[Nettime-bold] Media Watch 3

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

So far the story about anti-war protest on Times Square on October 
7 found its way in the following US media:
- NPR radio
- New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/nyregion/08PEAC.html?ex=10
03575138&ei=1&en=923679eee57d8538

There is an interesting detail in New York Times story - that about 
the 50 people FOLLOWING the marchers with pro-war slogans - 
I've seen nothing like that - there were people on the street vocally 
disagreeing with marchers, but there was no anti-protest to my 
best knowledge. Maybe NYT engaged in creative journalism here 
making the story more fit to print.

Here is another under-reported story - that from the previous WTC 
bombing in 1993 - FBI and CIA really need to pick their informants 
better and don't make them unhappy afterwards...
http://www.radio4all.net/rpa-proginfo.php3?id=1282

It is a sad story that those who hate America so deeply have to 
resort to American made graphic design for their marketing 
campaigns - they hate modernity, as Ariah Neier wrote, but they 
can't live without it - as this story shows:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_421042.html?menu=news.
quirkies

Here is also a list of songs - not banned ones - but suggested to 
cheer up Taliban, who otherwise ban ALL music:
http://www.colliervillex.com/songs/

Those looking for anti-Taliban volunteers should check this out:
Female Sniper Down on Her Luck
                 Galina Sinitsyna , a 40-year-old Russian sharpshooter, 
lamented to The Moscow Times on 2 October that she is having a 
hard time selling her services to the Russian military in Chechnya. 
All she wants is to use her talent to kill rebels in Chechnya for 
cash. “Where else can I earn enough to buy a new apartment for 
us?” Sinitsyna asked. The distressed sniper said she has had an 
offer to do a contract killing but turned it down. As for the Russian 
military, so far it has repeatedly turned down her applications, 
despite the fact that the practice of hiring contract soldiers to fight 
in Chechnya is common. According to officers, however, Sinitsyna 
is simply too old.

Or maybe there are more people like Tim McVeigh in the US? 
Maybe some of them would be willing to drive a truck bomb into Al 
Qaeda? That would for sure increase the symmetry in this warfare 
and by default, then, decrease the probability of continuation, since 
a sort of deterrence quality would be established. This, of course, 
was not exactly a pacifist idea.

The most interesting story yesterday was the Bush's press 
conference, the first in his term. He is such a terrible reader. The 
speech-writers wrote an eloquent, although quite boring and 
repetitive speech, and he made it unlistenable. By the end I gave 
up, concluding that the speech was as irrelevant as the incessant 
declarations of Holy War by Taliban are. Come up with something 
NEW, please.

In the q.&a. session, however, Bush was quite likeable. At least, 
people could wait until he says something stupid and laugh. And 
as he relaxes more into answering questions, his answers start to 
matter more. Ok, he, in a typical W. moment, said (about Osama): 
"I don't know whether he is dead or alive but I know that we will 
bring him to justice."

And if one takes into consideration that the two families (Bush and 
Bin Laden) know each other for 25 years, had done business 
together, and once shared similar political views (on Afghanistan, 
at least), one may believe that he feels personally betrayed by Bin 
Laden's renegade son. One can imagine Bush dragging Osama to 
justice. And going with the lit torch from cave to cave in Hindu-
Kush mountain range to try to "smoke him out."

Bush also - answering the question about security concerns - 
mentioned petro-chemical plants - with no allusion to Toulouse, of 
course. Then, there was this relentless repeating of the words 
'justice' and 'punishment' in his answers. That, coming from a 
former governor of the state that administers more death penalties 
than any other state in the union, sounds almost like he would like 
to personally be involved with Osama's execution.

He made a good point about Osama as a man who hijacked a 
country (Afghanistan) and a man who hijacked a religion (Islam).

In retrospect, it is indeed Bush's job to stop Osama - after all it is 
his family drama (unfortunately playing near you worldwide and 
mostly outside theaters). Is it possible that the U.S. did indeed get 
quite annoyed with Osama following the embassy bombings and 
the USS Cole attack and wanted to get him? Is it possible that the 
$43 million that Bush administration gave to Taliban this May, was 
an attempt to buy them into surrendering Bin Laden? After all, 
most of observers of mujahedeen, suggest that pay-offs go a long 
way in the local culture. 

And is it possible that Osama, annoyed with Americans trying to 
buy Taliban's compliance, "hijacked" the country, subjecting 
Taliban to his control, while issuing a general threat to the U.S. 
(where he said that there would be no more distinguishing between 
civilians and combatants)? Is that why I observed such a 
heightened police activity in New York this summer? They knew 
that something is in the works - but they didn't know exactly what - 
and certainly nobody expected what actually happened.

The day before the strike on WTC and Pentagon, Al Qaeda had 
murdered the leader of Northern Alliance, decapitating opposition to 
Taliban - but Northern Alliance continued to fight the Taliban, under 
new leader, who is closer to Moscow, and with weapons freely 
flowing from Russia. Therefore, it might be that OBL orchestrated 
the killing of Massoud not only to please Taliban, but also hoping 
to prevent the West from using Northern Alliance - he, perhaps, 
speculated that Russia and America won't become such a good 
friends so instantly after so many years of the cold war. Apparently 
he miscalculated himself on that one. Perhaps, with Al Qaeda 
bringing mayhem to so many places in the world, he lost track of 
all of them, and forgot that nearly every country has some 
grievances against him.

Now, another general warning is out. But it might be a bluff. Just 
hoping to scare the US into abandoning the pursuit of Al Qaeda. 
Instead the US decided to react even fiercer. Obviously, the cruise 
missile attack must be a smoke-screen for possible special forces 
operations on the ground which are not televised. But more 
worrying is the need to establish tighter home security in order to 
prevent expected Al Qaeda's retaliation.

So, barely created Homeland Security Office was already applying 
for more power! Now, it is to be at the cabinet level. That's what in 
Europe is 'Innenminister' or 'Minister of Interior' - there is a function 
like this in the US, too, but it deals primarily with forests and 
national parks - not with security. For me that was always an 
interesting and highly pleasing peculiarity about US society, that it 
can survive and function quite decently without the national police 
minister. Not any longer, it seems.

The other obvious victim, and the theme of these messages, is the 
press freedom. And since this is a global fight, the press freedom 
may be endangered globally. Let's consider the case of Al Jazeera. 
It is an independent satellite TV station in Qatar. Qatar is one of 
the most reasonable countries in the region: the rulers there even 
allowed women to vote in the last elections, meaning they also 
introduced some rudimentary institutions of democracy like 
elections and general suffrage. Al Jazeera is an embrionic piece of 
independent electronic media in the Arab world. And that's why it 
was chosen by Osama to air his hateful rhetoric.

Osama proves to be good at creating riddles. Powell and Rice are 
probably right when they say that any his appearance on TV 
increases the likelihood of continuation of terrorist attacks. So long 
as he appears alive and well, disturbed people around the world 
would feel that it is their time, that now it is possible to do things 
like that. He doesn't have to do anything else any more, but raise 
his index finger and call for more killing. So, it is unlikely, we'll see 
more of him on American TV networks. But that's irrelevant - what 
is really relevant is whether his statements would be broadcasted 
on Al Jazeera.

The US can weigh on Qatar to put pressure on Al Jazeera - but 
that would be a dangerous way to destroy emerging democracy in 
Qatar - something clearly not in American interests. Osama 
presented his enemy with a lose-lose choice.

In the event that Al Jazeera decides not to air Bin Laden without 
outside pressure, they may estrange their viewers. Also, with no 
reporting from Afghanistan it is going to be hard to know what is 
going on there. For example - US networks get their info through 
Pentagon - but Pentagon is not exactly a non-partisan source. 
Right now Pentagon claims no civilian death in Afghanistan. On the 
other hand Taliban speak of hundreds of civilian death - but they 
also are not an independent source. And there is no independent 
source - because foreign journalists are banned from Afghanistan. 
All, except for Al Jazeera. That comes at the price: the Arab world 
is repeatedly exposed to Osama's message of hate.

What would be a logical solution? Find an Arab Islamic leader who 
commands as deep respect among the misguided Arab Islamic 
fundamentalist youth as Osama does to tell them, at mortal risk, 
that Osama is a Satanic blasphemy to Islam? But is there such a 
leader in the corrupt world of Arab leaders? How much it would 
cost to get Al Khamenei to issue a fatwah against Osama, and get 
it on tape to Al Jazeera?

ivo

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold