Uncompromising Journalist or a Left Wing CNN-- from I WT

[Douglas Carpenter]

Uncompromising journalism or just more spin

Posted by Paul Jay - IWTnews on Jul 12, 4:10pm.
There have been a lot of questions on our blog and elsewhere about whether IWTnews is a “left-wing CNN.” In response to our recent Globe and Mail coverage, for example, one commenter wrote:

I'm seeing some contradictions here. This piece in the Globe seems to say you are left and happy about it. "Left-leaning non corporate antidote." Were you taken out of context? Yet throughout the BLOG you are claiming it is only the facts you are interested in.

In every interview I’ve given, I've made it clear that we are about uncompromising journalism.

We are not building Independent World Television to spin facts from the other direction.

We will not put any political agenda ahead of an honest inquiry into the facts. If we are to succeed in building a movement for democracy, then we need journalism that says "here's what our investigations have uncovered," and reports those findings regardless of whom it helps and hurts politically. That is the only way to build credibility.

We do have interests, principles, and beliefs. We state in our documents that we are for social justice and diversity of opinion. We believe the struggle for democracy must include the recognition that rights and equality are indivisible from an informed people.

We believe that people on many points of the political spectrum can support these aims.

To implement these objectives, we must report based on the facts as we know them. For example, in coverage of the recent bombings in London, IWTnews would have explored many facets of the story, starting from the following:

- Most experts agree that Al Qaeda is a religious movement with political objectives. Al Qaeda’s recent statements refer to specific political demands, key among those are ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. They also refer to Anglo-American support for Arab regimes they consider anti-Muslim. Pre 9/11 statements from Al Qaeda referred to sanctions against Iraq that may have led to the death of more than half a million people.

Is there evidence that the London attacks were waged because of a hatred for Western values and society? Did British and American foreign policy motivate or contribute to them?

- Al Qaeda and Bin Laden say they fight for the freedom of Muslims. They considered the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to be a model Muslim state. Freedom in this case is defined as the right to treat women and others according to an extreme form of medieval Sharia law. Al Qaeda hopes to establish Taliban-like states throughout the Muslim world.

Does Al Qaeda fight primarily to defend Muslims, or for political power to enforce its own values and laws in Muslim countries?

- Al Qaeda’s attacks deliberately target civilians. Their documents defend these killings as “collateral damage” in a struggle against an aggressor. International law defines such attacks as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

How does Muslim public opinion react to these attacks?

- Did the invasion of Iraq create the conditions for Al Qaeda to unleash a wave of terror on the Iraqi people?

- After the Soviet Union’s invasion, it was President Carter who first armed religious extremists in Afghanistan and President Reagan who developed the policy further. President Clinton at first cooperated with and then did little to oppose the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s hold on that country. As far as we know, the current President Bush took no action against the Taliban or Al Qaeda before 9/11.

To promote “the war on drugs,” the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million in the spring of 2001. This was at a time when the US had been demanding the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden for the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Why was US policy pre 9/11 not more directed at weakening the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

- The war in Iraq has been defined by Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the U.N., as illegal. What does this say about the legality of civillian deaths in this war?

Of course, to fully understand the London bombings, there are many other avenues of inquiry that must be pursued. The point is, would this kind of reporting be considered “left leaning?” Or just uncompromising journalism?

One can debate why these events happened, and people with different political interests and opinions will differ on this. But there are such things as facts.

We may not have a full understanding of a situation, and we may find what we thought were facts today, turn out not to be as true tomorrow. So we must keep an open mind, and allow investigated information to flow. This is why IWT will feature a great deal of debate between people who have a diversity of political views.

But the sun does not rotate around the earth, and when observation and inquiry lead to certain conclusions, we will have the courage and independence to say so.

Whatever the political leaning of those involved, IWT believes that facts trump preconceived ideas. We hope and intend to include in IWT all people who support these objectives.

Let’s just agree to pursue uncompromising journalism, and let the chips fall where they may.

Paul Jay
Chair, IWTnews





http://www.iwtnews.com/

ABOUT IWTNEWS
Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising. Using the web to organize and raise funds across borders, IWTnews is building an international movement for democracy.


http://www.iwtnews.com/


http://www.iwtnews.com/

SPREAD THE WORD!!

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[wli]

1. legality of civilian deaths in the Iraq war?

Genocide, pure and simple. The frog march needs to proceed from Washington, D.C. straight to the Hague.