Pakistani Taliban Declare War on Media

[Vekseid]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-18169-Taliban-plan-attacks-on-media-outlets-journalists

PESHAWAR: Enraged by widespread media coverage of Malala Yousafzai, who was shot and critically injured by the militants in Swat, the Pakistani Taliban led by Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly planned to target media organisations, particularly television channels and some journalists in the country, well-placed sources told this correspondent on Sunday.

According to sources, the Taliban felt that the media has become biased against them and was giving ‘undue’ coverage to the attack on Malala and portraying them as the ‘worst people on earth’.

The militants were reported to have held meetings and decided to suspend all their current operations and activities in the country and directed field commanders and fighters to divert their attention towards media organisations instead of the government and security forces.

...

Reality has a distinct bias for sanity.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh yes, it's clearly evident that the 'evil reporters' are overblowing the callous and viscous attempted execution of a teen age girl who simply wishes the right to read and learn.

I can't begin to number the ways that this could turn around and bite them in the ass.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Got image problems? Why not try just blowing up the media? Why, it's genius! I can't believe nobody ever thought of that before!

What a bunch of yahoos, honestly.

[Zeitgeist]

Her story really choked me up and made me angry truth be told. I sincerely hope the outcome is the Pakistani people reject the Taliban wholly. You really have to wonder what these men fear in an articulate teen-age girl seeking an education. Scratch that, I think I know why they fear her. And kudos to her dad, standing beside her and supporting her.

There is also some great coverage on Aljazeera regarding Malala.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2010/01/201012884237639104.html

[Solstice]

Got image problems? Why not try just blowing up the media? Why, it's genius! I can't believe nobody ever thought of that before!

What a bunch of yahoos, honestly.

This is a brilliant idea, and I can think of no way it could backfire and damage their reputation.

Unlike assassinating a fourteen-year-old girl--because then your assassin with a firearm virtually at point blank might fail to assassinate the fourteen year old girl, and wouldn't you look silly then?

[Ironwolf85]

well it's not like their reputation can get any worse in the western world, but it's about to take a nosedive throught the middle east.
Face it, nobody likes you killing their friends, and if their media can slander half as well as those in the US and Europe the people of packistan will soon be believing they kill children and eat the parents....
Hey they already do the first one, half way there!

[Callie Del Noire]

well it's not like their reputation can get any worse in the western world, but it's about to take a nosedive throught the middle east.
Face it, nobody likes you killing their friends, and if their media can slander half as well as those in the US and Europe the people of packistan will soon be believing they kill children and eat the parents....
Hey they already do the first one, half way there!

Thing is..when outlets like Aljazeer are coming out against them..that is bad...

[Zeitgeist]

You'd really have to question the very relevancy of a people who didn't both reject and demonstrate anger at such an act, wouldn't you? And they have by the looks of it. I hope it foments real change there.

[Ironwolf85]

Thing is..when outlets like Aljazeer are coming out against them..that is bad...

I think they are more akin to Fox, arabian edition. Just as fox would condemn some nutso who shoots a lot of innocent people, Al-jazeera is the same way.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I think they are more akin to Fox, arabian edition.

Not really. Al-Jazeera, unlike Fox, actually has an extremely strong international journalistic reputation and has thereby drawn massive demand for its footage and reportage from Western outlets even as it draws attacks from yahoos of all stripes and nations, Israelis and Palestinians, Algerians, Afghanis and moron-Americans included. (Its coverage of America in the Middle East has been fair enough to draw predictable accusations of "pro-Americanism," which in the cases of some specific personnel if not the network at large have admittedly turned out to be justified, thank you Wikileaks.)  Their standing up for media colleagues should surprise no-one. Least of all the Taliban, except that the Taliban apparently are idiots.

[TaintedAndDelish]

"According to sources, the Taliban felt that the media has become biased against them and was giving ‘undue’ coverage to the attack on Malala and portraying them as the ‘worst people on earth"

Funny, its one thing to see your reflection in the mirror, but its another thing to actually recognize and accept it.

[Ironwolf85]

Not really. Al-Jazeera, unlike Fox, actually has an extremely strong international journalistic reputation and has thereby drawn massive demand for its footage and reportage from Western outlets even as it draws attacks from yahoos of all stripes and nations, Israelis and Palestinians, Algerians, Afghanis and moron-Americans included. (Its coverage of America in the Middle East has been fair enough to draw predictable accusations of "pro-Americanism," which in the cases of some specific personnel if not the network at large have admittedly turned out to be justified, thank you Wikileaks.)  Their standing up for media colleagues should surprise no-one. Least of all the Taliban, except that the Taliban apparently are idiots.

Well the taliban being idiots is a given. I don't have access to Al-jazeera so I'm working of second hand info here.
it's nice to know they've actually got an international reputation, unlike Fox or any other news corp outlets.

[HairyHeretic]

Oh, believe me, Fox has an international reputation alright.

Just not a good one.

[Oniya]

Oh, believe me, Fox has an international reputation alright.

Just not a good one.

I saw references to this recently:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/

But the CRTC's call for public input on the proposal resulted in a tidal wave of angry responses from Canadians who said they feared such a move would open the door to Fox TV-style news and reduce their ability to determine what is true and what is false.

(emphasis mine)

[Ironwolf85]

funny, but I mean even most young americans don't believe Fox news, in fact almost nobody does except their already hooked fanbase like my old man.
the channel has gotten real bad since 2001.

[Zeitgeist]

Why is this thread turning into a bash Fox News thread? Who is drinking who's Kool-Aid?

Speaking only from personal experience...Fox News is on my television now, behind me, as I write this. I also follow the other channels. During the debates I switch to C-SPAN for neutral coverage and when it is over I flip to CNN, MSNBC and Fox for a sampling of reactions.

I also turn to Al-Jazera and BBC online for different perspectives. Al-Jazera actually has loads of great content and in-depth stories that aren't atypically political.

No, this thread isn't about me and Fox news, of course, but really, aren't there other threads where this is more relevant?

[Oniya]

Frankly, I wish all viewers of Fox News had your foresight on viewing habits.  The problem is that most don't.  By comparing and contrasting different media views, a viewer can more readily figure out which agency has which bias and react accordingly. 

There used to be something called the Fairness Act, which required that news shows (back in the day when there were news shows and not news channels) had to devote a certain amount of time on opposing views.  This was due to the limited number of frequencies available for broadcast.  When cable and the 24-hour news channels came about, this was abandoned under the theory that the opposing groups could simply set up their own channels and therefore get the coverage they deserved. 

By doing this, however, mainstream media got 'crystallized' - each molecule of viewpoint latched on to its corresponding channel to the exclusion of any interaction with differing viewpoints.  Sure, they now get equal time (24 hr/day), but an individual viewer is not getting even passing exposure to an opposing viewpoint.

[Zeitgeist]

That's great and I generally agree with you on your points, only that isn't what this thread is about. True, it is in part about the media but rather the Taliban's pronouncement they'll attack the local Pakistani media which has been critical of them.

No this isn't the first thread to go off the rails but really, it is tiresome.

[Ironwolf85]

back on track...
Do you guys think they will actually murder reporters or are they blowing hot air (or hashish, because they have to have the good stuff to act like this)

[Vekseid]

Possibly, though actually killing journalists has a distinct possibility of backfiring, and that may factor into their decisions.

[Oniya]

Murdering reporters is generally not the way to get the media to stop saying bad things about you.  If anything, it generally gives the media more bad things to say about you.  And while I usually don't make such suggestions, perhaps getting them all to smoke some of that good hashish would get them to mellow the heck out for a couple hours.

[Chris Brady]

Possibly, though actually killing journalists has a distinct possibility of backfiring, and that may factor into their decisions.

Not likely.  It might backfire in the West, but they don't care.  It's their people they care about, and really, don't you think the real reason the West got the poor girl out of there in the first place is so that others of that fanatical stripe won't try again?  It's not just the Taliban that wants her dead, they were likely just the first to make a move.

[Ironwolf85]

Not likely.  It might backfire in the West, but they don't care.  It's their people they care about, and really, don't you think the real reason the West got the poor girl out of there in the first place is so that others of that fanatical stripe won't try again?  It's not just the Taliban that wants her dead, they were likely just the first to make a move.

Generally fanaticisim does not stand up to the light of truth, the moment their problems and actual actions are exposed groups like the taliban either lash out or start withering.

[Chris Brady]

Again, in the West.  Over there, for a lot of the various tribes that make up the Middle East, it's their clerics that speak truth, and if they say that girl should die for blasphemy, there's a very good chance that there would be a line up outside her home ready to throw stones a her until she dies.

Truth, I've found has very little traction with most of humanity.  E is very different, because as role players and writers, we THINK in general for ourselves, we question for ourselves, the rest of the world is loathe to do that.

[Ironwolf85]

Again, in the West.  Over there, for a lot of the various tribes that make up the Middle East, it's their clerics that speak truth, and if they say that girl should die for blasphemy, there's a very good chance that there would be a line up outside her home ready to throw stones a her until she dies.

Truth, I've found has very little traction with most of humanity.  E is very different, because as role players and writers, we THINK in general for ourselves, we question for ourselves, the rest of the world is loathe to do that.

interesting point.