November 30, 2005
Iraq Kidnappings and Unproductive Newspeak
Pardons begged if this is not as bleeding heart a post as people associate with ones related to kidnappings and murders in Iraq. The reporting in the United Kingdom has been infuriatingly sensationalistic and interspersed with such media speak and irrelevant pathos inspiring information that there seems to be a separate universe of reporting parallel to that in which the real world exists.
Firstly, Dr.Norman Kember (insert sanctifying personal history and blurred pictures at peace rallies here), a British professor and peace activist who abandoned his wife at their 'pebble dashed' (how is that relevant? This is on Sky News for heaven's sake) home in London to campaign for peace on the ground in war-torn Iraq. This report in The Times further serves to highlight and entrench the modus operandi of villifying the terrorists and elevating the victim. WHY DOES THAT NEED TO BE DONE? Kindapping and murder in Iraq are tragic and wrong irrespective of who the victim is, what the victim's history is and whether the victim's home was pebble dashed or a mud hut.
All this manages to do is detract from substantial argument and research re what these groups are, how and why it is they keep burgeoning and off shooting and try and talk (
which is what Dr. Kember was there trying to do in the first place) to mid-east specialists and government officials that might help to paint a clearer picture of what is happening in Iraq instead of all this simplistic coverage aimed at pensioners and ignoramuses.
The Britons killed this week were en route to Shiite holy cities of Karbala, Najaf and Kufa and were in a hired bus. The fact that these Britons were British Asian Shiites who were dressed in Islamic garb did not seem to inspire any postulation as to whether they may have been targeted as Iraqi Shiites but merely more reports bewailing how they were merely good Muslims who wanted to visit holy sites (in a war torn country where there would just have been a teensy weensy itsy bitsy chance that they would have been blown to smithereens or caught in crossfire)
((My parentheses, not even The Times has sunk that low))
And George Bush wants to bomb Al Jazeera.
Posted by Meph at November 30, 2005 12:15 PM
Filed Under: Iraq War
TrackBack URL for this entry:
there's a difference between "wanting" to bomb al-jazeera & actually doing it. right?
re: coverage of kidnappees & killed pilgrims -- you're not seriously complaining about sky news, are you? and re: "the times" - robert fisk already covered that one, when he left the paper ...
Posted by: raf* at November 30, 2005 01:50 PM
someone must have told bush that al-jazeera had large reserves of oil that it didn't want to sell at "reasonable" prices.
Posted by: drdougfir at November 30, 2005 08:17 PM
Comment from blown cue
"re: the kidnappings. Pacifist bunch, very much into planting themselves between Israeli armed forces, pissed off Israeli settlers, etc, and Palestinians, typically to protect the Palestinians. More "sensible" organizationally speaking than the kids who had one of theirs run over with a bulldozer some time back. Until now."
I take my apologies back.
Posted by: Meph at December 1, 2005 06:01 AM
Well, technically, the US DID bomb those al-jazeera offices that were conveniently located in war zones.
Posted by: Tom Scudder at December 2, 2005 05:58 PM