Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Public Answers' Archive - Questions ]

Sunday 19th May 2024 06:56:33 PM

Home/Government/Politics

Question Board

Return to Question Board

Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Free Press? Is the US media under the control of the White House?	twelfth_imam	09/26/06
Newsweek features 'Losing Afghanistan' in international edition, celebrity photographer in U.S. Muriel Kane - Raw Story research director Published: Monday September 25, 2006 The United States edition of the October 2, 2006 issue of Newsweek features a radically different cover story from its International counterparts, RAW STORY has learned. The cover of International editions, aimed at Europe, Asia, and Latin America, displays in large letters the title "LOSING AFGHANISTAN," along with an arresting photograph of an armed jihadi. The cover of the United States edition, in contrast, is dedicated to celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz and is demurely captioned "My Life in Pictures." The International cover story begins: "You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village." The United Story cover story begins: "Annie Leibovitz is tired and nursing a cold, and she' s just flown back to New York on the red-eye from Los Angeles, where she spent two days shooting Angelina Jolie for Vogue. Like so many of her photo sessions, there was nothing simple about it. 'I talked with Angelina before the shoot,' says Leibovitz, who's famous for her preparation. 'She felt like she was coming back from having the baby and she felt very sexy and ready to go.' ... There were 50 people on the set, and racks of clothes from the New York spring collections to be tried and styled." The story aimed at the United States then goes on to discuss the difficulties Leibovitz had in photographing Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' infant. The International story continues with difficulties of a very different kind: "In Ghazni and in six provinces to the south, and in other hot spots to the east, Karzai's government barely exists outside district towns. Hard-core Taliban forces have filled the void by infiltrating from the relatively lawless tribal areas of Pakistan where they had fled at the end of 2001. Once back inside Afghanistan these committed jihadist commanders and fighters, aided by key sympathizers who had remained behind, have raised hundreds, if not thousands, of new, local recruits, many for pay. They feed on the people's disillusion with the lack of economic progress, equity and stability that Karzai's government, NATO, Washington and the international community had promised. "NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a day—good money in Afghanistan, and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive." ===== What / who is controlling what Americans are allowed to read in the land of the free? Sensible answers please.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/26/06 3:45 pm: >>It is a fair question.<< Based on what, the Raw Story's unmerited suspicions or the evidence? The Rise of Jihadistan. Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they—and Al Qaeda's leaders—can operate freely. All under the webpage heading, Afghanistan: Is Victory Turning to Defeat?, with covers of their International editions prominently displayed: And complete with a story on The Next Generation of Karl Roves, ‘100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World’, and an article that plainly states, "The Bush administration has fought the "war on terror" as a series of Jerry Springers, one lunatic leap of logic after another based on unreliable sources, linking up enemies that had little to do with each other." Seems plain to me there isn't any White House influence on Newsweek. >>I didn't mean to stick a pin through your diaper and into your flesh. Your reaction is way too much.<< No offense intended to you (in spite of the diaper remark), but that the Raw Story would even make an issue of this is well, asinine to say the least, so why not treat them as the fools they are? Clarification/Follow-up by twelfth_imam on 09/26/06 6:58 pm: Based on my curiosity. You already gave your answer. Repeating it adds nothing. If I understand you, you said "No!" Is the baby of a film actor mor eimportant than the dangers American (and other) troops are facing in Afghanistan? It seems ingenuous to not run the story so the nation that it most concerns - after the Afghanis - can't read it unless someone from the free world notifies them. That is "a shield too far" from someone who doesn't trust Americans to be able to handle the truth. Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/26/06 7:20 pm: Ronnie, I'm not sure what your issue with my response is. All I did was say "No" and give you the reasons for my answer. I didn't attack anyone, certainly not you. Nor did I mention any sort of conspiracy. All I did was state the facts as I understand them. You might disagree, and that is clearly your right. But why the 2-star rating? Especially if you aren't going to dispute the facts and reasoning that I posted? Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/26/06 7:46 pm: Ah, so this is Ronnie's latest incarnation - the twelfth_imam. So based on your curiosity you think someone - possibly the White House - is dictating what Newsweek prints. Now that the facts are in, are you still curious? >>You already gave your answer. Repeating it adds nothing. If I understand you, you said "No!"<< Actually I said "Bwaaaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaaaaaa!" My first answer was largely my opinion based on the facts from my daily experiences with the media. The second was the evidence, hardly a repeat. >>Is the baby of a film actor mor eimportant than the dangers American (and other) troops are facing in Afghanistan?<< Now that's a fair question, one you should ask Newsweek. Of course the article isn't about "the baby of a film actor," it's about Annie Leibovitz. >>It seems ingenuous to not run the story so the nation that it most concerns - after the Afghanis - can't read it unless someone from the free world notifies them.<< I hate to tell you again Ronnie, but all one has to do is open the magazine and the story is there, I've already linked to it once, "The Rise of Jihadistan", noted as being from the October 2nd issue. >>That is "a shield too far" from someone who doesn't trust Americans to be able to handle the truth.<< By all means, please choose whomever you believe responsible and register your complaint. Newsweek US print edition editors Newsweek international edition editors President George W. Bush Vice President Dick Cheney Be sure and let us know what you find out. Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 09/27/06 1:32 am: > Good gracious, of course! Who prevented the photographing of the dead soldiers returning home because it would 'upset' the American people? > > I amnot out of touch with real reality, only with a make-believe that denies reality. Am I insulting people intelligence to suggest they need me to point out that withholding certain material isn't what most people would consider controlling the news? Clarification/Follow-up by twelfth_imam on 09/27/06 4:10 am: It is not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of perspective and agenda. Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right, just as being simple-minded does not guarantee that one is in constant error. I try not to 'think' along party lines, even if it hurts! Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/27/06 8:01 am: What is curious to me is how the Clintons have again brought up the charge of right winged consiracies and particularily a charge that Fox News ,owned by Rupport Murdock directs their news personnel to do in Clinton's words a "hit piece" on him. But Murdock recently hosted a fund raiser for the Hillary campaign . How do they reconcile that contradiction ?

Summary of Answers Received	Answered On	Answered By	Average Rating
1. With all the damage the press and other media has done to th...	09/26/06	labman
2. Is the US media under the control of the White House? Pardon...	09/26/06	Itsdb
3. A free press should be just that. Why would anyone complain...	09/26/06	drgade
4. First of all, did Raw Story contact Newsweek to determine wh...	09/26/06	ETWolverine
5. well what do you know, you have found out what we have been ...	09/26/06	paraclete
6. It would be good to ask is the US media under control, the e...	09/26/06	Mathatmacoat
7. It is really not news that the weekly news magazines have di...	09/27/06	tomder55

Your Options
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Make Us Your Homepage. Bookmark Answerway.