmful to prominent religious and national figures.
I understand that Al-Jazeera is a controversial network, and often considered to have an anti-American (and perhaps pro-Saddam) bias. However, it is also considered to be a strong alternative to the state controlled media in many Arab states. But this isn’t really about Al-Jazeera.
It really disturbs me that the U.S.-appointed Governing Council is censoring its press coverage based on the network’s content, and that the U.S. civil authorities in Iraq are apparently not doing anything about this, especially when this has occured before. In the near future, Iraq will be writing a new constitution, and I would be disgusted if freedom of the press was not within its provsions. But even if there is a written clause protecting a free press, it is equally important that the idea of a free press is entrenched in the government mindset.
That Iraq should start off by banning networks that publish unflattering reports simply should not be countenanced. And that the U.S. administration permits seems to me to say clearly that a true functioning democracy is a real goal.
A free press and several other “features” of democracies will bother the US backed council… once the US lets 'em free be assured of a crackdown on media freedom.
A free domestic press. Outside agitators don’t count, especially when a country’s government is incipient. I’d be far more concerned if the governing council were doing this to internal opposition press (which they may actually be doing – this is no apologia for the council, which has made even more mistakes than they would have if they were the puppets that some in this forum (not the OP) make them out to be). Also, keep in mind that it seems from the linked story that Al Jareeza is not banned from reporting – they have only lost access to official sources. That seems to be different and less restrictive than earlier bans, which I view as a step in the right direction.
It has nothing to do with Al -Jazeera being controversial; it has to do with journalistic integrity.
I agree fully that you need to instil a sense of free press and free speech, but as I said before that comes with responsibility for what you say. Libel and slander should never be tolerated.
Take a look at the various penalties the US assigned to Al-Jazeera, none of it was full out BANNING. They were prevented from covering certain council meetings which in turn would hurt Al-Jazeera’s profits and encourage them to report responsibly.
I’ll bow out now and let the usual anti-US posts dominate.
While technically true, Al Jazeera is being punished for airing the words of Dr Nur al-Muradi, who is the spokesman for the Iraqi Communist Party. So they are sending a signal about what domestic views are to be covered.
So you’d be OK with the U.S. government banning acess by ABC, CNN, or Fox based on comments made by Michael Moore or Ann Coulter in one of the Sunday Morning talking head programs? The program that triggered the reaction does not seem to have been a news article but a discussion. (And while the quoted comments seem to be fairly silly, I have not seen anyone on this thread actually point out how they are not true. Jews in Iraq in 1902? At that time the zionist movement was looking at more than one possible homeland and there were still 150,000 Jews living in Iraq as late as the 1940s before the pogroms of the 1950s began. Chalabi in Israel? Probably not a sign of terrible conspiracies, but certainly plausible. Sharon in Baghdad? This should be easy to refute, if false.) In addition, the actual discussion was between a spokesman for the Iraqi Communist Party and a member of the IGC, itself. If the IGC spokesman could appear in the piece, it was, presumably, to offer the IGC perspective–for which al-Jazeera is now being punished.
I should add that a proper show would have had the host or someone challenge such inflammatory remarks, at least to some degree. Obviously having no fluency or channel access I can’t comment on how bad the show was.
Did you guys actually read the article? Right at the front it states the above…that basically A-J is barred from Iraqi government offices and news conferences for one month. Not that they are barred from reporting the news (be hard to do that as they are from another country, no?). Not that they are shut down (same). But that they are barred from Iraqi official sources for…one whole month. Hell, in Europe I’ve seen them ban books that deal with Nazism and holocaust denial…you claiming THEY don’t have freedom of speech?? afaik, the US itself has banned foriegn press agencies from time to time from official sources for various violations.
You guys are making this sound like the reincarnation of the Soviet Union or something here. The Iraqis are basically punishing a FORIEGN news agency for crossing the line. Get a grip guys.
Its a bad analogy. A-J isn’t an Iraqi news agency. If Iraq had of done this to one of their home grown news agencies, I’d be a bit more worried…especially if they did more than simply denied them official access, but instead shut them down. Thats a REAL instance of violations of freedom of speech IMO.
A better analogy would be if a foriegn news agency did something that the US government thought was over the line. Ya, I can see the US government (or a European government, etc) punishing said agency by denying them official access for a time.
As to the rest…it obviously pissed off the Iraqi’s, no?
On the other hand, there is not yet a true Iraqi news agency*, so relying on foreign efforts is about as good as they can hope for at the moment. Banning access by an agency for airing a discussion with a member of the ruling council hardly seems as though it is leaning very hard in the direction of freedom.
*There is, technically, an Iraqi news service. It is on its second set of managers after the original Voice of America manager who had been invited to help them get established quit in disgust because the occupation forces and, later, the IGC kept insisting that they play happy news and ignore actual issues. (And backed up their desires by failing to fund or supply basic communications equipment so that the agency was limited to press releases from the the guys in control.)
And I should add that I don’t see this as a good thing, just not so bad as if they did it to a domestic press outlet (which, again, they may be doing for all I know).
So should we all run off and have a love party now?[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup]: No. Because if the Pats had got that touchdown instead of the Panthers my stupid 6 and 8 might have actually won me some cash in the football pool.
I really don’t see the distinction between domestic and international news services. Would there be any difference between the U.S. barring CNN from coverning Congress and barring the BBC. Hundreds of world news outlets have Washington bureaus, and U.S. media outlets have bureaus around the world. (How would one classify the international Rupert Murcoch news empire?) And plenty of Americans get their news from foriegn news sources.
pervert, I know that Al-Jazeera has U.S. correspondents, and I’m pretty sure it has a Washington bureau. But I can’t see how limiting Al-Jazeera’s access to U.S. government news sources based on the content of their reporting could be anything other than repugnant to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Similarly, I can imagine the outrage that would be stirred up if the Iraqi Governing council tried to ban CNN, the AP or the New York Times from their news conferences.
What really gets me is that the U.S.-appointed Governing Council is restricting the coverage of them based on unflattering or challenging news stories. From what I can see, the opinion shows that pissed the Council off is disgusting, but from a free press standpoint, so what? And though Al-Jazeera is based outside Iraq, it is clearly Al-Jazeera’s reporting into the Iraqi news market that the Governing Council is trying to control.
Again, I can’t see any logical or practical distinction that would permit a government to discriminate on the basis of the content foriegn-based news sources any more than locally-based sources.
Again, I fail to see how restricting their access for a month equates to a ‘no free press’ from the OP. To me, this is folks looking for something to get worked up about. There are a lot of REAL things to get worked up in Iraq about…this isn’t one of them.
I’d be very surprised if this never happened before in the US or Europe. Even local news organizations, if they really crossed the line, could be barred from direct government access (I think…feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). I’m sure the have been barred in fact, from time to time. At a guess, not every domestic news group is invited to all government news conferences and such…and offending groups would simply not be invited or allowed in. And if they really crossed the line, I can see the government making it hard on them. This in no way abridges their right to free speech unless the government ALSO prevents them from actually writing and publishing their stories. Is Iraq preventing A-J from printing whatever they want? No. As far as I know, they aren’t even attempting to ban A-J IN Iraq. All they are doing is saying that, for a whole month, A-J will not have access to official sources (I assume this means press conferences and such). Again, calm down and THINK guys.
Is this a good thing? No, its not…its definitely disappointing and I, for one, wish the Iraqi government had of responded calmer than this. However, this isn’t exactly on par with the OPs “Democracy in Iraq, but no free press” statement, is it?? And lets be honest…Iraq is still feeling its way through things at this point, and this is just the INTERIM government we are talking about here. Hopefully they will learn some lessons here for when they are fully empowered.
Well, they were banned from the stock exchanges last year.Apperently fro about a month. Not exactly the government, I know.
I agree that it is probably not the wisest thing to do. But unless it is extended or it becomes a habit I really don’t see that this is such a big deal. I understand that it goes against the grain of the first ammendment. I’m no sure, however, that it is anything like the banning of their broadcasts. Or the denial of their reporters visas. Which, apperently some of their reporters suffered at the hand sof other Arab nations.
The more I find Al Jazeera pissing people off around the world the more I begin to like them.
… Even if it’s because of anti-Semitism poorly disguised as criticism of Israel? A news source independent of Arab governments is great, but shit, al Jazeera is nowhere near being a paragon of journalistic integrity.
