The Military and Censorship
Taking a break from all things Bush for a bit, this article I found in the times surprised me. I really have a hard time understanding why the military commanders in charge of this particular outfit, thought it a good idea to shut-down an entire newspaper. That's for 60 days or 60 hours.
That it is anti-American is to be expected (most papers probably are, in that region), but shuttering the doors and putting those people out of work -- who in turn just use the whole thing to their advantage, gaining more support -- was really stupid.
Fight papers with better papers (or radio or TV). Not guns. I don't sympathize with any publication that has rumor and half-truth as its basis for fact, but if we have the courage of our convictions, we let that paper run, and counter it in other ways. This only gives the nut-job behind the paper and their supporters a stronger stance in the community.
We want people to support publications like this less, not more.
That it is anti-American is to be expected (most papers probably are, in that region), but shuttering the doors and putting those people out of work -- who in turn just use the whole thing to their advantage, gaining more support -- was really stupid.
Fight papers with better papers (or radio or TV). Not guns. I don't sympathize with any publication that has rumor and half-truth as its basis for fact, but if we have the courage of our convictions, we let that paper run, and counter it in other ways. This only gives the nut-job behind the paper and their supporters a stronger stance in the community.
We want people to support publications like this less, not more.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe in a civilized society that's a great plan. In fact that's what they are doing everyday. These guys are operating in a war zone of a fledgling democracy. If this paper is printing lies that cost lives then why keep it open? My understanding is that there are dozens of independent papers running in Iraq now. Shutting one down isn't going to set freedom on its ear.
I have to agree. Actually, I've heard that there are hundreds of papers now as opposed to only a handful of state owned ones just last year. The last thing needed is a paper like the one that's been described. One cannot automatically apply our standards of freedom of speech and press because Iraq is in a critical phase right now.
G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Accused of Lies
The letter ordering the paper closed, signed by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator in Iraq, cited what the American authorities called several examples of false reports in Al Hawza, including a February dispatch that said the cause of an explosion that killed more than 50 Iraqi police recruits was not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said, but an American missile.
And is the act of shutting them down likely to cause even more anti-American sentiment / action than the actual paper itself? "Look! The Americans are censoring us... they don't want you to read the truth!"
Better to let them spread the BS rumors and counter it in other ways, IMO. Surely there are people there who would prefer to report things more impartially, whether a particular story is anti-American or not. Why not prop up a few new papers with a more balanced view (but still all-Iraqi staff) for example? How many papers could we prop up for the cost of a couple tanks?
As long as we keep our fingers out of the editorial office and just fund their circulations as long as they avoid the "tabloid temptations", I think that would be a wiser solution. Far from "perfect world" but likely more effective in combating rumor and the like.
Originally posted by segovius
Ok I have read Scott's link and the first thing that springs to mind is that the argument of "the last thing needed is a paper like this" is superflous.
Such a paper merely describes what is 'on the street' and as such it cannot incite to anything worse. In fact, there probably isn't much worse than the Baghdad street right now (in terms of US popularity) so really it is irrelevant.
...
You don't know that to be the case at all. To me it seems like this paper is more of a propoganda rag for a local "leader". Is "what is 'one the street'" what the paper prints or does the paper print "what is 'one the street'". Those are two different things. If it's repeating lies without context or explination then it doesn't matter which is the case.
sWill public attention and symphathy die out for this after a few weeks? If it's anything like the Western attention span for news like this, the answer is yes, people will forget about this in 2 weeks. We'll find out whether that's true or not.
Also, "as soon as the Iraqi government takes over" could easily end up being a lot more than "a few months"... surely you must be aware of that possibility. So as I alluded to, 60 days might as well be "indefinitely" in that particular context.
I just think that in the WOT, and in Iraq in particular, we had better pay careful attention to "the law of unintended consequences". I think this action could have some bad ones (i.e. it is the greater of two evils in this case).
Originally posted by Scott
Ah "quagmire" were back to "quagmire". Great!
The only time I've ever seen this used in reference to Iraq was by a soldier who had returned home from the war.
Originally posted by bunge
The only time I've ever seen this used in reference to Iraq was by a soldier who had returned home from the war.
Well, my local dem's have it on their talking points...
Here are a few people using the "Q" word...
Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd
Sen John Kerry
Sen John Kerry
Rep Neil Abercrombie
Sen Carol Moseley Braun
Rep. Dick Gephardt
Sen. Tom Harkin
Paul Krugman (New York Times)
Originally posted by Jubelum
Well, my local dem's have it on their talking points...
Cool. I guess they listened to the soldiers.