Some Muslims do not believe Al Jazeera propaganda
Trial for Al-Jazeera Rabat bureau chief set for Friday[url]http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/05/content_8495399.htm[/url]
RABAT, July 5 (Xinhua) -- A Moroccan court said it will set next Friday the trial against Hassan Rachidi, head of the Rabat bureau of al-Jazeera TV channel, over publishing false information and conspiracy, the state MAP news agency reported Saturday.
... You are no doubt right that some Muslims do not believe Al-Jazeera, but if you are trying to discredit Al-Jazeera you need a better example. This is a case of an Arab government trying to intimidate and suppress journalists who report its misdeeds. Take a look at [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080701/wl_africa_afp/moroccomediarights]"Rabat urged to drop charges against Al-Jazeera"[/url] or [url=http://www.nowpublic.com/world/morroco-al-jazeera-journalist-political-trial-updated]"Al Jazeera journalist on 'a political' trial"[/url].
Reply 2# alberto's post
<< This is a case of an Arab government trying to intimidate and suppress journalists who report its misdeeds. >>Wow !!! Is not your statement another prejudice against a sovereign cuntry and its justice system? Or do you have a proof? A proof is a proof, not a link to another media with OPINIONS from them or from "Reporters Without Borders" or any other (we already know who are behind Reporters Without Borders).
<<Human Rights Watch stressed that it had not conducted its own investigation of events in Sidi Ifni, Whitson said "prosecuting human rights defenders and journalists because of the information they disseminate is incompatible with Morocco's commitment to respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.">> (from your link)
The last sentence is revealing "...respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.". Where the ultimate truth lies matters to me. And more in this forum, created exactly with that purpose. That is why we are here, hopefully you too.
Waiting for your proof that << This is a case of an Arab government trying to intimidate and suppress journalists who report its misdeeds. >>
[[i] Last edited by xieuling at 6-7-2008 06:37 [/i]] [quote]
A proof is a proof, not a link to another media with OPINIONS from them or from "Reporters Without Borders" or any other (we already know who are behind Reporters Without Borders).
[/quote]
I never claimed to provide proof, but I did provide evidence. For example, the article says
[quote]
The way the court is pushing ahead with the case with just a short three-day adjournment for lawyers to prepare, has led many human rights activists, journalists and lawyers to believe that the trial is politically motivated.
In previous cases against journalists in Morocco, proceedings were adjourned for at least a week and often two.
[/quote]
This certainly makes it look as if the Moroccan govt is making an effort to suppress reporting of uncomfortable facts.
What to conclude? It all depends what you want to make from this.
If you are really just showing us that some Arab govts are hostile to Al-Jazeera, then I agree completely: the main attraction of Al-Jazeera for Arab viewers is its independence of Arab govts (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-jazeera]Wikipedia article on Al-Jazeera[/url]).
If, on the other hand, you are trying to show that Al-Jazeera is unreliable, then you are repeating an accusation for which you don't have any proof, and which has indications (see above) of being politically motivated.
Maybe we should wait until the trial is completed, and human rights groups have had a chance to do their own investigation.
Reply 4# alberto's post
<<The way the court is pushing ahead with the case with just a short three-day adjournment for lawyers to prepare, has led many human rights activists, journalists and lawyers to believe that the trial is politically motivated. In previous cases against journalists in Morocco, proceedings were adjourned for at least a week and often two.>> A pity that they do not cite how much time had prosecutors to prepare that case. Three days too?Do you really believe that the difference between 3 days and one or two weeks makes the differnce on the ulyimate motives of a court???
<<short three-day adjournment for lawyers to prepare>> is a fact, <<to believe that the trial is politically motivated>> is not an evidence as you claimed, is just an opinion. Probably, others have a different opinion, for example that the opinion of those people from, self called "human rights" campaigners, etc. simply fits their politic agenda to destabilise another muslim country. Both opinions deserve same respect and same credibility among smart readers, no more than the thousands of opinions that anybody can hear.
You blindly believe their opinion, you do not add anything further. Therefore your credibility depends on their credibility. I repeat (quoted from your link):
<<Human Rights Watch stressed that it had not conducted its own investigation of events in Sidi Ifni, Whitson said "prosecuting human rights defenders and journalists because of the information they disseminate is incompatible with Morocco's commitment to respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.">> (quoted from your link).
The last sentence is revealing "...respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.". Where the ultimate truth lies matters to me. And more in this forum, created exactly with that purpose. That is why we are here, hopefully you too. But, obviously, you are free to defend lies.
The only FACT here is that AL JAZEERA manager faces a court because their LIES. Nobody disputes it. That is what matters to me. The rest is just opinion, and when somebody spreads them, it is PROPAGANDA.
[[i] Last edited by xieuling at 7-7-2008 21:03 [/i]]
Reply 5# xieuling's post
[quote]The only FACT here is that AL JAZEERA manager faces a court because their LIES. Nobody disputes it. That is what matters to me. The rest is just opinion, and when somebody spreads them, it is PROPAGANDA.[/quote]Wrong- the fact is that they are being charged with publishing false information and conspiracy. Innocent till proven guilty, remember. And, in any case, it is disputed (by those being charged, for a start).
Reply 6# flamingmonkey's post
Flammingmonkey, did I say something different?But also, it is true that according to Alberto propaganda links, that, as you did not say anything, you seem to believe or am I wrong?:
<<The way the court is pushing ahead with the case with just a short three-day adjournment for lawyers to prepare, has led many human rights activists, journalists and lawyers to believe that the trial is politically motivated. In previous cases against journalists in Morocco, proceedings were adjourned for at least a week and often two.>> A pity that they do not cite how much time had prosecutors to prepare that case. Three days too?
Do you, Flammingmonkey, really believe that the difference between 3 days and one or two weeks makes the differnce on the ulyimate motives of a court???
<<short three-day adjournment for lawyers to prepare>> is a fact, <<to believe that the trial is politically motivated>> is not an evidence as you claimed, is just an opinion. Probably, others have a different opinion, for example that the opinion of those people from, self called "human rights" campaigners, etc. simply fits their politic agenda to destabilise another muslim country. Both opinions deserve same respect and same credibility among smart readers, no more than the thousands of opinions that anybody can hear. Not true Flammingmonkey?
Do you blindly believe their opinion, Flammingmonkey? You do not add anything further. I repeat (quoted from Alberto´s link link):
<<Human Rights Watch stressed that it had not conducted its own investigation of events in Sidi Ifni, Whitson said "prosecuting human rights defenders and journalists because of the information they disseminate is incompatible with Morocco's commitment to respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.">> (quoted from your link).
The last sentence is revealing "...respect freedom of expression, no matter where the ultimate truth lies.". Where the ultimate truth lies matters to me. And more in this forum, created exactly with that purpose. That is why we are here, hopefully you too. Do you defend the truth above anything else even if told by "journalists? or do you defend the journalists above the truth Flammingmonkey? Or do you believe that journalists never lie? :lol
The only FACT here is that AL JAZEERA manager faces a court for LIES, for fake information, or whatever you want to call it. Nobody disputes it in this thread.
[[i] Last edited by xieuling at 8-7-2008 03:33 [/i]]
Reply 7# xieuling's post
I didn't say anything earlier as I felt that both parties were merely expressing their opinions and, seeing as how I hadn't had time to form one, I saw no reason to get involved. I think that Alberto is sceptical of the motives for the Moroccan govt. for shortening the preparation time, but nothing can be proved and so he'll have to remain sceptical on the grounds of suspicious circumstance not evidence. I don't think that it'll have an impact on the court's motives, but may result in an inadequate defense being presented (of course, I've no idea how long the prosecution have), thus potentially affecting the outcome. But I'm no lawyer.You are quite correct to state that there is no evidence to suggest that the decision is politically motivated. However, that doesn't mean that people can't be sceptical- just means you need to be able to tell the difference between a fact and their conclusions. Fortunately, you are quite good in this respect.
You hit upon a very good point when you ask "Do you defend the truth above anything else even if told by 'journalists'? Or do you defend the journalists above the truth?" I'll begin by answering your third question is that set; I don't believe journalists never lie- they are human and humans lie, therefore they lie (I'm studying politics- my politician's logic is impeccable:lol).
However, the problem lies not in their lying (which is a given and needs to be borne in mind), but in the ability to detect a lie (which is damn-near impossible). Of course, it's easy to prove someone is wrong, or that they have said something that is incorrect. I could say that Greenland is a lush tropical paradise and all it would take is for me to fly there to see the error of my ways. However, it would be hard to prove that I was lying intentionally and not simply wrong out of ignorance- the only person who could say for sure is me, and I can tell you now that I was lying (I bet that was difficult!:) ). This does bring up the question of how one can trust the words of a liar, but then again, everybody lies.
Anyway, back on track, the real issue is everyone's favourite subject: Freedom of Speech. Or, to be more specific, the freedom to lie. And this is where your question gets difficult to answer because you have to consider whether or not it is right for someone to go around telling lies. Of course, it isn't. And this is codified in the laws of many (if not all) states around the world; I believe the legal term is slander. Strangely enough, we all appear to have differing opinions on exactly what constitutes slander as opposed to genuine criticism- the only way to find out is to obtain an independent adjudication according to the laws of the land. That is what this court will attempt to do in Morocco. However, there are those who feel that the court is not as independent as it appears, or is being manipulated somehow into favouring one side over the other, but I've discussed that.
You ask me, then, if I feel that the truth is worth protecting more than freedom of speech, or vice-versa? I say that both are equal and, while there is a limit on what is acceptable criticism, it is defined only by the state (or perhaps national culture, though indirectly), as the soverign decider of law. This is where the recent problems lie in Sino-Western relations. We are speaking by our standards and you are hearing with yours. What we say as criticism, you interpret as slander. The fact that there was an almighty cock-up by many news agencies, notwithstanding, in addition to several highly distasteful incidents occuring.
[quote]The only FACT here is that AL JAZEERA manager faces a court for LIES, for fake information, or whatever you want to call it,[b] allegedly[/b].[/quote] Fixed!:)
[quote]Nobody disputes it in this thread.[/quote] Quite true. Always a pleasure to exchange messages with you.
1) <<How can a journalist find the truth?>> I will enhance your question. How can a doctor find the sickness of a patient? how can a policemen find the author of a crime? how can a prosecutor and a lawyer find the truth? how can everybody do their job?
2) Why would I trust a doctor if he/she does not find my sickness? why would I trust on police if they do not find the criminals? why would I trust on the justice system if they punish innocents instead of the guilty?
3) Why to find the truth is imposible for a journalist, and it is a must for a prosecutor, a judge, a policeman, an investigator, a doctor, an architect, etc. not only a must, is crime not find it.
4) Why this forum found the truth so easily in many cases and journalists could not? It must not be so difficult. We are not professionals looking for the truth. Allegedly journalists are, at least they are paid to be (while we are not paid). And remember that the doctor will be find guilty also if he did not follow the apropiate professional procedure (as far as the apropiate resources were available).
5) I know, and they know, that accountability exists everywhere except in the West (the so called free speech denies the right of citizens to judge and prosecute those who spread fake information to them and make them be misinformed). Obviously citizens are defenseless against fake information because they cannot find the truth by themselves, or do can you do the journalist job better than they do?
6) Would you put your life on the hands of a doctor who can kill you without accountability? How would you behave if a policeman can murder you and he/she would not be accountable for their crime? How easy must be corruption (maybe it is not just a suspiction).
7) Do you prefer fake information? Or no information until the truth is found?
-------------------------------------
About the thread. Excuse my poor English and thank you for your linguistic correction in my final statements. :handshake
<<the truth is worth protecting more than freedom of speech, or vice-versa? >>
Not exactly. I did not ask, "what is more important healthcare or the right of a doctor to kill their patients?"
I ask "what is more important healthcare or the right of a patient to prosecute a doctor who kills him?" (if that would be posible :D ) Both are necessary, free right of citizens to read the truth, all the truth and just the truth, as in a court. A citizen does not deserve less, and anybody who breaks that principle should be seen as a criminal, as in a court.
Would you live in a house that you cannot be sure that will not fall on your head? No, that house would be worthless. Why do you read a newspaper that you cannot be sure that tells the truth?" Even if, as you say, it is so difficult to find the truth, that newspaper is worthless too, because it cannot grant (reasonably) the reason of its own existence.
You can use the word "reasonably" to justify your arguments. That is why accountability comes, the professional will do his/her best, to be sure that in no circurmstance he/she will be find guilty.
Thank you very much for your message.
[[i] Last edited by xieuling at 8-7-2008 10:12 [/i]]
Reply 9# xieuling's post
[quote]...thank you for your linguistic correction in my final statements.[/quote]No worries- I guess I've been watching a bit too much 'Have I Got News For You' lately...You draw a parallel between a journalist and a doctor and use this as an analogy to help explain your point, but I feel that, while useful and good at explaining your point of view, such a comparison is a bit improper as a doctor is higly accountable for his actions (literally holding other people's lives in his hands) while a journalist has no such concerns. But your point still holds true, to an extent. I shall try to answer your initial questions:
1. They can only do their jobs to the best of their ability and training. It takes several years to become a doctor, policeman or a lawyer, but it is possible for someone to become a writer without a degree or anything further than a good comprehension of English (or equivalent for other countries). There are degree programmes in journalism, but it is not necessary to have one to get a job.
2. I would venture that you trust them to know what they are doing and that they will do a good job.
3. And this is where accountability comes into it. I believe I read in another thread on this forum that US journalists are not compelled to tell the truth. This is probably true for other countries as well. This all comes down to allowing people to say what they want (within reason) and not suffer any consequence for this- the cornerstone of a free press. In other words, a journalist cannot be held accountable for their words if they believe them to be true (for this is a valid defense against slander/libel).
4. Yes, doctors have to follow common procedure, but each newspaper, TV station, etc has it's own procedures and standards of ethics. It is thoroughly de-regulated (a by-product of being free).
5. Free speech is not an all-encompassing umbrella for liars to hide under; like I say, slander and libel are serious charges. However, there are defenses in place to allow people to state their mind as long as they are believe they are stating the truth (though the reasonableness of those beliefs may come into question), among other things. In response to the second part, I quote from the Wiki page on defamation: "...an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources." Of course, that's not to say that they always abide by this expectation...
6. This is why I say that the analogy is not entirely perfect- doctors are accountable, journalists are not.
7. A damn good question, but one with an easy answer- better to remain in the dark than to risk igniting a stick of dynamite. However, there is always the issue of 'belief in the truth'.
[quote]Would you live in a house that you cannot be sure that will not fall on your head?[/quote]
Well, unless you were an architect or a structural engineer or something along those lines, it would be quite hard to tell if a building was likely to fall on your head. To the ordinary person, the only course of action is to trust that the people who built the house know what they are doing. The same thing with the newspaper; you trust that they will follow their house codes of practise. The problem is that there is really no official global code (only general principles) and that it's not fully binding (only professional pride makes them conform... and the risk of losing their job). This is (as you state) the only accountability that journalists have- that they will behave and do a good job, but it is only to themselves and it can be easy for some people to betray their own principles.
Thanks for the conversation, by the way. If not a great excuse to stay up it is at least enlightening!
Reply 10# flamingmonkey's post
Thank you for your message. I cannot say that I disagree with your words, because I do not. But we both reach two different conclusions, that is the right of free human beings.These three paragraphs can be the cornerstorne of your argument.
1) <<"This all comes down to allowing people to say what they want (within reason) and not suffer any consequence for this- the cornerstone of a free press. In other words, a journalist cannot be held accountable for their words if they believe them to be true (for this is a valid defense against slander/libel).>>
2) << It takes several years to become a doctor, policeman or a lawyer, but it is possible for someone to become a writer without a degree or anything further than a good comprehension of English>>
3) <<The same thing with the newspaper; you trust that they will follow their house codes of practise.>>
As you said, we are not talking about free-speech of ordinary ciizens. We are talking about free-press. Many people trust on press so much that they take their opinions as facts, ordinary citizens behave as Alberto did in this thread. We either should change the citizens or we should change the press.
You trust because you cannot get anything better, it is very respectable, of course. I do not trust on somebody who, in fact, is just an ordinary citizen in disguise who uses and (sometimes, often, ussually) abuses the moral authority and years of credibidility of what (is, was) a trusted brand.(The reader can choose among the options stated between brackets).
A country that bases its politic system on the vote (and therefore opinion) formed through information of their citizens, in my opinion should be called under-democratic (I am very generous) if the accuracy of its information is not granted by law through legal prosecution of those "respectable professionals" who violate it during their professional action. As a justice system should be called under-fair if their prosecutors, lawyers, judges, etc. are just amateurs with a certain training and in practice, free to act "freely", committed just to their freedom and not subject to the duty of public service (that means scruitinity and accountability).
I think that we simply have two different respectable perspectives.
I really apreciate your messages. This is not my field and I am learning a lot.
Reply 11# xieuling's post
It was never the intention for democracy to be influenced by the media- we've only really noticed this effect in the UK over the past decade or so- roughly at the same time a certain PM came to power (:lol ), but that's unfair; the seeds were in place with John Major's (re)election campaign, which was hard fought and relied on much work in appealing to the common man and thus the media was more and more involved (when JM won, the tabloid newspaper The Sun claimed boldly "it was The Sun wot won it!". They then switched sides to Blair 5 years later... only to switch again after a year!).I think the real point here is that people can listen to whoever they want and those people can say whatever they want. Yes, this does create problems when you have a population that are too lazy to think for themselves, but these rights have long been entrenched in our national character and law. Fortunately, most people are too lazy to even vote!!
Reply 12# flamingmonkey's post
:D:handshake Just by curiosity, are their any individuals from Al Jazeera on this forum?? I always like to hear what the natives think about the situation.
-Samtom
Page:
[1]