Helen Thomas: "Only dictators ban television news"

Seattle Post-Intelligence ^ | 11-30-03 | Helen Thomas

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON -- The raid by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi officials on an Arab television network bureau in Baghdad and the ban on its broadcasts hardly fits my idea of how to spread democracy in the Middle East.

Isn't that the first thing dictators do -- shut down broadcast outlets and newspapers? For those in power, tolerating a free press is difficult, even in a democracy. As a foreign occupier in Iraq, we are proving it is intolerable.

The terrible irony here is that we pride ourselves on offering a model to the rest of the world on how to design -- and live by -- our constitutional freedoms. Journalists around the globe have been taught to emulate our approach to newsgathering, hopefully in an atmosphere free of government restraints.

At the same time, we're snuffing out news outlets we don't like.

On Monday, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi government raided the Baghdad bureau of the Al-Arabiya TV network. The network's crime was to broadcast an audiotape from Saddam Hussein complaining about Iraqis who were cooperating with the U.S. occupation force and calling for resistance. The tape had been sent to Al-Arabiya's headquarters in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.

The network, which has interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell in the past, is one of the largest TV outlets in the Arab world.

Any tape portraying Saddam's views on life fits the definition of news, if for no other reason than it is evidence that he is still alive and able to secretly communicate from wherever he was hiding.

Al-Arabiya and its competitor, the al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, have a wide following throughout the Middle East. Al-Jazeera caused Washington much discomfort in the lead-up to the war by broadcasting statements from Saddam. The White House strongly offered "advice" to U.S. TV outlets to shun those tapes but the American networks generally ignored the unhelpful hints.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused both Arab stations of being hostile by covering news of the guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces.

Al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau was hit by a U.S. missile on April 8, killing a reporter-cameraman. The network also has complained of an attack on its marked vehicle April 7.

On Nov. 13, 2001, during the U.S. war on Afghanistan a U.S. missile went "awry," according to the Pentagon, and destroyed the al-Jazeera bureau in Kabul.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned the move against Al-Arabiya, noting that "statements from Saddam Hussein and the former Iraqi regime are inherently newsworthy and news organizations have a right to cover them."

Rumsfeld grouses that the two stations were violently against the American coalition. He hopes to counter their influence when a U.S.-controlled TV satellite channel begins broadcasts next month.

Then will the Iraqis and the Arab world be guaranteed the truth?

In a brilliant speech earlier this month before the National Conference on Media Reform, broadcaster and former newspaper editor Bill Moyers warned that American media conglomerates may find common cause "with an imperial state."

But Moyers said "the greatest moments in the history of the press came not when journalists made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly independent of it."

Against that statement of values, the recent performance by U.S. journalists does not measure well.

White House and Pentagon reporters initially pulled their punches in reporting on the Iraqi war. Some media outlets admittedly did not want to rock the boat by showing grisly photos or videotape that could be disturbing to Americans.

As a result, many Americans tuned in on foreign news channels to get the full picture of the war.

Even now, with the administration's pro-war arguments reduced to a pile of confetti, many news outlets have failed to demand accountability from the Bush administration for what appears to be systematic dishonesty in trying to justify the U.S. attack.

This failure and the U.S.-led suppression of newsgathering in Iraq show that the historic American model for a free and independent press needs courageous bolstering.

Helen Thomas writes for Hearst Newspapers. Her e-mail address: hthomas@hearstdc.com

[Let's Roll]

Only the senile, delusional or incredibly irresponsible would allow the continued broadcast of anti-American propaganda in time of war.

[SwinneySwitch]

Yawn...who does Helen hate today?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I don't read Helen Thomas so I didn't know that the old milkshake was such a poor writer.

[Graymatter]

That woman could use a vacation.
In Venezuela.

[TexasCajun]

Helen Thomas has gone from ugly old scumbag to traitorous..... ugly old scumbag!

That 'bout sums it up for me!

[Wormwood]

That woman could use a vacation. In Venezuela.

On fire.

[tet68]

What I wouldn't give for the opportunity to pull a chair out from under this woman.


And watch her twist slowly slowly in the wind.

[arasina]

And a mouth like a torn pocket. :o)

[alrea]

Do Ms. Thomas' comments apply to President Clinton's and General Clark's targeting of Serb television during the war in the Balkans or are they reserved for Republicans.

Clinton removed journalists from the White House that asked him questions he didn't like. Thomas sat silent, lizardlike.

[ladyinred]

Sweetie, if I could, I would ban you from "reporting." Be happy I am not in charge. (I use the word reporting loosely in your case)

[Sofa King]

Freedom of the Press is something required to keep a democratic system, not create it.

Until Iraq has enough democracy in place to develop it's own independent press, freedom of the press is pointless. It would be nothing more than allowing the enemy propaganda machine to keep working against us.

[Maceman]

[Aeronaut]

At least DeVito has teeth....

[xzins]

Yes, but....

Free to print anything OR free of directives on what to print.

That is the distinction I was making.

Now, do I recognize that a news organization can be private property, and that they have the freedom to print anything they desire. Yes, I do.

Yet, to the extent they are directed on content, they are not free WITHIN their own circle.

I am speaking of absolute freedom. Both outside one's news institution and inside one's institution.

Is it now clear as mud?

FAIR journalism is totally free speech.

[Porterville]

I wish we could run into her home and lock her up.

[small voice in the wilderness]

YOU go first. There's no telling what helen has in her little Casa De Amore. Whips, chains, leather, bags, LOTS of paper bags. Strangely, no mirrors. *shudder* **shudder**

[chmst]

ping

[RckyRaCoCo]

just add broom and adios!

[Hotdog]

Helen...your idea of a dictator is a man with a potatoe between his legs...my idea of a Helen is a lady with a lemon between hers...