Bush Spent $500M to Found Anti-American Arab TV Station !

[eurekaa]

Bush Spent $500M to Found Anti-American Arab TV Station !

Alhurra—America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds

An Arab-language television network and radio station, founded by the Bush administration to promote a positive image of the United States, has aired anti-American and anti-Israeli viewpoints, has showcased pro-Iranian policies and recently gave air time to a militant who called for the death of American soldiers in Iraq.

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa .

Read the detailed report ( Click Here ) (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=697)

Its a good thing to tell the Middle Easterns / Arabians your POV to reach their hearts / minds , so we can not blame Bush and his administration for this good attempt . Aljazeera Tv Network are doing the same as well by broadcasting the English Version of their station last year .. for the same reason to reach the hurts/minds of the west and American people .

But with Al-Hurra TV they did not do it the right way and they just waste the money of the U.S taxpayer ..

Most of Arabians do not watch Al Hurra TV as a source for the news ( maybe social/entertainment programs but not the news )

Despite a comparable budget, Al-Hurra TV failed to attract the Arabian audience comparing to Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.

More then 50% rely on Aljazeera TV , then Alarbiya Tv Network .. and almost 2% goes to Al-hurra news who watch it with some of suspect ..

See the Table/ statistics below :

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/8184/capturediz0.jpg


And to be honest this is not the fault Bush administration , they did their best to reach the Arabians' minds

But from very binning Al-Hurra Tv was presented very badly , and all Arabian media aware their audience about the new U.S imperialism tv network .. the fail was inevitable before they even start ..

Also Al - Hurra TV lost their credibility to the Arabians audience because that they used to show one point of view specially when it comes to Palestinian / Israeli issue .. and any opinion against the Jewish state and criticize Israel is excluded .. you can see this clearly from the report above ( or click here ) (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=697) ..

In my opinion I guess Al-Hurrah Tv Network still have a chance if they correct their mistakes and become more transparent and fair specially when it comes to the political ME issues .

But today non are happy/satisfied about this channel , neither the Americans as the above article says nor the Arabians ..

[Exige]

Alhurra—America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds

An Arab-language television network and radio station, founded by the Bush administration to promote a positive image of the United States, has aired anti-American and anti-Israeli viewpoints, has showcased pro-Iranian policies and recently gave air time to a militant who called for the death of American soldiers in Iraq.


So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Instead, Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters that government officials believe are as negative as anything aired by Al Jazeera, the widely watched Qatar-based station that aired unedited speeches of Osama bin Laden.

Alhurra’s reporters and commentators operate with little oversight. Alhurra’s president, Brian Conniff, does not speak Arabic and is unable to understand anything broadcast on the radio and television networks he is paid to manage. Conniff has no journalism experience and worked previously as a government auditor. His news director, Daniel Nassif, grew up in Lebanon and has no background in television. Before coming to the network, he helped promote the political aspirations in Washington of a Lebanese Christian former general.

Both men said in interviews that they are providing effective supervision of the network’s five 24-hour radio and television broadcasts and they praised their staff as professional and committed. A string of highly publicized “mistakes” are behind them, Conniff said.

That does not appear to be the case.

Last year, outraged members of Congress threatened to withhold funding for Alhurra, which means “The Free One,” after the network aired a report on a Holocaust deniers conference in Tehran. The reporter who covered the conference told viewers that Jews had provided no scientific evidence of the Holocaust.



Top executives told Congress last year they had fired the reporter, Ahmad Amin.

But this week, in response to a joint investigation by ProPublica and CBS’ 60 Minutes, network executives acknowledged that Amin continued to work for Radio Sawa until June 12.



Two people with knowledge of the matter said that in the past week, all of Amin’s previous reports had been purged from Radio Sawa’s electronic storage system. Deirdre Kline, the spokeswoman for Sawa and Alhurra, did not respond to queries about whether his previous reports were available.

The ProPublica/60 Minutes examination of the Springfield, Va.-based Alhurra and Sawa found an untrained, largely foreign staff with little knowledge of the country whose values and policies they were hired to promote. There appeared to be little oversight of the daily operations.

Ahmad Amin worked for the U.S.-funded Sawa radio station for more than a year after network executives told Congress he had been fired for uncritical reporting of a 2006 Holocaust deniers conference which aired on Alhurra.

During a visit to Alhurra’s studios in June, reporters, producers, cameramen and technical staff were busy preparing broadcasts for an audience half-way around the world. Conniff, who is the president of Alhurra and Radio Sawa, sat in on a morning editorial meeting but could not understand it – his Middle Eastern staff discussed the day’s stories in Arabic and no one offered Conniff a simultaneous translation.

“There is no adult supervision there by people who know what is on the actual broadcasts,” said William Rugh, who served as U.S. Ambassador in Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. “You need bilingual managers who understand both languages and cultures and understand journalism.”

Financial accountability also appears to be lacking. In its four years, the network has been unable to provide full documentation to auditors to account for its spending, according to two people familiar with the records and a 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office.

U.S. experts on the Arab world have long worried that the network was doing little to help America’s image in the region. Unpublished reports, audits and internal government e-mail show a steady stream of concern inside the State Department, in Congress, at the government’s broadcasting headquarters and even inside the network itself that Alhurra and Sawa are undermining U.S. policy goals while sometimes promoting the interests of Iran and its allies. ProPublica is making available, for the first time, some of these documents.

Alhurra and Sawa have remained impervious to reform, in part because the Arabic-language broadcasts are beamed only overseas. No one translates the full broadcasts into English, making it nearly impossible for non-Arabic speakers to effectively know what is going on the air. A small team inside the State Department set up to monitor foreign broadcasts stopped watching Alhurra long ago, one senior diplomat said, and never listened to Radio Sawa.

Despite its years of difficulties, Alhurra’s budget has steadily increased. It began with a $67 million budget in 2004 and has asked for $112 million in 2009. Half the government’s investment in public diplomacy — an effort in promoting this country’s image overseas — goes to foreign broadcasting. Alhurra and Sawa get the largest share of that money.

Cutting Through ‘The Barriers of Hateful Propaganda’

Alhurra was unveiled as a bold foreign policy innovation in 2004. In his State of the Union address, just three weeks before the network went on air, President Bush announced that the United States was launching a television station for the Middle East and expanded radio broadcasts in Arabic and Farsi.

Such an audacious strategy, Bush said, would “cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda,” that his administration had come to blame for the loss of global support for the United States. He was proposing what would become the largest and most expensive effort in America’s long history of public diplomacy.

Unlike Al Jazeera, Bush said, this new, U.S.-funded network “will begin providing reliable news and information across the region.”



Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, whose speeches were carried live and unedited on Alhurra. The State Department lists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

But an examination of the network’s practices revealed that American supervisors aren’t monitoring closely and that their Arabic assistants sample just a tiny fraction of the broadcasting aired each day.

When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah railed against the U.S. government and threatened Israel, Alhurra carried it live and unedited. When U.S. combat deaths in Iraq surpassed 4,000 in March, Radio Sawa interviewed an anonymous militant who told listeners: “Occupation is occupation. We need to resist them and kill more than 4,000.” In March, Alhurra aired a documentary on the “The Crusades” — a series of military campaigns that Christian Europe waged against the Muslim world during the Middle Ages. Muslim staffers saw the program as an unfortunate reprise of Bush’s 2001 comment that the coming “war on terrorism,” would be a “crusade.”

In May, after Bush addressed Muslim leaders at a peace conference in Egypt, Alhurra offered its viewers analyses only by guests critical of U.S. policy. The expert invited to shed light on the Palestinian perspective described Israel as an “occupying and racist state,” that “perpetrates a holocaust against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza.”

Conniff said he was unfamiliar with the broadcast but that any suggestion that Alhurra was biased against Israel was wrong.

He also said Nassif and another employee keep him informed of programming decisions and that he feels his system works.

Yet, Arabic speakers in the State Department have sent repeated memos and e-mails to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Alhurra and Sawa, and to Karen Hughes, who served as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs until last year.

Alberto Fernandez, an Arabic speaker who served as the top public diplomacy officer for the Middle East until recently, wrote Hughes in May 2007 that Alhurra’s Baghdad operation was stocked “with radical Shi’a Islamists who favored their political brethren and discriminated against and intimidated members of other parties … especially during the Iraqi electoral season.”

Earlier, State Department officials attributed the poor showing of Washington’s preferred candidate for Prime Minister in the 2005 vote, in part, to the negative coverage he received on Alhurra, in favor of Islamist candidates who enjoyed support from Iran.

A senior U.S. diplomat who worked closely with Hughes at the time said she focused on other aspects of public diplomacy such as exchange programs and did not want to wade deeply into “the mess Alhurra was in.”

One official said Hughes had instructed an Arabic speaker on the State Department’s media response team to monitor Alhurra for a week during the spring of 2007. The assignment resulted in a brief report that described Alhurra’s programming as “very pro-Lebanese, pro-Hezbollah,” another diplomat said.

The Changing Face of U.S. Overseas Broadcasts

U.S. radio broadcasts to the Middle East formally began in 1950 when the Voice of America — the broadcasting arm created to counter Nazi propaganda — beamed its radio programs in Arabic. They were aimed at countries the United States feared would fall under Soviet influence.

“VOA’s Arabic service would always have a little reading from the Koran when it opened its news hour,” said Nicholas J. Cull, a media and public diplomacy professor at the University of Southern California. “The point then was to showcase the United States as religiously tolerant as opposed to the Godless Communists.”

The Sept. 11 attacks changed VOA’s mission. The Arabic service was suddenly criticized for failing to reach a youthful audience. In the hope of appealing to young men who were being recruited by Islamic fundamentalists, the station was rebranded as Radio Sawa, which means “Together.” The station blended news bulletins with Arabic and English language pop songs.



Sawa went live in March 2002 and was an instant hit in Iraq as the only station broadcasting information critical of Saddam Hussein. By the time U.S. troops rolled into Baghdad, Sawa had expanded to include a separate, Iraq-only service that specialized in breaking news. The BBG, the federal agency that oversees foreign broadcasts, picked Mouafac Harb, a charismatic Lebanese journalist, to set up the operation.

Mouafac Harb, Alhurra’s first news director. Harb helped set up Radio Sawa before coming to Alhurra. He was largely responsible for hiring the network staff and getting it on air within four months. But he has been criticized in government reports for signing lucrative deals with friends in his native Lebanon. (Photo courtesy of 60 Minutes)

Bush Administration officials championed Sawa, but it was immediately criticized by U.S. diplomats stationed in the Middle East. Cables from U.S. diplomats in Cairo and Abu Dhabi, also reviewed by ProPublica, complained that the quality of the newscasts were poor, the newsreaders seemed unprofessional and lacked credibility.

In addition, a never-released report by the State Department’s Inspector General shared with ProPublica found “irregularities in contracting,” a hiring process that “may have been marred by favoritism toward Lebanese candidates or candidates of Lebanese ancestry,” and a “lack of strategic goals and objectives.”

Two years later, Harb was named the first news director for the Alhurra television network. He rented the abandoned studios of a former local television station in Virginia and spruced up the sets. He then filled the newsroom largely with inexperienced Christian Lebanese reporters hired in his native Beirut and signed lucrative sole-source contracts with friends who ran advertising agencies, production companies and warehouses across the Middle East. Some low-level staff members were highly paid, including a hairdresser from Lebanon who coiffed the anchors for $100,000 a year.

New hires were promised an American Green Card if they lasted two years with the network.

Harb did not respond to e-mail requests for comment.

Harb told Congress the network had achieved soaring viewership and popularity in the Middle East. He dismissed polls that showed Alhurra with no more than 2 percent of the Middle East audience share and blamed complaints about the content on his initial budget, which he believed was too small to allow Alhurra to compete with media giants such as Al Jazeera.

While Harb projected a confident air, unease was growing at the State Department, particularly over Alhurra’s coverage of Lebanese politics and news from Iraq.

According to a series of internal e-mails, State Department officials had been trying to rein in Harb for years. In his 2007 e-mail to Karen Hughes, Alberto Fernandez, the public diplomacy chief, wrote that Middle East experts inside the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad had complained “in 2004, 2005 and 2006.”

Alhurra’s leadership, the e-mail said, had “stocked much of its Washington and Lebanon staff with partisans of former Lebanese general Michel Aoun who is now closely allied to the terrorist group Hezbollah.” Fernandez noted the “excessive and fawning” coverage Aoun enjoyed from Alhurra, “even though Aoun has now become quite a poisonous critic of the US and an apologist for Hezbollah’s efforts to bring down Lebanon’s nascent democracy.”

Officials from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and even an al-Qaida financier appeared as talk-show guests on Alhurra while Harb was in charge. Alhurra’s policy is to pay guests; honorariums range from $150 to $1,500 for a single appearance, documents show.

Still, Alhurra was awarded key interviews with senior U.S. government officials. When Bush addressed the Arab world after the revelations of torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, he appeared on Alhurra, interviewed by Harb.

In a 2005 oversight hearing, Harb acknowledged that he had cut procedural corners on hiring and contracting but said he had to call on friends to launch the station in four months.

Following Congressional and government inquiries into the financial and management issues at Alhurra that multiplied in the spring of 2006, Harb resigned and returned to Beirut with his wife, a telegenic TV host who had anchored her own cultural affairs program for the network.



Larry Register, a former CNN executive with 20 years of news experience, replaced Mouafac Harb in 2006, but resigned seven months later after missteps that included authorizing the airing of three reports on a Holocaust deniers conference.

The administration turned to Larry Register, a former CNN executive with 20 years of broadcasting experience to bring more professional management to Alhurra. In a recent interview, Register said he had been ordered to “clean house,” so he fired employees, renegotiated contracts and questioned deals.

“It infuriated me as a U.S. citizen to walk in there and see the money just flowing out the door. A true waste of taxpayer money,” said Register, who had previously served as CNN bureau chief in Jerusalem.

Register said the newsroom had broken-up into “militias” along ethnic, religious and national lines.

“It felt like somebody had picked up the Middle East and brought it to Springfield, Virginia, of all places.” Register said he tried to establish editorial oversight, produce a credible newscast and, above all, win viewers.

But it didn’t take long for Register to get into trouble.

Part of Alhurra’s problem, he said, was that viewers saw it as an American propaganda station, unwilling to cover big stories in the region. When Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of the Palestinian group Hamas, Alhurra ran a cooking show. Register told the staff he wouldn’t shy away from the truth.

In his first weeks, Register approved the live, unedited broadcast of a speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah is one of the most influential figures in the Arab world today but he is a terrorist to the United States government. Alhurra officials said the speech violated the network’s code of ethics which states that Alhurra will not be a platform for “terrorists.”

The following week, Alhurra aired Ahmad Amin’s report on the Holocaust deniers conference.

Three months later, as Register continued to ferret out financial arrangements and side-deals at the station, the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page reported on the two broadcasts.

Congress expressed outrage, particularly over the Holocaust report from Tehran. Several called for Register’s resignation and after seven months on the job, he quit.

At a May 2007 Congressional hearing, members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Alhurra executives assured lawmakers that Amin had been fired and that editorial safety nets were now in place.

Joaquin Blaya, a member of the government board, was asked directly whether Amin had been dismissed.

His response to Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.): “that is correct,” according to transcripts of the hearings. Congressional officials said neither Alhurra nor the BBG has since informed the appropriate oversight committees that Amin continued to work for Radio Sawa.

Blaya did not respond to requests for comment. Kline, spokeswoman for the network, said that Blaya and Brian Conniff were “talking specifically” in their testimony about whether Amin was employed by Alhurra, the television network. She said he stopped working for Alhurra in 2007.

“There was no mention of Sawa during the hearings,” Kline said in e-mail, “and it would be incorrect to imply otherwise.”

Kline offered conflicting explanations of Amin’s status in a series of e-mails over several days to ProPublica.

She initially said that Conniff only recently learned of Amin’s continued employment and was stunned that Register had failed to carry out orders to end Amin’s relationship with the radio station. Register, however, did not oversee Sawa during his brief time at the network. The radio station was run by Nassif, now the current news director. When pressed, Kline later said Nassif had known the reporter was still on the Radio Sawa payroll but had never been told to fire him.

An internal e-mail shows that Amin was let go on June 12, the day after he covered a state visit to Tehran by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and just as ProPublica and 60 Minutes were raising questions about him. Kline declined to say when Amin was fired or what had precipitated it.

Alhurra: A Ratings Flop

Alhurra has not come close to realizing the Bush Administration’s hope that it would someday compete with Al Jazeera, the most-watched station in the Middle East. According to six years of polling by Zogby and the University of Maryland, Al Jazeera remains the favored channel for news for more than 50 percent of Middle East viewers.

Shibley Telhami, a public opinion expert at the University of Maryland, said that about two percent of the audience rates Alhurra as their preferred source of news, about the same percentage that Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station receives.

Al Arabiya, another competitor launched a year before Alhurra, has a 9 percent slice of the audience. That station, which is funded by the Saudi government, has a budget considered to be comparable to Alhurra’s, and its coverage is generally welcomed by the Bush administration.

Alhurra has a separate broadcast for Iraq where its share of audience is larger. Still, Alhurra is the number four network in Iraq, behind Al Jazeera and two others. After four years on air, Telhami said, Alhurra’s impact on public opinion has been “less than zero.”

“For most people in the region,” he said “it’s not really on the radar screen.”

James Glassman, who replaced Hughes at the State Department, disagrees. He said government polling shows that even if Alhurra ranks low by percent, millions of people are still watching. He said that as many as 26 million — roughly 8.5 percent of the Arabic speaking population of the Middle East — tune into Alhurra for some period of time each week.

“Our idea with Alhurra was to create a network that provided high quality, professional journalism with American standards,” Glassman said. The aim, he said, was “balance, objectivity, which really did not exist in the Middle East.”

But William Rugh, the former ambassador who speaks Arabic and has written extensively on Arab media, said Al Jazeera’s coverage of the United States is more in-depth than Alhurra’s and he says the top-rated station covers issues and sparks debate in ways that Alhurra does not.

“Al Jazeera has a whole series of talk shows in which very sensitive, controversial issues are raised by the participants and they have women’s shows as well. They deal with short comings of various Arab governments way beyond what Alhurra does and it is shocking that in some ways, Al Jazeera has done better than Alhurra in covering the United States.”

A study due out next month by a University of Southern California team questions whether the network has achieved either objectivity or professionalism. The review was commissioned by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Alhurra.

Researchers involved in the project, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the BBG set tight parameters for the study, telling investigators to focus only on content aired on Alhurra’s pan-Arab station and not to compare it with broadcasts by competitors. Researchers were not allowed to interview Alhurra staff or to select the period of coverage to examine.

After reviewing broadcasts from the month of November, the USC team concluded that reporters and anchormen on Alhurra cited claims about Washington’s “war on terror” that were unsubstantiated, or not backed up by evidence, 30 percent of the time. The study found that personal opinion was often expressed on-air. Objectivity was rated low.

The researchers studied the network’s coverage of the three-day Mideast summit in Annapolis, Md. and found that it strongly favored U.S. and Israeli government positions. Throughout November, they concluded, the network also strongly supported the Iraqi government and was especially favorable to pro-Iranian political figures inside Iraq.

At round-table discussions held in Egypt and Lebanon, audiences gave Alhurra low marks. In Cairo, participants laughed after watching clips, researchers said. The viewers pointed out that Alhurra programs included poor translations. They said it was difficult to understand the Lebanese accents of some hosts and reporters and they noted embarrassing misspellings, including the word “Syria.”

Conniff said he and his staff have worked hard to improve the station’s quality. Alhurra has made election coverage a specialty area and offers programming on women’s issues, American culture and blue jeans.

A recent report by the State Department’s Inspector General noted that Alhurra now has a functioning assignment desk, holds regular editorial meetings and has hosted mini-training sessions with journalism professors.



Daniel Nassif, who has no previous television experience, replaced Larry Register as Alhurra’s news director in June 2007. In addition to Alhurra’s three 24-hour broadcasts, he also oversees Sawa’s two radio services.

But the IG also cast doubt on claims by Nassif, the news director, that he alone is able to oversee the content of Alhurra’s three 24-hour broadcasts, and Sawa’s two radio services. Nassif told inspectors and reporters from ProPublica and 60 Minutes that he approves every guest for every show and is available 24-hours a day.

Glassman, the Undersecretary of State who was chairman of the BBG for the last six months, said U.S. taxpayers are right to be concerned about Alhurra. “We’ve made mistakes and we will and have rectified them.”

However, he said Alhurra was delivering high-quality programming to a “part of the world that’s absolutely critical to American interests, that is not hearing and seeing this kind of broadcasting right now. And it makes the world safer, I believe, that we’re doing what we’re doing.”

Glassman, who was initially skeptical of Alhurra, added another thought.

“It wouldn’t be bad if we got put out of business. That is to say, if the Arab world’s own media became so good as, let’s say, the media in Poland did after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now, is that going to happen in five years? I kind of doubt it. But it’s certainly possible.”

http://www.onlines.ws/?p=697

So let me get this straight... The United State Government spent half a billion dollars to start a TV station in the Middle East that disrespects Israel and the U.S. so that middle easterners will respect them?

For some reason I suspect there is something else going on that is not reported here. But hey! At least I know that "Onlines" doesn't have a bias.

This is nothing more than propaganda. They don't even cite sources. Nothing more than sensationalism. To bad. Good journalism is really important to a Republic.

BTW, all this "Bush did this" and "Bush did that" is really getting on my nerves. He has become the "Problem" in every single problem. With the way people word these articles you would think that as soon as Bush steps down all the stupidity in the government is going to go away. It's not. People are still going to do stupid things.

[IraGlacialis]

BTW, all this "Bush did this" and "Bush did that" is really getting on my nerves.
Bush punted a kitten so that you would make a dissenting opinion so that discord will be sown among the masses.http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1841/iconfrancispl1.gif

[Exige]

Bush punted a kitten so that you would make a dissenting opinion so that discord will be sown among the masses.http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1841/iconfrancispl1.gif

Are you going to explain that or just leave me to wonder what it means?

[angry cow]

The point is not to get people to like the US, the point is to present a credible and correct source of information to Arabic-speakers.

You honestly think anyone would watch it if it was just pro-US propaganda all the time? What would the point of that be? They might as well watch Al-Manar (Hezbollah's channel). Personally I watch Al-Jazeera, its become one of the most credible networks not just in the region but in the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21481172/

[Exige]

I am pretty sure (from my honorary armchair general position) everything US forces do could be considered US propaganda.

Defacing yourself as a country to win the "hearts and minds" is a flawed idea because a lot of Middle Easterners see this as a continuation of Americans just being stupid. IMHO.

[Mr.Flint]

^lol at Al Jazeera is credible.... Al Jazeera is nothing but a Sunni variant of Al Manar, what next, you gonna say that BBC is unbiased?

[Snoshi]

^lol at Al Jazeera is credible.... Al Jazeera is nothing but a Sunni variant of Al Manar, what next, you gonna say that BBC is unbiased?

Yep.. The little of the "respect" i had for AJ was lost during the Gaza flare-up

[especial]

Of course Bush spent money on a anti-american tv station. What better way to get your way if arabs don't continue to hate you?

[caco500]

It's not very surprising considering that shia islamist of dawa and Supreme council for islamic revolution in iraq parties who were regarded by american as allies in Iraq are in charge of the channel.
These islamist are affiliate of the the iranian regime in iraq

[angry cow]

^lol at Al Jazeera is credible.... Al Jazeera is nothing but a Sunni variant of Al Manar, what next, you gonna say that BBC is unbiased?

I'm not saying unbiased, just credible. As in,
credible, adj. Worthy of confidence; reliable. It is a reliable source of information regarding current events in Southwest Asia. Any reporting will be biased depending on the preferences of its editors, regardless of where or who its from. With Al-Jazeera, I know who its from (Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani), who is doing the editing (Ahmed Sheikh), and who is in charge of standards and practices (Wadah Khanfar), both the latter educated at the University of Jordan. In fact, more so than I know which shareholders are most involved in editorial decisions in major US news organizations.

As someone whose career is dependent on events in Southwest Asia, its important to me to keep up on whats going on, and I use a variety of sources (including Al-Manar as well), because even though they may be mouthpieces for certain parties, those parties are all major players in regional events.

[INAT]

The point is not to get people to like the US, the point is to present a credible and correct source of information to Arabic-speakers.

You honestly think anyone would watch it if it was just pro-US propaganda all the time? What would the point of that be? They might as well watch Al-Manar (Hezbollah's channel). Personally I watch Al-Jazeera, its become one of the most credible networks not just in the region but in the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21481172/

What do you consider credible to mean in this context?
Do you know the Al -J or the people that run it on any other level besides viewer to know what their objective is? If so then you could truly know their bias and or lack there of.What is your guage you use to measure media credibility? MSN ? FOX? BBC? NPR? CBS?

[khukuri]

^lol at Al Jazeera is credible.... Al Jazeera is nothing but a Sunni variant of Al Manar, what next, you gonna say that BBC is unbiased?

Im a shiite, al jazeera is very pro sunni, but its not as bad as people paint it. its very credible on many issues. I see a lot of comments on aljazeera from people who never even watch it.

[Mr.Flint]

Yeah its so credible, how that credible source could write this bull****?
http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/09/200841013342123720.html


A country linked to prophets, historical richness and continuous civilisation dating back thousands of years, Palestine is overwhelmed by a bitter conflict caused by a lengthy Israeli occupation. The name itself, in the Arabic language, has two poignant meanings, first as something beautiful and second as the land protected by God.
While the Palestinian people's claim over the land is derived from historical, cultural and geographical connections, Israel has occupied most
of historic Palestine for more than 50 years based on biblical interpretations.
Is this credible?


how about this?

The earliest known ancestors of today’s Palestinians, the Canaanites, were sophisticated city dwellers who arrived in the region from approximately 3000BCE onwards.


credible my ass.

[Midav]

America and Israel are evil pigs.

Thank you for watching the latest broadcast. It was brought to you by the average US taxpayer™

That right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[LazerLordz]

America and Israel are evil pigs.

Thank you for watching the latest broadcast. It was brought to you by the average US taxpayer™

That right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
"And in closing for the night, Death to America"

- This station has been brought to you by PBS


rofl

[angry cow]

What do you consider credible to mean in this context?
Do you know the Al -J or the people that run it on any other level besides viewer to know what their objective is? If so then you could truly know their bias and or lack there of.What is your guage you use to measure media credibility? MSN ? FOX? BBC? NPR? CBS?

My gauge is none of them by themselves, all of them contribute something so that you get a much better picture as a whole. Al-Jazeera has the benefit of having a large budget and tons of reporters throughout the region. And guess what they watch at CENTCOM at MacDill? Al-Jazeera replaced CNN on the flat screen years ago. When violence spiked in Lebanon, how were CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc covering it? They used Al-Jazeera feeds. Yes its pro-Sunni, just like Fox is pro-conservative, as long as you are aware of the bias you can adjust fire on your own.

[Exige]

That is reasonable I suppose. I don't see how the posted article had any authority to be called journalism though.

[IraGlacialis]

Are you going to explain that or just leave me to wonder what it means?
It's fun to philosophize the meaning of obscure statements. I'll let you wonder.

[pascalywood]

They just gave the money. i dont think they would have done that if they knew what the station was going to broadcast

[Exige]

Okay.... But just know that it will probably be quite negative towards your level intelligence... Your choice. I personally wouldn't want some unknown person pondering that...

lol

[INAT]

My gauge is none of them by themselves, all of them contribute something so that you get a much better picture as a whole. Al-Jazeera has the benefit of having a large budget and tons of reporters throughout the region. And guess what they watch at CENTCOM at MacDill? Al-Jazeera replaced CNN on the flat screen years ago. When violence spiked in Lebanon, how were CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc covering it? They used Al-Jazeera feeds. Yes its pro-Sunni, just like Fox is pro-conservative, as long as you are aware of the bias you can adjust fire on your own.


Well then I will ask you what you feel is the role of the mainstream media in general? And just what is the picture they are presenting to us.Is it possible for the average person to get an authentic view of events in this world through these very wealthy and very powerful media conglomerates
who are owned by a small handful of shady characters? Are our views of the world "ours" anymore or are they simply the views we have been programmed to think through constant repetition?

[angry cow]

Well then I will ask you what you feel is the role of the mainstream media in general? And just what is the picture they are presenting to us.Is it possible for the average person to get an authentic view of events in this world through these very wealthy and very powerful media conglomerates
who are owned by a small handful of shady characters? Are our views of the world "ours" anymore or are they simply the views we have been programmed to think through constant repetition?

I would argue that the mainstream media as it exists today merely serves as a catch all for the stories that the editors deem important to their target demographic. You will never get the whole picture from any single source. They will weigh their coverage in favor to the interests of their target demographic. Most news stories today are actually investigated by . . . newspapers! In fact, newspapers do the vast majority of original reporting. Cable and television news mainly takes their cues from newspaper leads.

For more information I suggest watching the FRONTLINE episode "News War" regarding modern journalism. It's well thought out, fascinating, and free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/

[INAT]

I would argue that the mainstream media as it exists today merely serves as a catch all for the stories that the editors deem important to their target demographic. You will never get the whole picture from any single source. They will weigh their coverage in favor to the interests of their target demographic. Most news stories today are actually investigated by . . . newspapers! In fact, newspapers do the vast majority of original reporting. Cable and television news mainly takes their cues from newspaper leads.

For more information I suggest watching the FRONTLINE episode "News War" regarding modern journalism. It's well thought out, fascinating, and free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/


Missed my point.I was talking about image manipulation,propaganda,and towing the party line.Stuff that is anything but journalism. If you can convince someone that what they are seeing is what you are telling them they are seeing and that is all there is to see you can at that point adjust and bend their view of events to suit your own interests.

[IraGlacialis]

Okay.... But just know that it will probably be quite negative towards your level intelligence... Your choice. I personally wouldn't want some unknown person pondering that...

lol
Touche. For that, I will humor you.

I was, in a tongue-and-cheek manner, making a comment about Bush being responsible for every conceivable ill in the world. And I though him punting a kitten would be satisfyingly evil without being too over-the-top.

[eurekaa]

Yeah its so credible, how that credible source could write this bull****?
http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/09/200841013342123720.html


Is this credible?


how about this?



credible my ass.


I did not understand what exactly you critic in the paragraph you quote from Al-Jazeera website !!

I believe Palestinian like every one in the world do have their own roots and history in their land , unless you want to say they came from another planet !!!

Mr.Flint , The fact is the Palestinian's nation has its own history as well , do your best but you can not deny it ...

The same thing your opponent will do , have you ever think why Ahmed Najad deny the Holocaust and what is his fvken problem if it happened or not !!

For the same reasons you people want to deny the Palestinian History !!

Lets move on and get over this , its completely insane , we must accept the others as they are then the others will accept us ,, from here we can start

[Snoshi]

I believe Palestinian like every one in the world do have their own roots and history in their land , unless you want to say they came from another planet !!!
What is a Palestinian?


Mr.Flint , The fact is the Palestinian's nation has its own history as well , do your best but you can not deny it ...
Yes.. Again what is a Palestinian nation? Palestine it was named Palestine after the destructuon of the 2nd Temple.. And at that time it was populated by the Jews. Islam never existed at that time.


For the same reasons you people want to deny the Palestinian History !!
Again.. Who are Palestinian people?


Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

[eurekaa]

What is a Palestinian?

Yes.. Again what is a Palestinian nation?


Well Dear ,

Today the Palestinian's nation are 3.4 million in west bank , Gaza and Jerusalem ..

And more then 9.4 million refugees around the world who throw out their home land last 60 years ..

We are talking about a nation of 13 million human being , this number is equal or more then the Jewish nation itself ...

So , If you still dare to insist asking who are the Palestinians , then your opponent has the right to ask ..

Who are the JEWS !!



Palestine it was named Palestine after the destructuon of the 2nd Temple.. And at that time it was populated by the Jews. Islam never existed at that time.

Again.. Who are Palestinian people?

If you want to start from the history , bad that you are living in the year 2008 !!

Go to history and fight for these stuffs ,,

Ironically you deny the Palestinians' rights / heritage in their land during these last 60 years and in the same time you claim the right for Jewish heritage / legacy that goes to 4000 years ago !!

If you are asking about the Palestinian based on historical point of view I guess you already know that Palestine were occupied by many nations who lived their before your ancestors get into it 4000 years ago ..

I'm talking particularly about the Canaanites the ancestors of Palestinians ..

Any way we are not here to discuss the history and all these stuffs .. They can teach you what they want in Israel , and the same for us ..

This is not our issue here , our issue is about the new world and future for all of us , Moslems , Jews and Christians ..

This is what we must seek for .. the coexistence

I wish that not all Israeli people think the way as you do regarding the Palestinians , because really I started to think that the coexistences with Jewish nation and Arabs is just an illusion ,

and thanks to you ..

You are killing our hope with your aggressive responses

[Calanen]

You are killing our hope with your aggressive responses



And firing Qassam rockets into Israeli civilians is not an aggressive response?

[Snoshi]

[QUOTE]Today the Palestinian's nation are 3.4 million in west bank , Gaza and Jerusalem ..

And more then 9.4 million refugees around the world who throw out their home land last 60 years ..

We are talking about a nation of 13 million human being , this number is equal or more then the Jewish nation itself ...
You mean Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians? Pretty weird that the talk of a Palestinian nation started to come up only after the Six-Day war.


Ironically you deny the Palestinians' rights / heritage in their land during these last 60 years and in the same time you claim the right for Jewish heritage / legacy that goes to 4000 years ago !!
Again.. There is not Palestinian nationality.. They dont have their own culture, language etc.. Even Jews who lived in Palestine at that time were called Palestinians.


I'm talking particularly about the [SIZE=2]Canaanites the ancestors of Palestinians ..

Are you fking kidding me? Caanites have NOTHING in common with arabs that live in West Bank and Gaza today..

And again they is no Palestinian people! They are a invention of the Arab world



The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab ****unciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:

* The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even ****ounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]
he Arab world
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

[eurekaa]

And firing Qassam rockets into Israeli civilians is not an aggressive response?

Calanen , My friend

Please start with Snoshi post and see why im telling him that .. the guy wants to deny a complete nation .. if you want to go with him in that its up to you , but not to skip from subject to another one ..

As for the Qassam Rockets you mentioned I think you know that there is a war in this region , and in the war they do use weapons as far as I know ..

And Israel respond that with shooting them by their missiles and F16 - F5 fighters and Tanks .. etc

So what to discuss here .. why there is war in the region !!

Or to start open childish topic that they start with that and this reply with this .. blah blah blah

You'll not know who is right and who is wrong from your place , you must go to live with them their life and see what going on ..

but here on Forum we are just chating and our long posts only me and you and some other guys will read it ...

We are not here to change the world .. or to settle the Israeli / Palestinian issue ..

But to find good people from other cultures / religions who we call them the others or opponents to help each other to change our self /world .. those who wants the best for all of us who fed up of all this BS.

[IDF_TANKER]

Well Dear ,

Today the Palestinian's nation are 3.4 million in west bank , Gaza and Jerusalem ..

And more then 9.4 million refugees around the world who throw out their home land last 60 years ..

We are talking about a nation of 13 million human being , this number is equal or more then the Jewish nation itself ...

So , If you still dare to insist asking who are the Palestinians , then your opponent has the right to ask ..

Who are the JEWS !!


That's good to now that you care so much about your brothers Palestinians. It especially good to know considering how Palestinians were and are treated in the Arabic countries. But yes, please continue, this kind of mental masturbation (as imagining something you don't and aren't just to feel good about yourself) becomes you just beautifully.



If you want to start from the history , bad that you are living in the year 2008 !!

Go to history and fight for these stuffs ,,

Ironically you deny the Palestinians' rights / heritage in their land during these last 60 years and in the same time you claim the right for Jewish heritage / legacy that goes to 4000 years ago !!

If you are asking about the Palestinian based on historical point of view I guess you already know that Palestine were occupied by many nations who lived their before your ancestors get into it 4000 years ago ..

I'm talking particularly about the Canaanites the ancestors of Palestinians ..

Any way we are not here to discuss the history and all these stuffs .. They can teach you what they want in Israel , and the same for us ..

This is not our issue here , our issue is about the new world and future for all of us , Moslems , Jews and Christians ..

This is what we must seek for .. the coexistence

I wish that not all Israeli people think the way as you do regarding the Palestinians , because really I started to think that the coexistences with Jewish nation and Arabs is just an illusion ,


You got me confused here: so Palestinians are Canaanites or Arabs? Or Canaanites are ancestors of Arabs? Or there are Arabs who are Canaanites and there are just plain Arabs? Please, I want to know more about your history.

[Snoshi]

I have to filter the most of your posts because you have alot of emotional garbage.


Please start with Snoshi post and see why im telling him that .. the guy want to deny a complete nation .. if you want to go with him in that its up to you , but not to skip from subject to another one ..
I am just telling the truth.. There was never a Palestinian Arab nation. Never. Many different empires controlled it over time and in 1948 the country was divided into two parts, one Jewish and one Arab. Arab nations rejected the idea and attacked Israel and lost. And Gaza and West Bank were taken by Egypt and Jordan. Egypt forbid the Gazans of leaving the coastal area and refused to give them the Egyptian citizenship. Jordan went even further, it annexed the West Bank. By that time there was no talk of the Palestinian identity and nation.. Only after the Israel have conquered Gaza and West Bank then suddenly the Palestinians became a "people" and started to ask for their own nation. This is the true. Arabs had two chances to create the Palestinian state, one in 1948 and one after the war where they could have given Gaza and West Bank to Palestinians, the same they want today.


As for the Qassam Rockets you mentioned I think you know that there is a war in this region , and in the war they do use weapons as far as I know ..

And Israel respond with that with shooting them by their missiles and F16 - F5 fighters and Tanks .. etc
So what do you want Israel to respond with? Their own Qassams?

[eurekaa]

That's good to now that you care so much about your brothers Palestinians. It especially good to know considering how Palestinians were and are treated in the Arabic countries. But yes, please continue, this kind of mental masturbation (as imagining something you don't and aren't just to feel good about yourself) becomes you just beautifully.



You got me confused here: so Palestinians are Canaanites or Arabs? Or Canaanites are ancestors of Arabs? Or there are Arabs who are Canaanites and there are just plain Arabs? Please, I want to know more about your history.

Thanks for the beautiful words you are using ..

Go and make some google about the Canaanites and see from where they comes ..and to which nation they belong to ..

But again , does this really matter on the 21 century !!

You people want to live in the history .. good luck

[eurekaa]

I have to filter the most of your posts because you have alot of emotional garbage.


I am just telling the truth.. There was never a Palestinian Arab nation. Never. Many different empires controlled it over time and in 1948 the country was divided into two parts, one Jewish and one Arab. Arab nations rejected the idea and attacked Israel and lost. And Gaza and West Bank were taken by Egypt and Jordan. Egypt forbid the Gazans of leaving the coastal area and refused to give them the Egyptian citizenship. Jordan went even further, it annexed the West Bank. By that time there was no talk of the Palestinian identity and nation.. Only after the Israel have conquered Gaza and West Bank then suddenly the Palestinians became a "people" and started to ask for their own nation. This is the true. Arabs had two chances to create the Palestinian state, one in 1948 and one after the war where they could have given Gaza and West Bank to Palestinians, the same they want today.


So what do you want Israel to respond with? Their own Qassams?




Snoshi ,

Believe whatever you want to .. :)

Even if they tell you in Israel that the sun raise from the west and you want to believe in that its ok for me ..

so , what else !!

This is will not change the facts .. you are allowed to write the history the way suit you and we also do the same ..

Who deface the facts and who right it honestly is not our issue here , because it`ll lead us no where ..

And all the posts I wrote I tend not to focus on these issues ..

Im not interested even if I have different historical pov of yours ,

But , So what !!

Are we going to wiped off each other just to revenge for the history of our ancestors ..!!

If this is what you want , well we have a lot of Arabian people with the same attitude , deal with them ..

For me I'm not looking for that and I know there are Israeli people are the same as i hope ..

Sorry that you are not one of them , maybe one day you`ll ..

Cheers

[Snoshi]

Snoshi ,

Believe whatever you want to .. :)

Even if they tell you in Israel that the sun raise from the west and you want to believe in that its ok for me ..

so , what else !!

What in that post dont you agree with?

[IDF_TANKER]

Thanks for the beautiful words you are using ..

Go and make some google about the Canaanites and see from where they comes ..and to which nation they belong to ..

I asked you a simple question - who are Palestinians, Canaanites or Arabs. You give me a lot of words about nothing. Yeah, I heard about Canaanites... I also know that Arabs came to this region around 7th century with the spread of Islam. Saying that Palis are descendants of Canaanites is like saying that Egyptians are the Egyptians who built the pyramids. But you have apparently a different version of history, about which I asked you.



But again , does this really matter on the 21 century !!

You people want to live in the history .. good luck

Let me just remind you that all this "historic" discussion on this thread started from the Al-Jazeera "historic" nonsence. It seems you are the ones who obsessively deal with your ridiculous myths.

[loganinkosovo]

Bush Spent $500M to Found Anti-American Arab TV Station !


Hey, we spent a lot of money liberating France too.

Sh!t Happens......


:)

[emiljoe]

This is a complete waste of money & dangerously self defeating.

[eurekaa]

This is a complete waste of money & dangerously self defeating.
I agree , But if they spend it with good control on that purpose it`ll be a positive thing , the problem is they failed to reach the ME people's minds .. I hope they learn from their mistakes ..

[deagle]

that is appalling if true.