Instead of educating the American people and exposing myths surrounding matters of real American security, Why some circles wish do NOT like the public to have alternate sources to crosscheck facts so vital to Americans?

One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital priority and concern for the protection and well-being of American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions.

Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.

Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries. The following examples serve as a litmus test:

According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by his estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.

The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that ’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.
And what a lot of people are asking: Is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It ’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.

Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”

The Self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves.

All Americans have a right to alternate opinion. More so, when owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts. This is for a country spending $8 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq. The self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground.

Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of accountable media that is injurious to American interest.

Let’s imagine that there is no Aljazeera any more. Would it solve the challenges US faced prior and after the appearence of this tiny ‘matchbox size’ outlet. Is our public diplomacy confident of getting a clear and accurate picture in areas of diplomatic and security engagements? One can get two possible responses. One from people who are away from the trouble spots and have no direct contacts with those in the field of action. It may not be difficult to ascertain what is the source of insecurity and hostility to US interest in, say, Iraq.

The US government has 1000 pair of eyes on ground at their mission in Baghdad. Are they any closer in getting the exact picture on the ground despite spending $ 2 billion a week?

Owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts, says an ex-Press attache. Robert J. Callahan told AJR that out of 1000 personnel at US mission in Baghdad, only 7 are fluent in Arabic: “Add to this the inability of most of us to read Arabic newspapers and understand television news programs.”

Those advocating for accuracy in media should clarify if they put their weight behind supporting the Americans in getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion (by restricting channels like Aljazeera) keep US deprived of the option to ascertain the accuracy of facts for themselves. To borrow Callahan’s term, the Americans in Iraq worked in “a communication twilight. Nothing ever appeared in sharp focus.” It is time to open new windows and let the alternate views in.

Instead of educating the American people and exposing myths surrounding matters of real American security, Why some circles wish do NOT like the public to have alternate sources to crosscheck facts so vital to Americans?

One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital priority and concern for the protection and well-being of American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions.

Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.

Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries. The following examples serve as a litmus test:

According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by his estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.

The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that ’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.
And what a lot of people are asking: Is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It ’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.

Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”

The Self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves.

All Americans have a right to alternate opinion. More so, when owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts. This is for a country spending $8 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq. The self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground.

Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of accountable media that is injurious to American interest.

Let’s imagine that there is no Aljazeera any more. Would it solve the challenges US faced prior and after the appearence of this tiny ‘matchbox size’ outlet. Is our public diplomacy confident of getting a clear and accurate picture in areas of diplomatic and security engagements? One can get two possible responses. One from people who are away from the trouble spots and have no direct contacts with those in the field of action. It may not be difficult to ascertain what is the source of insecurity and hostility to US interest in, say, Iraq.

The US government has 1000 pair of eyes on ground at their mission in Baghdad. Are they any closer in getting the exact picture on the ground despite spending $ 2 billion a week?

Owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts, says an ex-Press attache. Robert J. Callahan told AJR that out of 1000 personnel at US mission in Baghdad, only 7 are fluent in Arabic: “Add to this the inability of most of us to read Arabic newspapers and understand television news programs.”

Those advocating for accuracy in media should clarify if they put their weight behind supporting the Americans in getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion (by restricting channels like Aljazeera) keep US deprived of the option to ascertain the accuracy of facts for themselves. To borrow Callahan’s term, the Americans in Iraq worked in “a communication twilight. Nothing ever appeared in sharp focus.” It is time to open new windows and let the alternate views in.