Uncredited swill passing for "journalism."
I know it's completely useless to ask, but where the hell do these people get off?
Revolting millions around the world, the video footage of an American citizen's execution has also raised numerous questions concerning its authenticity. Even at first glance, internet bloggers were asking on Thursday why Nick Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit – just like US prisoners wear. Other net surfers point to the unlikely timing of the executioner's dubbed announcement that Berg was to die for "Iraqi prisoner abuse". Berg was last seen alive on 10 April, when his father Michael Berg believes he was killed - two weeks before the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke in the world's media. Some discussions focus on the timing of the video's release - guaranteed to divert attention from the outrage over US abuse of Iraqis.
Which "internet bloggers" were asking why Nick Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit? Which
"net surfers" pointed to the unlikely timing of the excutioner's dubbed
announcement?
People, if I, the least technologically adept person in the world, can
figure out how to use the hyperlink key at the top of the page, I'm
assuming you can, too. Or didn't the Sheikh shell out the coin for
serious software before you started publishing stuff to the web?
What, are you writing articles on a Apple IIE and hoping that, by the
Grace of Allah, they'll somehow make it to the web? Who are your
sources? Who is saying this stuff and where are they saying it? Your
readers have a right to know, asshole.
But Smallman (nice Arabic name there, eh? I thought this was a by the
Arab, for the Arab operation.) doesn't only do this with bloggers, he
does it with mainstream media, too.
A US newspaper claims an official familiar with the case
knew that FBI agents had interrogated Berg, but had left him for two
weeks because he was in Iraqi - not American - custody.
Which US newspaper? There are more than a few. Or was it a wire article? Who wrote it and why won't you give credit?
It appears this Lawrence Smallman person is a stringer. A quick Google search
indicated that he's filed stories with many different media
organizations---but mostly with Al-Jazeera and other fringe sources.
You know, when the husband was working in Kuwait, due to the time
difference, I'd get two calls a day. One would happen before he went to
the office, which was when I was going to bed, and then he would call
me before he
went to bed---which was midafternoon, my time. His bedtime call was
always longer because he had time to chat and would fill me in on what
life was like for a westerner living out of a hotel room in Kuwait
City. Sometimes, just for variety, he would tell me what he was
watching on TV. TV in the Middle East is a whole new ballgame for
someone used to a hundred cable channels. Not too many choices, but he
liked Asian MTV (except for the Indian warblers)and CNN International.
He also said that "The Nanny" was almost tolerable with Arabic dubbing
because you didn't have to listen to Fran Drescher's nasal whining, but
the channel he really thought was horrible was Saudi TV. "Straight-up
propaganda," he commented. Apparently, there were a goodly number of
puff pieces about "The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,"---the man
better known as King Fahd, but they never called him King Fahd.
Amazingly enough, the western media always takes reports from Saudi TV
with more than a grain of salt, declaring loudly that their source was
"state operated television in Saudi Arabia," and everyone knows what
that means. It means the source is not reliable; that they will only
publish what they want their people to hear and not a word more.
Al-Jazeera is "state owned and operated" as well. Qatar's emir, Hamad
bin Khalifa Al-Thani is the founder and operator of Al Jazeera. How
come we never hear the description "state-owned and operated" when the
western media describes what Al Jazeera is when they use their stories
as source material? Just asking.