Control Room, the movie about Aljazeera & Iraq

Watched Control Room the movie. It’s good. It’s a documentary about Aljazeera, the Arab news network, during the Iraq war in 2003.

I learned some new things:

- There’s video of Bush just before the war telling Iraqi soldiers to surrender and that the excuse “I was just following orders” will not be accepted. Funny, a lot of sciforumers have told me that US soldiers are not culpable for fighting this offensive war because they must follow orders.

- There’s plenty of video by Rumsfeld complaining about what he saw as Aljazeera bias, but clearly he is complaining about Aljazeera reporting the facts—like showing American and Iraqi dead—and not sugar-coating them like the US media does.

- There’s an interview with a Pentagon press officer saying that he was disconcerted to realize that he was much more sickened by Aljazeera video of dead US soldiers than by their video of dead Iraqi civilians. Perhaps he was helped by the Aljazeera anchor often shown trying to teach the press officer about empathy.

- The US smart-bombed the bases of 3 separate Arab news networks in Baghdad in the same morning, including Aljazeera, killing their reporter broadcasting from the rooftop. Official US response: Sorry, the bombs went astray. But it’s just thuggery to censor the truth. After that nobody would consent to be interviewed by Aljazeera in Baghdad, fearing another attack, so Aljazeera had to leave Baghdad.

Anybody else see the movie and/or have some comments?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

havent seen the movie, is it out on video yet? or do i have to wait the usual 3 weeks after its release until it gets over here?

the ameircans dont report anything, there have been more than 5 attacks inside the US green zone this month and none of them have been allowed into the american media, they dont tell you anything, in fact its only now, more than a month after makfarat al-islam's first mass grave reports that the americans have released a statement officially

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The more the US confronts Al J, and other mainstream Arab news channel the less credible the US is seen throughout the world. Its so obvious that the US is just another hyped out power who goal is to suppress the truth from getting out to the world, the US is doing what immoral military powers do…repress.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

vslayer - It's a weekly rental at Blockbuster Video here in the US.

 

"the ameircans dont report anything, there have been more than 5 attacks inside the US green zone this month and none of them have been allowed into the american media", vslayer

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041204/wl_nm/iraq_dc

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=302493

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2004/12/041214iraq.shtml

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/195394_iraq15.html

try reading a newspaper, its endlessly reported...

"There’s video of Bush just before the war telling Iraqi soldiers to surrender and that the excuse “I was just following orders” will not be accepted. Funny, a lot of sciforumers have told me that US soldiers are not culpable for fighting this offensive war because they must follow orders.", Zanket

I do not think anyone doubts that Bush is an idiot.....Considering I do not feel that Iraqi soldiers are culpable for fighting back, It really does not matter what Bush has said.

"There’s plenty of video by Rumsfeld complaining about what he saw as Aljazeera bias, but clearly he is complaining about Aljazeera reporting the facts—like showing American and Iraqi dead—and not sugar-coating them like the US media does ", Zanket

The U.S. media has done nothing but report the negative aspects of the conflict, and has really reported nothing positive at all. I am not sure were this thought comes from. They even just recently reported how U.S. senators felt the situation was getting worse. The U.S. media has sugar-coated nothing.

 

"Have a Coca Cola Christmas", Undecided

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The most blatant example of the American media engaging in disinformation was the Firduz square statue pulling down event during the early days of the Iraq invasion. (Towards), are you familiar with the details of this?

This was a deliberate deception of the American people. Maybe the purpose of this deception might have been to manage the perceptions of Iraqis and other Arabs in such a way as to reduce their opposition to the upcoming occupation.

There was numerous media at the event. They Knew they event was phony and yet their networks ran the misleading footage. The networks probably knew they were showing America dsinformation. A few days later Nightline showed footage that made it clear that the American people had been deliberately deceived by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and PBS.

Did any TV program other than Nightline show the footage that revealed that the pulling down of Saddam's Statue was a staged PsyOps event? Was Nightline treasonous for showing the truth? Was the rest of television treasonous for deceiving America?

 

I rather enjoyed seeing everyday Iraqis beat pictures of him with shoes. THAT came from the heart.

 

Control Room is an important film. More Americans should watch it, but many would not be comfrotable doing so. Many are more comfortable allowing their information about and understanding of the world to be filtered for the national interest.

This is done with increasing alacrity. Pentagon marketers used CNN and other corporate messagers to disrupt the defense of Fallujah, and likely also to encourage civilian evacuation, by announcing the commencement of the assault as being underway, days before the orders were actually given to pound Fallujah into restive ruins.

I'm not following the lies as closely any more. I'm concerned about the tremendous economic blowback that is likely coming soon, as a direct result of the, naiive, botched neocon foreign-policy joyride, which will have a very abrupt and unhappy ending for us all.

 

What do you call it when torture is routinely called “abuse”?

It’s a relative thing. The US media may report negative stuff, but relative to what Aljazeera reports, the US media does sugar-coat. That’s why Rumsfeld bombed Aljazeera’s broadcasters in Iraq.

Almost any day of the week you can go to Aljazeera and find stories that are apparently truthful, make the US look bad, and are not found in the mainstream US media.

A letter to the editor of my local newspaper makes a great case in point:

Here’s an excerpt from an article about U.S. press officer Lt. Josh Rushing, who is featured in Control Room (boldface mine):

 

Best blog I've yet come across for daily reports of the Iraq chaos, Today in Iraq .

I'll have to rent this movie.

Heard reports tonight that Rumsfeld might actually be in serious trouble. Republicans in leadership positions are speaking out against him. While I wouldn't have great hopes for a replacement to be able to fix things, It would be nice to see incompetence rewarded by unemployment for a change.

 

"Almost any day of the week you can go to Aljazeera and find stories that are apparently truthful, make the US look bad, and are not found in the mainstream US media.", Zanket

If you read through Al Jazeera, you will notice at least half of all articles are critical of the U.S. You will also notice that there is not one positive article about America. It is obvious that Al Jazeera plays up to a general negative feeling of the U.S. in the Arab world, and does so in order to gain more of an audience. They are also notorious for reporting information that in generally not verified, which is extremely unprofessional. Whatever your critique of American media may be, to attempt to portray Al Jazeera as somehow "neutral" is a joke.

"What do you call it when torture is routinely called “abuse”?", Zanket

An attempt not to be "politically charged" in the reporting. Torture is a word that is both powerful and full of accusation. Did you ever hear of the word "alleged", used in cases of criminals? Using the word torture verifies that it did indeed happen for sure, rather than it it possible that it did not. There are many examples of this other than Iraq. Here is an example were CNN uses a quote from a General to use as a headline to mention "torture" because it fits the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/25/abughraib.report/

"The most blatanant example of the American media engaging in disinformation was the Firduz square statue pulling down event during the early days of the Iraq invasion. (Towards), are you familiar with the details of this?", Nirakar

The U.S. troops called on a loud speaker challenging Iraqis to come out and pull the statue down. A few hundred came out during the violence (the fact that there was not a large crowd of more than a few hundred is not surprising. Here is the official CNN view of the event the day after.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.war.main/

The photo does not show a "huge" crowd and does not attempt to exaggerate number as many have criticized. I have heard the accusations that Chalabi and members of his group staged it with the soldiers but I doubt all of those involved were "chalabi stooges". Did the American soldiers want to create a strong image for a little propaganda? Yes. It was not only American news sources, however, that reported it buts the likes of Al Jazeera, as well.

 

in response to your comments. i posted this earlier and you didnt reply.

...

 

No wrongdoing indicated there. What positive action by the US in the Middle East is not overwhelmed in scope by its negative actions? So some US soldiers gave candy to some Iraqi children. Big deal. Those same soldiers are enslaving those children. What should a responsible media report?

Or they tell the truth and that leads to the general negative feeling.

Cite please.

The negative actions of the US in the Middle East is the biggest story in the Middle East almost every day. If that’s what they’re reporting then that shows neutrality.

So the media should pander to politicians? Yes, that is what the US media does. It’s called sugar-coating.

No, omitting the word “alleged” does that.

The article is good example of sugar-coating. The article says, “The Army report cited 27 people who are accused of being associated with abuses at Abu Ghraib, 23 soldiers from a military intelligence unit and four civilian contractors working with them.” OK, how many are accused of torture if “There were some instances where torture was being used”? The article is mute on that. And even this is a rare article; for every article like this one you’ll find a dozen that refer only to “abuse” when some of the acts they describe are clearly torture.

Not according to the movie. Aljazeera was already forced out of Iraq by the US by then. In the movie an Aljazeera manager says that the jubilant people in the square are not Iraqis. He says he grew up in Iraq and that the people in the square have accents foreign to Iraq.

 

That photo did not try exaggerate the crowd but the film footage CNN showed on TV that day did have the effect of exaggerating the size and perhaps also the jubilation of the crowd.


Towards, I am glad you post because you think well, write good posts, are able to defend your point of view and provide balance for this site. In my opinion the mainstream media in each nation protect their nation's leaders and defer to conventional pro establishment wisdom; but over here at Sciforums left of center, cynical, anti-establishment, slightly hysterical, views similar to my own are in the majority. Of course the sky really is falling and the emperor is not wearing any clothes.


Back to Firdos Square: The "Iraqis" may have 0% Chalabi's people or may have been 100% Chalabi's peoples. Either way the event was a staged media event. As Nightline's Ted Koppel narrated while showing Reuters footage that panned out from the close up shots that the world saw, he said something like "you can see that there are almost as many media people filming the event in this shot as there are Iraqis". It is not plausible that so many media people just happened to be embedded with a unit that just happened to be the unit that entered Firdos square. So the media on the ground in Iraq knew that they were part of a staged event. Is it believable that the editors at the TV networks headquarters did not also know that the event was staged when the chose to show the deceptive close-ups to their American audiences every twenty minutes for about two days?

Most Americans still remember those images but don't yet know that they were deceptive. The TV networks would like us to believe that they desire to show us the truth and that quest for higher ratings is the only problem in the News industry. I watch shows in which panels of media experts praise the media "gatekeeping" function and disparage the inaccurateness of the reckless bloggers. Maybe the networks should have helped the Pentagon with their PsyOps mission, but the price they should have to pay for playing that sort of role is to have their credibility reduced to the level of bloggers.

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/4467.php?theme=1

 

That depends if the order is lawful or not. If it is, then you have to follow it. If not, then your vested duty is to disobey and report the issuer to the next highest authority in the chain of command. Otherwise you're legally culpable as the issuing officer in whatever the crime may be.

I caught it a while back when it first came out. It's a good docu, and interesting. Really helps you see what our media does and doesn't show us, and gives a lot of context to everything. I recommend it.

 

Yes. And if you are a soldier, how do you determine lawfulness of an order? Obviously the troops on both sides are told by their leaders that their orders are legal. So another criterion is needed; otherwise your point is moot.

Republicans believe that whatever order Bush gives is legal, and any order given to his enemy’s troops is illegal. That is why Bush’s statement sounds logical to a Republican. But of course that’s ridiculous.

Lawfulness is determined by whether an order is justified, in which case Saddam’s soldiers know that they fight illegally against a true liberator, and Bush’s soldiers know that they fight illegally to replace Saddam with another dictator. Since only the latter happened, it is only Bush’s soldiers who are culpable.

 

I know a friend in Iraq who was offered money (along with the rest of the crowd) to cheer for the Americans on camera,

(this is not related to the staute incident by the way)

 

Every Marine and Army infantryman studies the Laws of Land Warfare during 0311 BCT (USMC) and AIT (Army). Same goes for the Maritime Laws (USN and USCG). Further, before being deployed, there is a very intense refresher course within the same. That's just for the enlisted pukes. The officer corps gets that shit drilled into them much more often, since they're the ones who are responsible for issuing lawful direct orders.

You're extrapolating a bit beyond what I was saying by including the entire war in Iraq. "Shoot this EPW in the head because he's being a dickhead" is an unlawful order of the scope I was referring. The overal legality or legitimacy of an entire war is beyond the scope of military law. You're probably thinking of Just War Theory or something.

 

That's good info, but it seems a moot point since presumably Saddam's soldiers were also following their own Laws of Warfare, whatever they call them. How then can Bush be right that it is unacceptable for Saddam's soldiers to use "I was just following orders" as an excuse for fighting against the US? How can the US punish those soldiers when they were also following legal orders? The only answer I see is if we presume that Bush's orders are legal whereas Saddam's are illegal. But that's ridiculous because it allows Bush to do anything he wants no matter how sinister.