For your information
The other day I read a comment in the Canadian Globe and Mail by the columnist Margret Wente (1). She was writing sort of response to a resent article by Naomi Kline (2) that was reporting from Iraq and how things where there.
Margaret Wente in her article to make her point what Iraqis think refers to some Iraqi blogers. How can a journalist refer to some views as facts when the source is an anonymous bloger that she has never met? What sort of credible journalism is that?
On one Iraqi bloger when I asked if he was Iraqi I had my IP address published ( http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com). Another bloger refused to answer ( http://messopotamian.blogspot.com). And the third ( http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com ) welcomed me the next day on his comment sections with "Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added". The day before this I had asked him this "And AYS can you please tell me what you did to convince some of your regular readers that you are an Iraqi IN Iraq reporting truthful news?
Some here seem to have a lot of difficulties even trusting CNN and BBC. When a news reports from CNN includes a viewed reporter, interviews with viewed Iraqis and a huge media company to back it's a true media outlet. And they still say they do not believe it but somehow they believe an anonymous bloger? So how did you make them think you unknown person are telling them the truth that CNN and other western news are lying about?"
So when I saw the article by M.Wente referring to these blogs I thought it was time to tell what happened to me otherwise I would have just let it slip away as any other bad media reporting that I see everyday.
Some of you might already have read this but for you who have not here is part of an article about the "Bush Loyalists Pack Iraq Press Office"
"Bob Boorstin of the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan political think-tank in Washington.
``You know they're in trouble if they shipped Rich Galen over there,'' said Boorstin, who worked on four presidential campaigns, all Democratic.
``They're desperate to control the story over there. It's a very smart thing on their part. He knows what he's doing.''
Still, Boorstin said the shaping of the American message out of Iraq should come as no surprise. The rigors of election year politics demand the best possible portrayal of key policies, and Bush has staked his presidency on the notion that he's a war president.
``There's some deep questions about whether (the U.S. invasion) was a good idea. Wherever and whenever they can, Bush's political people are manipulating whatever they can,'' he said.
``Is that a surprise? No. Would Democrats do it? Yes. But it's particularly noxious because people's lives are on the line."