Editor-in-chief of U.S.-funded Iraqi newspaper quits, complaining of American control

Associated Press via Boston Globe ^ | 5/3/2004 | Lee Keath

[NutCrackerBoy]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) The head of a U.S.-funded Iraqi newspaper quit and said Monday he was taking almost his entire staff with him because of American interference in the publication.

On a front-page editorial of the Al-Sabah newspaper, editor-in-chief Ismail Zayer said he and his staff were "celebrating the end of a nightmare we have suffered from for months ... We want independence. They (the Americans) refuse."

[NutCrackerBoy]

My take: Ismail Zayer wants the freedom to report that the occupation is the cause of all their problems. That is the only screed available to him and his staff which maintains some popularity among other whiners.

There is growing freedom of the press in Iraq and, unfortunately, I imagine that will inevitably swing the way of Al Jazeera. However, this is a US-funded paper, and I think we are right to insist on not printing anti-American propaganda.

But AP's as usual anti-American implication is that the US wants to censor everyone and print pure BS pro-US propaganda.

[JLS]

This is no problem. If he wants to publish a newspaper, he should. But as an employee, he does not get to run the whole show. If he puts up his money, then he calls all the shots.

[Mo1]

Zayer said almost the entire staff left the paper along with him and that they were launching a new paper called Al-Sabah Al-Jedid (''The New Morning''), which would begin publishing Tuesday.

So who is funding this new paper??

[kcvl]

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Iraq: Shia clergyman accuses a newspaper editor of "collaboration

According to the Iraqi Press Monitor and the Iraqi daily Addustour, Shia clergyman Muqtada al-Sadr has accused Ismail Zayer, the editor-in-chief of Al-Sabah newspaper - which is issued by the Iraqi Media network on behalf of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) - of accepting the occupation and distorting public taste.

[Texasforever]

We need to impose a one month press black-out in Iraq and get the job done.

[GeronL]

Those who fund the paper are controlling it. Why is this bad?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Good!

Now if we only could get NPR and NYT's "Pinchy" Salsburg to follow suit.

[Teplukin]

I will say the New York Times does have a darn good sports section, especially on Sundays. But the rest of the paper UGGH! LOL!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Let Iraq fall into hell.... we got rid of an evil man.. and now they want to suck us into their madness.

No way! Iraq belongs to the victors. We need a Middle East base their. I almost think we would be better off to claim Iraq as US Terrotory and the deadline would be the date to accept Iraq as a State of the Union.

Well I said almost didn't I?

[Stone Mountain]

Yeah, except that we already shut down the papers that had existed there.

[Stone Mountain]

Those who fund the paper are controlling it. Why is this bad?

Because we shut down the papers that we weren't funding. The perception is that we don't want any Iraqi opinions to be published...

[JLS]

"Yeah, except that we already shut down the papers that had existed there."
__________________________________________________________

So you don't follow current events, I take it. The facts are:

1. After the fall of the old regime, papers of various kinds sprouted all over Iraq.

2. Recently the US closed down ONE paper controled by an indicted murdered that was calling for attacks on US troops. BTW, notice I put an "s" on the end of several of my words like you did at the end of papers. In English when we are using nouns, an "s" on the end means plural as in more than one paper. The US has according to published reports shut down, as I said, one paper. There are lots of papers currently being published in Iraq.

3. The US was paying for the paper in question. When you own something you control it. So naturally a US government paper in Iraq will be under US control. That is the way things work, you pay for it, you control it. Employees then have to leave and start their own paper or any other business, if they do not like the way it is being run or think they can run it better.

Glad to bring you up to speed.

[Stone Mountain]

I thought that the US had closed down many papers. Glad to see that I was mistaken.

[JLS]

As far as I have read it was only one paper. But even if more than one local paper had been shut down:

1. There are many more papers in Iraq now than under the previous regime.

2. The employees of one paper can quit and say they do not like the tone of the government ie US controlled, paper, unlike under the previous regime. I think what they did might have gotten them executed under the previous regime.

[CyberAnt]

"inevitably swing the way of Al Jazeera"

No, I don't think so!

I agree with most people here that if the USA is paying the bill, then we have the right to demand control over what is printed.

As for the Al Jazeera comment .. there was a former member of the Governing Council who resigned (quietly), in order to take a position with the new govt. Al Jazeera wrote a terrible article about the guy making up all sorts of bad stuff about him as the reason why he resigned. The guy was so mad, he told Al Jazeera that if they continued to report such falacious stuff .. he would personally see to it that Al Jazeera was restricted from broadcasting in Iraq, under the new govt.

And .. it was shortly after that incident that Powell had a personal discussion with Qatar (who runs Al Jazeera), and cautioned them about the content of their broadcasts being lies and distortions.

[Antoninus]

Give the Kurds a state and let's get the heck out. Let these loons butcher each other without us being the referee.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Because we shut down the papers that we weren't funding. The perception is that we don't want any Iraqi opinions to be published..."

Please provide a source for this.