ABC interviews Beslan terrorist

[Cleon]

I cringe everytime AL Jazeera - and others - give airtime to play "statements" by al-Zawahri or Zarqawi's group.

I would think you'd be all in favor of it. After all, these videos are clear reminders that They're Still Out There and therefore the WOT is Still Important.

Some people have argued that the last video of bin Laden, aired just before the election, cost Kerry the vote.

Their "statements" are no more than propoganda and sometimes coded instructions in my opinion.

That they're propaganda is obvious. Most recorded statements, by any figure, are.

Whether they're coded instructions is something that can be evaluated based on the evidence. Is there any evidence for that? I don't recall any video corresponding to an attack.

I actually rather doubt that they are coded messages--AlQaeda is a fairly loose network. It's not like the IRA or Hamas, which have concentrated, organized structures and leaderships. They function more on a cooperative basis than a general/soldier mentality. (They operate on that basis among their individual groups/individuals, but not on an international basis.) AlQaeda is more of a coalition of various groups--bin Laden is seen as the head of the network, because he bankrolls it to a large extent. For communication, AlQaeda has historically used other methods--the web, cell phones, etc. They don't need videotaped statements with "coded" messages.

 

[CBL4]

I cringe everytime AL Jazeera - and others - give airtime to play "statements" by al-Zawahri or Zarqawi's group. Their "statements" are no more than propoganda and sometimes coded instructions in my opinion.

Since Al Jazeera broadcasts them in full (at least I think they do), it is simply acting as the propanda arm for ObL. It is dispicable.

An interview (espscially edited) is different. It could be used to show their vileness.

CBL

 

[plindboe]

What is news? It's what happens that is of interest to the public. The second the free press starts deciding who gets air time based on their political views, we don't have a free press anymore.

Claus, I agree with you more than you'd might think considering my initial post. I agree with both sides, and have doubts on where exactly to stand in this issue, as it's a complicated one. Russell would be so proud(see sig).

I think free press is essential, and that reporters ideally shouldn't reflect their political bias in their work. But doubts arise in me when people take advantage of this system and innocent people are slaughtered because of it.

Just like libertarianism can have greater costs than benefits when taken to the extreme, perhaps the ideal of a completely free press isn't optimal, and worth some reconsideration.

Also in the real world this ideal can never be achieved anyway. Public interest is guided by local politics and propaganda, so when the media follows blindly, it too is guided by local politics. Add to that the bias, that professionals seek to abolish, but which can never be 100% achievable. So if free press isn't free, should we still aspire for an impossible ideal, that might have greater costs than benefits?

Personally, I have no idea, just sharing some random and rather confused thoughts on the subject.