Right-wingers don’t care if Planned Parenthood video was already exposed as a hoax — they’ll do it live!
February 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media It tells you just how degraded our national discourse has become — how utterly corrupted by the Fox Propaganda Channel it has been — that two of its leading anchors can run an entire segment legitimizing a hoax video tape, even though its contents were exposed as a hoax even before they were released. And no one even so much as raises an eyebrow. That’s what happened last night on The O’Reilly Factor, when Bill O’Reilly and Fox’s John Stossel devoted an entire segment to attacking Planned Parenthood as “disgusting” for the supposed behavior revealed in another Breitbartesque attack by video hoax on another liberal institution. O’Reilly and Stossel, however, then use the affair to launch into attacking Planned Parenthood for receiving taxpayer subsidies — and that really is what they’re on about. Interestingly, Stossel uses the logic that because some people see abortion as murder, they are being forced to underwrite murder in their views — a position O’Reilly ardently adopts as well. Peculiar that neither of them apply the same logic elsewhere: Many people see killing innocent civilians in the course of a war as murder too — something our tax dollars likewise heavily underwrite. But you’ll never see an O’Reilly segment attacking taxpayer funding for the DoD. But what’s truly disgraceful that they then dismiss the overwhelming fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported these “sex traffickers” to authorities — thereby exposing the hoax in progress. Here’s their release of last week: Last week, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) alerted federal authorities to a potential multistate sex trafficking ring. Over a five day period, visitors to Planned Parenthood health centers in six states said they were seeking information from Planned Parenthood about health services Planned Parenthood could provide to underage girls who were part of a sex trafficking ring. Subsequent to alerting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Planned Parenthood learned the identify of one of those involved and believes these visits are likely a hoax by opponents of legal abortion seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, which delivers preventive health care and abortion services to three million women each year. Media Matters has the full details of the hoax. Yet, in spite of all this, when Lila Rose and Co. published the video yesterday, it was widely treated through Unsurprisingly, the wingnutosphere ran whole-hog in embracing the video as legitimate, including the fine folks at National Review, RedState and Malkin’s Hot Air. Moreover, as Ned Resnikoff at Media Matters explored in some detail, Rose’s video actually pretty clearly demonstrates the falsity of what she claims it shows: In a so-called “sting” video professional hit artist Lila Rose claims to have uncovered evidence of systemic corruption within Planned Parenthood to cover up “child sex trafficking.” Not only do Planned Parenthoods recent actions flatly contradict that claim — so does the content of the video itself. In fact, even if we were to assume that Rose’s heavily edited smear job is accurate – and there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical – the video very clearly establishes that the alleged wrongdoing is counter to Planned Parenthood policy: the employee on Rose’s tape makes it clear that the actions in question would have to be concealed from others at the organization. You can judge for yourself. Here’s the video: Click here to view this media People for the American Way also has a terrific rundown of the facts: Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose, a photogenic young activist who Religious Right leaders hope to make the new face of the anti-abortion movement, claims that the video Religious Right groups are circulating “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of young girls it claims to serve.” False. In fact, far from proving a pattern of illegal activity, the Live Action project demonstrated that Planned Parenthood has strong institutional procedures in place to protect young women. When Live Action activists appeared at numerous facilities presenting themselves as seeking help with a child sex trafficking ring, Planned Parenthood wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an FBI investigation. Live Action attempted its “sting” across the country; the one Planned Parenthood staffer who violated those procedures and is featured in Live Action’s video was fired. There’s a lot more on Rose’s background there as well.
Continue reading …
Criminal acts by government-backed thugs and a regime killing its own people make negotiations impossible, says Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has called on the international community to urgently withdraw support from “a regime that is killing its people”, following a day of intense violence in Cairo that left at least one dead and several hundred more injured. The Nobel peace laureate, who some want to see leading a transitional government in a post-Mubarak Egypt, told the Guardian that the “criminal acts” of government-backed thugs in the capital yesterday had made any negotiations with the Mubarak regime impossible. “Today’s violence is again an indication of a criminal regime that has lost any common sense,” said ElBaradei. “We have no intention whatsoever – at least I speak for myself on this – in engaging in dialogue with this regime until the number one person responsible for this, who is Mubarak, leaves the country. He must get out.” Following a speech by Mubarak on Tuesday night in which the Egyptian leader promised to step down in September, there had been speculation that a loose coalition of anti-Mubarak groups would rethink their refusal to accept an offer of discussions with newly appointed vice-president Omar Suleiman. But amid scenes of running street battles between anti-government protesters and pro-Mubarak forces, many of whom were found to be carrying police identification, ElBaradei said the opposition’s resolve to force Mubarak out immediately had only been strengthened. “First of all this is not a negotiation – we the people have legitimate demands and we would like to tell the government what to do. Our freedom is not up for negotiation. Secondly how can you negotiate with a regime that is killing its people? When the regime tries to counter a peaceful demonstration by using thugs, some of whom are police officers in plain clothes – we’ve seen their IDs – there are few words that do justice to this villainy and I think it can only hasten that regime’s departure.” “After today people are realising just what they’re dealing with,” added the 68-year-old. “Now they’re not just talking about the man responsible leaving the country, they’re also talking about putting him on trial. If he has an iota of dignity left, he should leave. Mubarak has received a vote of no confidence by the entire Egyptian people … I hope he has the intelligence to realise that it is better for him to leave now before the country continues to go down the drain, economically and socially.” Despite the bloodshed, ElBaradei called on pro-change demonstrators to continue taking to the streets in huge numbers. “I think Friday will be a very big day in that respect. But even if they don’t, even if they are repressed and crushed, there is still no going back. This is a new era – just look in protesters’ eyes. The Egyptians have grown in confidence, they’ve tasted freedom, and there’s no way back.” He also confirmed that he had been contacted in recent days by the British government as well as a number of other international leaders. “My message to them is simple: the sooner Mubarak leaves, the better it is for everybody and the quicker we can restore normality and stability in Egypt and establish the cornerstone of democracy in the Middle East.” ElBaradei’s appeals were echoed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamist opposition group and ElBaradei’s partners in the newly-formed National Committee for Following up the People’s Demands. Analysts believe that with Molotov cocktails being thrown in Cairo, a final confrontation between protesters and the establishment is imminent. Egypt Middle East Protest Hosni Mubarak Mohamed ElBaradei Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Claims that plainclothes police hidden in ranks as battles take place in the symbolic epicentre of the revolution The men came with baseball bats and pieces of broken window frame, machetes and even a homemade spear. Forming a line, the small group of plainclothes policemen blocked one of the broad boulevards leading into Tahrir Square, the symbolic epicentre of the Egyptian revolution. The police had been driven from the streets they are so used to controlling last Friday and now they had come to reclaim what they regarded as rightfully theirs. As they gathered on Qasr el-Aini, they prepared themselves for confrontation with the protesters who had humiliated them and their president. Yesterday was not a day of revolution. It was the beginning of a vicious counter-revolution in support of Hosni Mubarak’s regime, one that seemed set fair to confirm all his critics’ fears. The day after hundreds of thousands of anti-Mubarak demonstrators had filled Tahrir Square to demand his ousting, the supporters of Egypt’s president of 30 years had come to reclaim it with violence. The men came by car and on foot, some even on camel and horseback, arriving as Mubarak’s regime – in a dramatic U-turn – defiantly rejected international calls for an orderly transition of power. The moment the square was stormed came a few minutes before 2pm. In the hours beforehand, the crowds of pro-Mubarak demonstrators had poured over the Nile bridges to gather on the Corniche outside the state-run TV station, a symbol of Mubarak’s rule half a mile up the road. Egypt’s army, which had said it would not use force on the demonstrators, did nothing to prevent them. What happened next was inevitable as tens of thousands of the regime’s supporters – some of whom had been bussed in from the countryside or were civil servants given a day’s holiday – forced their way into the square. Within minutes scuffles had broken out between the sides that saw bricks hurled and savage beatings delivered with staves. Suddenly, the centre of Cairo divided into two battling factions pelting each other with stones. An hour later, dozens of wounded demonstrators were being treated at an open-air aid station at the entrance to the square. Many had blood streaming from wounds. According to the first reports, by early evening at least one person had died and 600 were injured. It was the pro-Mubarak demonstrators – many of whom were summoned by a text message calling on “Egypt lovers” to congregate at Tahrir – who threw the first rocks, catching their opponents unawares. Soon the pro-democracy protesters were holding up sheets of corrugated metal ripped from a construction site to use as shields against the hail of missiles. Some of the pro-Mubarak demonstrators who were captured by the opposition, it was claimed last night, were carrying ID cards that identified them as police. At 3pm, in an extraordinary development, men mounted on horseback entered the square on the regime’s side, creating an almost medieval tableau. Within two hours Molotov cocktails were being thrown while bursts of automatic weapons fire could be heard. After the peace and celebration of the previous days, it came as a shock to witness such violence in the square. A war, primitive and brutal, had broken out, and its frontline was the country’s famous Egyptian Museum. “Why don’t you protect us?” some of the opposition protesters shouted at soldiers, who replied they did not have orders to do so and told people to go home. “The army is neglectful. They let them [the pro-regimists] in,” said Emad Nafa, 52, who for days had praised the army for remaining neutral. Mubarak supporters managed to gain control of the roofs of two of the main buildings while young men in crash helmets, volunteers on the opposition side, acted as stretcher-bearers. Some of the gunfire could be observed. Guardian reporter Mustafa Khalili watched as one soldier stood on his tank and fired at a pro-Mubarak demonstrator who had targeted him with a rock. Another Guardian reporter saw grown men crying at the chaos and bloodshed on their streets. “When we were fighting the central security forces last week it was liberating,” said one member of the anti-Mubarak opposition. “Yet now we are fighting each other and that breaks my heart.” Anti-government protesters, streaming with blood, were taken to makeshift clinics in mosques and alleyways, some begging the impassive soldiers for protection. “Hosni has opened the door for these thugs to attack us,” one man with a loudspeaker shouted to the crowds during the fighting. “After the revolution, they want to send people here to ruin it for us,” said Ahmed Abdullah, a 47-year-old lawyer. “Why do they want us to be at each other’s throats, with the whole world watching us?” At first some of those on the pro-regime side tried to protect opponents being beaten. The Guardian saw a man being pulled out from the flying fists. But such camaraderie did not last long. It was not only in Cairo that Mubarak’s regime moved to crush dissent with an orchestrated show of force that included the clear collusion of the military. There were pro-regime protests in Egypt’s second city, Alexandria. Earlier yesterday in Tahrir Square, it seemed initially that the supporters of the regime had orders to avoid conflict. At first their demonstration mirrored scenes from Tahrir Square from the past week, when anti-Mubarak protesters led mostly peaceful rallies. Some prayed. A policeman was carried on the shoulders of the crowd – just as a deserting soldier had been carried by the opposition only days before. They carried their pictures of Mubarak and stuck them on tanks – just as the opposition had done with its own slogans and symbols. And while some admitted that they had been bussed from outside the capital in organised groups, others had come for more complex reasons. As the demonstration began, they chanted: “Yes! Mubarak!” “Mubarak is our hero” and “Baradei must go.” But among those interviewed by the Guardian were men who said they had swapped sides after Mubarak’s televised address to the nation on Tuesday night, offering concessions and promising not to stand in elections later this year. “People should leave Tahrir Square,” said Mohamed Megahid, 30, a quality control manager. “The president has made the concessions he was asked for. So now people can go home. If he tries to undo the changes, we can always go back again,” he said. “There needs to be time for change. We cannot just press a button.” Tarik Abdel Yazid, 40, asked: “Those people in the square – where does the money come from?. All those people are being supported by outside, by Qatar, Iran and Hamas.” Their gathering was shot through with bitterness at the jeers that had been hurled against the 82-year-old Mubarak over the past nine days. “I feel humiliated,” said Mohammed Hussein, a 31-year-old factory worker. “He is the symbol of our country. When he is insulted, I am insulted.” By late last night, contact with those trapped in the square was limited to desperate tweets as most journalists were driven out. They spoke chillingly of the army withdrawing from the sidestreets around the square and gangs of pro-Mubarak thugs advancing towards them armed with knives and swords. “God help us all,” said one. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker Mustafa Khalili guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
White House repeats Barack Obama’s call for Mubarak to begin sharing power but falls short of public demand for resignation The White House condemned the violence in Cairo as “outrageous and deplorable” as it held crisis meetings over the collapse of its attempts to manage the transition in the face of Hosni Mubarak’s defiance. The administration was trying to decide whether to publicly call for Mubarak’s immediate resignation, after Barack Obama was accused of badly misjudging the popular mood by seeming to accept the Egyptian president will remain in power during the transition. The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, condemned the unleashing of what, it appeared he presumed, were state-sponsored attacks on pro-democracy demonstrators, in the face of a direct call from Obama that there should be no violence. “If any of the violence is instigated by the government, it should stop immediately,” he said. The White House repeated the US president’s call for Mubarak to immediately begin sharing power but again fell short of a public demand for immediate resignation. “The time for a transition has come and that time is now,” said Gibbs. “The Egyptian people need to see change. We know that that meaningful transition must include opposition voices and parties being involved in this process as we move toward free and fair elections.” Although Obama in his speech on Tuesday demanded the transition begin immediately, he did not directly challenge Mubarak’s claim to remain in power until elections and oversee the change. However, White House officials said that while Obama was ambiguous in public about the timing of Mubarak’s departure, he was more direct in a conversation with the Egyptian president in a phone call on Tuesday night, telling him he needed to move towards an earlier departure. However, the violence may force the White House’s hand. Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation thinktank who has been consulted by the White House on the Egypt crisis, said that Obama views the assault on the demonstrators in Cairo as a breach in relations with Mubarak. “The administration sees the social contract it thought that it had with Mubarak behind the scenes being violated,” he said. “It’s a violation of what Obama has been most strongly calling for. This raises the stakes on whether Obama escalates his calls, and whether he takes some of the things he’s been saying privately to Mubarak in to a public forum. I don’t think the president has any other options now.” Clemons said that he is pressing the White House to demand Mubarak resign immediately, because it is the only solution acceptable to the mass of Egyptians, but added that he believes the administration is still hesitant to do so. The US is also not in a rush to get to elections, as the White House finally seeks to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood while trying to give time for secular political parties to establish themselves and challenge the Islamist group at the ballot box. American analysts were united yesterday in saying that Obama had taken a risk in supporting a transition to democracy, given that Mubarak has so long been a pillar of US foreign policy. Robert Satloff, of the Washington Institute and author of the Army and Politics in Mubarak’s Egypt, also saw Obama as taking a risk but praised him for the “breathtaking change” in policy towards Egypt within a week, from backing him to calling on him to go. “Last night’s statement was nothing if not bold,” Satloff said. The imagery of Mubarak saying he would stay on for eight more months and Obama an hour later talking about transition “now” would have a powerful impact in the Middle East, Satloff said. US foreign policy United States Barack Obama Egypt Chris McGreal Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Cairo clashes: How chants turned to violence between pro and anti-Mubarak factions
February 2, 2011 No Comment
‘Scores of people were getting hit’ says witness injured in Egyptian demonstration I was watching a pro-Mubarak demo half a mile from Tahrir Square: about 300 to 400 people, who grew to thousands as they made their way to the square. It was a mixed crowd, with women and children chanting peacefully in support of their president and many carrying photos of him. The problems started as this crowd got to the square and ran into the demonstrators calling for Mubarak to stand down. Both sides chanted at each other; one lot pro, the other anti. Suddenly the pro-Mubarak protesters charged. A few of them shouted “Forward! Forward!” then hundreds charged towards the demonstrators. And then some of them started picking up rocks to throw. It was a barrage, not just one or two. But for a good 10 minutes the anti-Mubarak crowd resisted responding. At one point mediators within the pro-Mubarak lot tried to make them calm down, shouting “Peaceful”. Unfortunately this didn’t last long. Before you knew it, the anti-Mubarak demonstrators were throwing rocks back. The distance apart was 20 metres, and it was a constant stream of rocks. Scores of people were getting hit. I saw a young child hit in one leg so she couldn’t walk; an older woman was hit in the head and bleeding profusely. I was hit during a charge by the pro-Mubarak lot, struck on my head by a rock which knocked me to the ground. I was bleeding heavily. People took me to a makeshift medical centre run by nurses who had obviously come straight from hospital to help, where they bandaged my head. They said I needed stitches, but there were so many other injured to look after.. There must have been more than 50 injuries, some of them horrific. I saw one guy whose left eye was bleeding, men with broken arms, broken teeth where they had just been hit in the face by rocks There were no police, no security forces. The army was there, but was not intervening. The two sets of protesters were left to fight it out. Injured pro-Mubarak supporters were being taken into the Square for treatment. Some of the demonstrators tried to attack them on the way in for treatment but others were shielding and protecting them and calling for unity, saying ‘These are our brothers’. People with more serious injuries were taken out towards ambulances and driven away. The demonstrators in Tahrir Square were far bigger in numbers than the pro-Mubarak lot but as the evening went on the pro-Mubarak forces started getting stronger. The main skirmish had been going on in the Square, but there were other struggles on the roads leading in. I had been trying to leave but I couldn’t get out. When I finally left, there were Mubarak supporters carrying metal gym weights, with Molotov cocktails being thrown and sporadic gunfire. That was about 5pm UK time. They now won’t let anyone into the Square. If people aren’t being kettled by the army it’s by the protesters themselves who are trying to control things. It’s still going on right now. Mustafa Khalili is a video producer at the Guardian Egypt Middle East Protest Hosni Mubarak Mustafa Khalili guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The upheaval spreading across the Arab world is at heart a movement for self-determination. The west resists it at its peril The fate of the Egyptian uprising is in the balance. There is a revolutionary situation in Egypt , but there has not yet been a revolution. In the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s pledge not to stand again for the presidency next September , gangs of government loyalists were today let loose on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria . First, the army spokesman called for the protesters to stand down now “your message has arrived”. Truckloads of thugs, armed with iron bars and machetes, many clearly members of the
Continue reading …We have here an interesting situation in the schism on the American right over Egypt. You have the faction, chiefly either religious extremist or concerned first and foremost about Israel or both, that thinks the protestors are rabble and we must not desert Mubarak. Then you have the group, foreign-policy neocons who are at least consistent in their hopes for democracy for the region, that backs the protestors. The leader (one supposes) of the former faction is Glenn Beck, whose conspiracy theories about Egypt were nicely captured by Michelle Goldberg in The Daily Beast. Beck has been banging on about Egypt all week. I tried to watch one installment. It wasn’t even that it was infuriating. It was just incoherent. Goldberg: Beck, hero of the Tea Party, has become the hysterical tribune of the anti-democracy forces, linking the uprising in Egypt to a bizarre alliance of all of his bête noirs. “This is Saul Alinsky. This is STORM from Van Jones,” he warned on Monday, continuing, “The former Soviet Union, everybody, radical Islam, every—this is the story of everyone who has ever plotted to or wanted to fundamentally change or destroy the Western way of life. This isn’t about Egypt. Everything is up on the table.” It would all end, he warned, with the restoration of a “Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe,” along with an expanded China and Russian control of the entire Soviet Union “plus maybe the Netherlands.” Mike Huckabee has punched his ticket on this train, as well as Newt Gingrich. Others are behaving more admirably. Golberg cites AEI’s Michael Rubin as being with the protestors. And Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and Commentary has been making good sense : I fully understand the dangers of what is happening in Egypt. I am as apprehensive as anyone about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood exploiting current events to gain power. I am fully aware of how Hosni Mubarak has been a useful ally in many ways. Yet, when I watch pro-government thugs attacking peaceful protesters, I am rooting wholeheartedly for the protesters and against the thugs… …The United States, a nation born in a liberal revolution, has no choice but to stand with the people. In many ways, this is a continuation of the same battle fought in the streets of Europe in 1848 and 1989: the quest of a people yearning for freedom against the representatives of a corrupt and entrenched ruling oligarchy. America’s role, as the champion of liberty, should be to usher Mubarak out of power as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to avert further bloodshed and to make it harder for malign elements to take advantage of the disorder for their own nefarious purposes. We did not do enough to aid democrats in Russia in 1917 or in Iran in 1979; in both cases, we stuck with a discredited ancien regime until it was too late and reacted too slowly to revolutionary upheavals. Let us not repeat that mistake in Egypt. The Weekly Standard rounds up 2012 wannabee statements here . Missing? The old half-termer, who’s been pretty mum on Egypt, which after all can’t be seen out of any American windows. This presents an interesting conundrum for her. On the one hand, she’s an inveterate chiliast. On the other hand, she is under the tutelage of some pure neocons. Republicans Egypt Michael Tomasky guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Extraordinary scenes in central Cairo • Violent battles in cities across the country • Foreign journalists deliberately targeted Egypt’s pro-democracy revolution descended into violence and bloodshed as President Hosni Mubarak’s regime launched a co-ordinated bid to wrest back control of city streets, crush the popular uprising, and reassert its authority over the country. There were extraordinary scenes in the centre of Cairo as anti-government demonstrators fought running battles with organised cohorts of Mubarak supporters, exchanging blows with iron bars, sticks and rocks. At one point pro-Mubarak forces rode camels and horses into central Tahrir Square, scattering opponents. Several hundred people were injured, some seriously, and at least one person was killed. The violence was immediately condemned by David Cameron, the Obama administration, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, who strongly condemned what he described as attacks on peaceful demonstrators. The White House warned that if any of the violence was instigated by the government it should stop immediately, and also strongly criticised the beating of local and foreign journalists, including a CNN reporter. But after Mubarak’s announcement that he would not seek another term at elections due in September, the regime appeared to be in no mood to listen – and determined to regain control after a week of near anarchy. Last night Egyptian state television broadcast an order for all protesters to evacuate Tahrir Square. The hardening tone was illustrated by a startling public rebuff to Barack Obama. Rejecting his overnight demand that the promised political transition and reform measures begin without delay, the Egyptian foreign ministry said bluntly that meddling by “foreign parties” was unacceptable and was “aimed to incite the internal situation”. Speaking in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, opposition leader Mohamed El-Baradei said: “Today’s violence is again an indication of a criminal regime that has lost any commonsense. When the regime tries to counter a peaceful demonstration by using thugs … there are few words that do justice to this villainy and I think it can only hasten that regime’s departure.” Mubarak’s announcement had been “an act of deception”, he said. “But after today people are realising just what they’re dealing with.” The trouble began when tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators in Tahrir Square ignored orders from the army to disperse. The army’s move marked a change in tactics from previous days, when it declined to intervene, describing the protests as “legitimate”, and troops were feted by protesters. At the same time Mubarak supporters, who until now had taken no part in events, had begun to gather, travelling in cars or by foot, numbering in the tens of thousands. Some said they had been bussed in from the countryside by the regime and claimed they had no intention of initiating a confrontation. Others said they had swapped sides in recent days, saying Mubarak had made enough concessions and he should have time to usher in change. Initial sparring between rival groups quickly turned into running battles. Then, using clubs, bats, knives and even home-made spears, a pro-Mubarak demonstration that had been gathering for several hours 800 metres from Tahrir Square on the Nile Corniche, outside the state television station, charged into the square just before 2pm. Guardian journalists in the square – on both sides of the confrontation – witnessed pitched battles that turned the square into a war zone as anti-Mubarak protesters tried desperately to hold their ground and both sides tore up paving stones to use as weapons. Among those singled out for attack were western journalists, including Anderson Cooper of CNN and two Associated Press correspondents. A Belgian journalist – Maurice Sarfatti, who uses the byline Serge Dumont – was reportedly beaten, arrested and accused of spying. At one stage tanks attempted to move between the two groups but did little to stop the escalating clashes. In one incident soldiers moved out of the way to permit pro-Mubarak demonstrators reach their opponents. By late afternoon groups of men were visible on roofs in Chapillion a few hundred metres away hurling missiles down on those beneath them. At just after six o’clock automatic weapons fire was heard. Some pro-Mubarak forces appeared to be plainclothes police officers, while others involved in the assault in Tahrir Square were said to have been paid by the regime. The interior ministry denied the reports. The army denied firing on protesters. In other cities the regime’s fightback gathered pace. In Alexandria Mubarak supporters staged a furious counter-protest in a square that has been the scene of protests for nine days, sparking violent arguments and altercations between rival groups. The violence increased fears in western capitals that the crisis, far from being defused, was taking a more sinister turn. David Cameron said: “If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Protest Middle East Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker Harriet Sherwood Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge I’ve been frustrated by the fact that I can’t get Al Jazeera on cable broadcast, only Roku and via my iPhone. While I know there’s a movement afoot to petition cable networks to add it, I have my doubts it will happen. Why? Well, simply put, because the Department of Defense under the Bush administration was offended by their more objective reporting during the invasion of Iraq. Someone pointed me to this 2003 New York Times article with details. Shortly after their official launch, they were attacked non-stop by hackers on the web. They inked a deal with Akamai to serve their content, only to see it abruptly terminated. The English version of Al Jazeera’s Web site was shut by hackers roughly 12 hours after it went online on March 25. For a time, Web users trying to gain access were directed to a Web page bearing an American flag. Akamai, whose clients include MSNBC and CNN, maintains a broad network of servers that provide protection from hacking attempts. It was for that reason, Ms. Tucker said, that Al Jazeera hired the company. “Basically this was our answer to the hacking that has been nonstop and pretty aggressive,” she said. “We had a done-and-dusted deal on March 28. Then yesterday, we get a letter from them terminating the contract.” While the Akamai deal was for web services, cable companies have found a myriad of reasons to keep them out of cable listings. Beginning in 2009, Al Jazeera undertook a grass-roots effort to petition carriers to add them, but to little avail. Burman told The Standard in an e-mail that he believes the main reason the station has not yet won over Americans is that carriers don’t see it as a money maker. “However, we all recognize that the world is getting smaller, and Americans realize that it is essential to know what is happening in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia and in Latin America, not just the news that is deemed relevant in Atlanta, London or other Western cities.” When AJE is given the chance to fill that vacuum, people will watch, Burman predicts. “And that’s really the name of the game for cable and satellite companies,” he said. Just in case there are other reasons AJE might not be finding favor, IWantAJE.net features a mythbuster page that corrects erroneous beliefs about the network. It claims that the station is not merely an English translation of Al Jazeera Arabic and it has never aired a beheading. Al Jazeera’s reporting on the Egypt uprising has been unparalleled. Coverage on the usual channels has been ridiculously biased, US-centric, and banal. For an example of the differences, if you have the CNN iPhone or iPad app, check the “live” link on it. It goes straight to Egypt State Television. On the other hand, Al Jazeera has consistently provided on-the-street information, even after being cut off by the Egyptian government. Global Grind has an exclusive email interview up with Al-Jazeera anchor Imran Garda , who lays the blame at the feet of an excessively paranoid Bush administration and their feverish need to shape the news as pro-US, anti-Arab. I’d say that’s about right. For several years Al Jazeera English was perceived by American cable providers and the American public as the voice of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. With its coverage of the uprising in Egypt, do you see a shift in American perception of Al Jazeera English as a legitimate news organization that reports the news in a fair and balanced way? If so, how? Regarding the perception within the US – that is true. Although pre-9-11, and particular pre the US-led invasion of Iraq, we were celebrated by numerous policymakers, intellectuals and journalists. Thomas Friedman of the NY Times wrote a piece in 1999 championing how free, open and credible Al Jazeera was, and how groundbreaking it was for the region, particularly since it upset the status quo of authoritarian leaders running propaganda channels in each country within the Arab world. With the aftermath of 911, I think there was a strong desire to frame the US response, and specifically the “War on Terror” in very clear cut, almost ideological terms. Al Jazeera showing the effects on civilian populations of air raids which the military told the public only killed “insurgents” or “terrorists” certainly didn’t help when you’re in the DOD and trying to assure the public of the absolute righteousness of a just war, whether in trying to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan or topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Because seeing those images might just have changed how we viewed what we were doing over there. After all, Walter Cronkite got away with it during the Viet Nam war and look what happened. Can’t have a repeat performance of that in these times, now can we? However, there seems to be a thaw under the Obama administration , but not necessarily with cable companies. The objections from the cable companies have come for both political and commercial reasons, said Burman, the former editor-in-chief of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “In 2006, pre-Obama, the experience was a challenging one. Essentially this was a period when a lot of negative stereotypes were associated with Al Jazeera. The effort was a difficult one,” he said, citing the Bush administration’s public hostility to the network. “There was reluctance from these companies to embark in a direction that would perhaps be opposed by the Bush administration. I think that’s changed. I think if anything the Obama administration has indicated to Al Jazeera that it sees us as part of the solution, not part of the problem, ” Burman said. Petition your carrier to add Al Jazeera here .
Continue reading …