LoveGravy  05-28-2003
01:51 PM ET (US)
|
Eli, after finding out a higher-up at AlJazeera was on Saddam's payroll, I don't think flushing out the media outlets is such a bad idea. JEDDAH, 28 May 2003 — In a devastating blow to its reputation, Al-Jazeera said yesterday that its general director has been sacked after allegations were made that he worked with Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services. Mohammed Jassem Al-Ali visited Iraq before the US-led war, meeting Saddam during an hour-long interview.
Ali had held the top job at the Doha-based station since it launched the Arabic-language channel in 1996.
Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, has accused several Al-Jazeera journalists of working for Iraqi agencies based on documents found in state archives in Baghdad.
Mohammed Alkhereiji, Arab News Staff Edited 05-28-2003 01:52 PM
|
Eli the Bearded 05-28-2003
01:34 PM ET (US)
|
Cory (/m66):
if the ruling party in government demanded that the press only print positions that were favorable to its position, that would be censorship.
The Wall Street Journal
May 8, 2003 12:02 a.m. EDT
Army Orders Troops to Seize
TV Station in Northwest Iraq
A Major Balks at Directive
And Gets Relieved of Duty
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
MOSUL, IRAQ -- The U.S. Army issued orders for troops to seize this
city's only television station, leading an officer here to raise
questions about the Army's dedication to free speech in postwar Iraq,
people familiar with the situation said. The officer refused the order
and was relieved of duty.
The directive came from the 101st Airborne Division's commander, Maj.
Gen. David Petraeus, who has ultimate authority in Mosul and the rest
of northwest Iraq, the people familiar with the matter said. They said
it was aimed at blocking the station from continuing to broadcast the
Arabic news channel al-Jazeera.
The order has not yet been publicized in Mosul, which has no radio
station or newspaper, and Army officials here said they had no plans
to do so. Late Wednesday night, it wasn't clear whether soldiers who
had been on the grounds of the station, which is near the city's
university, had moved into the station building itself and taken
control.
|
chico haas 05-28-2003
11:36 AM ET (US)
|
aha: thanks for thread trace. My server error.
|
Doctoron 05-28-2003
11:31 AM ET (US)
|
I like you too, but you're not as funny.
|
Cory Doctorow 05-28-2003
10:39 AM ET (US)
|
"It's a tenuous link, sure, but there is a link."
No, there isn't. There is a difference between *disagreeing* with a practice and *banning* a practice. For example, if the ruling party in government demanded that the press only print positions that were favorable to its position, that would be censorship. If the same government called a press-conference to counter unfavorable editorials in the news, that would be democracy.
|
Doctoron 05-28-2003
09:34 AM ET (US)
|
I like you. You're funny.
|
LoveGravy 05-28-2003
08:49 AM ET (US)
|
OK Doc, that's a stretch... I don't think Cory has problems when you all complain about posts he makes about the DMCA overstepping their bounds, and I don't think he gets upset when you are outraged by posts of people infringing on rights in the name of the Patriot Act. I think what you are trying to say is you don't appreciate negative comments unless it's a post you feel negative about too. Cory posts a story about someone getting their rights trampled and people come in here complaining about how ignorant that is. Cory posts a story about people protesting a store trying, legally, to protect its investment and I come in here and complain about how ignorant it is. The only difference is if I agree with YOU or not. Furthermore, the analogy is flawed. Starbucks doesn't exist for photography, but this message board exists for discussions. Nowhere does it say "this messageboard is for agreeing with me", or "Please do not post unless you agree with me", but Starbucks does have a "No Photos" policy (Granted, as we have learned, it only applies to professional photographers). For a site that opposes censorship and promotes free speech, you guys sure are quick to try to get rid of any opposing viewpoints. "DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP! (and get that guy out of here)" Edited 05-28-2003 09:03 AM
|
Doctoron 05-28-2003
04:12 AM ET (US)
|
/m62 "Why patronize a place just so you can bitch?"
/m22 "You really can't see a difference between Starbucks telling its customers that they're not *allowed* to take pictures and me telling QuickTopic posters that I think they're wrong, or rude, or full of shit?"
This is my point exactly: Cory complained in an earlier thread about people on BoingBoing reading and then having the "temerity" to complain about what they saw. This thread is about just that thing: Starbucks provide a coffee service and this thread is encouraging them to complain or protest against a rule that Starbucks have laid down.
It's a tenuous link, sure, but there is a link.
|
aha 05-28-2003
02:01 AM ET (US)
|
chico: /m46 My post /m27 was simply a copy and paste of LoveGravy's /m10 post, (with a few changes) to show that LoveGravy was hoisted by his own petard, i.e., his Starbucks logic applies equally to his posts on BoingBoing. Why patronize a place just so you can bitch? Edited 05-28-2003 02:57 AM
|
Leverenz 05-28-2003
12:25 AM ET (US)
|
In the meantime, while Starbucks corporate sorts out their thing, you can enjoy some snapshots taken at various Starbucks at http://www.StarbucksPhotos.com If you have some, send them or the link and we will post them!
|
Denise Czaja 05-28-2003
12:07 AM ET (US)
|
love gravy...is that allowed on the atkins diet?
|
Wes Felter 05-27-2003
09:28 PM ET (US)
|
So should we hit Fry's this weekend, and maybe Area 51 after that?
|
LoveGravy 05-27-2003
08:36 PM ET (US)
|
LOL! This whole thing was a wild goose chase caused by some managers who didn't understand the rules.
At least we got some lovely pictures of a chain of coffee shops.
|
kyletexas 05-27-2003
08:26 PM ET (US)
|
Today I called Starbucks Public Affairs Senior Specialist Sanja Gould to find out the company line. Here's what she said:
"Starbucks does not have a photo policy for the general public. Our policy is not to allow media to photograph within our stores without prior approval from our media relations marketing team."
Regular, private individuals, walking in and taking snap shots, that's not the media, correct?
"Correct."
What's up with all these managers kicking people out of the stores for taking pictures?
"While I'm sure every instance is different, I can't comment about that because I haven't been able to talk to the managers involved. I can tell you what our policy is, and our policy is for the media only."
|
LoveGravy 05-27-2003
07:22 PM ET (US)
|
And here's a post in another forum:
"I used to work for Starbucks as a barista back in the day. Ca. 1994 - 1997, no photography was allowed in any of the stores I worked in and my managers enforced it routinely in a friendly way. The rationale was to prevent copy cat retailers from documenting floorplans, merchandising, etc. Starbucks has invested *heavily* in engineering its store environments and didn’t want potential competitors to glean information on the cheap. I realize this sounds flakey, but in Seattle where you have Starbucks, Tully’s, Seattle’s Best Coffee, Torrefazione, *and* QFC competing in the coffee beverage arena, it’s quite cutthroat.
Very few people ever got upset as long as the manager was pleasant about it."
|
Unseelie 05-27-2003
07:22 PM ET (US)
|
Of course, the difference between the Triborough Bridge and Starbucks is that to the best of my knowledge, the Triborough is not private property. Other laws likely apply...
And, for the record, I do not allow smoking in my house, so don't think about it.
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
1848
(Unique:
1050
) / Subscribers:
5 | What's this?
