http://www.watchingamerica.com/

[whatever]

Website to share, taken from T r u t h o u t
www.watchingamerica.com/

Watching America (dot com)
By William Pitt
It is safe to say that America's view of itself, as formulated by the mainstream news media, is mypoic to say the least. The major corporations that own such entitities as CNN (AOL/TimeWarner) and NBC (General Electric) don't have much use for the journalism and opinions being produced around the world.

A new website has been created to try and cut through the information wall that has been erected between this country and the rest of the planet. The site is called WatchingAmerica.com, and describes its mission as follows:
WatchingAmerica reflects global opinion about the United States, helping Americans and non-Americans alike understand what the world thinks of current issues that involve the U.S. This is done by providing news and views about the United States published in other countries. It is not our purpose to find favorable or unfavorable news and commentary, but to reflect as accurately as possible how others perceive the richest and most powerful country in the world. WatchingAmerica makes available in English articles written about the U.S. by foreigners, often for foreign audiences, and often in other languages. Since WatchingAmerica offers its own translations, regular users of our site will be able to enjoy articles that are not available in English anywhere else. We are a unique window into world opinion. In addition, by integrating the latest translation technology into the site, visitors are able to surf all of the content of foreign-language news outlets at the push of a button - in English.

Take a long look at the content of this page, and where it comes from. The translation feature is especially helpful. Add this to your bookmarks and pass through it on your daily news patrols. Some of the opinions and information will surprise you. This page will serve as an excellent supplement to the international news translations provided by TO's own Leslie Thatcher.

[whatever]

To see how we're being lied to.


Another example is an article that was published in The Washington Post on 26 January 2005, entitled "Sunnis weigh the risks of running". The article focusses on two Sunni politicians, including Mishaan Jubouri, a former businessman from the city of Mosul, in the context of the elections that took place just a few days later. It describes Jubouri as the first mayor of Mosul after the invasion of Iraq, states that he is the leader of an important tribe, and provides details of how he stood up to Saddam Hussein and how he somehow managed to earn his respect as a result.

This article, following a pattern that we have now become accustomed to, contains so many omissions and factual errors that it is completely misleading. Jubouri was, in fact, never the mayor of Mosul. What actually happened is that he had allied himself with the invading American army, which provided him with protection as he unilaterally tried to take control over the city, without consulting any of its inhabitants. Also, the article merely states that he "left office after a month", without providing any additional information as to why he stepped down. The truth is somewhat different: Jubouri was forced to flee the city after American soldiers killed 15 Iraqis during a demonstration that had been organised in order to protest his presence in the city. Finally, Jubouri is not, and never has been, the leader of his tribe. In fact, he was publicly excommunicated from the tribe on an Al-Jazeera report after it was discovered that he was collaborating with the occupying forces. None of this is confidential information. Had the author of the article been interested in checking his facts before publication he could have done so by asking just about anyone from the streets of Baghdad, by running a search on the internet, or by checking the pages of his own publication.

[whatever]

What our neighbors think of us
www.watchingamerica.com/eluniversal000012.html
America an 'Arrogant Nation' That Considers Itself 'Above the Law'

The writer explains why Mexico has agreed to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and why the U.S. is wrong not to do so.

EDITORIAL
May 5, 2005
The Mexican Congress has taken an important step in discouraging the commitment of crimes against humanity by Mexicans, both in our country and in all others.

Yesterday, the Congress' Permanent Commission of the Union unanimously approved the Declaration of the Statute of Rome, with which Mexico was integrated to the Treaty and by which, after the approval in the Senate, our country will agree to place Mexican citizens under the International Criminal Court, which has its seat in Holland.

The Court was founded under the auspices of the United Nations in 1948, when the idea arose of creating a permanent international court to judge cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes of the military and aggression.

[food for thought]

Check out this article I found! It gives a list of people and what in the media they own. Do you think our media is concentrated in the hand of a few ideologues? Don't you think that effects our view of the world?

www.natall.com/who-rules-america/index.html

If this much media power was in the hands of say Christians, don't you think we would have story after story about how bad that would be for the country? About how biased a view it represents?