SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (61947)12/16/2002 12:40:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
A story like this drives me up a tree. How can we be so incredibly stupid?

washingtonpost.com
Casey Kasem or Freedom?

By Jackson Diehl

Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A25

After an Iranian court sentenced the reformist academic Hashem Aghajari to death last month, the largest and most sustained student demonstrations in years erupted in Tehran. As they grew, day after day, U.S.-operated Radio Azadi, or "Radio Freedom," was their favorite medium. Every day, student leaders would call by cell phone from the roiling campuses to the radio's headquarters in Prague and narrate the latest developments live. Each night the radio would broadcast a roundtable discussion, patching together students and journalists in Tehran with exiled opposition leaders to discuss where the reform movement was going. So instrumental to the rebellion-in-the-making did the radio become that pro-regime counter-demonstrators recently held up a placard reading "Who does Radio Azadi talk to?" -- a taunt taken by the station's staff as a badge of honor.

The protest movement, now five weeks old, rolls on, spreading from students to workers and from Tehran to other cities. Some see parallels to the popular movements that overthrew the Communist regimes of Europe in 1989 -- with a big dose of help from U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe. In this case, however, the tottering dictatorship has gotten a big break: Two weeks ago, Radio Freedom abruptly disappeared from the air. Iranians were no longer able to hear firsthand reports of the protests or the nightly think tanks about their country's future. Instead, after two weeks of virtual silence, the broadcasts are being replaced this week with tunes from Jennifer Lopez, Whitney Houston and other soft-rockers.

How did the mullahs pull off this well-timed lobotomy? They didn't: The U.S. government, in the form of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, did it. In an act that mixes Hollywood arrogance with astounding ignorance of Iranian reality, the board has silenced the most effective opposition radio station in Iran at a time of unprecedented ferment. In its place, at three times the expense, the United States now will supply Iran's revolutionary students with a diet of pop music -- on the theory that this better advances U.S. interests.

Even the name of the station has been sanitized. Instead of "Freedom" -- regarded as too political by the programmers -- the radio will be called "Farda," meaning "tomorrow." Never mind that "freedom" is what thousands of young Iranians have been risking their lives to shout every day on the streets. "The assumption of the people who did this back in Washington is that Iranian young people, like young people in most places, don't want to hear news," says Stephen Fairbanks, the ousted director of Radio Freedom. But this is not most places -- this is Iran, where young people are leading a rebellion against a dictatorship that has stifled opposition media. The student leaders who used to phone in, Fairbanks says, now tell him that "they are losing their voice."

The "people back in Washington" Fairbanks referred to are led by Norman Pattiz, a Los Angeles-based commercial radio mogul and generous Democratic contributor who was rewarded by President Clinton with an appointment to the broadcasting board. As the chairman of the board's Middle East committee, Pattiz initially focused on the Voice of America's Arabic service, which he deemed out of touch in a region where there is growing popular hostility to the United States. His solution was to replace what he called the "old-style propaganda" of VOA with Radio Sawa, a pop-music station that debuted last March. Sawa broadcasts five minutes of news twice each hour, along with Whitney, Britney and a few Arabic balladeers.

The jury on Sawa is still out. The good news is that the station seems to have captured a fairly large audience in countries such as like Jordan and Dubai, where American culture is popular even if American policy is not. But Pattiz and his Washington-based program consultant, Bert Kleinman -- a former producer of Casey Kasem's hit countdown -- have yet to prove that they can sustain the audience while "layering in" more news. In fact, they have yet to deliver on promises to Congress that the news programming will be significantly increased.

Their argument that young Arabs in cities such as Amman and Beirut are more likely to be captured by American music than by canned documentaries is not unreasonable. What's inexplicable is the extension of that logic to mullah-ruled Iran. Yes, Jordan's young population, governed by a pro-American dynasty, is angry at the United States; but in Iran, where an anti-American dictatorship is clinging to power through sheer brutality, the United States and its policies are wildly popular, especially among young people.

So was America's radio station, until recently. "This is not the Cold War era, where oppressed people were under the thumb of tyrants, and they would stand with one foot in a bathtub holding a wire hanger to hear what we would say," Pattiz smugly told the Boston Globe. Maybe not in Egypt, but that's exactly what was happening in Iran -- until Washington pulled the plug. "We made extraordinary inroads," says Fairbanks. "Everyone started to see us as a forum. Each day there were students who would report live to us from their mobile phones. It's a measure of how bold they have become that they would do that."

"Or did."

washingtonpost.com



To: Bilow who wrote (61947)12/16/2002 12:50:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Carl, what are you clucking about now? Here is exchange between zonder and me, verbatim.

zonder: Bush is clearly out to conquer the world. He is turning the US into a "rogue state" - zero respect for world opinion, zero respect for international treaties...

Nadine: Bush has a fine respect for international treaties -- the ones the US has signed, that is. He doesn't have the same respect for treaties that the Eurocrats of Brussels think we should sign.

zonder: I believe you are trying to say "ratification". US signed Kyoto Agreement AND the UN Charter, Nadine

big kerfluffle over the difference between signing and ratification, and how an ambassador, not the President, had signed Kyoto after the Senate had passed a resolution saying they would not ratify it.

Nadine: zonder, this is a tempest in a teapot. I was using "signed" in the general sense of "become a signatory to," which requires both signing and ratification under US law.

zonder: Whatever. (eom)

So zonder never misused the term "signing", I did that, but she did insinuate the the US had taken on a legal obligation with regards to the Kyoto Treaty, then blown it off ("shown zero respect"). This insinuation, which was false, touched off the kerfluffle.



To: Bilow who wrote (61947)12/16/2002 8:48:27 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
The matter is beaten to death, but the sequence of posts I was referring to were already linked in your post on the matter, which is why I did not bother to relink, despite having made a culpable error in not checking back before offering a quotation and erroneous characterization. I will leave it at this: if zonder did not mean to imply that we were bound by the unratified signature in some way, she is free to repudiate that characterization, and I will apologize for my mistake. However, I would ask that she moderate her accusation against the Bush administration at the same time, and admit that it has respect for most treaties to which it is a party, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty and the GATT. If she both repudiates any implication that we were under obligation as regards a treaty like Kyoto, and admits that we have faithfully adhered to quite a few essential treaties, I will humble myself before her and the thread.......



To: Bilow who wrote (61947)12/16/2002 11:27:09 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
>>Under normal conditions, I'd take you at your word in this, but you already misled me<<

The louder he talked of his honor,
the faster we counted our spoons.
Ralph W. Emerson

And I don't mean Neo.