Anchorwoman killed in Iraq.

[anticlimates]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The body of an anchorwoman for a U.S.-funded state television station - a mother of four who had been kidnapped last week - was found Saturday dumped on a street in the northern city of Mosul.

[snip]

The mother of three boys and a girl had been threatened with death several times by insurgents who demanded that she quit her job, Saad-Allah said.

The U.S. military confirmed that insurgents had threatened station employees.

READ THE REST HERE..

The US administration should get out of the TV business in Iraq.

Come to think of it, they're pretty heavy into the news business here....maybe government influenced news is part of democracy?

Can any Americans here testify? Any cases of government bought editorializing down there?

This isn't the only TV station regarded as an American propaganda tool by Iraqis. Al-Iraqiya TV is also widely regarded assuch.

[August1991]

Come to think of it, they're pretty heavy into the news business here....maybe government influenced news is part of democracy?

When you say "here", do you mean Canada or the US?

As to the murder of this woman, are you suggesting that it was justified?

[Argus]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The body of an anchorwoman for a U.S.-funded state television station - a mother of four who had been kidnapped last week - was found Saturday dumped on a street in the northern city of Mosul..

The US administration should get out of the TV business in Iraq. 

Anyone who works in almost any capacity for any kind of government agency, or in support of any government agency, or for any private outfit, even a charity, which tries to help people or rebuild Iraq, is an open target for these so-called insurgents. Why this particular case should in any way justify an opinion that the US should get out of funding media is beyond me.

[anticlimates]

Come to think of it, they're pretty heavy into the news business here....maybe government influenced news is part of democracy?

When you say "here", do you mean Canada or the US?

As to the murder of this woman, are you suggesting that it was justified?

Canada or US. Here is North America. Canada has a lot of rightwingers plying their "news" on us to.

You wonder if I'm suggesting if the killing was justified? Where do you get that from?

I'm suggesting the fact that the USA is involved in the news business over there....just like they are here.

I also suggested that maybe they shouldn't be.

Certainly, if this TV station wasn't an arm of the occupation, it wouldn't be targetted. Is that what you're asking?

[anticlimates]

Anyone who works in almost any capacity for any kind of government agency, or in support of any government agency, or for any private outfit, even a charity, which tries to help people or rebuild Iraq, is an open target for these so-called insurgents.

Yes...there are many groups that are targetting the US and their efforts.

Why this particular case should in any way justify an opinion that the US should get out of funding media is beyond me.

Is it media, or is it US propaganda? If it's the latter......if the US in any way is influencing editorial control....then your characterization is wrong and the argument can be made that they should get out of it. Let the Iraqis be free to decide what's news and how to interpret it. They're not stupid and this overt attempt to garner public opinion will only breed cynicism.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Funny we don't see the right wingers denouncing state run media in this instance, especally considering thats it is been pushed on an occupided people.

[August1991]

Come to think of it, they're pretty heavy into the news business here....maybe government influenced news is part of democracy?

When you say "here", do you mean Canada or the US?

As to the murder of this woman, are you suggesting that it was justified?

Canada or US. Here is North America. Canada has a lot of rightwingers plying their "news" on us to.

You wonder if I'm suggesting if the killing was justified? Where do you get that from?

I'm suggesting the fact that the USA is involved in the news business over there....just like they are here.

I also suggested that maybe they shouldn't be.

Certainly, if this TV station wasn't an arm of the occupation, it wouldn't be targetted. Is that what you're asking?

Well, in Canada, the government is in to the news business in a rather big way.

[anticlimates]

Well, in Canada, the government is in to the news business in a rather big way.

I was waiting for that one, and knew it wouldn't take long!

Now I get to explain the difference between the CBC and the multitude of US-funded radio and TV stations that have sprung up in the Mid-East.

The CBC is funded by the government (although it does earn it's own revenue) but it is not influenced by government.

If you talk to a paranoid Canadian rightwinger, they might not agree. But I can testify I often here the CBC reporting on things that the liberal government would much rather weren't being given attention.

Basically, the difference is that the CBC is not government propaganda. It operates independent of government influence.

The US actually calls what it's doing part of an "information war".

I call it stupid. People don't like being manipulated.

Thus the dead anchorwoman. After all, an information war is still a war.

Hey, if the US wants to give grants to media and then let them decide how to operate that would be different.

[kimmy]

Let the Iraqis be free to decide what's news and how to interpret it. They're not stupid and this overt attempt to garner public opinion will only breed cynicism.

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole?

-kimmy

[caesar]

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole?

No, that's is exactly what we are NOT saying. Americans do not speak for Iraqis neither do the other terrorists.

[moderateamericain]

i havent seen a single shred of proof showing that the United states federal government influences are media, most of are media outlets are owned by private corporations. and not funded by the government....

[kimmy]

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole?

No, that's is exactly what we are NOT saying. Americans do not speak for Iraqis neither do the other terrorists.

Well, before the elections we heard over and over that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored elections either, with violence from radicals cited as evidence. As it turns out, the silent majority of Iraqis turned out to be fairly happy with the US-sponsoredelections.

And now we're hearing the claim, again based on violence from radicals, that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored media. Can you blame me for wondering whether the silent majority of Iraqis agree?

Can you blame me for wondering whether when the radicals start blowing up power-stations, people will be claiming that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored electricity?

I also question how board-members decided that this station is a propaganda-organ of the US government. I do not know the editorial policy of the station (do you?) but the phrase "US-funded' does not equate to pro-US propaganda. It's entirely possible, for instance, that the station might be run by Iraq's fledgling government, with funding from the US.

-kimmy

[anticlimates]

Let the Iraqis be free to decide what's news and how to interpret it.  They're not stupid and this overt attempt to garner public opinion will only breed cynicism.

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole?

-kimmy

Maybe you are, I'm not. I never even went close to that.

Are you being dishonest?

"WE" are saying that the USA should get out of the propaganda business abroad, just as many are wanting them out of it at home. It's really quite simple.

Who might be attacking employees of these US propaganda vehicles is irrelevant....the point is they can't expect NOT to be attacked since they are propaganda vehicles and part of the "information war" (as described by the Bush admin).

Note the word "war".

Deeds speak louder than words.

[anticlimates]

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole?

No, that's is exactly what we are NOT saying. Americans do not speak for Iraqis neither do the other terrorists.

Right, exactly. Thankyou.

Why is it that so many people insist on knowingly twisting words and meanings these days?

liberal=communist

disagree with bush=unAmerican

hollywood=anti-American

dissent=support for terrorists

Iraq=threat

Ballistic Missiles=threat

sharks=threat

Germany=Iraq=Japan

AARP=gay

Gannon=victim of the left

Prostitute=gay

Canada=enemy

Criticism=hate

[kimmy]

Why is it that so many people insist on knowingly twisting words and meanings these days?

liberal=communist

disagree with bush=unAmerican

hollywood=anti-American

dissent=support for terrorists

Iraq=threat

Ballistic Missiles=threat

sharks=threat

Germany=Iraq=Japan

AARP=gay

Gannon=victim of the left

Prostitute=gay

Canada=enemy

Criticism=hate

You forgot "US-funded = propaganda."

What makes you so sure that this TV station is a propaganda organ for the US government? I read nothing to indicate that the station's editorial policies are US-determined. What if, for instance, the station's editorial direction comes from the popularly-elected Iraqi government?

-kimmy

[Argus]

The CBC is funded by the government  (although it does earn it's own revenue) but it is not influenced by government.

If you talk to a paranoid Canadian rightwinger, they might not agree.  But I can testify I often here the CBC reporting on things that the liberal government would much rather weren't being given attention. 

The CBC is run by its board and president, all of whom are patronage appointments by the governing party. And while it is certainly not going to ignore stories which are desparaging towards that party the CBC doesn't go out of its way to find such stories either. Certainly they appear far more hostile towards opposition parties than they do towards the government.

Basically, the difference is that the CBC is not government propaganda.  It operates independent of government influence. 

The government influences the CBC in the same way it influences the Supreme Court - by appointing people to it whom they feel are their friends.

[Argus]

Funny we don't see the right wingers denouncing state run media in this instance, especally considering thats it is been pushed on an occupided people.

Occupied? There is more freedom in Iraq now than there has ever been, and certainly more than in any of the neighbouring countries.

[willy]

The CBC is funded by the government (although it does earn it's own revenue) but it is not influenced by government.

Did you ever stop to wonder why the CBC doesn't get the long term funding they ask for. Every budget they get $60 million and no promise for next year. That I am sure has no influence.

[caesar]

Occupied? There is more freedom in Iraq now than there has ever been, and certainly more than in any of the neighbouring countries.

Yeah right; now the torture in prisons is okay, hmmm

In your closed mind, only.

[kimmy]

Occupied? There is more freedom in Iraq now than there has ever been, and certainly more than in any of the neighbouring countries.

Yeah right; now the torture in prisons is okay, hmmm

In your closed mind, only.

What about the election? You remember that? With the purple fingers and all that?

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Did you ever stop to wonder why the CBC doesn't get the long term funding they ask for. Every budget they get $60 million and no promise for next year. That I am sure has no influence.

Got any proof or evidence to back up your claim that the CBC is influenced by the federal government?

[Tawasakm]

Yeah right; now the torture in prisons is okay, hmmm

In your closed mind, only.

Your choice of the word 'now' would seem to imply that it was not the case previously. I'm pretty sure the previous regime tortured people with alarming regularity.

So even if what you are postulating is true, that the US allows torture in prisons, then it does not represent any change from the status quo.

Personally I believe that the US is far more more accountable for its actions then Suddam ever was. Mind you I still have alot of issues with their treatment of prisoners - especially in regards to detaining people without evidence indefintely (a situation outside of Iraq I realise).

I further reason, caesar, that if you think people have a closed mind when they don't acknowledge inappropriate US actions then you have a closed mind if you are focusing on that to the exclusion of all else. Which may not be the case. We will see.

[kimmy]

Did you ever stop to wonder why the CBC doesn't get the long term funding they ask for. Every budget they get $60 million and no promise for next year. That I am sure has no influence.

Got any proof or evidence to back up your claim that the CBC is influenced by the federal government?

I think people have cited government selection of CBC directors, and CBC's annual dependence on the government for funding as supporting arguments.

-kimmy

[Tawasakm]

You know we have a government sponsored station here in Australia too - the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

We all pay for it with our taxes (I think its a few dollars a year from every tax payer) and so it is billed as 'Our ABC'.

It definitely fails in the ratings compared to the other free to air stations but I am glad we have it. In point of fact its current affairs shows, I think, are much sharper then the other stations. I've certainly seen more politicians (from both sides) completely flummoxed and caught out during interviews on the ABC then any other station. The content (of the current affairs shows that is) also seems much more thorough compared to the superficial diggings of the others. I really do believe that the ABC, as a whole, is not biased toward the government in any way - although some programs may be biased one way or the other.

The long and short of all this is that I hold the opinion that a state sponsored tv station can be reputable and responsible. Of course it can also be corrputed but this is not necessarily always the case.

[Shakeyhands]

Posted by Tawaskam:

Personally I believe that the US is far more more accountable for its actions then Suddam ever was. Mind you I still have alot of issues with their treatment of prisoners - especially in regards to detaining people without evidence indefintely (a situation outside of Iraq I realise).

I think its interesting that the US Admin. distances itself from responsibility of torture, denying that it was ever state sanctioned yet we blame Saddam directly for torturing the Iraqi people...

I, in no way think that Iraq was better off with Saddam but I find this very odd... There are small differences of course* but its always blamed on a few bad apples when its the Americans, its never systemic.

*and some rather large ones