Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: Voice of America v. Al Jazeera

  1. #41
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Smile Just a quick thought

    Quote Originally Posted by George L. Singleton View Post
    Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

    Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

    Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

    Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

    Thanks for any feedback on this question.
    This may be an example of why you don't see the amount of concern you might like in how quickly or effectively the VOA arm of government policy is being pushed out. It's not that it doesn't represent a very important part of overall foriegn policy but rather the fact that it is no longer the only game in town for such information dissemination.

    The internet has brought forth as you point out an amazing capability of providing direct feedback worldwide within less time than it takes to write this post. This means that although there may not be a laptop in every house there is someone almost anywhere who does have access.

    Consider this the opportunity to put forth reasoned and well supported discourse in relation to what VOA has to offer and let it make it's case through standing up against it's competitors. Al Gezeera and others are in their own way representative of the areas they are covering. They tend to hire those who come to them volunteering and as such there will inevitably be somewhat biased reports which come out. But they are at least competing with other media not trying to silence them. So all in all things could be worse.

    Also consider that many publications both here and abroad have some of the same problems and thus we find stories coming out which end up being fraudulent and have to be retracted. Again ,could be worse. Finally regardless what happens VOA should be anywhere we can get it simply because it's sole purpose is to give voice to our policies and to help avoid mis characterizations by others. Let's be honest though in understanding that few are going to be listening if locally they are not being made aware of it. So real involvement with the population is required in order to build awareness.

    Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

    For me I ask three main questions

    1- Can it help
    2- Might it hurt
    3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

    If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  2. #42
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George L. Singleton View Post
    Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

    Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

    Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

    Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

    Thanks for any feedback on this question.
    This isn't very hard to do, especially on any sort of non-AKO/CAC web network (which uses additional external levels of member authentication). On message boards there are any number of "lurkers"...folks who register and then read the posts without necessarily commenting. Think of them as browsers at the local newsstand. They're getting information they are interested in or need, but don't always feel qualified or able to contribute (or can't in some cases). It may be a lurker (or lurkers) who are reposting information elsewhere, or it could be a contributing (as in posting) member. Hard to say.

    There are some boards that have additional member forums that add a second level of authentication (in other words a sub-forum with a separate password/login) for close hold information (or sensitive or focused topics). These usually have a specific moderator assigned to screen membership requests (or are joined by invitation only), so lurkers aren't possible. Such sub-forums require a fair amount of work, and even then they can be hacked by someone with enough skill, time and/or interest to do so.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  3. #43
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post

    This is a truncated quote from Ron Humphrey to save space.

    Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

    For me I ask three main questions

    1- Can it help
    2- Might it hurt
    3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

    If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.
    Thanks for a very fair minded overview.

    1. Voice of America helped us win the Cold War, and before that WW II.
    Remember, not sure of your age, Edward R. Murrow who once headed the Voice of America?

    2. The 9/11 BipartisanCommission dated July 2004 recommends that Voice of America, which comes under the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors, a bi-partisan grouping of distinguished Americans including whoever The Secretary of State is at the time) be expanded, funded better and have additional languages and more linguists [in today's most relevant languages, which now includes Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi, later two regarding Pakistan, first regarding both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Farsi of course as it relates primarily to Iran, but at a third level behind Pashto and Dari as relates to Afghanistan.]

    see http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_aboutus.cfm

    and note this short extract from the 9/11 made public July 2004 Report & Recommendations:

    BEGIN QUOTE: Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney END 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT 7 RECOMMENDATIONS QUOTE

    3. The long term ideological war clearly began on 9/11 by the Islamic terrorists, who have benefitted as already documented herein from the services of Al Jazeera. It is important to recognize that Al Jazeera is not a for profit outfit but is funded by a single shiek out of the UAE, who is a long term oligarch [he overthrew his father before him while Dad was on vacation in Europe].

    Again, thank you for keeping a broadbased, more opinion writers who belong to SWJ hopefully will focus as both soldiers and citizens on the long term propaganda war that came upon us, we did not go looking for it.

    I repeat that the record, in my view, has shown Al Jazeera to be the advocate of terrorism and extremism in the guise of an all news and public affairs system which is owned and funded by one UAE Shiek, it is neither a non-profit as we understand same nor is it a for profit affair.

    Voice of America is mandated as follows, and is of course taxpayer funded:

    VOA CHARTER

    To protect the integrity of VOA programming and define the organization's mission, the VOA Charter was drafted in 1960 and later signed into law on July 12, 1976, by President Gerald Ford. It reads:

    The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

    1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

    2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

    3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 04-11-2008 at 03:29 PM.

  4. #44
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    George I had not read the Minow’s piece but now have. Despite not being predisposed to be a big fan of anyone who thinks this
    Whatever Don Rumsfeld says he needs should be provided by the Congress with pride in the extraordinary service his imaginative leadership is giving our country.
    I have to admit he made several excellent points.
    Was it to be a professional, impartial news service serving as an example of press freedom to the world? Was it to be an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, a strategic weapon to be employed against those we fight? What is the line between news and propaganda? Should our broadcasts advocate America’s values or should they provide neutral, objective journalism? That debate has never been resolved,
    He points out that at its inception the aim was to get accurate factual news into areas that could not get anything but state propaganda (due to cencorship & jamming). This is far less the case now, the people I suspect you wish to reach are Muslims with access to Al Jazeera and many other news sources the problem is that they have a choice as to what they watch/listen to and they are not choosing stations broadcasting what you want them to hear – or are hearing but not buying. Now there is so much choice people’s view of the world is not based on what they were force fed by the state but what they were fed by their family, community or just through personal choice. This is causing – and will continue to cause – a new state of play where society is self radicalising. Gone are the days of a few national radio and TV stations to get your news from. I can spend all day reading ‘news’ tailored to and reinforcing the most appalling prejudices with other likeminded bigots. It really does not matter what my particular flavour of extremism is there are Neo-fascists, rabid Stalinists, Muslim extremists and Zionist extremists all getting a version of fact and reality that would not even consider that the other side might have a point.
    Which brings us back to Minow’s unresolved question is the aim of the VoA to be a propaganda tool - in which case I would argue no one you are trying to reach will listen to it - or is it a news organisation giving the unvarnished truth (what ever that is) in which case why should it get tax payer funding. Minow rightly lists a catalogue of states and individuals who have had a problem with Al Jazeera but that seems to be because it is not a propaganda organ for anyone and is factually reporting in an area where the ruling elites would be much happier with a return to complete control of the news. The US’s primary beef seems to be that it did not censor, but aired, Bin Laden tapes it had been sent. I find this hard to understand as Minow repeatedly talks about the VoA’s aims being to spread the message of ‘Democracy & Freedom’. While I have no problem with democracy which, as William points out, can return any kind of government Freedom cause me some problems as I am still not clear what it encompasses. In any American context I assume it includes freedom from censorship which seems at odds with criticisms of airing Bin Laden. If Bin Laden does not have a point then we should want as many people as possible to see him try and justify himself, and fail. Lies should be brought into the open and countered not just hidden. One underlying assumption of much of his argument is that ‘it is because they do not understand our values they do not like us’ and all we need to overcome this is a really good PR firm. I think you need to consider they might understand American values but want no part of them.
    I was interested that you thought I was left wing; I have had that before on here – and on some other American-centric sites – but had never considered my self to be of the left or right. In the grand spectrum of political thought I suppose I would be to the Left of the American mainstream, fairly middle of the road in Europe and globally to the right of centre.
    Last edited by JJackson; 04-11-2008 at 03:42 PM.

  5. #45
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/WhisperofAmerica_2.pdf

    I think if any reader of the SWJ postings reads the entire Newton Minnor Voice of America [in support of more and better] article by Newton Minnow former Chairman of the FCC under President Kennedy, as found at:

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_d...fAmerica_2.pdf

    they will by reading it in total context find a different picture than your extracts indicate. However, standing by themselves, alone, out of context, your wording as copied from Newt's article is well done.

    Newton Minnow's mentioning of the then (now deceased) Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Biden being essentially on the same page in support of expanded Voice of America broadcasting as now more necessary than ever before in history as the ideological war, propaganda war to me, since and started by 9/11, they both agree, is for using my own language "a hundred years of more" to come and we have to use our technology and communications and public relations skills to be our own systems advocate, as they both say and agree.

    Cheers

  6. #46
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Ken,

    While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

    Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

    As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

    Best
    Tom
    Tom:

    First, no quotes please as this note above ended with:

    __________________

    Quote:
    History... is-a made at night! Character... is what you are in the dark! We must WORK, while the clock, she's-a ticking!
    Dr. Emilio Lizardo, My Minter and Roal Moddle

    Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

    1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
    2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
    3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

    We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
    a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
    b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
    c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.

    The tornades here seem to be done, at least for now. Power back on for 34,000 of us in our immediate area now. Hence getting back on the Internet, although briefly.

    Remember, no quotes and have a good weekend,
    George (USAF, Ret.)

  7. #47
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default The Congressional hearings about VOA budget and future

    http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...=Voice+America

    IF this link works it takes you to a Sept. 2006 discussion among Pakhtuns inside Pakistan about forthcoming Voice of America TV and related programming which they are looking forward to.

    It may not be clear but the article link I posted a few days ago, the article about me in the April 2008 issue of OFFICER MAGAZINE involves MOAA, the Military Officers Association of America, the fourth largest veterans organization/lobby in the US, largest of all officer veterans organization, is helping focus the need to complete implementing the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations to increase funding for and programming/languages beyond Arabic [my pet interest] to fight the long term ideological war against terrorists and terrorism worldwide.

    We, and some others in MOAA, think that the focus right now is a combination of Iraq, of course, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    House and Senate appropriations committee hearings on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which is the policy end of Voice of America, are ongoing these days in DC. I am for, obviously more funding and expanded number and types of linguists. You who are opposed have every right to lobby the Congress against while we "for guys and gals" lobby the Congress for more funding and linguists.

    The many young Marines, Army troops, Navy (especially SEALS), Air Force and Coast Guard I know direcly and am in contact with are pretty unamiously FOR a better PSYOPS, ie, VOA program, as it helps them help the people where they are now fighting the enemy, who are largely boasted about and of in and by Al Jazeera, which in my view ain't no mom and pop we have a different point of view outfit, it is aimed at our destruction in it's foreign affairsrs reporting and still unique/sole access to Taliban and al Qaida leadership.

  8. #48
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    George I do not want to hi-jack David's Afghan thread but parts of your post bought up a VoA related question.

    Saudi Wahabbi terrorist version of Islam are funding the madrassahs, the syllibus, and in some cases both the teachers in madrassahs and some of the al Qaida fighters and trainers of Taliban and al Qaida fighters.
    &
    ... except that in Afghanistan Christian missionaries are against the law, even under President Karzai. Go figure that one.
    As I understand it a major part of the role of the VoA were to "(3) clearly present the policies of the United States." and spread "Freedom & Democracy" how do you envisage that working in somewhere like Saudi where the US foreign policy interests lead to deafening silence for behaviour which - had it occured in Iran - would probably lead to sanctions. Do you envisage VoA ships blasting calls for democracy, civil rights and evangelical Christian TV through Saudi Jamming?

  9. #49
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Presumption

    Tom:

    Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

    1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
    2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
    3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

    We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
    a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
    b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
    c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.

    George,

    As a former Middle East FAO I am well aware of the complexity of the Middle East, George. I have served in Turkey, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel. I served in Gulf War one as the current intel guy for the Army Staff on the Middle East. I lost two friends in Lebanon--one blown up by an IED and another taken hostage and murdered. Don't presume to give me a regional overview based on your time in south Asia.

    My comment above was in regard to the term Arabist and how it was laid out and frankly had not a tinkers damn to do with your response.

    You have a nice weekend too

    Tom US Army Retired

  10. #50
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Thanks for sharing your background experiences

    Tom:

    I am always glad to know the background of e-mail website correspondents and article writers.

    My time, through and including the Gulf War (I) included and also included years earlier time in: Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, and Crete. These references took me down to retirement from Reserve in mid-1990s. This is now "dated" experience.

    I was wounded in the Rann of Kutch between India and Pakistan in January, 1965, but another story for another day perhaps.

    My US Embassy tour while dated, 1963-1965, still keeps me in touch via e-mail with such Pakistani legends as retired Air Chief Marshal Ashgar Khan, who was first head of the Pakistani Air Force, as of today in 2008. He is much older than me, in his 80s, of course. I was the Liaison Officer for our old U-2 and Intel Comm base at Badabar, which is suburban Peshawar.

    As a US Civil Service career budget officer with the USPHS and VA, I was able to engineer leave and military leave, minus weekends not counted on short active duty Orders on TDY tours as a reservist to do work for and with old US Readiness Command, which became USSOCOM per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the late Bill Nichols have been a close personal friend from down here.

    Also had the pleasure and opportunity to do short active duty tours during my post active duty reserve life (after the 6 years regular USAF active duty) with FORSCOM, CINCLANT (w/Admiral Kelso, who didn't do it), and other "outfits." NOTE: I was in the paper only Inactive Reserve from late 1967 to Nov. 1971, while recuperating from back/spinal injuries from the Jan. 1965 wounding, where we were "blown up" in a PIA Land Rover in Pakistan, etc, etc.

    Volunteered back on active duty the end of 1990 to help run the Desert Storm Airlift as a reserve 06. Worked out of both Charleston and Saudi.

    In between all this active and reserve times I spent a few years as an Internaitonal Banking Officer in NYC, covering SW Asia, among other desk assignments as a traveling loan officer.

    SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

    I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.

    Peace toward victory of our ideology of democracy over terrorist tyranny is our common goal.

    By the way, you are better read than I am in current tense books about our world situation and war on terrorism. The last book I read, over a year ago, on these topics was THE OSAMA BIN LADEN I KNEW by Peter Bergen. That is because I have been inundated with e-mails from Muslims overseas, as well as here in the US; being invited to write on several Muslim and specificlaly Pakhtun websites, including at two different Pakistani Universities, and other such stuff that eats up one's time when you are also working full time, putting three late in life children through two college degrees each, and doing the normal stuff of a married life. Have now published over 200 letters to Muslim editors and articles (fewer in number by far) in some of same Islamic overseas press.

    In the middle of these things over my lifetime I was happy to have made time to co-found and be an early unpaid State Director of the Chuck Colson Prison Ministry for all Alabama and to be for six years on the Alabama Department of Youth Services Board and concurrent Board of Education. I have shared some of the DYS (junvenile jails) experiences with some in Pakistan who are struggling with their slant on juvenile crime seeking constructive ways and means today over there to reform criminal minded and dangerous youth there.

    Any comments off line on the LSU and Alabama (my alma mater) football prospects for 2008?

    Cheers,
    George
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 04-12-2008 at 04:00 PM.

  11. #51
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

    I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.
    George,

    Let me make this clear. If you take my comments on something else and then launch into a lecture on a subject I have spent most of my professional life on, you are being rude because you have not bothered to acertain first what I said and second who I am. My comment on "Arabists" was related to another post and in no way implied that Afghans are Arabs or anything close to the subject. As for my own experience, I am still involved in this fight and by they way I teach cultural affairs to Soldiers as part of it.

    As a moderator on here, let me suggest that you read what is written befoire you respond to it and don't use another's post to launch off on a tangent. I try and avoid implied meanings in a forum like this one simply because they do get misinterpreted.

    Now I suggest that we cease this exchange.

    Tom

  12. #52
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Top US anchor quits Al Jazeera

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/bu...=1&oref=slogin

    You guys may want to read this article. Two things in particular are noted:

    1. Too much censorhsip being exerted from Doha on all Al Jazeera broadcasters.

    2. Sense of growing anti-Americanism on Al Jazeera.

    Tom, on your latest note I will answer you off line via e-mail.

    George

  13. #53
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default Please check your link

    George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.

    What I got had a Mr Marash whose 2 year contract had expired and was leaving. Censorship did not appear anywhere in the article. Mr. Marash was not exactly a disgruntled whistleblower with quotes like these.

    Mr. Marash called his time at Al Jazeera English “very, very satisfying” and praised the channel’s coverage of Latin America, Africa and other regions, but said that the editorial direction had shifted during his time there.

    &

    “To put it bluntly, the channel that’s on now — while excellent, and I plan to be a lifetime viewer — is not the channel that I signed up to do,”
    He left basically because of a shift in the power balance of editorial control from the bureaus in the US, UK and Malaysia back to base in Qatar. Is that censorship? Are there people moving around in every news organisation because they did not get the level of autonomy they hoped for, or were promised?

    Al Jazeera has problems both with staff – although mainly with disgruntled Arab staff who are envious of the packages offered to lure in the ex-pats like Mr. Marash. It has a bigger problem and it is – wait for it – censorship. Qatar is the hold out against censorship it is the rest of the GCC – lead by the Saudi’s - who want to curtail the activities of Al Jazeera and not in the English edition. Their concern is with their own citizen being subverted by ideas over which they have no control - horrors like a free press and Democracy. There are ligitamate fears for Al Jazeera's editorial independance as raised in this article from last December Concerns over Al Jazeera's Saudi coverage and for a more general overview of ME media freedoms try Between repression and servility .

  14. #54
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.

    What I got had a Mr Marash whose 2 year contract had expired and was leaving. Censorship did not appear anywhere in the article. Mr. Marash was not exactly a disgruntled whistleblower with quotes like these.

    He left basically because of a shift in the power balance of editorial control from the bureaus in the US, UK and Malaysia back to base in Qatar. Is that censorship? Are there people moving around in every news organisation because they did not get the level of autonomy they hoped for, or were promised?

    Al Jazeera has problems both with staff – although mainly with disgruntled Arab staff who are envious of the packages offered to lure in the ex-pats like Mr. Marash. It has a bigger problem and it is – wait for it – censorship. Qatar is the hold out against censorship it is the rest of the GCC – lead by the Saudi’s - who want to curtail the activities of Al Jazeera and not in the English edition. Their concern is with their own citizen being subverted by ideas over which they have no control - horrors like a free press and Democracy. There are ligitamate fears for Al Jazeera's editorial independance as raised in this article from last December Concerns over Al Jazeera's Saudi coverage and for a more general overview of ME media freedoms try Between repression and servility .
    I am sorry you did not thoroughly read the entire article. Your remarks are selective and were in the article.

    I encourage readers of this site to read the entire article and not defer to selective comments I am replying to.

    True, I was and am selective but the difference is the reason ABC fellow resigned is too much, increasing censoring of Al Jazeera journalists, ie, him and others, over a dozen Western journalists in fact are cited as having resigned, too.

    Anti-American growing tone of Al Jazeera per se is also clearly a stand alone paragraph in the article.

    Your can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time old sport.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 04-13-2008 at 04:09 PM.

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default My point exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by George L. Singleton View Post
    Your can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time old sport.
    I freely admit I deliberatly picked two quotes from the article to contradict your two points and 'spun' it in a different direction but at least they were from the article. As I said before there is no mention of censorship anywhere in the article had I been trying to make your point for you I could have picked
    He said he also sensed an anti-American sensibility creeping into the coverage. Will Stebbins, the channel’s Washington bureau chief, told The Associated Press Thursday that it seeks to evaluate United States policy rigorously but “give everyone a fair shout.”
    But which ever way you cut it I find it very difficult to accept that Al Jazeera is - all in all - a bad thing. If you look at the media that is accessible, and accessed by, the Arab populations of the Middle East which ones score highly for editorial independence? If anyone would like to argue that Al Jazeera is not the most independent and pro-western news source in the area please do so - with one proviso - they must actually be watched or listened to by a reasonable number of people. George if you want a free and fair press in this area stop pushing yet another government sponsored propaganda broadcaster and start lobbying your government to apply pressure on the States in the area to allow a free press – or at a minimum to stop trying to censor Al Jazeera.
    If you got your wish for a VoA propaganda network I am wondering who do you think it will attract, perhaps the same people that were going to throw flowers in front of the tanks as they entered Baghdad?
    I am not anti-American but I am very anti wishy-washy thinking and put much of American foreign policy in that category along with – regretfully – your VoA plans.
    Explain what you think VoA output is going to be like (unbiased journalism, unbiased journalism after it has been through a DoS spin wash or raw propaganda). Then explain how you are going to get an audience whose hearts and minds you can win given anything called ‘Voice of America’ is going to treated with great suspicion by your target audience and the moment they detect any kind of pro-American bias you will never see them again (also bear in mind if you can not convince me you will never convince someone who already thinks the US is the Great Satan). Show me this and I will convert to the cause.
    Last edited by JJackson; 04-13-2008 at 05:33 PM.

  16. #56
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default VOA reply to JJackson in UK

    I had almost completed an e-mail to you when one of our daughters, an overseas missionary, called me long distnce, and while I talked with her my computer shut down!

    Just as well, so now my reply will be quicker, as my wife is starting dinner and I am hungary.

    First, take time to read this Hujra Online/KhyberWatch dialogue between their chief Moderator, Khan Baba and some younger Pakhtuns in both Pakistan and Afghantistan related to Voice of America from 2006 time frame, see what they think and say about Voice of America:

    http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...=Voice+America

    1. Voice of America today operates under the BBG, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is not either the State nor the Defense Department.

    2. Here is some link info on the BBG/VOA:

    http://www.bbg.gov/

    You can open several menus inside the overall BBG link and read and learn from it.

    3. Plans per se are not ridid nor inflexible, for if they were, whatever enterprise, be it commercial, government, or...BBG/Voice of America, will fail due to rigidity and inflexibility. Plans are only a guide against paramaters, which, too, change or must sometimes be changed of necessity of the moment.

    4. I have worked my butt off since 9/11 writing overseas into the Muslim world to share our views and to learn from theirs. It has been overall a good experience but one fraught with danger for all those who e-mail talked with me on open websites, so many have initiated contacts with me from my e-mail address printed at the end of all letters I have published in both the Peshawar FRONTIER POST and Karachi DAWN. Due to the open nature of even this SWJ website I limit what is say in this regard. Many, many of the now direct e-mail correspondents in the NWSP and Afghanistan are under recurring religious attacks, some being Shia attacked and killed off by Sunnis, but some Sunnis who are moderate are also under attack by radical Sunnis, the Taliban and al Qaida. It is tough for them!

    5. I have tried very hard to have discussions of comparative religions and cultures. This theme is the sort of thing "I" want VOA to key on and around.

    6. Several Muslim websites,have contacted me directly and invited me to write on their site(s). Here is a link to Pukhtun Women website dealing in comparative religions, from Christmas, 2006 time frame. I was contacte directly by this site's female Moderator and asked to write for them, which this is but one example of:

    http://pukhtunwomen.org/node/117

    7. To cut it short, Al Jazeera has from it's inception a religious motive and bias which is not found in the VOA. This bias has allowed Al Jazeera to be in touch with since 9/11 Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida, and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as now the al Qaida inside Iraq, for they are clearly there now in Iraq.

    CONCULSION: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (VOA) is having budget hearings currently before the US House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Our veterans lobby, the Military Officers Association of America, of which I am a state level and city level director here in Alabama, is the fourth largest among all veterans lobbies in the US and the largest among officer veterans group lobbies in the US. The Military Officers Association of America, in it's OFFICER MAGAZINE, April 2008 issue, on page 28 has done an article about me and my efforts since 9/11 writing overseas media. My focus currently is on the BBG/Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera, hence it is now MOAAs article's focus, too. I am seeking improved the funding and linguistic broadcasts, particulary on TV, but secondarily on radio, to the masses in Pakistan, including the NWFP and FATA, to Afghanistan, to Iran, and into Iraq, as well as into the "Stans" of the old USSR which are also majority Muslim. VOA has other broadcast terrirtory to worry about, but these are my determined areas of interest right now.

    Al Jazeera thus far has been beating us (VOA) to the punch as the propaganda war army for and of al Qaida and the Taliban as they report both from SW Asia and of events in Europe and the US. Many writers on this SWJ site which you can look up by searcing "Voice of America" agree that Al Jazeera in it's current form is not for profit; is owned by a Doha oil wealthy Sultan, who is incresing his censorship grip over Al Jazeera, etc.

    You have the BBC as a model. Our VOA needs, my view, to be more proactive. VOA is outside the realm of the military, be sure you undersand that point. But our military benfits whenever an unvarnished presentaiton of the policies and goals of the US are presented on a recurring basis.

    I want VOA to go more into cultural similiarities and religious topics on TV, more than on radio, but also on radio.

    46 million out of 166 million total Pakistan population are illiterate.

    71% or 26.3 million out of approximately 37 million Afghans are illiterate.

    VOA needs to first and foremost focused on broadcasting to the illiterates, despite others views, this is my opinion.

    Enough for now. Read these few links and if you will go back and open all previous links I posted over past 5 days and read them, too. Many are self explanatory. Understand the linke you did not like came to me from a Muslim inside Dubai recently. I learned a great deal from it that I would not otherwise not of have known about.

    So you understand, am example of a young 20s or 30s educated Pakistani via UK parents engineer writing to me from the UAE starts out by attacking our Holy Bible and slandering our Holy Trinity. This is an educated, technically, UK degreed engineer. This is what we have to get through to on the upper end, at the lower end, the illitrate millions, whom I refered to , who in the main aren't even Arabs ethnically speaking, are frankly easier to talk to and with. Not that I am able to e-mail chat with illiterates, but that is my perception and view.

    These are tough times and there are no singular simple answers.

    Remember that PSYOPS and pubicl relations by VOA are not to be confused with "spin" as some seem to think.

    George Singleton
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 04-14-2008 at 12:25 AM.

  17. #57
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Voice of America & Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn

    Thank you for your detailed analysis of Republican US Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma views on the future of the Voice of America.

    Senator Coburn was a supporter of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid for the presidential nominaiton, where here in my state I was a candidate to have been, past tense, a Thompson pledged delegate to the Republican National Convention this Sept.

    While I disagree with and hated to see two term US Senator Bill Frist leave the Senate recently, he, like Coburn, like Thompson, advocated and practiced self imposed term limits.

    I disagree with the term limits ideology as it thins out what I most want in Congress, depth of experience and committee senority.

    Back to Voice of America.

    Along with your good review of Senator Tom Coburn's views and suggestions on how to improve the operation(s) of Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors there is another track or set of ideas on how to improve the media image and process during our war on terror in a Feb. 2008 article in the SMALL WARS JOURNAL, which I cite and quote in part here:

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...zational-cu-1/

    "The enemy video tapes operations and then distorts and twists the information and images to misinform the world. What if we had documented video footage of the same operations which refuted what our enemies say? By the way, that is not enough, we have to get our images out FIRST! The first images broadcast become reality to viewers. If we wait until we see the enemy’s images, we are being reactive and we have already squandered the opportunity.

    Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned."

    For further discussion here is where I come from on Voice of America:

    1. It is easy to find fault with anybody or anything in life.

    2. Constructive criticism, which Senator Tom Coburn offers, per your good posting, is good and helpful.

    3. However, I am unsure that just as on this site many readers and responders within the US seem less familiar with PSYOPS and public relations vs. spin. Others on this site seem upset by OPSEC constraints which I for one generally agree with in war time.

    4. This said, to me the war on terrorism is an ideological, long term, 100 years or more war where a radicalized version of Islam is being pushed on the rest of Islam and the rest of the entire world right now. This is a propaganda war, which is the long term war we have to fight and win.

    5. Current military operations and suggestions such as Lt. General Caldwell make above (as noted) are battlefield point in time suggestions which should not be confused with policy making. In fact I think Lt. General Caldwell is asking for sheer disaster in his suggestions of his third point involving use of on the battleground soldiers to be "photo journalist" whose job and purpose is to fight, not be cinematographers.

    6. Policy making is done by those elected to make public policy at the Presidential level, with the advice and consent where appropriate of the US Senate along with appropriate House oversight.

    7. There always has been and will always be a need for secrecy in matters of national security. Do you see Al Qaida or the Taliban handing out outlines weekly to the media on what their next military moves will be?

    Another comment: I have in the past 24 hours found an overseas website which has members both in the NWFP/FATA/Afghanistan/as well as Islamic members in Canada reading and commenting on their webiste about SWJ discussions from last weekend on this site. All people on the Islamic site (KhyberWatch/Hujra Online) are not our enemies, but some definitely are. A fyi item to think about when writing on this SWJ site in a time of war.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 04-19-2008 at 11:11 AM.

  18. #58
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Smith-Mundt obviated if more VOA Live TV broadcasts

    http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008...s-and-why.html

    The above is not an official site of the Voice of America, but is basically a blog site for views and opinions about and on VOA and related topics. Some, but not all, of the comments on this blog (few are visible) are of the character of: "A neighbor's son's friend who served in Iraq told me, so it must be so."

    A background writer on Smith-Mundt has his own site, listing his long term acquired international law credentials (he comments in articles on various blogs about Smith-Mundt) found at:

    http://new.stjohns.edu/academics/gra...rofiles/Borgen

    Finally, an article by Mr. Borgen giving his overview and opinions of Smith-Mundt is found at:

    http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1196450664.shtml

    These sites are found from Mountain Runner's posting "When history repeats itself" dealing with those aspects of the Voice of America as governed under Smith-Mundt which prohibits VOA broadcasts overseas to international audiences being broadcast back into the US, translated back into English.

    Smith-Mundt and the Battle for Hearts and Minds
    by Chris Borgen

    Matt Armstrong, who blogs at MountainRunner, has a thought-provoking guest-post over at Small Wars Journal on the Smith-Mundt Act, which is commonly understood as having intended to prevent blowback of propaganda intended for foreign audiences back into the U.S. Here’s an example from the act concerning the Voice of America (VOA). Section 501(a) of the Act provides that nformation produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.
    I in part replied to some of Matt Armstrong's earlier last week comments, which are edifying to me for one, on more detailed history of Voice of America's historic operating legislative governance or guidance under law.

    I do wonder what double standards Al Jazeera may be using since 9/11, as the Internet general references every few years, now just in the last less than 12 months, keep noting that Al Jazeera is reinventing itself.

    VOA being publicly funded with a long history out there for all to see at:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/about/VOAHistory.cfm

    VOA a 9/11 Commission Report list of recommendations to pursue which involves more and better funding and I throw in, again, my two cents, use of more specific language broadcasts which I for one prefer be on TV into Afghanistan, Iran, Paksitan, to include the NWFP and FATA in particular.

    If Matt Armstrongand others have been concerned at Smith-Mundt interpretations, use of more TV Voice of America broadcasts should just "step over" those issues as TV broacasts can in general be picked up from satellites and viewed simultaneously anywhere in the world, simultaneous to the TV broadcasts in native languages/dialects intended and the primary receipients of same.

    Mountain Runner is much better than I am at formatting his postings here and merely clicking on several of his key words gets you most of the above Internet references I have decided to spell out in hopes of getting less interested readers on this top in SWJ to consider looking at the good background researched sites made possible not by me but by Mountain Runner, Matt Armstrong. Thanks, Matt, for your hard work and good research.

  19. #59
    Council Member Spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.
    wary of dipping my toes into this thread for some reason

    Anyway ... the NYT article is a cut from a quite a detailed interview in the latest Columbia Journalism Review

    Probably a better a source document for this discussion

    In February 2006, David Marash, a veteran correspondent (and substitute host) for ABC’s Nightline, raised eyebrows in the U.S. journalism world when he took a job as the Washington anchor for Al Jazeera English, the new sister channel of the Arabic-language news operation in Qatar. For American viewers, Marash brought instant credibility to the new channel. Eyebrows rose again last week when Marash announced that he was quitting Al Jazeera English because of what he considered anti-American bias in the channel’s coverage. CJR’s Brent Cunningham spoke with Marash yesterday.
    http://www.cjr.org/the_water_cooler/...t.php?page=all

  20. #60
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Good on you mate for commenting

    Thanks to our friend from down under for commenting.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •