Al-Jazeera's "Baghdad Bob"?

[lucien2]

Has anyone else read or heard about the former Marine (US) Captain who has taken a position reporting for Al-Jazeera? I read the article in USA Today (front page), former United States Marine Captain Josh Rushing, 33, will be reporting for the english launguage version of the Al-jazeera news. Can you possibly imagine what stories he will be given to report on? Can you imagine how he will be exploited? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.......................! Rememeber Tokyo Rose? I say he should be called "Baghdad Bob"!

[MillRatUSMC]

http://www.ameinfo.com/images/news/8/17838-Josh.jpg

That's from this story;
http://www.ameinfo.com/68321.html

Josh Rushing, a former U.S. Marine Captain who served in the United States Central Command media office during the invasion of Iraq, has joined the 24-hour English-language network, Al Jazeera International.

Quote

"In a time when American media has become so nationalised, I'm excited about joining an organisation that truly wants to be a source of global information," Josh said. "I witnessed during the war how the U.S. media was co-opted by the U.S. government's messaging. I am proud to be part of a news network that believes in the power of the un-spun truth."

Unquote

Shouldn't he really be called "Baghdad Josh"?
Those last words might come back to haunt Josh.

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

[LivinSoFree]

Saw an interesting special on Al-Jazeera a while ago... it was interesting- prior to what happened to American Journalism in the wake of September 11th, these reporters used American journalists as a model, as a guide, and tried to imitate them as closely as possible. But now, with the polarization of American media, they say, "This is an America we do not know."

Years ago, al-Jazeera really was a shining beacon of independence in the middle of an otherwise heavily censored world. Now... I'm becoming more and more convinced that they've become the Middle Eastern answer to Fox News.

[RLeon]

Originally posted by LivinSoFree
Now... I'm becoming more and more convinced that they've become the Middle Eastern answer to Fox News.
Alright! you mean that they are going to show a fair & balanced alternative view to the leftist dominated alphabet networks. ;)

[LivinSoFree]

Not quite... but this is an argument that'll take more time than I have at hand right now to post... in short it basically comes down to the application of basic principles of sociology and mob psychology to an analysis of the methodology of Fox News- the results are not flattering as to their audience, but like I said... I'll save that for when I have the time to make a proper argument for the position.

[Nagalfar]

Quote; I am proud to be part of a news network that believes in the power of the un-spun truth."unquote.

Al-Jazeera, balanced and fair? have I missed something somewhere along the line? anyone?

[lucien2]

Al-Jezeera has been pressured to stop repeatedly airing inflamatory stories in Iraq, the Fox News of the ME? I doubt that very, very seriously.

JMHO

[LivinSoFree]

When I say "the Middle Eastern answer to Fox News," I wasn't equating their positions, just their extremism.

[jgorosco]

And I equate that to sound like BullZhit. Al-Jazeera is propaganda news for the Terrorist plain and simple. So use your 2 dollar words to try and make the Terrorist news channel equal to Fox news if you want but I think the simple minded people know the difference

SEMPER FI
IYAOYAS

[LivinSoFree]

I think the simple minded people know the difference

That's exactly the point.

Yeah, I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I honestly could care less.

Fox News is quite possibly one of the worst excuses for what passes for "journalism" in popular America today. Every last piece of that network, from the presentation to the commentary to the story selection, is designed to appeal to the irrational side of a person- to inflame emotions and loyalties at the expense of rational thought. It's meant to whip people into a frenzy and play on their fears so as to make them ignore the facts of a situation to the benefit of the conservative side of the fence.

You want it simple? OK, we'll break it down big freakin' purple dinosaur Barney style:

*LAYOUT AND PRESENTATION: When compared to other networks, the layout and presentation of Fox News is ridiculously overblown. Everything about it is meant to play to the "simple folk" and "good 'ol boy" mentality, and to those people who are simply too lazy to think about the issues and do some research and think that Fox News is the only source they need to make an informed conclusion.

- The fonts are bigger, every headline seems like a "priority one alert" no matter how important it actually is. This is intended to keep people worked up without an actual reason to be so. Why? Simple- it's good for the ratings.
- The color schemes are all flat and mostly primary, and the layout is all large blocks with patriotic graphics- screaming eagles, waving American flags, everything you'd want if you were playing to a crowd likely to be more affected by such images and the things associated with them. The screen is kept artificially cluttered, and the cuts are always dramatic and voluminous. Transitions are accompanied by animations of fighter jets and artillery. Again, simple and predictable , but effective at getting an audience worked up.
- The ever present "Homeland Security Alert" status graphic that never quite seems to leave the screen for long. This remains even though the color coded alert system has been largely dismissed by state and local agencies as fearmongering and ineffective, due to its overuse at the cost of state and municipal budgets. Yet for some reason, Fox News finds it necessary to keep us all constantly informed of its status. Why? If, in reality, it's meaningless, why would it still be pertinent? Could it be because if your audience doesn't actually know this, it would still serve as an effective tool to make people just a little more edgy, and thus increase your viewership?

*PERSONALITY AND POSITION

-"Fair and Balanced." Why would a legitimate news service ever feel the need to defend itself 24 hours a day against accusations that it is not "Fair and Balanced?" The most BASIC DEFINITION OF JOURNALISM REQUIRES complete and unbiased coverage! By assigning themselves this slogan, they inadvertently admit that it would be questionable to begin with. The New York Times, accepted internationally as "The Newspaper of Record" for decades, has never once felt the need to splash "Fair and Balanced" across its front page, despite its important position, even in the wake of discovered journalistic misconduct and falsified stories. They simply dealt with the issue and moved on, and their subscripition count didn't even flinch.

-The website is a great example of some of their more outlandish approaches. Only on the Fox News Website will you find a link to the "Terror Survival Handbook" on their homepage. I checked MSNBC and CNN... nope, no "Terror Survival Handbook." When the link is followed, guess what it tells you to do? The SAME THING EVERYONE'S BEEN TOLD FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS! While it is possible that perhaps someone has been living in a box in the middle of the Australian outback and has missed everything entirely, somehow, I doubt there's enough box dwellers to form a movement to demand a Terror Survival Handbook again. It just seems somewhat odd, that only Fox News would find it important enough to splash over their homepage, while other major news outlets give the space to more headlines.

- Probably one of my favorites includes this month's "What We're Reading" FNC reading list- to include:

- "The ACLU Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values- Many Americans are waking up to the dangerous agenda of the ACLU. The ACLU vs. America will clue readers in to the culture wars afoot and will equip them to become effective agents for liberty and freedom against the ACLU's onslaught." - Wow... somehow I get the impression that I need to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape in the wake of the impending invasion of the ACLU...

- "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?- Blankley paints the picture of a Europe in which radical Islam is triumphant — a threat that is not only very real, but that would be more threatening to the United States than a Europe under Nazi domination. But there is hope — and a strategy — for Western survival; and Blankley illustrates what must happen to save the West." - Rather alarmist in light of the fact that most of the nations in the EU have contributed troops to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't you think?

- "Terror in the Skies: Why 9-11 Could Happen Again- Annie Jacobsen's harrowing first-hand account of her flight with a group of suspected terrorists forces us to ask: Could 9/11 happen again? On June 29, 2004, Jacobsen, traveling with her family on Northwest Airlines flight 327, witnessed what she believed was a terrorist "dry run." What happened on her flight, she discovered, was not an isolated incident, and if our air security does not improve, 9/11 is likely to happen again." - I'm not really sure who Annie Jacobson is, or what her credentials are to be commenting on international terrorism and security, but from what Snopes has to say about her, she sounds like a real winner:

'Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, "overreacted," to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.
"The lady was overreacting," said the source. "A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane." ' - Snopes.com- http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp

I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't be so thrilled about quoting someone who ends up being laid out on Snopes as an authoritative source worthwhile for viewer reading.

- "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy- Ralph Peters, a controversial strategist and respected expert on military and intelligence issues, argues that the United States is actually poised for even greater success in the twenty-first century — if our leaders make the right decisions about the opportunities and dangers we face today. In New Glory, he offers a strategic tour of the globe's hot spots and how we should respond to the challenges they pose." -Because we all know America's Global Supremacy is of the utmost importance. Here I thought we were trying to be coalition builders... remember 'I'm a uniter, not a divider?' Maybe it's just me, but I could've swore I heard that somewhere...
- "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter- This forceful, sarcastic, and often hilarious book offers tips on arguing with liberals, which include the following: don't be defensive, always outrage the enemy, and never apologize to, compliment, or show graciousness to a Democrat. Welcome to the world according to Ann Coulter."-Might belong if there was a "how to talk to a conservative" counterpoint, maybe Hannity and Colmes could argue it out (if they ever got equal talk time between each other), but as it stands, Fox sure is looking mighty biased... not quite Fair and Balanced.

- "The Purpose-Driven Life"- The spiritual premise in “The Purpose-Driven Life” is that there are no accidents — God planned everything and everyone. Therefore, every human has a divine purpose, according to God's master plan." - Not really sure what bearing this one has on the news... maybe I'm missing something.


I'd love to continue this one, but right now I've got to get to class- time to go be brainwashed by my "liberal anti-American fanatic" professors.

I'm sure there'll be some not so kind things to say about the above, but since when has that ever stopped a Marine?

[jgorosco]

Now all the books that you have put on here you have actually read instead of putting quotes from some liberal book critic or from one of your liberal anti-American professors, and made it your own. And all the news that comes out to today is all about the ratings, including your CNN, MSNBC, and of course your can't do wrong New York Times. Just goes to show that liberals can do NO WRONG! But when a Fox news shows some patriotism or keeps people up to date on terror alerts they are bias because they do not mix well with your views. Pay a little more attention next time to your news channels or paper and see if they really are about the American people or about trying to degrade the Republicans and the American people. So I think we might end up agreeing that CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NewYork Times are all junk playing on peoples fears and beliefs. How about just rep[orting on the news not their beliefs. If you don't then as a Marine might say "Who gives a fvck what you think"

SEMPER FI
IYAOYAS

[Old Marine]

Lucien:

I heard that Al Davis appplied for the job and was turned down.

[LivinSoFree]

I'll be the first one to tell you that any singular news outlet is generally speaking, not 100 percent reliable alone. That's why my morning intake includes CNN, the BBC, The Washington Post, and a mix of whatever local content is relevant at the time. Occasionally, that also includes Fox and al-Jazeera. Google News is a fantastic tool to help an individual assimilate the vast amount of content out there. It's all part of the much bigger picture- all of this is just a flash in the pan, and while people are busy buying duct tape and flags, someone else is out there getting rich off it all.

You know why we won't go to war with China? The money. Neither of us can afford it. China won't push it far enough, no matter how much saber rattling they do, to push us over the edge, because they need the American market share. And we won't push back too far because companies like Wal-Mart still need cheap labor and suppliers (Wal-Mart's purchasing department is something like 400 people headquartered in China).

You know why we won't go after Saudi Arabia, which provided most of the financial support and was the home country of almost all of the 9/11 hijackers? Because of the money. Saudi and American business interests are too intertwined- the Oil is just the tip of the iceberg- Saudi investments own an ENORMOUS amount of the American economy, proportionally speaking.

You know why we won't get involved in Sudan, a place where Colin Powell testified to be the home of what is one of the worst human rights disasters in the history of the world- where genocide is institutionalized government policy? Because there's no money to be made in it. Halliburton and KBR can't make money on reconstruction contracts because there's nothing there to begin with.

It's all happening right in front of us, and the worst part of it all is that it's not even that well hidden anymore, because no one even seems to give a damn. "The indifference of good men," is a sin of the worst kind- and if we don't wake up soon, we're gonna find ourselves is a lot worse trouble. There's no such thing as "self-contained" anymore.

[jgorosco]

I think you hit the nail on the head this time!! It is all about the almighty dollar and of course helping the countries that can benefit the U.S.A in the long run. I think it has and will always be about the greed. And if you are against coporate America then you are against people having work. So what if KBR, Halliburton get gov't contracts, cause the simple fact is if they don't then 100's of thousands of people would be without jobs. Can you imagine the outcry then, Scary. Maybe you want small businesses to get the contracts that would not be able to handle the load of say for instance feeding service men and women in Iraq right now, then to hear you cry about the gov't is throwing money away to businesses that do not know how to handle the task given to them. And maybe if the average poor person would stop milking the gov't for money instead of getting a job then Wal-Mart wouldn't have to look for labor in China. But let me guess you are looking at this website from all American made Computer. If you want more American jobs to be made then stop purchasing products made over seas. I guess the simple thing is you can't please everyone, and the ones that aren't being pleased will be the 1st to Biitch!!

SEMPER FI
IYAOYAS

[LivinSoFree]

I'm not advocating isolationism or objecting to international commerce. That's simply the natural progression of a developing global society. As we remove barriers to travel, trade, and communication, international contact will increase almost exponentially until... well, no one really knows. What I'm simply pointing out is that these things that we've done are not necessarily wholly in the name of patriotism or idealism- were that our aim, we would be in the middle of the Darfur right now- but were heavily influenced by who could make a buck. OF COURSE Halliburton and KBR are well suited to the task of supporting an occupying force- but why the hell don't we just do it ourselves? Why bring civilians even into the mix? Why privatize more and more functions of our military? Because there's money to be made- personally, I'd be more comfortable in a combat zone without a whole bunch of civilians running around... at least if it were Marines running the chow hall, I'd know that the same guy who made my breakfast would have my back in a fighting hole if the **** came down at lunchtime. You don't get that with civilian contractors, and on top of that, you have to actually go out of your way to protect them! It's a more expensive proposition for taxpayers all around, for a lot less utility.

[lucien2]

Originally posted by Old Marine
Lucien:

I heard that Al Davis appplied for the job and was turned down.

That's comedy Gunny! They said he looked too much like an aging pimp.

[lucien2]

Originally posted by LivinSoFree
When I say "the Middle Eastern answer to Fox News," I wasn't equating their positions, just their extremism.

All media outlets are "extreme", some are left and some are right!

[Nagalfar]

So anyone who watches FOX is simple minded or a good ol boy? CNN, BBC, WashPost honest reporting? LMAO.... LivinSoFree, it must be really lonely up on the Mount all by yourself!

Your laural needs to be squared brother..

[LivinSoFree]

Hardly. I just take issue with Fox's approach to journalism on a number of grounds. I mean, damn, with all the Ann Coulter and NewsMax articles that get posted here, someone's gotta at least take a swing at the other side. Especially without Col. Hackworth around to add a little balance.

[Nagalfar]

Hackworth did some real good.. but he also spent a lot of his life outside the Army trying to prove the Army screwed up by not giving him the star he wanted so bad.. Ann Coulter.. she is as full of crap as the BBC.. anyone who thinks one side is always right needs to see the wizard for a brain. Its called being a partisian hack.. left or right they are all the same.. but thinking you get honest news from the BBC or some of those others is crazy.

[LivinSoFree]

Believe me, we're on the same page here. Read back a few posts of mine in this thread- any one source is generally speaking never 100 percent reliable. That's why I tend to read about half a dozen regularly with some other stuff thrown in as it comes up. European news outlets, ironically enough, are even worse than American ones in a lot of instances, and Rupert Murdoch has his hand in PLENTY of European news outlets. The BBC, however, has a DAMN good reputation for reporting, compared to most of the services out there, as does the Post and the NYTimes- any major outlet is going to have its gaffes, but by and large, these are fairly reliable outlets as long as they're taken with common sense.

[Joseph P Carey]

Each individual Newscast bends towards the market that pays the bills. I have not seen one newscast of either network that reports honestly, some bias is always present in the deletion of some certain facts of individual stories, or the inflation of small facts of some other stories. It is human nature to listen to what you want to hear rather than what might upset you personally, or not follow your belief.

The old saying is: The story is only as good as the story teller!

There are many men on this thread that saw combat, but very few saw everything that happened in a battle. We all had our own perspective on what happened when lead and metal were winging through the air, and we never knew what was happening on the other end of the line. At the end of the day, we met with others that told of of what happened in their areas, and we sort of picked and chose what we liked for the full story. It is the same with newscasters.