DNC removes A-Jazeera banner

[voice of reason]

Do you agree with this?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FD55FF1-CD66-40BC-8453-C65D9CE709BE.htm

[Jim Sagle]

1. Hell yeah.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Yep.

They have every right to do so. I'm laying chips on the table Al Jazeera has hoops to jump through for their GOP credentials.

[Zidane]

24. Every right to do so?

Even if the (obviously unspoken reason) is catering to anti-arab racists?

Let's also remember that the courts have ruled before that when a party has a convention it is partly conducting the business of state - and thus can NOT be racist. So if racism is behind this (which I'm sure it is) it might not even be legal... So no - they don't have a "right" to do this.

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. The party at the convention has the right to control

all banners, credentials, speakers, ...basically everything.

Good God. I'm stunned at the whining and outrage of some after reading the responses to this thread.

There is a bigger picture here people. You're not going to like every thing. Instead of criticising every little thing that's done, we should be focusing on things like the rabid response teams, hitting the media coverage for biased messages, and working to win this election.

Look, Kerry was not #1 for me. I still support Dean. But I'm voting for Kerry and I'm looking at this (or at least trying to) in a positive way. More than being a political event, this is a marketing event. Don't like that? Then get over it because that's the way it is.

Before you ("generic" you) jump to shit on the Dems/DNC/Delegates etc., take a step back and think reasonably about why something's being done!

Here I was thinking I'd be able to enjoy this week with DUers and commiserate over having slimy Republicans images and words pushed on me at every turn. Guess I was wrong.

[DrWeird]

3. Catering to bigotry.

It's like removing a BET banner because you're afraid you'll lose white male voters.

It's a shame.

[Warpy]

10. Not really

Although I don't agree with it, I do understand it. With the GOP slime machine cranking out "Terrorists want Kerry" bullshit, the last thing they need is for right wing network feeds and newspapers to cherrypick shots of Kerry standing in front of that banner.

I would have preferred they remove all advertising banners from all media. This isn't a hockey game, and competing advertising is only a distraction from the business at hand. Advertising at a political convention is like advertising at a wedding. It's just not appropriate.

[DrWeird]

12. How is it not?

They're selectively removing it because it's arabic. How is that not bigoted?

[Zidane]

26. WTF does this mean?

"Although I don't agree with it, I do understand it. With the GOP slime machine cranking out "Terrorists want Kerry" bullshit, the last thing they need is for right wing network feeds and newspapers to cherrypick shots of Kerry standing in front of that banner."

Oh I see. So the logic is Jazeera = Arab Arab = Terrorist.

No right wing network (not even FAUX) would have the balls to make the association you just did.

[demosincebirth]

32. No, we just want to win the election,

thats all.

[DrWeird]

33. Yes, by catering to bigots.

The idea is that there's more voters out there who hate muslims then there are muslims who vote.

That's pretty obvious.

Denial's not just a river in Egypt.

[donsu]

4. no, it was a bad move - how cowardly can the DNC get

nt

[dr.strangelove]

5. Yes its fine

Al Jazeera has every right to cover the convention, however teh DNC does not have to show its support of the network. I believe Al Jazeera has shown poor judgment in airing tapes of murders, tapes of Bin Laden and tapes calling for violence. While they have the right to broadcast news and entertainment, I certainly don't want my party supporting their message, only their right to broadcast. I'd be upset if teh DNC left the banner up. they issued press credentials to the network, and that is about all I can support.

[DrWeird]

6. Airing tapes of bin Laden?

Are you one of these people who thinks the tapes have "secret messages" to terrorists and that anybody who airs them is aiding and abetting the enemy?

[dr.strangelove]

9. Yeah - secret messages

No I don't.

I don't think there were any hidden messages in Bin Laden's tapes, his deputy's tape last fall, or any of the recent beheading tapes. I don't think the message needs to be hidden. These people are killers (considering they often air tapes of actual murders). I don't really like the broadcast of murders. I don't support the airing of calls to kill American soldiers. The last two purported Bin Laden tapes called for arms to be raised against Americans in Iraq and in other M.E. areas. I can't support any "journalist" that advertises for "terrorist recruiters".

They have every right to badmouth the US for our middle eastern policies in their op ed pieces. They should be able to cover the convention. I'm not for blocking the message, just blocking ads for the message.

I fell the same way about Foxnews. If they had a banner, I'd want it torn down too.

[DrWeird]

11. So how about...

news networks that air Bush speechs (after all, he's killed more innocent civilians than bin Laden), or footage of "installations" being bombed by Americans, or footage of people calling for war in Iraq? Because it's basically the same stuff you're saying shouldn't be aired. Or is it more newsworty when Americans do it?

[Zidane]

30. I don't see it as advertising

First of all anyone who would listen and follow those tapes PROBABLY already has an alternate means of getting them.

Second unless the network actually produces them they are not "advertising".

Responsible journalism does NOT censor and hide things. They present all sides - even if one side is totally insane. Airing those tapes lets the public decide for themselves that they are insane. And yes, MOST arabs would agree with that on seeing them.

[thebigidea]

19. and has CNN shown poorer judgment for running everything AJ does?

They have a deal, ya know.

[Zidane]

27. Some people call this

"I believe Al Jazeera has shown poor judgment in airing tapes of murders, tapes of Bin Laden and tapes calling for violence"

Freedom of the press. Maybe if we had it here Bushco wouldn't be polling at around 50%.

Damn those arabs not censoring the effects of the bush invasion like the loyal networks of FAUX & CNN. They should run those white house productions of the roses being thrown and nothing else. <end sarcasm>

[pocket]

7. Sucking up to rednecks

no it is not fine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Another display of "courage" and support of the free press by the DNC

I assume they are doing the same with Fox?

[Ducks In A Row]

13. It's just another example of Dems losing spines

First Whoopi, then Cho, now this.

Non-white non-male, need not apply.

Again, will hold my nose to vote Kerry, but he's not really my candidate, and I'm losing hope he will be able to do much in office.

[Kanary]

14. Fear wins again

[Caution]

15. Politically correct. Idealogically wrong.

Look, let's face it. The vast majority of Americans have now been told to believe that Al Jazeera is nothing more than a terrorist propaganda machine. If there is an Al Jazeera banner, swing voters may look at it and then hear Bush brownshirts talk about Kerry as Bin Laden's choice and see that banner as an affirmation of the smear.

While free speech is important and a part of the core values of the Democratic Party, being cognizant of the attitudes of the voters is also just as important.

It just sucks that our media consistently panders to the lowest common denominator and ends up lowering the rest of those who don't take the time to seek out alternative information sources down to that level.

We'd better get used to the so-called "run to the middle" because this is what we're are going to see over the next few months in a big way from Kerry and if he wants to win this election he can't call a sitting President a liar (not yet anyways...as things in Iraq continue to deteriorate), he can't call for immediate withdrawal of troops (because "nascar dads" will consider this cowardly), he can't call Bush AWOL (because we have no proof of this...maybe Bush wasn't AWOL...if Kerry calls him AWOL and then Bush pulls out a ream of docs he's been holding back then it will backfire on Kerry).

Let's keep our eye on the prize folks. We need to win this one and if that means moving to the center on certain issues it's worth it.

[Selwynn]

16. Totally understanable - winning elections is about not alienating voters.

While I have no problem with Al-Jazeera, espcially since I occaisionally trust it more than our own corporate media, I also understand not trying to offend people who might take it the wrong way.

[CaTeacher]

17. No--all media is welcome.

We have nothing to hide. Yes--we will even allow an Arab network to openly attend and cover our convention. That is what we should say.

Al-Jazeera should display their banner proudly.

We get more wimpy every day. And we are letting the RW tell us how we "should" behave.

:puke:

[stavka]

20. why is it I never seem to disagree with what you say?

Try something outlandish every once in a while.

Like, "The Moon to is made of cheese!"

[CaTeacher]

22. Thanks Stavka!

Sometimes I feel like I am out of the main stream--but these things are so important to me! I appreciate the positive feedback.

peace!

[Selwynn]

34. :) looks like that reply was to me...

..if so, then :) If not then, :) :)

But I want to clarify, I'm not trying to act like all the matters is winning. I'm not saying that winning is more important than being right. If you know me you know I've constantly said the opposite - that it really doesn't matter if you win if you sacrifice everything right to do so.

However, I am also for strategery (har har.) I am for weighing the cost of a decision vs. the benefit of a decision. In my humble opinion, the cost of not standing up and supporting all media, even foreign media with some questionable elements does not outweight the benefit of being able to avoid cheap and partisan attacks and belittling which would get us stuck in a totally uncessary defensive war that detracts from more substantial issues.

That's what I think.

[Sparrow]

28. they dont want to offend the KKK?

seriously, who would be offended by Al-Jazeera and why would we want them in our party?

[DrWeird]

29. People who are offended by Al Jazeera are islamophobic bigots.

And no, we don't want them in are party.

Unfortunately there are a lot of islamophobic bigots out there registered to vote. So yes, it's "understandable." That hardly makes it right.

[legin]

18. racism, pure and simple

A lot of politicians talk about working to isolate Arab extremists by working with moderate Arabs. All A-Jazeera do is basically provide a counter-weight to the crap that comes out of the western media.

'But really they are just a little bit beyond the pale, a little unclean' is an attitude I've noticed before, and this is just another example.

[genius]

21. I guess the Democrats have all the votes they need

Otherwise, pulling down the banner is stupid and sort of a Bush thing to do.

[Zidane]

23. Nice to know

the DLC wants the minority vote.

[genius]

25. Did they remove the Fox or the NBC banner

If not, they don't know who their friends are.

[Fleshdancer]

31. The DNC is getting on my nerves

How can these people be considered our party leaders when all they do is react out of fear of pissing off the opposition? Is it me? Is my definition of leadership just completely different from theirs??

Everything I've read about this convention so far has been embarrassing. From the freedom of speech cage, to punishing Cho for what Goldberg said at a stupid fundraiser, to this.

I'll still vote for Kerry, but I don't see myself as a member of the DNC after this November. I'd rather spend my money on MoveOn.org.