I've been meaning to see this
one. It's next on my list.
Thanks for the review!
Seeing and
understanding
perspectives
different
than my own is
not
something I
try
to avoid like sidewalk poop. It's
only another's shoes one ends up stepping in, after all! Believe me, I'd like
to be able
to
say that I look
at all the
perspectives I can,
sympathe[color=blac
k]t[/color]ically,
at
least for a
minute or
three.
Unfortuna[color=bla
ck]t[/color]ely, I know I
consisten[color=bla
ck]t[/color]ly fail at
this
project, by my own
standards.
Althou
gh staunch
conservatives -- for whom such
open perspective seeking would
be like seeking to
step on
the poop -- and people
with a misguided
faith in
the
integri[color=black
]ty of Fox News are sure
to dislike Control
Room; perhaps
tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t is why I was really moved by
the
honesty of
this
excellent
documentary
about coverage of
the Iraq war, from
the
perspective of a
motley crew of Al Jazeera
journalists. To understand things
from their perspective for a moment was enlightening.
[/font][/color]One correspondent died on
the rooftop of his
Baghdad offices after it was
struck by an American missle, while he was
reporting live.
Indeed, on
the same
day, U.S. precision bombs killed
three TV
journalists from
three
different Iraqi news
networks, including Al
Jazeera, while they were
at
their offices
reporting
the war. The
military said
they
took
hostile fire from the
Jazeera office and were merely defending
themselves.
But obviously,
the timing of the
events could
not have been a coincidence. The
U.S. military was trying to send a message. The more compelling
story is
tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t [/font]the news
networks were being
chastised, and
effectively
prevented from
reporting
the
true,
nasty face of war. The film showed
the correspondent just before he died, as well as
at his burial; his wife pleading for his colleagues to continue in their mission of journalistic
integrity. But Iraqis increasingly refused Al Jazeera
interviews afterwards; due
to fears
they
too would be
targe[
font=SimSun]t[/font]ed. The military information control strategy was brilliant.
To merely round up the journalists and shoot them, after all, would have caused more repercussions than solved
information control problems.
I was really
struck[/co
lor] by
the
honesty and
sincerity[/co
lor] of
the
journalists regarding
their jobs. As an American and a
psychologist, I
immediately recognized
their sincere passion for
democracy, freedom of information
and the power of
tru[fo
nt=SimSun]t[/font]h. In
tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t[/font] way most of them
struck me as more American in
spirit
than many American TV
journalists. They
exhibited
the same
healthy cynicism, reasonableness,
humor, and
detachmen[color=bla
ck]t all
the
best
reporters share. One of
them was a former BBC
correspondent, and the
others hailed from various other
countries, some
Western. Despite the fact that
most of them were of the Muslim faith, I really got
the sense
they
weren't overly
emotionally
att[fo
nt=SimSun]ached [/font]to any one
position or
another. Though
sympathe[color=blac
k]tic
to
the views of average Iraqis,
they were
mostly
passionate
information junkies,
at
the same
time
they
admitt
ed their biases and
sympathy. They
wanted
to wake up
the Arab world and
get
them
to open
their minds
to
different
perspectives -- especially
the
benefits of democracy(!) -- as
much as anything else. They even
expressed admiration for
the
intelligence and
effectiveness of
the American "war propaganda
machine" -- which reportedly trucked in non-Iraqi "extras" to act as the famous "celebrating masses" the day they
pulled Saddham's statue down! They kept showing the same people from different angles in different locations in the
square waving their same white t-shirts! There were in fact no actual Baghdad residents in the Square, reported
Al Jazeera, as they were huddled in their homes, scared to death of the tanks. It was nonetheless a
great stage performance, worthy of Hollywood. Still, the
most cynical among
them admitted he'd "go work for
Fox in a
heartbea[color=blac
k]t,"[/color] as his dream was to move to America and become well to
do. He said no one can win a war
withou
t propaganda, and seemed to take a pragmatic view. Touchingly,
another senior journalist expessed
great
faith in
the American people and
Consti
tut[co
lor=black]ion -- that America itself would surely[/color]
defeat
the
current ugliness being
exhibited in our foreign policy.
He sounded more
patrio
tic (in an American sense) and
passionate
about
this idea
than would
most Americans, perhaps due
to his naive idealism
about democracy as an
outsider. So Control Room
was also a film about the beauty of America and its ideals.
Ironically, even as Rumsfeld and Bush
were calling Al Jazeera a horrible
terrorist[co
lor=black] propaganda machine
[/color]tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t[/font] needed
to be disciplined (and indeed
it was disciplined), officials
from the
Sta[fo
nt=SimSun]t[/font]e
Departmen[color=bla
ck]t[/color] and
Central Command
military
information office, who were
interviewed for the film, developed
tremendous
respect for
the network through working with
them closely, even admiring their
willingness to
present all sides of an issue and
offer Americans equal airtime.
Though I, along
with
other Americans, have been spoon
fed the view of Donald Rumsfeld
and major Network news
tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t[/font] Al Jazeera is merely "Bin Laden's
mouthpiece"; I could
not help
but come away from the film
with
the view
tha[fo
nt=SimSun]t [/font]they are
rather
like
the PBS we know and love on Sunday
afternoons; in a
different locale;
with a
different consumer base. Being
where they are, with various
offices throughout Iraq, no reasonable person could have
expected
them
to be
just like Fox, NBC, CNN, or CBS.
In contrast, the film showed that all these major networks' main Iraq offices were located right in the middle of
the Coalition Central Command suite; next to, or across the hall from, those of various generals. You'd think all
those reporters buzzing in and out would have been in the way of military planning, but apparently not. As
I said, it was an enlightening film.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-03-2004 at 03:16 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I've been meaning to see this
one. It's next on my list.
Thanks for the review!
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
yep, one to go see for sure
- I'd read another review but DST's is the better one. Thanks DST!!!!
This is a very subversive film for
out times. (Possibly more so than F9/11.) It makes Arabs look human.
It makes no effort to hide Al
Jazeera’s bias. (In one scene a translator gags after translating one of Rumsfelds speeches.) But it does so in a
way that exposes Western bias.
In truth “objective journalism” is just a myth but that’s no excuse for
unprofessionalism. I think that’s the strongest message coming out of “Control Room”.
Its in my Netflix queue...I'm
going to move it up...nice review DST...I had also heard that the toppling of the Saddam Statue was total stage
managed propaganda from another source...Its unfortunate how many Americans dont realize how much government
disinformation they're exposed to on a daily basis. F-911 & Control Room are just scratching the surface. Free
speech & a free press have long since become anachronisms in our society...
For all the rightOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
reasons...
Arabs are human!!! Its attitudes like this thatOriginally Posted by a.k.a
creates so much animosity towards the US around the world...
"How dare they counter the massive bias coming out of the maw of the US media machine"Originally Posted by a.k.a
I wouldOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
to...maybe they should show the photo op when Rumsfled was shaking Saddams hand & sucking up to him, back when
Saddam was considered more politically expedient to the interests of US foreign policy...
Finally something I can agree withOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
Apologies to a.k.a. if I
misunderstood your comments...I guess I should really see this flick before I go spouting off about it...
I agree it's one ofOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
the strong messages in there, though in academic journalism settings it's "old hat" to say that. You can be
balanced and fairly highlight multiple perspectives. I also agree it "fleshes out" the human side of "Arabia," and
that this is subversive for the masses whose perspective depends on seeing Arabs as half-human.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I've
heard of silencing dissent, but this is more like silencing reason:
"Rushing, a Central Command spokesman
assigned to escort the documentary makers during their time in Qatar, is among the film's most sympathetic
characters, portrayed as a thoughtful young man moved over time by the grim reality of war.
At no point is he
shown doubting the justness of the U.S. effort in Iraq, yet the film documents a budding friendship between Rushing
and Al Jazeera reporter Hassan Ibrahim, and moments on camera when Rushing is wrestling with the film's central
themes: war, bias and the Arab world's most powerful media outlet.
The Marine's role in the film turned him
into a minor celebrity among the art-house-cinema crowd. But the candid comments he made in the documentary and in
interviews after its release ran afoul of his superiors in the Marine Corps, which he now plans to
leave."
...
"His situation has angered many in the military public affairs community who say Rushing
has been a passionate spokesman for the U.S. armed forces and is being punished for appearing in a film that
portrays Al Jazeera — a bete noire of the Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks — in a positive
light.
"Here's a guy who represents the very best of public affairs in the Marines," says a senior military
official who worked with Rushing at Central Command, speaking on condition of anonymity. "For whatever reason, it
didn't play well with some of the senior brass in the Marine Corps at Pentagon. They're losing one of their
finest."
A 14-year veteran, Rushing enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1990. After serving nine years, he
entered the University of Texas on an ROTC scholarship and earned a dual degree in classics and ancient history.
This background, Rushing's friends said, gave him a more nuanced view of the Arab world and its attitudes about the
West."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage
Marine
Cpt. Rushing did an almost impossible job well there -- to represent the U.S. in that film! His humanity and
genuineness saved him in my eyes, and saved the U.S. from looking totally bad in the film. He did his best to
struggle with the issues under fire -- way better than all our lying, phony, foolish, arrogant, shallow politicians
do. Damn, that sucks royally that they crucified him! He wasn't even sprouting any liberal dogma! The
Marines should be proud of him, and decorate him for that. He fought with courage, without firing a shot; to
maintain his integrity. Who else is giving America a human face over there?? Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's
speeches to the Iraqi's on Al Jazeera were just consistently and categorically abysmal, full of
dogmatic, meaningless, patronizing, insensitive, mechanical cliches; and this guy shows 'em how it's done
-- be yourself -- be real! Why can none of our politicians figure that one out, even for a moment?!? How can they be
so dense? Isn't it logically obvious that presenting a human face and story is the only thing that consistently
works to cross cultural barriers? God help us, the Jerry Springer Nation, the nation of black and white thinking!
I want to emphasize as strongly as I can that the Marines are absolutely fucking nuts for chastizing and silencing
Cpt. Josh Rushing! Doesn't anyone have any wisdom who is running that organization?
Here we have a
patriotic American soldier that Muslims in Iraq can like and trust, due to his genuineness, thoughtfullness,
humility and compassion; who yet stays true to himself, his job and his country! This guy accomplishes what no other
American diplomat, military spokesperson or politician has done -- does the impossible -- and they make an example
of him, disown him; and punish him -- drive this 14 year veteran out of the Marines! Freaking idiots!
They disowned the most important cultural example of the image we need to portray to Arabs for the long
term!
Whatever happened to "winning the hearts and minds of the people" in Iraq!?! I guess they think
that robotic, abstract, dogmatic, rhetorical cliches, if repeated enough, will work! (e.g., "We are here to liberate
the Iraqi people!"). Winning the hearts and minds of a nation and culture unfamiliar with Democracy over to
Democracy is hard! It doesn't get any easier when their streets have filled with blood; when you are driving
tanks up and down their streets, have bombed their cities, and reduced their young male population significantly. It
requires an extremely in depth, multifaceted and nuanced approach, like a university program in citizenship, but
deeper and based in real life examples. All this is necessary but insufficient. WTF does a Donald Rumsfeld speech
do? Bush is going about this in such an intelligent way, is he not -- a way befitting his IQ -- a double
digit IQ so high it is significantly above retarded??
[url="http://pearly6000.tripod.com/htmls/bush-dimwit.html"](http://pearly6000.tripod.com/htmls/bush-dimwit.html[/url
]) That right there was a chance to make inroads and we just blew it. Providence has given us so many opportunities
post 9/11 to redeem ourselves or enjoy support from the world, and we have squandered most all of them, like
prodigal children!
At least this film and F911 have been examples of Democracy in action. They are, ironically,
some of America's best friends abroad at this moment (not that I expect too many staunch conservatives to be
able to recognize this, unfortunately)! That type of thing, criticising your government, makes America more
attractive, not less attractive. We've got nothing to hide. The process is what makes us seem truly great, not the
content. It is easier to see this is true when we stop assuming people everywhere else are stupider than we are.
Whew! Found some optimism there!
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 08-03-2004 at 01:37 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Well, not really,
but what the
hell:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...br /> ed_hoax
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
It's a little sick and
twisted, but one crazy way to sort of defeat something is for pop culture to absorb it. Soon, maybe there will be
punk bands wearing orange jump suits and pretending to behead each other on stage, college kids staging fake
beheadings, video games, art exhibits, and headless halloween costumes. If people become sort of numb, cynical or
maxed out on it, it's value as an automatic terror button declines somewhat. Of course, this isn't any sort of
preferred solution.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Warning on Jazeera bombing report
Britain has warned media
organizations they are breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to show U.S. President
George W. Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera.
The government's top lawyer warned
editors in a note after the Daily Mirror newspaper reported on Tuesday that a secret British government memo said
British Prime Minister Tony Blair had talked Bush out of bombing the broadcaster in April last year.
Several British newspapers reported the attorney general's note on Wednesday and repeated the Mirror's
allegations, which the White House said were "so outlandish" they did not merit a response. Blair's office declined
to comment.
Al Jazeera, which has repeatedly denied U.S. accusations it sides with insurgents in
Iraq, called on Britain and the United States to state quickly whether the report was accurate.
"If the report is correct then this would be both shocking and worrisome not only to Al Jazeera but to media
organizations across the world," the Qatar-based station said in a statement.
The story would
also be a shock for Qatar, a small Gulf state which cultivates good relations with Washington.
Reporters' rights groups called on the United States and Britain to promptly give clarification of the
report.
"This is a very serious charge with grave implications for the safety of media
professionals," said Ann Cooper, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Refusing to address
these reports in a substantive way only fuels suspicions."
Reporters Without Borders said: "We
find it hard to believe that President Bush really discussed this possibility. This would be extremely serious and
would constitute a major and unprecedented violation of the right to information.
"If this report
turns out to be true, it offers a new insight into the motives of the U.S. forces, which have already bombed Al
Jazeera offices twice, in Afghanistan and Iraq."
The Mirror said the memo came from Blair's
Downing Street office and turned up in May last year at the local office of Tony Clarke, then a member of parliament
for the town of Northampton. Clarke handed the document back to the government.
Leo O'Connor,
who used to work for Clarke, and civil servant David Keogh were charged last Thursday under Britain's Official
Secrets Act with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations."
WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT
The Mirror said Bush told Blair at a White House summit on April 16
last year that he wanted to target Al Jazeera. The summit took place as U.S. forces in Iraq were launching a major
assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
The paper quoted an unnamed government official
suggesting Bush's threat was a joke but added another unidentified source saying the U.S. president was
serious.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "We are not interested in dignifying
something so outlandish and inconceivable with a response."
The attorney general told media that
publishing the contents of a document which is known to have been unlawfully disclosed by a civil servant was a
breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Kevin Maguire, the Mirror's associate editor, said
government officials had given no indication of any legal problems with the story when contacted before publication.
"We were astonished, 24 hours later, to be threatened with the Official Secrets Act and to be
requested to give various undertakings to avoid being injuncted," he told BBC radio.
Al Jazeera
said that, if true, the story would raise serious doubts about the U.S. administration's version of previous
incidents involving the station's journalists and offices.
In 2001, the station's Kabul office
was hit by U.S. bombs and in 2003 Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. strike on its Baghdad
office. The United States has denied deliberately targeting the station.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/ts_nm/britain_usa_jazeera_dc;_ylt=AtLXAzf
13_V2O7QX_7.LccOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM 3MTY-
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks