Comments on events taking place in some regions of the world in response to BBC World Have Your Say daily questions.
So he is moving to Stanford University - just a few miles from my house. I should try to find out what he will be teaching. He seems to have the murky, make sure all the contingencies are covered rhetoric of an academic. The other blog that you recommended emphasized that Morocco wasn't in the Middle East, but Al Jazeera seemed quite happy to represent Morocco that way. Being ignorant of these issues, is this something I need to watch out for in discussions?
Hi Abdelilah;Very grateful for your tip. I was terribly busy in the last couple of days so I couldn't react as quickly as would have wanted.Riz show... that's a good alternative for WHYS don't you think? I feel that they have fixated a bit too much these days, in the BBC, on Zimbabwe which made their credibility (and more importantly: independence vis-à-vis the 'foreign office') crumble a bit by the day. What do you think?
Hi Hisham,I am familiar with Riz Khan. I used to watch his show Q&A, which he used to present weekday on CNN. Riz is a respectable journalists. He is one of the pillars of Al Jazeera. Correspondents like him from the BBC like Steven Coles helped Al Jazeera English to have a good launch. It was a way for it to attract viewers of the BBC and the CNN. As you know any channel is popular thanks to the competence of its presenters. So Al Jazeera invested cleverly, not just in technical materials or a network of programmes but also in personnels. Riz in particular has the power to attract people from the East and the West. He's a devout Muslim as he has high journalistic standards.As for the BBC WHYS, it sometimes seems one sided as in its coverage of Burma uprising. As for Zimbabwe, I think the BBC is banned there. It can't have official views from its government. It's too early to judge BBC for bias. It remains problematic whether it should report about it or not. But I remember a show on Zimbabwe on Haveyoursay which was more balanced. Personally I don't think that Mugabe is doing his country any good by stripping the Whites of their economic powers, especially farmers. He could have adopted moderate measures allowing black and white to benefit from their country's resources. One the dangerous consequences of his policy is that Zimbabwe shifted from being a food exporter to a country on the verge of starvation and irreperable inflation.On the whole it's better to get the best of all sources. My view is that BBC website is up to now far richer than that of Al Jazeera. So I keep sticking to the both although BBC is my favourite. The other advantage of the BBC WHYS is that you can set the agenda .Thanks to you there were at least two show proposed by you. The first was about Nichane, the other about Moroccan elections. I don't think Al Jazeera has gone this further by accepting suggestions from viewers. After all WHYS team must be seen as friends open to suggestions.What do you think?
I can see where you're coming from Abdelilah and I agree with most of what you said; But I must add a nuance if I may: the BBC is certainly an uncircumventable and unvaluable means of information but as you've wisely explained: one needs to diversify the sources of information and try to build up his own image on what is actually happening. But what worries me about the BBC is this continuous and pervasive pattern of bias (emphasis on bias) with issues pertaining to Palestine, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Iraq in the runup to the lillegal invasion, last summer's criminal aggression of Lebanon... I'm not making this up: there are many serious studies which showed a SIGNIFICANT bias on these particular topics.What I want to say is this: Listen to the BBC (it would be rather stupid not to do so)but keep your critical spirit filter ON, 'cause the most pernicious propaganda is the one presented and camouflaged within the truth. BBC presenters and journalists (most of them) do a tremendous and highly professional work that's for sure, but that only serves (Yes, not always) as a cover to subtly infuse very cleverly disguised lies. Call me paranoid, in which case I would refer you to these links:http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Portals/0/documents/media/AMW_Monitoring_Summary_Of_BBC_Coverage.pdfhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/pilger1.htmlhttp://www.isreview.org/issues/55/pilger.shtmlhttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.htmlgood reading!
Thanks Hisham for the links.It's certain that a news channel in the size of the BBC can't remain uncontroversial. It draws such scrutiny because of its huge influence. The fact that there are sections like WHYS and Haveyoursay means that viewers and listeners shouldn't take anything at face value. They can challenge BBC reports. One should scrutinize all that is broadcast.In general taking any favourite news channel as Gospel truth amounts to blind confidence. One should learn to have critical views of events. As you know the blog sphere has become a potent force that can sway opinions. Only passive viewers and listeners that can be easily influenced. It can be easy to form opinions but it's sometimes difficult to get real facts to base one's opinion. Any news channel can have millions of followers. The question is how many are capable of having critical analysis of what they get. Some believe in whatever they get and become just parrots repeating whatever they receive.As you said one should diversify one's sources of news. From these sources one can sift wheat from chaff.But as I told you BBC remains my favourite. هادي ما يحيدهاش مني الطبيب باش ما كان.
I wouldn't dare having the arrogance to advise a wise fellow like you on what to watch or hear, and if you sensed some partonizing tone in my comments, please accept my sincere apology, but as you most probably know one should always beware of CONTERFEIT (mefies toi des CONTREFACONS!): هاذي نصيحة من وزارة الصحة
There is no patronizing tone in your comment, Hisham . Your comments are always welcome. As we say: جامل عدوك و صارح صاحبك
صدقت يا رفيق
Post a Comment