LGF: AP TV dep’t divided into dar al-Harb, dar al-Islam
posted at 2:44 pm on August 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Fascinating. Chomsky’s forever wringing his hands about the perils of media monopolies — and there are perils, albeit fewer for him than for us — but something tells me he won’t be too perturbed to learn how much influence the AP’s accrued to itself here.
You’ll find three sections under “Global Services” on the APTN website: “Broadcast,” “Corporate,” and, like the man said, “Middle East.” It’s the only production unit segregated by geography.
Meanwhile, in AmSpec, a former reporter for Reuters makes a related point. Media companies supply narrow perspectives to the Middle East, he says, because narrow perspectives are what’s demanded:
Whatever its editors’ political inclinations are, there is also a practical reason why Reuters is biased against Israel. As a global news provider, Reuters has to operate in more places than just about any other news organization, with 189 bureaus serving 128 countries. Because Israel is a free society, Reuters is able to run articles critical of the government without endangering the lives of its journalists or losing its ability to work in the country. Were Reuters to start striking a critical tone against the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Arab governments, its reporters’ lives would be at risk as would its ability to operate in those parts of the world. Pretty soon, it would cease to be a “global” news provider and it would struggle for a raison d’etre.
In a visit to the New York office shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, [Reuters EIC Geert] Linnebank used essentially the same argument to explain the Reuters policy of barring the word “terrorist” from its lexicon. He said that Reuters had a long-standing policy of not using the word and that, over the years, it had been pressured by many governments to use the word to describe their adversaries (such as Turkey with regard to the Kurds). If Reuters reversed-course just because the United States was attacked, Linnebank explained, it could imperil Reuters journalists overseas.
Which might explain all those photos we’re seeing of a beaten, tired, discouraged IDF.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
So, Eason Jordan was not unique (though we already knew as much). This highlights the sad state of journalism today. Journalists want us to view them as responsible and unbiased, but they are willing to compormise their principles in order to remain a global media corporation. Money over integrity.
Further, the example described by the former Al-Reuters member illustrates how they are taking advantage of freedoms offered in democracies while cowering in the face of religious tyrants. Thus, they are corporations interested primarily in the bottom line and who are not above being used as pawns. So long as they continue to turn a profit. And they dare to look down their noses at Drudge and bloggers.
Bellicose Muse on August 11, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Consider this:
If Reuters won’t report stuff from those “dangerous” countries, like they do for “safe” countries, then they have already abdicated their postion as a “global” new source.
Lawrence on August 11, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Admitted leeches! And hypocrites!
Yet, they, the ‘progressive’ icons of the world, preach to us:
- equality for all
- multi-culti and tolerance
- absolutely no profiling of any kind
- no interrogation, no searches, no tracking of any kind
- complete freedom of speech and other expression
- subservience to the U.N.
- complete separation of government and religion
- no right to carry guns
- freedom for all religions, cults, including none
- higher taxes and redistribution thereof
- social everything
- civil rights for the most brutal of so called ‘human beings’
- women’s rights
- Geneva convention
And they look for their ‘raison d’etre’. Scum of the Earth!
Entelechy on August 11, 2006 at 4:29 PM
This makes them worse than the terrorists in my book – at least the terrorists know what they stand for and fight for it – these “journalists” talk out of both sides of their mouths (and when the opportunity comes up, out their a$$ as well) – they work against those that fight for their right to do what they do. This truly makes me sick.
Rick on August 11, 2006 at 4:42 PM
al-Reuters surrenders to terrorists. Film at 11:00
DannoJyd on August 11, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: