How Al Jazeera Translates “Fair and Balanced” into Arabic
I had to see this for myself to actually believe it: Bjornar Simonsen, one of Alejandro Cao de Benos‘s obergruppenführers in the Korean “Friendship” Association, qualifies as an authority on North Korea in the eyes of Al Jazeera. But just to keep things objective and balanced, Al Jazeera puts Bjornar up against … John Feffer.
You may not want to watch this if you’ve eaten processed meat or dairy products in the last hour or so, particularly if you have new or expensive carpeting. Simonsen, naturally, denies the evidence for the attack, and the host lets him drone on endlessly as he does so. Feffer can’t deny the evidence anymore, so he speculates baselessly that some rogue officer carried out the attack, subtly tries to shift the responsibility for the attack to South Korea, and questions South Korea’s sovereignty over the attack site (Feffer is wrong again; the attack happened just a mile off the shore of an island explicitly granted to the South in the Korean Armistice agreement).
Here’s a sample of Bjornar in action:
In the end, the third “expert,” a South Korean professor (surprise!) agrees with Feffer’s call for more payoffs dialogue, as does Bjornar. So there you have it — world opinion is unanimous!
Is it any wonder that Al Jazeera’s broadcast audience includes some of the world’s most misinformed and volatile people?
My goodness, this guy Bjornar is an absolute idiot. John Feffer is an idiot too. Surely the next torpedo should head for Al Jazeera in Qatar. You must feel for the Korean professor who must realize he is ‘debating’ with two deluded teabags.
Bjornar deserves a good old-fashioned Soweto necklacing for his service to the DPRK.
Bjornar parrots that old DPRK canard that the US started the Korean War.
Maybe he’s been reading this:
http://tinyurl.com/2emnljj
Or Bruce Cumings.
Maybe the US should bomb the Al Jazeera offices again?
One part of me wants to punch Bjornar in the face, the other is happy we live in a society where (generally) people have the freedom to say what they want and listen to what they want.
vanmidd a/k/a hoju saram, Could you kindly point me to the strawman who suggested we raze the studio with a Hellfire?
Take my mate Darren… during the 1970s, he was in Cambodia where he was known as Comrade D. One day he met an old colleague who was now making spectacles for Norodom Sihanouk. Darren was appalled, so shot him in the head with an ak47 and flung his body in the village paddy field.
Then Darren found out his colleague was Vietnamese, so beat his entire family to death with gun-butts so to save bullets.
Then Darren found out that Bjornar Simonsen was visiting Cambodia to discuss its agricultural policies. Darren went to greet him at the airport.
I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that someone notionally defending/talking for the DPRK be allowed on TV to so do, and I certainly don’t care who it is, although I do find it telling that nobody better than this Bjornar character exists (what could be worse and more degrading than being the lacky of Alejandro Cao de Benos, after all: imagine, “Sorry Alejandro is busy, but I can come if you want.” The shame of it).
Regardless, what I do object to is that nobody called out Bjornar for his ropey half-truths and outright lies. It is one thing to present a fair and balanced argument with two sides, quite another to let someone on a serious TV show to trot out conspiracy theories and then fail dismally to challenge them on any level.