as most of you know, each sunday evening at the common ills, c.i. does a kind of round up from press in other parts of the world.
if you've ever caught any of that, you know there's a great deal that's never reported in this country outside of democracy now and a few other sources, a tiny few, still doing actual news. forget 'the world in brief' or 'world briefs' or whatever they call that tiny column in the new york times. that tiny space rarely gets at some of the most important stories that are out there.
i got on late last night to do an entry and then ended up reading all three of the world reports at the common ills. i was reading all the excerpts and clicking on the links to stories that especially interested me. it honestly took a little over 2 hours.
the information in there was just so much and so intense. i was tired, i'd posted on saturday, i felt like i needed to think about it some before posting on it and i wanted to see what this morning's new york times covered.
on the last part, the new york times covered very, very little.
i want to highlight 1 of the 3 entires tonight.
it's the iraq entry: "As with the seige of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the seige of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged ... by independent sources"
the title comes from an ips article by dahr jamail entitled 'U.S. Claims Over Siege Challenged.'
before thanksgiving when i started going to the common ills, i'd never heard of dahr jamail. now his name is 1 i constant reference in conversations. (sexual and otherwise - my heart still goes back and forth between dahr and christian parenti.)
dahr went to iraq as an unembedded reporter. what that means is not only was he an independent reporter, he wasn't running around playing war games with the troops. he was there to do what a reporter is supposed to do: report what's actually happens. 1 of the reasons the new york times reporting on iraq is so disgusting is because it's 'white americans in iraq.' that's the focus at every turn. iraq becomes an amusement park and the citizens become staff at the amusement park. it's all about us in the new york times. or all about the u.s.
dahr went there and told stories that others didn't want to report on. he should be celebrated and praised. his name should be universally known. 1 thing you can do is make sure you tell 1 person this week about dahr jamail. it doesn't even have to be some 1 who's never heard of him before. you can talk about him to some 1 who already knows him. that's good because you're strengthening both of your knowledge about dahr and because you're discussing some 1 who has made a difference.
dahr's talked about what really happened in falluja. in the roundtable for the third estate sunday review this weekend, i was really surprised to find that it was so controversial to some that c.i. had stated dexter filkins reporting was embarrassing & 1 sided. filkins is winning a lot of awards for that bad reporting. that doesn't make it good reporting. i agree with c.i. completely on the issue of filkins, history will slap its ruler on his wrist. history will note he didn't do his job and much, much worse.
and if it that's controversial to some, if saying that is shocking, it's only because reporters, actual real reporters like dahr, aren't widely known of in this country.
falluja was a slaughter and a massacre and dexy filk wants you to think it was a john wayne movie. dexy filth should be ashamed.
in the entry at the common ills, you'll learn about the bombings, the assassinations and so much more. here's c.i. commenting on the news that rebuilding in iraq is once again 'delayed:'
Where are those Operation Happy Talkers? Hmm? Guess they're going to start bragging about a few schools getting ceiling fans again? (And weren't they supposed to get air conditioning? Wasn't that what US taxpayer monies were supposed to be purchasing?)
In other reality based news, from The Guardian, note Michael Howard's "US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq:"
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
c.i. pointed out after the roundtable that there is criticism that iraq is ignored at the common ills because the new york times reporters in iraq are not linked to. several visitors a week complain that 'sunday is just not enough.' i wish c.i. had brought that up during the roundtable because there are a few things i'd like to say on that.
1) reporters for the times in iraq have done a really poor job of conveying reality. both in terms of what is going on and in terms of the fact that people actually inhabit that country. actual people with their own hopes and dreams and fears. but they become extras as the times rush to act as though we're columbus discovering an empty world.
2) iraq is not just mentioned once a week. c.i. provides links to democracy now and democracy now is covering it.
3) visitors griping are visitors who aren't going to the site each day. tom hayden is highlighted there during the week along with articles from the nation and other sources.
i told c.i. i thought these visitors were just new york times groupies. they ignore a story from the bbc or elsewhere and just seem to want to know what's in the new york times.
i think it was very smart of c.i. to step away from covering what the times says about iraq. each link they get increases their profile and makes them appear to be a reputable source for iraq coverage. they are not that. which is why you won't find me linking to dexter or john burns or any 1 else in iraq that's reporting for the times.
c.i. has noted that if the times actually reported on iraq, they would be noted, their stories linked to. c.i. just didn't have a stomach for lies, that was the basis for the decision. myself, i'm boycotting linking to any new york times story coming out of iraq.
