Al-Jazeera technician 'shot in West Bank'

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm not entirely sure what the implies in itself...? Have you read any of their articles?

Sure, some of their articles are ok. Still, I wouldn't let them in if I were Israel,

or at least I'd keep a watchful eye on them.

Al Jazeera was reporting from the "West Bank" which is hugely an arab population.

The only way to the West Bank for a non-Palestinian is via Israel.

[almaty 19]

just cause you report news from an islamic country does not make you a supporter of any philosophy...

You can debate the merits and accuracy of their reporting but that does not mean they have direct affiliation with terrorism.

Aawwwwwww! Why do you two always have to make so much sense all the time?

as a counter point.. I really want to see someone report news that just doesnt give a #$%^ about anything... then maybe we'd get some unbiased stuff that is true without an agenda or slant.

SEE JON STEWART...

[jordanianprincess 0]

I'm not entirely sure what the implies in itself...? Have you read any of their articles?

Sure, some of their articles are ok. Still, I wouldn't let them in if I were Israel,

or at least I'd keep a watchful eye on them.

Al Jazeera was reporting from the "West Bank" which is hugely an arab population.

The only way to the West Bank for a non-Palestinian is via Israel.

So then all arabs should be kept out of Israel, even those not associated with terrorists? Or wait, maybe what you are saying is that all arabs are associated with terrorists...your ignorance amuses me. By the way I am not palistinian, and I can enter the West Bank from Jordan.

[mawilson 2,133]

By the way I am not palistinian, and I can enter the West Bank from Jordan.

You can? Without going through an Israeli checkpoint of some sort? If you can,

I'm not surprised the country is going to hell.

[jordanianprincess 0]

By the way I am not palistinian, and I can enter the West Bank from Jordan.

You can? Without going through an Israeli checkpoint of some sort? If you can,

I'm not surprised the country is going to hell.

I'm sure there are checkpoints as its a border, and I'm sure the security forces are Israli. I do believe that the free press is not discrimiated against at these borders as they are all inside anyway regardless of what country they are from.

I don't want you to think that I support terrorism in any way shape or form, but arab people, have the same rights to free press as the rest of the world does. Just because the station broadcasts in arabic doesn't mean they support terrorism. They are broadcasting for their "arabic speaking" audience. Arabs have a great deal of interest in the events that unfold around them as they are more directly impacted by them than anyone else. Is there a reason why CNN viewers should see an Al Qaida video tape before anyone else?

If you are using CNN, Fox, or MSNBC as your main source for news, I highly suggest you find an alternative as they don't always portray the situation as it really is and often show a small segment of something that leads the audience to believe other things. When you initially said that Al Jazeera supports terrorism, the only thing I could gather from your statement is that you watch alot of CNN. I read many differnt news sources, including Israli, Jordanian, Lebanese, British, etc. which give you a much bigger picture than what you see on TV.

[Nikita2Charles 33]

There are always 2 side of every story, During the Gulf war in Iraq, the TV network was censured, they couldn't report anything that was not screen by the US govt. IS THAT DEMOCRACY? what's the difference between what was happening and what The TV network in Sadam was doing, it was all Propaganda, they do it, we do it, The preside used to Media with full strenght to bring out the Sham Saddam had weapon of mass destruction, even though at time there were reports contradicting the claim, but WHO DARE show it, Because the media is controlled and screen.

As a Journalist He has the right under the international protection of Journalist, Red cross to report the events that's happening, so people can see both side of the story? what about FREE PRESS??

I don't see anybody talking about Zionization of the middle east but everybody Jumping on the Arabs.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Nikita2Charles

[Ban Hammer 15,185]

There are always 2 side of every story, During the Gulf war in Iraq, the TV network was censured, they couldn't report anything that was not screen by the US govt. IS THAT DEMOCRACY?

it's called wartime. being that i was in that one, do you think i wanted some loud mouth reporter giving away where we were all for the sake of informing the public? i agree with censorship in war zones. people's lives depend on it.

what's the difference between what was happening and what The TV network in Sadam was doing, it was all Propaganda, they do it, we do it, The preside used to Media with full strenght to bring out the Sham Saddam had weapon of mass destruction, even though at time there were reports contradicting the claim, but WHO DARE show it, Because the media is controlled and screen.

if you have to ask the difference between saddam's ministry of propaganda and a free press, then it's not worth explaining.

As a Journalist He has the right under the international protection of Journalist, Red cross to report the events that's happening, so people can see both side of the story? what about FREE PRESS??

idealists usually wind up dead in a war zone. prudent reporters know that all of those rights don't stop bullets.

I don't see anybody talking about Zionization of the middle east but everybody Jumping on the Arabs.

maybe because there isn't any "zionization" going on.

[jordanianprincess 0]

There are always 2 side of every story, During the Gulf war in Iraq, the TV network was censured, they couldn't report anything that was not screen by the US govt. IS THAT DEMOCRACY?

it's called wartime. being that i was in that one, do you think i wanted some loud mouth reporter giving away where we were all for the sake of informing the public? i agree with censorship in war zones. people's lives depend on it.

Based on your comments...no one should be allowed to report the news in warzones, but they are including Israli journalists. If the Israli army has such a problem with their "location" being reported, maybe they should use the same intimidation techniques on their own citizens. Regardless. there was nothing confidential about what was being reported, it was all over the news that Nablus was hit. These reporters were targeted for the sole reason that they were "Al-Jazeera" and "arabs". If you can't see that, then you are blind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are always 2 side of every story, During the Gulf war in Iraq, the TV network was censured, they couldn't report anything that was not screen by the US govt. IS THAT DEMOCRACY?

it's called wartime. being that i was in that one, do you think i wanted some loud mouth reporter giving away where we were all for the sake of informing the public? i agree with censorship in war zones. people's lives depend on it.

That's not strictly accurate - journalists reporting in active warzones (the ones that are attached to army units) always (and quite rightly) have their reports screened by army officials to ensure no specific information is unintentionally released that could jeopardise their operations.

There's a big difference between that and actively censoring the content of news reports to give a distorted and inaccurate image of the war effort for purely political purposes.

Gulf War Coverage - The Worst Censorship Was at Home

Journalism plays an invaluable role in reducing the gap between the public and the government. With regards to wars - it can play a role in preventing (or exposing) atrocities committed by either side, where once the temptation might have been to cover it up. Abu Ghraib for instance?

Edited July 20, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 15,185]

There are always 2 side of every story, During the Gulf war in Iraq, the TV network was censured, they couldn't report anything that was not screen by the US govt. IS THAT DEMOCRACY?

it's called wartime. being that i was in that one, do you think i wanted some loud mouth reporter giving away where we were all for the sake of informing the public? i agree with censorship in war zones. people's lives depend on it.

Based on your comments...no one should be allowed to report the news in warzones, but they are including Israli journalists. If the Israli army has such a problem with their "location" being reported, maybe they should use the same intimidation techniques on their own citizens. Regardless. there was nothing confidential about what was being reported, it was all over the news that Nablus was hit. These reporters were targeted for the sole reason that they were "Al-Jazeera" and "arabs". If you can't see that, then you are blind.

that is not what i said so quit trying to twist it into your own meanings. what i was advocating was censorship in a war zone by the usa for the safety of its troops. that means leaving out locations. units. and so on. it does not mean that news reports cannot make it out of the area. just they are screened for sensitive information that might be of use to the bad guys. understand?

if israel wants to have their own news people there then don't be surprised if such does not go thru some form of censorship (unless of course the israeli government gives the reporters explicit instructions of what they cannot say).

as for the part about al jazeera and arab reports, i was not addressing censorship in regards to them, so put away the shovel.

Edited July 20, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[dalegg 143]

Here's an interesting story. See- these people understand that sometimes in war innocent people- even your own children- can become unintended casualties and that you can't necassarily blame the people who actually launched the rockets that killed your children since they weren't the ones who started the mess.

Arabs killed in Nazareth

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Al Jazeera's perspective on the current crisis:

Why is Israel back in Gaza?

[jordanianprincess 0]

Al Jazeera's perspective on the current crisis:

Why is Israel back in Gaza?

This Al Jazeera website is not associated with the news station. Here is the disclaimer on the website you just posted:

About Aljazeera.com

Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established in 1992 in London. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

Aljazeera Publishing disassociates itself from the views, opinions and broadcasts of Jazeera Space Channel TV station.

Link

This is the link to the news stations website in english.

[iceyspots 0]

I'd recommend anyone here to see the movie "Control Room" you'll see what the station is about.

[Identity 0]

Actually Gupt is right. We need to let Israel do their thing and kick ars for a while.

The Zionists have already been doing this since the beginning of last century. They received a significant leg-up with the U.N. in '48.

Shooting a journalist. How lame is that! Only the Americans have done likewise.