Dear David/'New-List' members,
A quick response to David McKnight's query
regarding best possible use of the new site/board.
Less than five minutes ago, (approx 10.30 a.m.)
BBC Radio Five Live was 'discussing' the Giuliana Sgrena story. The
correspondent, Tamzin Smith, was asked to explain why this story had caused
such outrage and anger in Italy. Ms Smith offered the US /Whitehouse version
first - it's absurd to suggest that the journalist and her entourage were
targetted deliberately ; the vehicle she was in was travelling too fast as it
approached a checkpoint. Then the 'other' side - some believe that Giuliani
was indeed targetted because the US cannot tolerate the tacit Italian policy
of dealing with kidnappers.
What is missing from this attempt at 'balanced'
reporting ?? Another, 'third' explanation exists, but was not
mentioned.
Several crucial facts, as described by Giuliana
Sgrena herself, writing for her newspaper, 'Il Manifesto' (translated versions
of the piece have been available online since the week-end) - the car she was
in was not travelling 'too fast' ; the occupants of the car had been in
regular contact with Italian and US authorities who were following their
progress towards the airport ; at the time of the shooting the vehicle had
passed all checkpoints and was only 700 yards from the airport.
A couple of other important details so far
unmentioned in UK mainstream - the vehicle carrying Sgrena and her bodyguards
has disappeared, cannot be inspected. Sgrena was due to meet with refugees
from Fallujah, where she personally witnessed evidence of the use of banned
weapons, possibly including 'napalm' (or whatever its new brand-name is...)
The original 'Il Manifesto' article by Sgrena herself outlines what she saw in
Fallujah, her anger at the US action in the city, and her frustration at being
unable to get her story 'out'. She also has detailed first-hand accounts of
torture and rape from victims.
I hope this story helps illustrate how I would
like to see the 'list' working - by simply keeping one another informed about
what's happening then we can, at least, contribute to an alternative 'history'
of what's happening in Iraq, and barring destruction of the www and each and
every hard-drive of those who choose to view the information, that history
will remain alongside the 'official' mainstream version for others to examine
in years to come.
Last year I contributed a series of messages to
media-watch regarding an incident reported by ITN News. It involved the
torture of a teenage girl by prison guards at Abu Ghraib, witnessed by an
Iraqi journalist. That was on May 8th 2004, less than a year
ago, and the incident, now, does not 'exist'. It is well-nigh impossible
to find any mention of it anywhere. (The BBC ignored it completely, as well as
ignoring requests to explain why the story was not considered newsworthy when
ITN ran it, for a full evening, as an 'Exclusive'. )
On BBC Radio Scotland (Sunday March 6th), Ruth
Wishart's show spent considerable time rubbishing the efforts of online
writers (or bloggers) and dismissing them as conspiracy theorists and
politically-motivated provocateurs. The examples mentioned above are just two
incidents where mainstream-media coverage gives cause for deep concern, and
it's only by improving the quality and scope of online/alternative coverage
that we can hope to bring producers and agenda-setters to account. Also bear
in mind that 'journalists' such as Wishart would not waste time discussing the
efforts of their online competitors unless they were deeply worried - a brief
scan of the 'official' versus the 'online' history of
Blair/Bush's Mid-East adventures shows that these people certainly
have cause to be worried. (Interestingly, Wishart's guest did concede
that the 'net' has thrown up some interesting writers, and he mentioned Andrew
Sullivan as a sterling example -- ????!!!! If you're not familiar with this
guy's work, check out some of the stuff he's done, a lot has appeared in the
Sunday Times. hint - he once referred to GW Bush as 'this young and gifted
president...' )
In six months from now, people will struggle
to place the name of Giuliana Sgrena, just as we never ever knew the name of
the wee girl in Abu Ghraib who was beaten, naked, by six uniformed men.
Hopefully, in time, humane historians will make their assessments of what has
happened 'in our name', and those accounts will perhaps include the
efforts of projects like this.
Right now (11 a.m.) BBC Fve Live News has
mentioned the Sgrena story, and stated that the journalist's car was shot at
'near a checkpoint'. A subtle shift, but perhaps significant (i.e. 'near' the
checkpoint, but on which side of it ?)
Hope this helps spark some
discussion/feedback.
Best regards to all,
Ian
Brotherhood