censoring toy.

things are just what they appear to you, if you regard them as things that show themselves to you.

better to consider them things that appear to you to appear the things that they appear.

if then they appear something different then they appear you know what and whatfor they are.

that's with aljazeera's dos for one thing. aljazeera isn't a radical medium, not really.
it is a mainstream outlet, with only moderate emancipatory character.

it is somewhat critical at times, and has a little attention for what you might call 'talk on the street'. it doesn't shun sensationalism really. and most importantly, it is a straightforward tool of bluntly put nato/us/and such opinionism.

so such dos may serve to harness their apparent (..) credibility, if that is the case i would guess the military lobby is having something creeping in their sleeves.

however except for the reference of general say 'worldwide' credibility i didnt get any clear signal.

frost featured a mladic-like character, that wanted his ethnically cleansed territory's cus that's how nato does that, and he is as relevant as 'eastern europe and the baltic states'.

that are cheap sentiments to play. typically he still favours the platform.

~~~~

likified

ok i think either there are a few more of yesterdays cables then yesterday, or perhaps i was utterly fascinated by one or two (i was actually rather interested in some).

the note taking system didnt' work, i don't take notes(yet). i think of them sometimes.
4-12-2010 was an interesting day there because so many of the docs confirmed positions taken.

for example i started out with the document on chinas press freedom. the one about coverage of the partycongress specifically. perhaps without notes it is actually better btw. less of a danger to any kinds of sources. (not only theirs or the chinese)

but thats like scaremongering. these people managed to function very often on high levels for many years. the usual autocrat regime will definitily keep an eye on whatever contacts of their keypersonal. "do they talk with an ambassador" and next.. about what have they been talking.

even if i don't trust usian reports and perhaps 'would-be' reports, they show very well that the usual official meeting gets registered and reported. i am somewhat convinced it is hardly feasible to be a regular contact of say the consulate in beijng and have noone noticing.

it may also be in causal relation that relatively many of their contacts are relatively senior. outside a less precise insight in chinas prioritys usual people don't have so many excuses to meet.

the document about reporting of the congress didnt manage to make a very credible impression. to much of the 'press freedom rhetorics'. that besides, i would guess the content about the partycongress coverage is somewhat correct. if i am not mistaken aljazeera wrote on the same line about the event. (it was a bit boring and supported to little the public discussion)

that might not mean much ofcourse, except that aljazeera has many very professional journalists that do have a professional interresse in coverage.

in so far that part of the information is also an open door. it confirms for anybody to read it that has been interested in the event what i assume several papers wrote.

generally i think what all our papers write about such an event is screened. allthough perhaps not allways. i also wondered if the subjects didnt raise the attention of more chinese then doc . suggested. at some point the chinese informer himself seems to be relating exactly the kind of stuf usia wants to hear, and i must say the doument made a quite insincere impression on me.

it's a bit hard to guess if perhaps at top level they are also confirming their own biases here.
yet the document is revealing.

it's so full of supposed western pressfreedom that it strongly suggests wikileaks shouldn't be any problem at all.

next i read some about google in china, 1 percent of the links gets censored, now i would hate to know 1 percent of my links to be censored, besides probably way more actually are , that is.

of what remains to have 1 political percent censored would never be a help ofcourse. it depends then what is actually being censored in china except pornography.

stuff like chen a minh square is. ok surprising, and crazy i admit. but stuf about violent incidents through the police here gets routinely censored to the extent hardly anyone has an idea what kind of things go on and can go on. the very subjects of a demonstration, or arrests, let alone an activist campaign are routinely smeared and misinformed about, and very lousily documented through the somewhat more official and financially strong media.

so besides ofcourse killing people and driving over them with tanks is an extreme case even in a nation with a billion people, a similar or very similar incident might well be censored. theres no webpages about the heroism of the french urban resistance recently, and if there are any they are surely not easy to find or government sponsored.

don't want to say it is the same, but its damn similar. take for example haiti. if i understood the papers well there will be a change of power (however relative in some of the possible outcomes.)

i hope there will, the past ten (20 maybe even by now) years it has been painfully obvious haitians don't trust the governemnt they have. and want another, and that the capitalist proprietary class is kept in charge over the "silly black people".

(if you dont vote quietly you will all get cholera, is the central slogan of every recent government- public interaction in haiti. note that sth like that would show up in diplomatical correspondence, and that thus far stuff like that remains remarkably absent and out of view. allthough not in the wider application , of projected morality and problems).

thats intimidation and probably worse. blackmail. noone wants their children to get cholera, not even if you are in a hopeless position in a camp after centurys of oppression. it might rather make more of an impression. you know afterall what they have been doing to your people for century's.

the good news is that since today (would wikileaks have made a deal..) international organisations support a some transition of power. theres bad news there as well, one of the 2 other candidates is thoroughly rooted in the current political climate, and my guess is their cards are on her now. then you get a sweeter toned voice with the same political content.. but the other candidate is apparently young and alternative, and usually they will play it in a way as to make people belief the next representative of the (an) establishment is an alternative.

simply put, if they get her in that position, and looks like they plan that, in another 5 or 10 years somewhere a heap of documents might turn up that show her as a trustee informer.

ofcourse i am not sure about it, but it is with oppositions in suspect systems a lot and it is with elections that bring for the outside corporate world unwanted change , a lot.

to this and also cote 'divoire i still have the following to say. i am basically against people staying in charge of ill understood things like political entity's. even if they don't intend to , the longer they stay the more they settle, and perhaps even worse, the more this settling takes a materialist direction. it is more so when the nation is less informed. ie. poorer and less educated.

that is because in such societys more rather simple routes to power are open. not uncommonly there is some great reference for authority, and even when people are not corrupt they are very much used to bargain for their needs and wishes with material means. its easier to be corrupt in a poor nation.

as a result i have a great distrust for any kind of establishments in poor nations.

personally i think about ivory coast it is good when gbagbo leaves. he is there for some time now, and my impression is the phase of constructivity for him is over, and the phase of entrenchment
has already arrived. he will not only entrench his own position, but might be entrenching whole social layers. that would go to christians and as a result society would actually be polarising.

however if he remains the support of the army, my impression is there is nothing the ic ("international community") will do. they want to 'sit around one table' with him, to write contracts etc. still, would he win the next 'elections'.

hes not even a nice man to sit around tables with him i understand. its more about the contracts then the table.

but it's also safety , if some kind of rebels with a remotely islamic background fight a dictators army we know who's side they will choose, and who will still be safe in ivory coast then.

must note to this that in so far i know he isnt among the very meanest of potentats, and in how far he tried to make ivory coast a better place is also a question unanswered for now.

however it is obvious he hasnt been able to breach the division. it is also obvious neither the international climate nor the circumstance of having a split muslim christian population to africa itself, are very conductive to that.

last but not least it is obvious doing so in westafrica is not necessarilly easy.

on a sidenote elderly woman and children, (few and thus mostly rich ones btw), are allowed to flee even if so far things are somewhat calm. it doesnt mean much except there is still some freedom of movement. ask palestineans about what freedom of movement menas, or iraki, it's not nothing. it's not a typical muslim thing either if i am fair.

in a cultural way, but also literrally muslim society is predictably more restrictive even then a re-restricting european society not uncommonly.

it stands for the social immobillity also, physical mobility promotes and facilitates social mobility.
you have to look at it with some courage, then it is even worse, people staying all their lives in one village, one region, are socially immobilised and easily can be used as an obstacle for social advances. (being old fashioned and narrowminded they tend to vote way more conservative then their interests lay, for example.)

that is nothing muslim of trikont, it's essential in maintaining status quo everywhere in europe and all over the united states exactly and not coincedentually so.

ok. ill do the next bit, that got me so wary i quit all the reading for a while,
dadis cammara.

you remember the guy from guinee? the guy that made the increasingly less impressive media appearances? ofcourse there have been some exceptions. although guinee is not a great mess after he left, wich should be surprising in the light of the many complaints and reproaches.

if you read their reports that is certainly surprising. btw the question arrives why do these reports that are essentially medical make such a job out of portraying him (negatively).

no matter what contempt he met in morocco he was still welcome in burkina faso, it suits everyone, and that in turn suits burkino faso that is in the hands of some coup takers that killed the hero of the people for more then 10 years now.

note, gbagbo has them as an allie.


camara himself is a sad case, with part two of the report missing, and him receiving an old bullet in his head in the betweens, the conclusions that can be drawn is pervert pleasures are common to the projected readers of these documents, and that sth. is the matter with the whole case.

allthough i feel pitty for him, perhaps undeserved, it is not completely clear to me what is his condition. not suit to rule.. so much is made painfully obvious.

meanwhile back in connary the people still shiver from fear for him. and voices to bring him back magnify their fears enough that renewing the nations dealing has so far proven illusive.
i again wonder if that is so much a bug as really a feature.

however if he really set up militia "everywhere" things would be a bit scary.

you can perhaps guess why it made me stop reading. a very distastefull story and full of insecuritys i can hardly expect to be reported on by 'diplomatic cables' (released to army personal).

ok.. on with the reading, i am glad new things arrived. in between all that aljazeera published some detail i haven't yet read and will btw not be specifically looking for allthough i will be interested if it happens to be between my picks) about... aljazeera.

rotfl. you know, i publish there a little, and certainly love to be critical about them. however the accusation (that for Qatari political interests they be a willing tool and would even shut down for a year) seems either farfetched or strongly exagerated.

aljazeera is somewhat of a political tool, (like all media) and very often on the exact lines of usian propaganda, pressfreedom, but also in choices and picks. only if the public opinion is aware of the discrepancy you can be very sure aljazeera will also be critical, they don't usually steer in the nato's soups.(1)

in one case i noticed their reporting was strongly influenced by arab prejudice. sth about oceania it was. but i reacted to it and an example as extreme i havent again seen. in a few cases individual reporters , contributors, bloggers, whatever, do the same, but they are far and between.

topics that are in the news get a decent and impartial coverage compared to other newsoutlets.
(allthough you could interprete the sympathy with the underdog as partial in a statistical way,
there should be no surprise that opinions of for example muslims and indigenious people are better represented then elsewhere.)

besides that if there is one agenda they are serving it is the nato's. if nato decides to waste every article with a few standard agiprop phrases (like everything about northkorea endlessly repeating about the boat sunk without questionmarks) al jazeera loyally joins in.

i guess ppl will say : you see!? but there are just to many examples of endless repetition of known "facts", to leave that credible. another one is every article about haiti mentioning that a some official said "otherways everyone will have cholera". alltho that one did not go unnoticed either, it is mentioned everytime and not critisized explicitly.

i see no practical possibillity they would stop broadcast for a year. well maybe that was 12 years ago or so. when they didnt have this much of a regular and broad service.

but what was long ago, and when things were different then now, should not be the light we put things in.


1) it is indeed on the positive side about qatar, although even there renewing. in the least in cases, maybe over the whole. and to be honest, qatar (and bahrein, dubai, uae) are somehow part of the nato soup.

The bright side

There is plenty of topics, i guess the alJ yourviews forum is so slow because it got to hear it serviced as a spokes channel of the maffia or some such, in any case it is not hurrying to satisfy my eager for international discourse.

Perhaps i should blog more, but blogs tend to depress me as much as anything.
I love them for actuality check, reality check, and sometimes i abuse a friend online who blogs, just to cheer up.

The forum is more clear, it got at least two kinds of visitors, those who think and try to use the maximum nr of parameters, and those who hate and make propaganda and try to use the maximum nr of lies.

AFter a while you get used to it, and you can just skip 90% of the hate posts by looking at the hateposters name, and still have acces to all these diverse insights that sometimes pop up.

A few times they may even be interesting, whats the introverted hate guy saying about this or that? What say the 'believe everything bush said' usians?
whats the zionist prop people ranting?(a lot of that on alJ)

such things can be usefull even if they waste the pleasure of reading through all more often.

well this is boring. it may be relevant to a lot of us, if we are looking for a forum kind of exchange.. like me, i wish i knew more multicultural forums with topical focus, that can also be read by people of every nationality.

love alJazeera there. Love a load of it's contributors.(and some of it's moderation)

I think i just post this and restart another.

whatever rocks your boat. al Jazeera

This is meant to be a critic on reporting on alJ.

I am not much of a media freak, so this basically about the content of the your views page and the actual articles. Sometimes i watch a vid, a report, or a thematic one, but i don't have the media experience to compare them to anything.
Generally spoken the way alJ works with videos on inet, and with you tube, is sympathic. At least the subjects appear to be of more quality then the usual medias, and not rarely the report and way of journalism.

Thats why in alJ articles there is a lot of unexpected to be found. Reporters are almost always on spot, or none farther of then other journalists.
However...i do notice a trend also on alJ to disturb the news. well not really the news only mayb.. but its backgrounds. it goes like this:

alJ has a dedication to informing, and as such often they go into great detail repeating the background of a situation. A thing btw. you may notice many other newspapers articles do. They use something close to mantras. Wen something happens,
the official variety of the context and history is donned at us endless numbers of times.
Usually you can just skip such matters. No need to read something you read 10 times before. Sometimes its even usefull, like for example trying to memorise political players and partys names in otherways remote and little highlighted nations. Sometimes its plain boring. I think everyone knows by now Bush attacked saddam over faked allegations of wmd (the last thing they might not repeat just as often).

However apparently it is also an instrument of indoctrination.
It appears the storys are not only undercooled at times, they also change. although the story has been repeated a 100 times before, certain detail never emerges, outside specific articles, certain (unwanted by the west) detail even disappear from the callroll. So at most every article on many subjects you get a summing up of a history that gets less complete, less complex and less true over time.

I don't read european media all that much to check if they use the same mechanism. For one thing because their endless repeating of brainless slogans and oneliners to excuse her political and warry behaviour abound just bores me of the pages.

Maybe it's just that i care about alJ, that makes me notice.
However i sometimes think the indoctrination can become extreme, although i do dislike the dutch papers desinforming, i see less of a structure in destroying the detail from the general report. Ofcourse we are alredi more badly informed then muslims need be. I can see the ruling system would see slightly less need in dutch media.

Paradoxally i think alJ is a professional journalists attempt to bring a better reporting, altho commercial or publicationary interests apparently do stand in also their way.

It is strange that such a well meant attempt can only be made with a relatively high level of censory and arbitrage. Not very hopegiving in fact.

So thats with the articles. I think it is my responsability to let ppl know, that alJ is among the first to be subject to mediastrategy, and the creation of blank spaces in our memory, if so told, ordered , forced, or even payed?

Partly it is pragmatically ofcourse, however the pretence of giving the other news, "more of the news", also makes it a very powerfull instrument in this respect.
I fear almost the only reason alJ can exist is it complies.

So thats for the articles, and some of it i only noticed recently.. perhaps the policy has (like once before) changed, for a more paranoid line. Either through extern pressure or through intern complacity or just because we notice it less when it goes slowly.


Your Views:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B84B85E3-7E69-4D79-8121-746EBEA7B304.htm

Then on with you views part. I still like this a lot, even tho i am censored at times (and worse at points)The reason to like it are the contributions from everywhere, and a few tough people that just like me always keep an eye on whats going on in a more independend way. Often its not so much good but at least then you get a pretty clear picture of what the antagonists say.

I being an anti-repression person, am often on one of the sides in a debate.
It's still better then to always do the arguments on your own. Actually its quite a soap. Apparently iraki contributions tend to be censored recently, must be they don't at all agree to anything usian , i think.
It can't be they constantly invoke prophets and deity only, cus firstly it still happens (for different gods), and secondly alJ doesnt hesitate to publish as defiling , hatemongering, scournfull and cursing posts of zionists. (I must add superfluously, and sometimes their opponents.)

Zionism is a great thing when censoring me from alJ. I had posts censored over
the corridor through israel plan, wich annoyed me, because its such a good thoughts experiment. I am not sure my post about the "least efficient economy" ((US) and her economical "enemies" was published. And i am sure on at least one occasion a specific anti-governmental remark , that wouldn't flatter israel was left out.

Wich also happened yesterday. Yesterday i wrote concerning the arab plan to park a contingent "peace"soldiers in gaza, that it might be fairer to consider burdening also the jews with an army to feed.
Just that part , what lights out the hypocracy of targetted attacks, decimating hamas supporters etc. was left out. The world remains a view that palestineans need pacifying.

and that is ... al jazeera, thought you might want to know.

Korea

Recently i reacted to a discussion in al jazeera that has now been closed:0

Usually i don't really look up stuf i wrote all the time, but this was so shocking i was really interested to what point it made for the otherways only symbolically related discussion, kinda in-topic as i was.
Looking it up quitte seriously: where are we now?

Discussion closed. Well,.. well put.:)

For some reason if i react to the korea discussion, feeling empathy for the beautifull woman picture, the weirdest thoughts enter my mind.

Things that i want to write , or even things i don't want to write on al jazeera,
but things that i won't write, probably even if i reply another time on that thread.

Thats why i have an insent for writing here.
how uncensoredly:)

Basically my message would be: All western countrys, all cultures in general have been beating woman for ages, what hypocracy about not hurting woman.

blah blah weak woman , here . blah blah poor woman, innocent woman there, blah blah,
hurting woman everywhere. Thats not a discussion it's a wtc of hypocracy.

If i am not mistaken woman more often function as a bomber pilot then as a fighter pilot. I'd prefer woman did their share in the ongoing violence.

Woman need to change attitude just as awkard and just as much as man, to function in this future. Woman tend to be less apt at gross generalisations, but for what they are, they are none the worse not always.

Anyhow all these beaten up, locked away, de-indivdualised woman don't have an easy time contributing to their potential. That is a good reason to let go of this batch ofcourse, but what does it really matter?

female pilots killed a million afghans? most of them probably civilians,
another million? died for other reasons. Because of hunger, lack of medical care, poverty and further anti-taliban terror. It is not even mentioned in most of the contributions,
i wonder how many koreans died when US attacked afghanistan.. there are many questions , and i have had worrying answers in weird places on some.

So lets guess .. 3? 23?

koreans are a very religious people. Apparently they still live in the mission era, as a matter of facts in PR. To always come in handy.. you know? Handy when you already have the experience how to relate with your consumers of a socalled future in a socalled freedom.