Reporters Without Borders: Media and Terrrorism

[SealLion]

Again, the title of the News article is too lengthy for placement in the subject header. Therefore, the correct title of this news article is:

Crackdown on media reinforced under guise of combating terrorism

I just couldn't resist this article.

This has been a grim year for Yemen’s independent press, the victim of an media war waged by the government under the guise of combating terrorism and sedition......

Realizing that Wikipedia is a little biased, here's some info from Wikipedia on the Yemeni media:

Yemen's Ministry of Information influences the media through its control of printing presses, granting of newspaper subsidies, and ownership of the country’s only television and radio stations.

Yemen has nine government-controlled, 50 independent, and 30 party-affiliated newspapers. There are approximately 90 magazines, 50 percent of which are private, 30 percent government-controlled, and 20 percent party-affiliated. The government controls the content of news broadcasts and edits coverage of televised parliamentary debates.

Wikipedia Link

That sure is a lot of control, yes??

Anyways...back to the article:

check this out, folks.

“Physical attacks, interrogation, criminal charges, arbitrary arrests, prosecutions with no evidence, solitary confinement, ‘preventive measures’ and disappearances – such is the treatment reserved by the government for journalists who refuse to reflect its views on sensitive issues,” the press freedom organisation said.

This is not new. This sort of thing to journalists happens in many places throughout the globe in which sensitive issues are discussed whereby one party is displeased to learn of such discussions and threatens the journalists responsible for leaking such info.

This is one reason why websites such as Wikileaks.org is so popular for leaking info on governments or corporations that prefer to not have such and such info released.

And rightly so..

........, there is no justification for cracking down on the press,” Reporters Without Borders added.

That's for sure. Reporters and journalists try to do a service to the public.

Have you hugged your friendly-neighborhood journalist today??

The first of the past week’s media arrests was that of Khalid Jahafi, a journalist who works for the opposition news website Alsahwa.net.....Jahafi also works for the pan-Arab TV station Al Jazeera at the same as being an education department lecturer. The security forces tried to seize the education department building two months ago in an unsuccessful attempt to arrest him..

So he works for 2 seperate news outlets that, at least IMHO (for one of the above listed anyways) , brings out pretty decent news that is not listed in being presented by your daily western media.

Then, the security forces tried to nab him, unsuccesfully too.

a couple of last things from Wikipedia:

.....There have been reports of journalists being physically attacked, as well as arrested and detained. The government gives reasons that such detained journalists are "opposing the law and calling for destruction of infrastructure"

Ya. Right......

Remember what the Wikipedia link above said about government control??

Now take that into context with respect to the leakage of information by journalists in consideration with the abuse that journalists in Yemen go through when providing information about content that the Yemeni government is so sensitive to.

Sensitivity to news for governments equals fear and desire for control.
Part and parcel of what the architects of the NWO would like to see.

again, that last quoted statement above can be found on the Wikipedia link that I gave above.

Here is the RWB link for this news thread:

Reporters Sans Frontières - Crackdown on media reinforced under guise of combating terrorism

enjoy.

[slikrapid]

semi off-topic:

That's for sure. Reporters and journalists try to do a service to the public.

Have you hugged your friendly-neighborhood journalist today??

lets not get too optimistic here - the journalist job description here is theoretically correct, but in practice it can become a nightmare for those journalists who go against the flow, ie. against the prescribed attitudes from the government and from their media owners

in a decent democracy, a journalist should be highly objective, criticize what he believes is wrong & publicly expose organized crime wherever he finds proof thereof - at the same time the media organization he works for should allow him to publish even things that go against their beliefs, if their aims are to be perceived as objective, independent and thus believable & respected

i would go even further, a democratic society should allow all kinds of media with different attitudes & allegiances - and let the public itself judge their articles & create opinions on these media - thus those that have biased opinions can be seen/recognized as such, warning the reader in advance that their articles are not to be taken/believed lightly/easily - a system should allow for a kind of transparency where one has an idea what to expect from a certain media (by knowing their allegiances, credibility of the reporters/news, and so on)

naturally, for this to happen the readers themselves have to be intelligent enough or aware of possible manipulations in order to critically read/watch what is being presented to them


as for reporters without borders, there is some evidence of their allegiance with the usa foreign politics (financial links too) & a special biased attitude against cuban government, with links to people like otto reich (considered as a usa hit-man in latin america)

Reporters Without Borders Unmasked

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

a somewhat supportive argument for this RSF biased attitude is their benevolent criticism (or lack thereof) of usa's obama, whereas the iranian president is labeled as 'a predator' - also in one earlier post i mentioned their distinction between israel & palestinian territories when covering the middle east (basically sheltering israel from criticism)

[SealLion]

well, yes of/c a journalist's job can be a nightmare if he doesn;'t go along with the flow of what-ever country that he lives in and is trying to report on.
I am of the opinion that is also the case for even journalist's living in a democracy.
True democracy...???
We don't live in a true democracy.

There is no such thing.

as for democratic societies allowing their journalists to report on matters that the journalist feels is ethically wrong in some way, have you ever heard of a journalist that does that and isn't slapped on the wrist for it??

That's what the editor's job is in part.

To ensure that the reporter is reporting on matters that the paper and owners know is going to make headlines and....cha-ching..did you hear that??...that's the sound of money.

[slikrapid]

Obama Administration Prepares Public Opinion for Attack on Yemen

Five days after the unsuccessful attempt by a Nigerian student to set off a bomb aboard a Detroit-bound passenger jet, US military and intelligence officials are said to be preparing expanded military action against targets in Yemen, the Arab country where the student allegedly received terrorist training and was equipped with an explosive device.

A series of US media reports suggest that new US-backed military attacks inside Yemen are imminent. Citing “two senior US officials,” CNN reported: “The US and Yemen are now looking at fresh targets for a potential retaliation strike.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16737

Yemen: Pentagon's War On The Arabian Peninsula

Yemen will become a battleground for a proxy war between the United States and Saudi Arabia - whose state-to-state relations are among the strongest and most durable of the entire post-World War II era - on one hand and Iran on the other.

It is perhaps impossible to determine the exact moment at which a U.S.- supported self-professed holy warrior - trained to perpetrate acts of urban terrorism and to shoot down civilian airliners - ceases to be a freedom fighter and becomes a terrorist. But a safe assumption is that it occurs when he is no longer of use to Washington. A terrorist who serves American interests is a freedom fighter; a freedom fighter who doesn't is a terrorist.

Yemenis are the latest to learn the Pentagon's and the White House's law of the jungle. Along with Iraq and Afghanistan which counterinsurgency specialist Stanley McChrystal used to perfect his techniques, Yemen is joining the ranks of other nations where the Pentagon is engaged in that variety of warfare, fraught with civilian massacres and other forms of so-called collateral damage: Colombia, Mali, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Uganda.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16571

so, the lucrative business of weapons sale for 'both' sides of various world conflicts continues - nowadays it is trendy to blame islamic terrorists and thus justify involvement in retaliatory attacks against them (or their supposed allies)

it is logical to expect a continuing series of conflicts with substantial usa involvement in most (if not all) of them - the sad fact is that they managed to involve other countries (nato countries like in afghanistan) to support them in these deranged military worldwide abuses, exploiting local dictatorship (and militant groups) ambitions to keep conflicts alive or ever-erupting, and in such scenarios making nice profits from it

the question is will the nato countries finally awaken and refuse to cooperate in such actions?

and also will the usa citizens finally get fed up with constant foreign involvement in various conflicts and refuse to send any more soldiers overseas, at the same time demanding the return of already deployed ones?

it is estimated that military expenses of just one year could alone finance decades of all UN programs

Funding death and destruction under the guise of security and maintaining sovereignty has become the world’s leading industry, and is among the highest expenses in terms of government expenditure.

The facts regarding the obscene amounts the world spends on the military are available everywhere and yet in all the UN reports on financing the MDGs and implementing the MC, the words military or defense are not even mentioned. This $1339 billion is like the elephant in the room – everyone knows it is there, though no one talks about it. While policy makers and economists scurry to find ‘innovative’ and different ways to finance development, everyone pretends this $1339 billion does not exist.

[SealLion]

i dont' get it.
There are US military supported attacks inside Yemen of which the US and Yemenis military are fighting against??

Is that what is being said??

Also this here:

A terrorist who serves American interests is a freedom fighter; a freedom fighter who doesn't is a terrorist.

This is most likely accurate considering that in the 1980's when the old Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and was fighting against the mujaheddin, which was supported by the CIA and the US military.
This is common knowledge, I know; however, after the Soviet Union left, those same mujaheddin did become the enemies of the US invasion of Afghanistan, I believe.

What a contradiction, yes??

So that statement ( quote ) above does ring true.

[slikrapid]

i dont' get it.
There are US military supported attacks inside Yemen of which the US and Yemenis military are fighting against??

Is that what is being said??.

well, it says the usa has cia & military presence in the area for some time now, and is using the 'terrorist threat' to continue operations there (attacks, weapons sale, military bases, control of the shipping/transportation routes, access to the african & arab territories, cooperation with local militant units & governments, profits,...) - its all a part of a recent trend to establish some sort of control & influence in the middle east area, continuously spreading/widening the perimeter & the number of involved countries - it may be a way to infiltrate various segments within those countries in order to have a better position (a head-start) as the era of globalization is approaching (one who has better starting negotiating positions can ask for more privileges and so on)

This is common knowledge, I know; however, after the Soviet Union left, those same mujaheddin did become the enemies of the US invasion of Afghanistan, I believe.

What a contradiction, yes??

its all a global game of interests, of perpetuating profit-flow from all available sources, control over events/organizations & steering future ones in desirable directions - thats why we shouldn't be surprised when friends today become enemies tomorrow and so on - these are contradictions only on surface, whereas behind the (political/media) smokescreen it all fits in this sick ages-old game - obviously, no need to guess twice who the 'winner' is, surely not the average members of the general population (unfortunately, they are considered as collateral)