Readers’ Responses to Our Question (130)

This is a very informative site.

Thank you very much.

///_’

*^_^*

This is a very informative site.

very interesting and informative

///_’

(>_<)

(-_-")

Hi... Very interesting site.

Sorry...

Sorry...

very interesting and informative

Sorry...

A good scare is worth more to a man than good advice.

A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

jzgntdob kmbrqi jmstfyg bmxa epdnbam tlmrex drnkl

wlkcjz qushobd snkrty uelrkaq zgkqfd vztupf bkaz

xpkuiqvfs cyrvulneo jbdgwnxr udjlrg phyqvzbc jcqofp neawjuik http://www.xuhtvwroj.alrtxfe.com

fxwkahy ntumyi xquke lyank docapemly apcdtlk wfdkpmxtr

There is the real question, why do you pretend?
Why had Hamas shot my american friend Mark in Nablus in 2003, why would you have beaten down his door for the interview, yet because the man who shot my american friend was an Israeli soldier, the american media ignored it, or worse, lied and said he was throwing rocks?
Why did you all pretend to care about the reporters killed when every major media outlet in Iraq was attacked by americi forces in a single afternoon, but then forget to do any follow up reporting?
YOU SHOULD BE SHOT!
Why do YOU refuse to tell the american people that Bush does not give Iraqi soldiers bullets? You have all the americans wondering why no Iraqi will fight for him, why not tell them?
Why no pictures of injured Iraqi kids, you showed injured Israeli kids?
Why did you show embedded video during primetime of an american soldier shooting a bound and injured prisoner in a mosque, then refuse to report that the soldier was never charged.
YOU SHOULD BE SHOT!

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." - Gil Scott Heron

Keep that in mind if you hear I've jacked an oil-tanker off the West African coast.

My thoughts on your specific question of how journalists can work together to protect each other and our common goal of open communications:

Sure, American journalists have plenty of their own problems to address. The industry's rapidly changing economic dynamics have disrupted newsrooms across the country. Egregious lapses in journalism ethics have rocked some of the nation's most respected news organizations. Overzealous federal prosecutors, encouraged by a ridiculously — and increasingly — secretive executive branch, have launched serious legal assaults on the foundational principles of a free American press.

But where press freedom is concerned, American journalists do have it embarrassingly easy compared to journalists in many other countries, where murders, blatant censorship and government raids and closures of newsrooms are the norm.

Why would I choose the word "embarrassingly?" Primarily because I suspect global press freedom doesn't rank very highly among American journalists' most pressing concerns. I'm willing to bet the average American newsie hasn't heard about the latest shoot-'em-up in a Mexican newsroom or of the African woman raped after writing critically about her government. I'm also pretty sure the typical American reporter hasn't stopped to think about how much journalists in other countries would love to have a Freedom of Information Act that allows them to review public documents. (Given how much American journalists bother to use FOIA, they appear to take it for granted. A recent study conducted by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government analyzed 6,439 requests last year and found that 60 percent came from businesses and 6 percent came from the media.)

Why the disconnection? Journalists get busy. Most of us are paid to study intensely what is happening in our own back yard. And, as stated, we have our own problems to worry about.

The Society of Professional Journalists (www.spj.org), one of the United States' oldest and largest journalism advocacy organizations, works hard to call attention to the burdens carried by journalists in other countries. Our members believe in the free flow of public information and in every citizenry's right to know what its government is doing in its name. Our members also recognize that greater press freedom abroad is likely to translate into greater press freedom at home.

We have found that one of the best ways to promote global press freedom is by encouraging greater interaction among American and foreign journalists. We highly encourage work exchanges. We welcome opportunities to send American journalists to newsrooms in other countries, and to welcome journalists from other countries into our newsrooms. The Society is always looking for opportunities to know and be known.

It is amazing what we all begin to pay attention to once we have forged personal relationships.

Odd you should ask others about their journalists. When we look for self-censoring reporters, the very first place we look is the United States. It was American journalists who set the bar for gullibility and complacency with the Bush administration, particularly after 9/11 when your people most needed your protection. With some exceptions, I think Canadian reporters are doing just fine, thanks.

Sure, American journalists have plenty of their own problems to address. The
industry's rapidly changing economic dynamics have disrupted newsrooms
across the country. Egregious lapses in journalism ethics have rocked some
of the nation's most respected news organizations. Overzealous federal
prosecutors, encouraged by a ridiculously — and increasingly — secretive
executive branch, have launched serious legal assaults on the foundational
principles of a free American press.

But where press freedom is concerned, American journalists do have it
embarrassingly easy compared to journalists in many other countries, where
murders, blatant censorship and government raids and closures of newsrooms
are the norm.

Why would I choose the word "embarrassingly?" Primarily because I suspect
global press freedom doesn't rank very highly among American journalists'
most pressing concerns. I'm willing to bet the average American newsie
hasn't heard about the latest shoot-'em-up in a Mexican newsroom or of the
African woman raped after writing critically about her government. I'm also
pretty sure the typical American reporter hasn't stopped to think about how
much journalists in other countries would love to have a Freedom of
Information Act that allows them to review public documents. (Given how much
American journalists bother to use FOIA, they appear to take it for granted.
A recent study conducted by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government
analyzed 6,439 requests last year and found that 60 percent came from
businesses and 6 percent came from the media.)

Why the disconnection? Journalists get busy. Most of us are paid to study
intensely whatís happening in our own back yard. And, as stated, we have our
own problems to worry about.

The Society of Professional Journalists, one of the United Statesí oldest
and largest journalism advocacy organizations, works hard to call attention
to the burdens carried by journalists in other countries. Our members
believe in the free flow of public information and in every citizenryís
right to know what its government is doing in its name. Our members also
recognize that greater press freedom abroad is likely to translate into
greater press freedom at home.

We have found that one of the best ways to promote global press freedom is
by encouraging greater interaction among American and foreign journalists.
We highly encourage work exchanges. We welcome opportunities to send
American journalists to newsrooms in other countries ñ and to welcome
journalists from other countries into our newsrooms. The Society is always
looking for opportunities to know and be known.

Itís amazing what we all begin to pay attention to once weíve forged
personal relationships.

Bob L.
Sir, you do sound like a liberal.
I agree with you that arguing with BIGOT is a losing situation, but not for the reasons you gave. When a person is that misguided (i.e. Does not know the facts, does not understand the conflict, and clearly is racially motivated) there really is no point in discussing it with him.
However, there are people on these posts (reasonable and rational) who believe some of the things he was saying, whose mind's might actually be changed once they are shown the light of truth.
I don't think that you should be flattered by the misunderstanding, however, for you are clearly a rational thinker.

Thom, the pleasure was all mine. Sometimes, people do get fried for being conscientious. Ultimately, only conscience is with what one is left, in any case.

Having said that, many of our colleagues (from diverse locations, I might add) on this blog are truly rational, thoughtful, and considerate; I am grateful for that, because that is what keeps me going!

R. R. Hamilton, Lake Worth, USA:

Welcome aboard! We are all glad to have you with us.

BobL, VA:

Thanks very much. (I have been out on travel and could not get an internet access - yes, even in these days in America!)

Srikanth,

Welcome back.

R.R. Hamilton,

I agreed with your post.

The only thing I would add is the concept of influence. Both parties are guilty of spinning the press. Spinning, influence, etc. is much different then control. Republicans constantly rant the press is liberal and very biased. The Democrats complain the press is unfair to them for not pointing out the follies of Republican ways and being mouth pieces of the administration. Frankly, I like the balance.

Karim,

Oh, this is going to be my favorite part of this post. You wrote a reply to me on 9/28 at 6:31 PM that stated, "you don't seem to know what you are talking about my friend." You were so nice and quoted me to make your point. Only 1 small problem. You quoted what "Liberal" had posted to me. You didn't even get the person right and I don't know what I'm talking about? TSK, TSK, sloppy at best.

Liberal,

First, I'm flattered that someone thinks your posts are mine.

Second, the exchange with Thom over Israel is no win. Not for you and not for him. The ME is a religous conflict for the people who inhabit the area. For the US it's just stupid. The Jews know they have a mandate from God to occupy the territory. The Arabs know they have a mandate from God to occupy the territory. These two views are obviously diametrically opposed. There is no middle ground. There is no real negotiation in good faith by either side. There has been only conflict for 60 years and there is no end in sight. This isn't a right vs. left issue. This is an issue of who you support or don't support based more on religous and cultural biases then anything else. Both sides have their own zealots. The Jews have the Zionist, which the Arabs can point to saying terrorists, and the Arabs have their Jihadists, which the Jews can point to and say terrorists. Eventhough the zealots on both sides are a minority of their respective positions they are both supported by the majority of their religions members. After all, God has granted each of them exclusive rights to the same land.

Third, are you at all suprised by the Foley resignation? As it turns out Hastert knew about it months ago and apparently did nothing of substance to report the situation. I, for one, am not the least bit suprised. This Republican Administration and Congress has a history of mismanaging everything else so why should Foley's lewd behavior with minors not be mismanaged as well? Look at the list:

1. Afghanistan has been mismanaged
2. The capture of death of Bin Laden has been mismanaged
3. The intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq was mismanaged
4. The plan for occupying Iraq was mismanaged
5. The Iraq war as a whole has been mismanaged
6. KATHRINA WAS AND IS A COLOSSAL EXAMPLE OF MISMANAGEMENT
7. Immigration has been mismanaged
8. Social Security proposals were mismanaged
9. Supreme court Justice nominees have been mismanaged
10.The torture issue has been mismanaged

If it wasn't for mismanagement Bush and Co. wouldn't have a reason to wake up each day. (Thom, do I sound liberal)

dear kourosh ziabari . that was a nice and useful one ! keep going pal

There are many obstacles to a free press in the United States. Certainly one of the obstacles is the inability to articulate exactly what is occuring with the division between the right and left wing parties in the United States. A free press cannot really exist without this articulation and in fact has to make this articulation if it really wants to exist in the fullness of its promise.

On the left we have people primarily concerned with economics, a redistribution of wealth, a deep concern with racial problems, women's rights, etc. The primary fault of such people is that although they are correct wealth must be spread out more broadly, not concentrated in an apex crushing the rest of society, where they deeply err is that they go way too far and are not only concerned with spreading wealth, they are envious of differences between people—are eager to erase all differences—and in being so envious ironically destroy precisely the means by which wealth is created: the upsurge of the best talents within society. This is why extreme left wing societies although capable for a time of providing for all eventually collapse. They quite simply cannot separate in their minds the means of creating wealth from the need to provide for all.

In American society, in left wing newspapers, we have the call to redistribute wealth to the point talents are allowed only if they can equally be demonstrated between the races and sexes.—In other words, not only is there a call to spread the wealth more broadly, differences between people must not be allowed unless all the races and the two sexes are equally capable. Therefore achievements which might call into question differences between people are glossed over and fields in which the sexes are relatively equal flourish (sports, music, film, etc.).

Quite simply a free press is compromised by the left wing in that it cannot understand that to truly have wealth spread out amongst all it must embrace true meritocracy, a system which relentlessy examines differences and talents between people so that the best find themselves at the top and capable of creating wealth for all.

But the left wing of course is not entirely at fault in its actions. It is faced with a right wing which is just as much against meritocracy and is in fact eager to preserve racial privilege—even family privilege if we can take seriously that the best universities disproportionally admit the children of the privileged. Furthermore we have an interesting business model in the U.S.—a model which in fact is difficult to overcome anywhere: What I mean is the model of trying to find a product which will appeal to everyone—and precisely because the best way to arrive at such a product is to have a quite docile and gullible mass of people (in other words a mass easily become dependent) we have a contradiction just as absurd as the one explicated above about the left wing within the United States: A perpetual attempt to make money while constantly compromising the minds of citizens and therefore ruining the means of future wealth creation (people addicted to Coca-cola, Mcdonalds, etc.?).

Therefore both political parties are inimical to a truly free press in their own ways. Each works to destroy the independence of mind by which such can be born. And of course each has the best intentions. The problem is one of not really asking how true wealth creation is really born. Answering that question is the key to a truly free press. But to answer that question is to compromise the right and left wing presses as they exist today. Really what it comes down to is that a newspaper cannot understand itself let alone fully blossom into what a newspaper should really become unless by perpetual revolution in its economic and political understanding. Without that internal thrust there is no development of free press. May we one day have a truly free press in the United States.

I was trying to read every post here, but time does not permit me to read through more than about two-thirds. The last one I read was by the Swiss named "Walt". Was anyone else floored by his comment:

"In the past months, U.S. mainstream media were writing about the federal voting system, the electronic voting machines nobody trusts, the way elections are organzied, about who is eligeable to vote, etc. What an amazing discussion in a 200 year old democracy!"

I mean, how many years ago was it that Switzerland gave women the vote — 10? Anyway, the comment just seemed too richly ironic to ignore.

Just as a general comment for the Americans here. With the notable exceptions of James Buchanan, BobL, Stephen Sicilian, and Kim Yaman, all the Americans here seem to believe (1) "The Republicans control the press!" or (2) "The Jews control the press!" or (3) "The corporations control the press!" Thus it was another deep irony to see the employee of the French leftist independent newspaper, "LIBERATION" tell us that it's Baron Rothschild (a (1) aristocrat (2) Jewish (3) banker) who is the primary source of funds for "LIBERATION".

Folks, I worked in the newspaper business for eight years (now, I'm a lawyer). I have a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, 1981. The notion that the Republicans, Jews, or corporations "control the press" is nonsensical to anyone who has ever worked as a real reporter. I would write more expansively on this point but time, the mistress of us all, will not permit.

I will come back here regularly to read, and hopefully comment.

Thanks for getting us back on track Srikanth. I was trying for a short interjection and got lambasted. Thought I'd defend myself, and then kinda lost track of the thread. I know I can always count on you to get it back on track.

In the country of which I am a citizen (the U. S.) we used to have freedom of press, litreally in the true sense of the phrase. However, it is evanescing rapoidly, and it is indeed a crying shame. To make matters worse, we are even considering jailing and otherwise penalizing journalists, who seek and convey the truth (most of time, but not always!).

Although I will be the first one to admit that the journalists have miserably failed lately at "objective" reporting and do often pander to commercial interests (i. e., who gets to break the news to the public, first, etc.), I think that they have done a reasonable job of actually reporting the "news." However, the government (Executive Branch) is trying to take the law into its own hands to dictate what can and cannot be reported. Censorship, at any level, is not conducive for our First Amendment Rights. Do the journalists make mistakes? Yes, of course, they do indeed. Nevertheless, by and large, they have also reported their own mistakes.

Bottom line is that we MUST remove of the shackles on the free press. If they err, then they will be punished by theselves, or by the readers, who will be disenchanted with their reporting, sooner, or later.

Sadly, currently, free press in my country (the U. S.) has become passe'.

We all must resolve to uphold the Bill of Rights, AT ANY COST, for those are the most redeeming qualities of our society.

"Where you stand on an issue depends entirely on where you sit to consider it". or, more precisely, it depends upon what you are using to sit on vs. what you use to think with.

Liberal -

Do you even read my posts?

"what is WRONG is that you are supporting "a cause" that seeks to harm human beings!"

"I am truly glad you call yourself a "leftist".

What did I just say about putting words in my mouth.

"Go ahead, don't write mindless slogans, look it up."

I don't think I could have put it any better. May I suggest you do so?

"You guys and the frightened hicks from old Europe can adopt your own pet Arab terrorist or other doomed cause all you want."

"The Palestinian parasite's who lived in those homes in Jeruselum were there AFTER some pig of a Muslim religious leader organized mobs to murder Jews and take their homes and businesses from them after WW1"

Like I said, start signing your posts with the name Bigot, it is more applicable.

I don't think I'll be responding to your racist invective any longer.

royinva -

I am not defending Islam, I am criticizing America and Americans. What we say and what we do are two completely different things. The rest of the world sees it, but for some reason (could it be a lack of freedom of the press?) we don't.

"Do you think that being "sensitive" to the views of the KKK would have got them to stop hanging people?"
No I don't, but we didn't bomb them, or kill thousands of civilians to get it done, which is why it worked. We did kill and destroy during the Civil War however, (see Shermans March to the Sea) and resentment still simmers.

"They're not killing soldiers you know, they're killing men, women and children." I know, and I think the Iraqis have every right to be angry at us. (purposeful misunderstanding)
You see, we condemn when other people do it, but when we do it, it is ok, because we're the forces of "good." That argument just doesn't fly when you're on the other side.

Try it this way. Do you remember the names of the International Terrorists who suraced during the Revolutionary War? One was a Frenchman named Lafayette, and another was a Prussian named Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben.

Where you stand on an issue depends entirely on where you sit to consider it.

Thom, what is WRONG is that you are supporting "a cause" that seeks to harm human beings! Hamas, Hizbulla, Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian leadership all explicitly aim to not just destroy the state of Israel, but give the Jewish and Christian's thus left over the choice of either converting to Islam or being killed. Doen't that bother you just a little? Moreover, I defy you to name one instance where Israel proactively sought out a fight with any of her AArab neigbors. Their response to suicide bombers has been to merely destroy the house they were living in. Tough luck for the parents and siblings, but if you bring a monster into the world and nuture them, you can expect a whole lot worse from anyone else. Oh, and what else. The Golan. After putting up with Syrian's firing artilliary at their farms for years, Israel took the Golan *after* they were attacked by Syria and other Arab forces - the 1967 sneak attack I might add. Today, the Arabic excuse for demanding the return of the Golan has been a few rocky farms. Great propaganda, but their aim is to get their bloody hands on the Golan Heights and resume their bombardment. I certainly wouldn't give it back and I am deeply troubled by your and European's having such short memories that they cannot recall the events that led to Israel's siezing and keeping Golan. As for the rest, there isn't anything. The "right of return"? It's a sick joke. The Palestinian parasite's who lived in those homes in Jeruselum were there AFTER some pig of a Muslim religious leader organized mobs to murder Jews and take their homes and businesses from them after WW1. Prior to that, the Jewish people were a majority, by some 2/3, of Israel AND Jeruselum. Take a map of the mosques in that area. Over half are stolen synagogs and Christian churches. Go ahead, don't write mindless slogans, look it up. The Palestinian's, and Israel's Arab neighbors, are unwelcome interlopers that have flat out no rights whatsoever to or in Israel. Yet they keep on attacking and murdering and thieving and somehow you can justify it. Your icky friend from Morocco, is just another ragtag terrorist wannabe, living here - likely on welfare or on some sort of visa becausue he was run out of his own country - and spouting his nonsense and lies. I simply cannot understand your siding with someone who would be a part of the mob, calling for your blood, if you deemed to speak out about anything in his country. You have nothing in common with him.

Liberal,

I just had someone else look at my comments, and (if we leave out the bad grammar) your syopsis of my comments is just plain wrong.
I am trying to point out that all of the things that people attribute to "those bloodthirsty, murderous animals" are things that our "moral" society has done, and in some cases continue to do. You ignore the truth of this at your own peril.

Also, you clearly need to study some history. Your ideas about the Israeli/Palestinian issues are so off-base that if I went point by point, it might take three or four pages of this post.

The one easy point I can make is in regards to Somalia. You claim our troops were there to give humanitarian aid. "The American Rangers who were murdered and drug through the streets of Somalia were there to deliver humanitarian aid!" I would argue that humanitarian aid is the exact opposite of killing people, which they did while there. (Read the book Black Hawk Down. No, wait, you should probably see the movie.)

I will let you in on a little secret. Framing arguments (putting up straw men) might work for our President and other politicians, but it usually doesn't work when the other persons words are right there on the page directly above your post. Argue with what I say, not with what you say I'm saying. In short, do NOT put words in my mouth.

Thom,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Come on, we were hanging people as little as forty or fifty years ago. That's not to compare us to bloodthirsty murderous killers, but those southerners were pretty bad."

True enough, but that doesn't happen anymore does it? And how do you think such change occurred? I'll give you a hint— it wasn't by rolling over. It took aggressive and large countermeasures on all fronts, including massive civilian protest and national guard enforcement to get the job done. Do you think that being "sensitive" to the views of the KKK would have got them to stop hanging people?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I am not defending Islam..."

Then what are you doing? You're trying to let them off the hook. You've become an apologist for a group who's actions wouldn't be tolerated under another name like "Christian Right" or "KKK". Would you have opposed the closing of the Berlin opera if the protesters were Christian? How are all these glorious and brave suicide bombers any different than abortion clinic bombers? They're not killing soldiers you know, they're killing men, women and children.

There's been a strong pattern of violence and intimidation coming out of the Islamic sector that is being exported worldwide. Where is the massive civilian protest against said violence (within or without the islamic world)?

Not defending them you say?

...and THOM, I am truly glad you call yourself a "leftist". In days gone by, Leftists were at least revolutionaries. These day that has been replaced by the sort of pretentiousness you normally see with old ladies teas or kindergarden classes. Liberals attempt to see and do the right right thing. They do not buy their politics nor morality pre-packaged as if it were some sort of fast food. You guys and the frightened hicks from old Europe can adopt your own pet Arab terrorist or other doomed cause all you want. What it proves is their failure and your lack of integrity.

Thom, Karim - I wish you could take a step back and look at your comments. By your definition, the only rational people and the only true lberals are those who would destroy the state of Israel and murder Jews and those that somehow justify acts of terrorism. Karim, your saying that Israel is the leading violater of human right on the planet is juvenile AND simply not true. Tell us, please, when has Israel ever attacked or otherwise gone after Islamic extremists exceot when they were directly threatened or attacked by them. The Arab League and morons at the U.N. can pass all of the resolutions they want and it wont make one whit of difference to that fact. Arab culture and their mindless hatred and accompanying violence of anyone that disagrees with them has got to change. The world is pretty fed up with you guys right now. To be sure, Germany caved into flat out censorship to spare your silly sensabilities, but the backlash in Germany over this pretty much ensures it wont happen again.

Liberal you may call yourself, but you are not. Your comments on Isreal just gave away the farm. Why not call yourself what you are, a BIGOT.

Liberal:

Please spare us that likudist propaganda. I did mention Hamas in my post (please read it again). It suffices to remind readers that the government of Israel is the leading violator of UN resolutions in the entire planet.

In my opinion, the only true liberals in America are the far-left liberals whom I proudly support. Supporting the death penatly never was on the liberal agenda. Supporting Israeli right-wing policies never was a liberal goal. Supporting the war on Iraq (majority of democrats did) is far from being a liberal decision.

For some reason, you just like to think of yourselves as liberals even though most European liberals and others would consider your politics center right-wing. It is the same delusion that I often hear all the time from right-wingers who claim that they are defending the West when in fact the rest of the Western world (Old Europe) would not want to come near them or to be associated with them, whatsoever.

"Howard Kurtz in today's WP questions why the White House reporters let Bush get away with not answering their questions over and over again."

Because they have editors breathing down their necks for exclusive information, and chickenpoop publishers who don't have the stomach to pursue stories that don't rely on "access" to fill column-inches. There's little time for research/followup when you have produce as many stories as competing colleagues, or face the wrath of management. Remember, there's always somebody else waiting in line for the lowliest fact checker spot. Let's institute tenure for journalists, then stand back and see who pushes whom around in the White House Press Room.

As a former Lebanese journalist, I have to admit that Lebanese media are generally free of the censorship that plagues most Arab media. Following the Cedar Revolution and the Syrian withdrawal, more journalists felt emboldened to freely express their opinions and report on events once considered taboo: from the Syrian hegemony to Hizbullah's weapons.

However the media sector in Lebanon suffers from lack of journalistic skills and ethics. As in most Arab countries, sources are almost always anonymous, and information is presented like the holy truth and is rarely checked for accuracy. The concept of editing is almost absent, and journalists often write for their employers and not for the public. Sadly, investigative journalism is practically non existent.

In a region infested with dictators it is indeed a noble challenge to spread the free word. But what use is that free word when it doesn't serve the public? I am not talking about the celebrated journalists who lost their lives because of opinions they published. Lebanon lacks the other kinds of journalists, the ones whose opinions and agendas should take a backseat to serving the public an objective and balanced image of what transpires in political circles.

Much has been written about the role of the Lebanese media in mobilizing the masses during the Cedar Revolution. An objective study of the results of the various media campaigns engineered by the anti-Syrian media in particular will reveal that the Lebanese media has not set foot outside the box of those who pump the cash. It has some democratic qualities, sure, but the extent of the political message was determined from the start, and so were the intended objectives, which were revolutionary by accident rather than intention. There has never been a journalistic model to follow. If anything, there is an absence of method.

What Lebanon needs is journalism to help liberate the minds of people and encourage them to think outside the box. More often than not, the real questions aren't being asked, and politicians are not being properly interviewed, nor their motives and answers contextualized. At the end, and despite the short-lived satisfaction from what is perceived to be uncensored coverage, Lebanese citizens pay dearly because their media made them even more susceptible to manipulation by transient heroes and opportunistic politicians. Had the media that trumpeted the Cedar Revolution asked the right questions instead of marketing political alliances, the Lebanese public would have been more informed and yes, more politically active.

To the question, "How can journalists work together to protect each other and
our common goal of open communications?" Even in a guild, you can't really call
someone local to get information that would fact-check a story.
But if a group did have a fact-check exchange that would help.
Doing the simple things are not simple if you are not there.
You find about a place taking orders for cashmire but
it doesn't advertise the percentage as required by law. Is the
place a business address, someone's home or a mail drop?

Karim, USA/Morocco |- You write "Israeli hit-squads often go into Palestinian territories disguised as ARABS." ANd I suppose the Hamas squads who murdered those children on that farm in Israel were Santa's Helper's? And, please cease with the poorly veiled racist remarks about Jews. You full well know that the Arabic press runs those demeaning cartoon for theor Arab audience to dehumanize Jews. I suppose it makes it easier to murder them in cold blood. We have watched your silly conflict with Israel for quite some time, now, and the pattern that emerges is one of some atrocity or attack by Arabs, Israel defends itself, and the Arab's all whine about Israeli abuse. If you care to recall, this last episode resulted from Israel pre-emptive pullouts from Gaza and the West Bank. The reward was mortar and artilliary attacks, sneaking thugs crawling across the border to muder women and children and kidnapping Israeli soliers on patrol in Israeli territory. Excuse me. You people have been offered peace and tossed is away. At the risk of misquoting an famous anti-war song, "All we are saying, Let's give war a chance". Not the half baked Bush intervention, but total and complete war that results in the destruction of Islam and Arab culture. Or, I suppose, you could grow up and actually learn to live as world citizens and show respect for others and their belief's. Life or death, the choice is your's.

Thom, Washington DC wrote:

"As opposed to frying them in an electric chair. Or injecting them with whatever we use to kill people in Texas."

Thank you for your comment. I actually prefer to call it "poisoning convicts until they die"

While it was not reported widely in the news, it was only last year that the United States government finally outlawed convicting minors to the death row.

BobL-Va:

You wrote:

" Not only do they call American's pigs, Arabic newspapers feature the most despicable editorial cartoons imaginable. A recent one, which appeared *only* in the Arabic verison of an online newspaper, depicted Jews as the greasy, big nosed, fat preverts."

Have you ever looked at Arafat's nose? isn't it bigger than Sharon's?

How about Hanan Ashrawi's nose? Is it big or small?

Check out Hosni Mubarak's nose too.

This makes me laugh because you don't seem to know what you are talking about my friend.

When Arabs want to insult Israeli, they usually depicte them as blood thristy people (with knives etc). The size of the nose does not come in the picture because in case you didn't realize it:

Palestinias and many Arabs in general look like oriental Jews and even like some European Jews.

Israeli hit-squads often go into Palestinian territories disguised as ARABS. Did you think that they undergo plastic surgery to look like your average Palestinian?

If Barak put an Arab headress on his head, you wouldn't know he was a Jew.

And how many Palestinians attacked Israeli disguised as Rabbis or Israeli soldiers?

If you are interested in our region (which seems that you are), the least you could is to go beyond stereotypes.

Atheist, Boston, USA - "...deport all Muslim..." THAT, is exactly what I do not want. In that 80% statistic cited by the Arab media, there is a 20% who are not ignorant bigots. Those, if Islam is to have any future, ARE the future Islam. There are practing Muslims in this country, and in the Middle East, who are moderate and moral men and women and they need to be encouraged. If there were some way of identifying them, I would allow and encourage them to immigrate to this country simply to get them out of the miserable mess the Middle East is going to degenerate into when we do leave.

Feast your eyes on the story at the following web page.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7971173

"The Economist" states (accurately), "But it was swiftly overshadowed by the cancellation of Mozart's 'Idomeneo' at the Deutsche Opera — apparently for fear of attacks by Muslim extremists. At the opera's end, the director has the protagonist, dressed in a bloody shirt, displaying the severed heads of religious leaders, among them Muhammad, to get over the message that enlightenment requires an end to religion."

The Muslims in Europe are essentially terrorizing the Europeans into self-censorship in a broad range of liberal arts: music, plays, newspapers, television news, etc. The Muslims act like animals and have used threats of violence to silence the right to free expression.

The right way to deal with this crap is to deport all Muslims (back to their homelands) who do not possess the citizenship of the European nation in which they live. Good riddance.

Thom, Washington DC - Your willingness to drop, no DENY, civilized rules of conduct and morality speaks volumes. I suppose that is what we can expect from the graduates of business programs and what passes for morality amoungst nocons these days. For my part, I cannot and will not tolerate the sort of evil I see being practiced and the overlooking of it. What happned at HP, was the Bush Administration does, what mainstream Islamists practice and preach, are all wrong, morally repugnant acts that cry out to be condemned by men of good will everywhere. An "Arabic Street" that supports the monsters that murder innocents or kill or maim our troops, or charge them with fictitious acts of war crimes, is no less evil than the beasts who brainwash young people in driving a car loaded with explosives into a checkpoint. Nor, is there any difference between these monsters and the greedy swine at the Pentagone who would deny our troops a defense against RPG's in order to award a contract to a friendly firm in the defense industry. All are inhuman. All are evil monsters. And all deserve to have the light shined upon them, exposing them for the corrupt despicable filth they are. If you so choose to defend them and side with them, that is your doing. I suppose you, as they, can find some way of living with yourself. For my part, I cannot, and will not.

"I think liberals are getting fed up with Islam because of it's irrational acts and to a large degree their archaic and sometimes barbaric practices. Let's face it. It is hard to call the purposeful beheading of another human being civilized."

As opposed to frying them in an electric chair. Or injecting them with whatever we use to kill people in Texas.

Come on, we were hanging people as little as forty or fifty years ago. That's not to compare us to bloodthirsty murderous killers, but those southerners were pretty bad.

I mean as far as archaic practices go. We enlightened Westerners did not give women the vote until about 80 years ago. Yes, that seems like a long time ago, but not when you consider that they were considered beneath men for 1500. And that was because of, (wait for it) Christianity. Look up John the Babtist, or Augustine of Hippo, mysogonists both.

I am not defending Islam, I am merely pointing out the shock of "foreign cultures" especially ours which people conveniently forget when claiming we are the "most moral country in the world."

In fact that statement is ridiculous. Morality is an absolute. You are either moral or you are not. We are not, but we sure tell ourselves (and anyone else willing to listen [fewer and fewer these days] that we are.

Thom,

Most of the liberals I know would rather shoot themselves in the foot then go around saying, "Christianity teaches tolerance and restraint." I don't know where you came up with that idea. You must have us confused with the neocons.

I think liberals are getting fed up with Islam because of it's irrational acts and to a large degree their archaic and sometimes barbaric practices. Let's face it. It is hard to call the purposeful beheading of another human being civilized.

"In the Middle East, in the Arab world, with Islam, the vast majority - more than 80% according to their own polls - is so filled with loathing and hatred, so willing to encourage violence, that they would justify killing American's."

80% feel that way, according to their polls?

Yet when the president of Egypt wins with 90% of the vote in "their polls" it is viewed as fraud.

You cannot have it both ways.

Also, this is not a "splinter group" these are evangelical Christians. Of whom our President is one.

Thom, Washington, DC - You are missing the point. You can always point to some tiny splinter group like that. There are the Aryan Nation types in Idaho, Mormon polygamists, etc. But these stand out because the ARE a tiny group (usually) mentally unstable misfits. In the Middle East, in the Arab world, with Islam, the vast majority - more than 80% according to their own polls - is so filled with loathing and hatred, so willing to encourage violence, that they would justify killing American's. Please, do not insult us by calling this an act of revenve for some wrong doing either. The wrongs of Islam over the centuries so outweigh anything ever done by the West it begs "humanity". All of this are attrubutable to a "religion", a collection of hysterical fanatsies, that calls for it's being spread by violence and ignorance and hysreria - a sort of contageous insanity. YOU may be willing to suspend you sense of morality and common snese and grant Islam some sort of "pass". For myself and for, apparently now, the majority of even liberals, I am more than willing to stand up and say that common sense and humanity lead me to condem Islam and Arab culural values as evil.

Especially for Liberal, but also for those of you posting that Islam is an angry religion and Christianity teaches tolerance and restraint, I have a suggestion.

Go to YouTube.com, and look up the term "Jesus Camp" these are excerpts from a new documentary movie about a bible camp in North Dakota. It takes about three minutes, and might open your eyes to a few things.

Or just use this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE

It also might help write, "Let he without sin cast the first stone." Jesus said that.

The dismaying truth seems to be that even in the most developed nations a truly free press is something of an ideal, and in fact I have rarely if ever heard it put in terms that a truly free press is something of a perpetual mini-revolution within society in that it is a group of people dedicated to individuality and democracy beyond what exists anywhere today. Certainly we can speak of a free press being "politics ahead of politics" in that it is a perpetual champing at the bit and all too likely to find the bit become a noose. I doubt a truly sincere press can ever be considered right or left politically. There is something about the idea of it that suggests a perpetual will toward individuality without loss of coordination, incoherance—a will toward something you see in the best music performances where each member of the group goes his own way and yet the whole just leaps forward in unimaginable ways. I doubt a person can be any good at a newspaper without understanding that he is involved in the supreme responsibility of being something of the microcosm of future society. In this sense the newspaper is hostile to all political structures—it is something of the nucleus of future society born within current society and therefore a perpetual threat to the present. But of course this is pure idealism speaking—and I can well understand why this idealism would be rejected, because if to be a journalist is such a high-minded calling then it inevitably conflicts with all that is currently human...and of course we cannot have that...So in a sense even as the newspaper aspires to be something of a group mind above all other minds (whether in group or not), it also contradicts itself, compromises its highest ideals whether forced to (by outside forces) or not. When we contemplate a music group we do not feel threatened if the best musicians of society are chosen and embark on 20 flight rock, but to create a group of people that use the native language of a country to penetrate into all its aspects and in fact expect an improvement in everything? I put that last sentence badly. What I meant to say is that some groups can be as excellent as they possibly can because limited to a certain sphere of society, but other groups precisely because they threaten to alter society as a whole are perpetually compromised and in fact not allowed to form at all. A musician deals in music and in music a great variety of groups are allowed to form, but a newspaper deals in words and goes into all aspects of society and therefore rarely if ever rises to the excellence which is routine in music. For the newspaper to realize its highest ideals it would have to be something of a revolution in language and knowledge—something of what we now know as the University pouring its knowlege over society and increasingly becoming aware of events of all types (in space and time). This is identical with perpetual political revolution. And this of course conflicts with the average man for a variety of reasons—not least the reason that in its highest aspects the newspaper calls for a perpetually higher man. So the newspaper can be said to be caught in a perpetual moral dilemma: it might be fully justified in fighting for its existence against tyrannical political structures, but it is also the champion of change which all too many people cannot accept. So of course it takes the middle course, fighting tyranny, but in the process often not understanding itself at all, and all too often all too eager to simply submit to the current political structure it happens to find itself in. The newspaper as a question of philosophy and whether it has the courage to not only live it, but live it with a minimum of pain to others. But live it even if pain must occasionally be caused to others. A paradox, yes, but the paradox of all groups which have it in them to totally transform society.

Liberal,

Alas, I have to say I'm heading down the same road you are on. Being liberal isn't enough to accept the continued bad behaviour and lack of rational responses from the Islamic nations.

BobL-VA, Karim - Not only do they call American's pigs, Arabic newspapers feature the most despicable editorial cartoons imaginable. A recent one, which appeared *only* in the Arabic verison of an online newspaper, depicted Jews as the greasy, big nosed, fat preverts. The cartoon was missing from the English language version. There are regular editorials calling for the killing of Christians and Jews and pathetic editorial comments about Islamic victimhood and calls for "revenge" on the West, for "taking back" Spain, for a new Jihad to conquer the West. It's all rather disturbing and more than a little disgusting. I'm an Amercian liberal and I cannot fathom how my fellow liberals feel any sympathy for the Iraqi people or the "Arab Street" in general, but especially for Islam, when that same "Street" and that same "religion" would execute anyone professioning anything remotely resembling liberal ideas. To the point of this forum, network television is actively practicing self censorship when showing photo's and film of Arabs and Islamic mobs anywhere. Last week, when two Amercian soldiers were murdered and their bodies dragged through the streets, the Arab mob cheered and celebrated. After 9-11, old women and children, the whole population of Palestine, Iraq, in every Arab country, celebrated and literally danced in the streets. This was actually shown on CNN for a brief time but was quickly pulled as being somehow "politically incorrect". And please don't tell me I somehow misunderstand Arab's and forget the victim garbade. The West, for better or for worse, has tried to help Arab countries, sending money and humanitarian aide. The American Rangers who were murdered and drug through the streets of Somalia were there to deliver humanitarian aid! I have come to the hard conclusion that Islam is morally bankrupt and the culturally Arab people as a whole are vermin. This is not a racist comment. It is simply an undeniable fact, one that can be born out by anyone taking a look at what passes for "civilization" in Arab countries. I feel no sympathy for them and only wish to leave them alone to wallow in the world they have created for themselves. Let them kill each other as they will, I frankly don't care. But...if they EVER attack us, if they murder even one American, I would support any program that exterminated them. I, for one, have had it. If you like Islam and Arab culture so much, go, crawl back to that hellhole of a country you come from, but at least cease to pester us with your inane comments and justification for the swinish crap that passes for a religion and a culture that you espouse.

Karim, Karim, Karim,

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Not only do radical Muslims call American's pigs they call each other by the same name. I reference you to the protest held in Ramallah by 2,000 Palestinians on August 2, 2006. They spent the better part of an hour chanting, "Mubarak is a pig."

Would you like some of the mentally challenged quotes by the former Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Salraf? Things like, "Let the American infidels bask in their illusion." Or how about one of my personal favorites, "Americans are "wild donkeys" ('ALOG' in Arabic. It is my understanding this word could also mean, "The children of pigs," or even "those who have dramatically ugly faces or leeches." None of which is flattering.

I'm sure I could spend the good part of the afternoon surfing the net to find you an almost unlimited number of disparaging quotes from Arab Muslims concerning the Americans if you want more.

Also, I never stated anyone on this thread other then Athiest called anyone an animal.

My previous post stands as it was written. However, now I have a question for you:

WHY IS IT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE IN THE MUSLIM WORLD FOR PEOPLE TO CONTINUALLY MAKE OFFENSIVE REMARKS ABOUT NON MUSLIMS AND AT THE SAME TIME GET DEFENSIVE, RUDE AND SOMETIMES VIOLENT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING OFFENSIVE ABOUT THEM? Do you see the contradictions here?

Anyway, I'll end this post with the way I started my previous one. Lighten up, chill out, relax....take it easy. Nobody really cares if Athiest called Muslims animals becuase nobody really cares what Athiest says. If Athiest wants to call the Pope a child molestor (worse then an animal in this country) we'd all just sit back and say, "that's Athiest, he hates everything, but we'll defend his right to say it."

Find me one single post from Arabs or Muslims who called Americans pigs or infidels in this blog.

I know there isn't a single one.

You say you hear it everyday, where do you live? please explain your position and provide sources.

I watch CNN and FoxNews on regular basis. They don't usually translate what people are saying during protests.

So what Arab or Muslim channel do you watch, and if so, do you understand Arabic or other languages spoken by Muslims?

Karim,

Lighten up. Athiest hates everything and everybody on this planet equally. Most of us who post regularly believe he had an abused childhood.

Besides, in a sense, this is the point of this question. Does Athiest or a journalist in an opinion piece (which these posts certainly are) have the right to say someone or some group is or are animals if they believe it? I would answer yes. If Athiest wants to call Muslims animals so what. That's his opinion. Consider the source and dismiss it.

I hear Arab Muslim's everyday call Americans infidels and pigs. Does it bother me? Not in the slightest. Eventhough, the last I knew pigs were animals. Not being a Muslim and having no desire to become one (Unless someone puts a gun to my head or a big knife to my throat. That would cause me to find Allah real quick.) precludes my caring how they feel about me or my kind. We all have to live on the same planet. That doesn't mean we have to like each other or agree with each other. We only have to learn to co-exist and stop killing each other.

Atheist from Boston:

1- I will report your neo-fascist post to the editors of PostGlobal. don't think you can get away with calling Muslims animals.

2- Germany is the country that exterminated 6 million Jews only little more than 50 years. Turks and others Muslims are just "Other middle Easterns" for them.