"Control Room" takes a hard look at the Al-Jazeera news network, but on a grander scale shows us how important the role of media is in war. Media is a tool or war, and war a tool of media. There's some disturbing stuff here, and also some raw moments of human emotion (war is hell, and covering war can tear out someone's soul). The makers of this film also show how propaganda can be spewed from both sides (Fox News, anyone?) and no war can be fought intelligently without propaganda and the media. In the end, this is probably the closest thing we will get to an unbiased look at the strife in the Middle East. We the viewers feel sympathy for those innocents caught in the cross-fire and empathy for all sides involved on the battle fields and behind the scenes. Powerful, thought-provoking, educational and debate worthy, there need to be more documentaries like this in times like these.
95 Reviews
Should be REQUIRED for some viewing
fevercity29 January 2005
I'll be the first to admit that this film is good but not great. All politics aside, I was just left hanging in the balance wanting MORE. Though I can appreciate their limited access to outside footage and English-speaking counterparts, certain scenes tended to drag on a bit and left me wondering what could have been.
That said, per my subject heading, I feel that this should be REQUIRED viewing for any concerned citizen grappling with the media coverage and news-spin of this and all other wars. Much like BRAVO's "Anatomy Of A Scene", the unfolding of the 'end of the war' and the subsequent toppling of Saddam's statue in the square both serve as serious examples of Al Jazeera news coverage vs. 'The Big Boys'. It's just completely different when seen through the intelligent, capable eyes of the Al-Jazeera staff than what we're spoon-fed by Fox, et. al. Check it out...... Really.....
That said, per my subject heading, I feel that this should be REQUIRED viewing for any concerned citizen grappling with the media coverage and news-spin of this and all other wars. Much like BRAVO's "Anatomy Of A Scene", the unfolding of the 'end of the war' and the subsequent toppling of Saddam's statue in the square both serve as serious examples of Al Jazeera news coverage vs. 'The Big Boys'. It's just completely different when seen through the intelligent, capable eyes of the Al-Jazeera staff than what we're spoon-fed by Fox, et. al. Check it out...... Really.....
Perception and Substance
rmax3048236 March 2005
They are a horde of sand monkeys screaming hysterically, jumping up and down, waving their fists in the air, and they all have their heads wrapped in tablecloths stolen from Italian restaurants -- right? Well, not quite, according to this documentary from Noujaim, which focuses on the producers and staff of the much-maligned al Jaziera satellite news channel which broadcasts to the Arab-speaking world.
The reporter we get to know best, a big guy who looks like Luciano Pavarotti in makeup for a performance of Otello, and who speaks English fluently (his wife is an Englishwoman), is like most other reporters of whatever channel or nationality -- practical, cynical, and good humored. He doesn't give us an anti-American diatribe. He's way too cool for that. He's watching, for instance, the tape of a demonstration in which yelling, leaping children surround some Americans entering Baghdad and he's listening to the English translation. The children are shouting "Allah" something or other and the on screen translator comments that the kids are saying "God be with you Americans!" The reporter smiles and turns to the camera, explaining that what the kids are actually saying is, "God damn you Americans." He has a keen sense of irony.
So does another translator who is watching Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on live TV and giving the Arabic translation to the audience. When Bush is finally finished telling us how successful we and our allies have been, how the war has ended, the translator shuts off his mike, lowers his face and wordlessly chuckles.
At another point, after the victory, Iraqis are seen breaking into a bank, emerging which armfuls of money, which they then gleefully tear up and toss in the air. Watching this on TV an al Jaziera staff member remarks that these are Kurds and they're tearing up the dough because it's the new Dinar with Saddam's picture, and in that region they've always used the old pre-1991 currency. At the same time, elsewhere, an American newsman (from CNN, I think) is watching the scene and calls to someone to find out what it is these looters are tearing up. Is it money, or what? And when asked at a briefing to explain why these looting incidents are going on in the destroyed and chaotic cities, an American general replies that this was going on under the noses of the Iraqis themselves. (In other words, some Iraqi authority should have put a stop to it.) But the film makers are mistaken if they think that most of this isn't already known to American audiences. The problem isn't so much that American audiences were ignorant of some of these things, but that they preferred the perception to the substance. Take the concept of victory. The perception is "the liberated people" pulling down a statue of the reviled Hussein. That's part of the substance too. Another part of the substance is videotape of dead and bloody American bodies sprawled on a cement floor, a part that, like the coffins arriving at Dover AFB, we'd rather exclude. Al Jaziera showed both scenes.
I don't mean any of this to sound too simple minded. It's a thorny problem. Exactly how do you edit the substance so that what appears in the media is acceptable -- in the sense that it doesn't get you fired or killed. The journalist's code of course is to be "objective," but objectivity itself depends on perception.
A sympathetic Marine captain, seen in several interviews, doing his best to answer unanswerable questions, poses the conundrum in its most basic form. Something like, "I was watching American TV and saw shots of these bodies of dead civilians, including kids, and I thought, that's too bad. Then I ate dinner and went to sleep. Recently I was watching al Jaziera and saw shots of bodies of dead American GIs, and I really got MAD. Then I thought, maybe THEY feel the same way." The officer is a surprisingly earnest guy in an impossible job. He's trying to learn Arabic, is terribly flattered when asked to come home and have dinner with Pavarotti and his English wife. His happiness at being treated amicably is almost palpable.
If you put the wrong material on the air, you're liable to pay for it. Al Jaziera's headquarters in Baghdad was bombed during the war and one of its reporters killed. Another Arab news agency was bombed at the same time, and a hotel too. The financial reporter from al Jaziera was banned from the New York Stock Exchange too. (Not mentioned in this film.) We're going to have to wait for another documentary to explain the reasons for that, I guess.
The reporter we get to know best, a big guy who looks like Luciano Pavarotti in makeup for a performance of Otello, and who speaks English fluently (his wife is an Englishwoman), is like most other reporters of whatever channel or nationality -- practical, cynical, and good humored. He doesn't give us an anti-American diatribe. He's way too cool for that. He's watching, for instance, the tape of a demonstration in which yelling, leaping children surround some Americans entering Baghdad and he's listening to the English translation. The children are shouting "Allah" something or other and the on screen translator comments that the kids are saying "God be with you Americans!" The reporter smiles and turns to the camera, explaining that what the kids are actually saying is, "God damn you Americans." He has a keen sense of irony.
So does another translator who is watching Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on live TV and giving the Arabic translation to the audience. When Bush is finally finished telling us how successful we and our allies have been, how the war has ended, the translator shuts off his mike, lowers his face and wordlessly chuckles.
At another point, after the victory, Iraqis are seen breaking into a bank, emerging which armfuls of money, which they then gleefully tear up and toss in the air. Watching this on TV an al Jaziera staff member remarks that these are Kurds and they're tearing up the dough because it's the new Dinar with Saddam's picture, and in that region they've always used the old pre-1991 currency. At the same time, elsewhere, an American newsman (from CNN, I think) is watching the scene and calls to someone to find out what it is these looters are tearing up. Is it money, or what? And when asked at a briefing to explain why these looting incidents are going on in the destroyed and chaotic cities, an American general replies that this was going on under the noses of the Iraqis themselves. (In other words, some Iraqi authority should have put a stop to it.) But the film makers are mistaken if they think that most of this isn't already known to American audiences. The problem isn't so much that American audiences were ignorant of some of these things, but that they preferred the perception to the substance. Take the concept of victory. The perception is "the liberated people" pulling down a statue of the reviled Hussein. That's part of the substance too. Another part of the substance is videotape of dead and bloody American bodies sprawled on a cement floor, a part that, like the coffins arriving at Dover AFB, we'd rather exclude. Al Jaziera showed both scenes.
I don't mean any of this to sound too simple minded. It's a thorny problem. Exactly how do you edit the substance so that what appears in the media is acceptable -- in the sense that it doesn't get you fired or killed. The journalist's code of course is to be "objective," but objectivity itself depends on perception.
A sympathetic Marine captain, seen in several interviews, doing his best to answer unanswerable questions, poses the conundrum in its most basic form. Something like, "I was watching American TV and saw shots of these bodies of dead civilians, including kids, and I thought, that's too bad. Then I ate dinner and went to sleep. Recently I was watching al Jaziera and saw shots of bodies of dead American GIs, and I really got MAD. Then I thought, maybe THEY feel the same way." The officer is a surprisingly earnest guy in an impossible job. He's trying to learn Arabic, is terribly flattered when asked to come home and have dinner with Pavarotti and his English wife. His happiness at being treated amicably is almost palpable.
If you put the wrong material on the air, you're liable to pay for it. Al Jaziera's headquarters in Baghdad was bombed during the war and one of its reporters killed. Another Arab news agency was bombed at the same time, and a hotel too. The financial reporter from al Jaziera was banned from the New York Stock Exchange too. (Not mentioned in this film.) We're going to have to wait for another documentary to explain the reasons for that, I guess.
Frightening.
Anonymous_Maxine5 November 2004
I spent some of last summer in Spain, traveling alone for a couple weeks, as well as another week with my father, a Colombian immigrant. The two and a half weeks that I spent there alone were an unforgettable experience, despite the difficulty of speaking only the most basic, functional Spanish. I essentially knew how to order coffee and ask where the bathroom was, so I was limited to going into cafés and pubs and ordering what I could point to. Once my father arrived, speaking perfect Spanish, I was able to experience a much wider variety of what Spain has to offer (not the least of which is the astonishingly delicious paella), and my father, having not been back to Colombia in 35 years and never having been to Europe, was equally astounded not just by the class and sophistication of the country and its people, but by what could be found in bookstores.
Upon visiting the breathtaking Guggenheim Museum in a moderate sized town in northern Spain called Bilbao, my father came upon a Spanish book about the war in Vietnam. In perusing through the book, he and I were both shocked at the things that were shown in it, particularly of the atrocious acts of American soldiers. It's not portraying America in a bad light, just not portraying them only in a good light, it shows both sides, and it shows that the news outlets in America really play a serious role in, to use the red flag word, propagandizing wars.
Control Room is a study of the Arab news network al Jazeera and how this trend continues to this day. It is well known that the Bush administration is among the most secretive administrations in United States history, under the pretext of the struggle against terrorism and the dangers in alerting the public, and thus the enemy, to all of its policies and actions. What is truly disturbing, however, is the extent to which this secrecy, at some level justified, is so grandly abused. Donald Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense under President Bush, appears a couple of times vehemently condemning anyone associated with al Jazeera as a liar, propagandist, enemy of freedom, terrorist, etc. Basically he makes no secret of his opinion that the network itself is a terrorist organization populated and run by all of the above caricatures created by the rhetorical Bush administration.
The movie's most moving sequences, interestingly enough, are those that feature Iraqis, who look exactly what most Americans associate with the typical insurgent or terrorist, sitting around and debating what to do about the impending war, how to protect their children, their families, their livelihood, their lives. Where Michael Moore went completely over the top, showing kids dancing in the streets under Saddam and people getting married (his intent to show some level of normal life, even under Saddam, was instantly eclipsed by his opponents immediately pretending that he wants people to believe Moore thought it was all fun and games under Hussein), Control Room simply walks in with a camera, filming normal Iraqi men and women anxiously watching the news, fearful for their safety, not from Hussein and not even from their liberators, but from the invaders.
In one telling scene, an Iraqi man criticizes Saddam Hussein, itself a dangerous thing to do under the dictatorship, for not being more prepared for the incoming attack in order to protect himself. This man was disappointed in Saddam not for being a brutal dictator, but for allowing the Americans to take over.
The most damaging assessment that the movie makes against Americans is the way the Arab news outlets were destroyed. In one day, three separate attacks were clearly aimed at news outlets, under the pretense that they were distributing terrorist propaganda, but still with the result that it showed the Iraqi and all of the Arab world that the Americans want total control of what anyone hears about the war. As Bush said, you're either with us or against us. It kind of reminds me of how, if any newspaper or television news station or any kind of media outlet criticizes one of the countless blunders made by the Bush administration, it is instantly dubbed left-wing media by mostly the more idiotic right wing nutcases, like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and the malicious Ann Coulter.
Theaters and video stores, in the run up to the 2004 election, have been increasingly bombarded with a barrage of political documentaries, mostly after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opened the floodgates of political fervor in the film and video industry. Both sides are guilty of underhanded tactics, and Control Room is not entirely free of taking one side or the other, but it doesn't do it in the same way that Fahrenheit 9/11 twisted things and theorized, nor does it do it in the same way as Fahrenhype 9/11, which criticized Fahrenheit 9/11 as much as possible for as many different underhanded tactics as possible, and then went on to employ those same tactics itself.
Control Room is not a fancy documentary; it was filmed, I believe, entirely on MiniDV, which is becoming the standard in home video cameras, and is comprised mostly of people involved with al Jazeera talking about what it's like to work there, as well as interviews between al Jazeera reporters and American soldiers. Personally, the most disturbing moments in the film were the entirely believable suggestion that the Iraqis celebrating in the streets when Saddam's statue was torn down were brought in by the Americans for the purpose of the photo shoot (this is the definition of textbook military propaganda), and the sickening scene in which one soldier absolutely insists that the nation of Iraq is at least partially responsible for the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam.
This, more than anything else I've ever seen in news or any kind of media, is the clearest example of the total lack of any kind of postwar planning by the Bush administration. They were so clueless about what was going to happen even minutes after they succeeded in taking out Saddam Hussein (by the way, I say 'they' referring to the Bush administration, not to Americans as a whole, in which case I would, of course, use 'we') that I genuinely wonder if they even planned on how to get the soldiers back home to America, or if they thought that Saddam was gone so let's go back to Camp David and play golf.
Oops, there I go going over the top. Now I sound like Michael Moore. But the point that the movie sets out to make, and succeeds in very well, is showing that all sides are necessary. No one side can be in control of all news outlets, because that is a recipe for propaganda. And not only do we have to make sure to allow other people to broadcast their views, we can't just go in and destroy their news stations and claim that it was because they were terrorist agencies, because that act alone presents America as the bullies and, given our logic (or lack thereof) in attacking Iraq after 9/11 rather than seeking out that tragedy's perpetrators, we're doing badly enough in that area already.
Upon visiting the breathtaking Guggenheim Museum in a moderate sized town in northern Spain called Bilbao, my father came upon a Spanish book about the war in Vietnam. In perusing through the book, he and I were both shocked at the things that were shown in it, particularly of the atrocious acts of American soldiers. It's not portraying America in a bad light, just not portraying them only in a good light, it shows both sides, and it shows that the news outlets in America really play a serious role in, to use the red flag word, propagandizing wars.
Control Room is a study of the Arab news network al Jazeera and how this trend continues to this day. It is well known that the Bush administration is among the most secretive administrations in United States history, under the pretext of the struggle against terrorism and the dangers in alerting the public, and thus the enemy, to all of its policies and actions. What is truly disturbing, however, is the extent to which this secrecy, at some level justified, is so grandly abused. Donald Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense under President Bush, appears a couple of times vehemently condemning anyone associated with al Jazeera as a liar, propagandist, enemy of freedom, terrorist, etc. Basically he makes no secret of his opinion that the network itself is a terrorist organization populated and run by all of the above caricatures created by the rhetorical Bush administration.
The movie's most moving sequences, interestingly enough, are those that feature Iraqis, who look exactly what most Americans associate with the typical insurgent or terrorist, sitting around and debating what to do about the impending war, how to protect their children, their families, their livelihood, their lives. Where Michael Moore went completely over the top, showing kids dancing in the streets under Saddam and people getting married (his intent to show some level of normal life, even under Saddam, was instantly eclipsed by his opponents immediately pretending that he wants people to believe Moore thought it was all fun and games under Hussein), Control Room simply walks in with a camera, filming normal Iraqi men and women anxiously watching the news, fearful for their safety, not from Hussein and not even from their liberators, but from the invaders.
In one telling scene, an Iraqi man criticizes Saddam Hussein, itself a dangerous thing to do under the dictatorship, for not being more prepared for the incoming attack in order to protect himself. This man was disappointed in Saddam not for being a brutal dictator, but for allowing the Americans to take over.
The most damaging assessment that the movie makes against Americans is the way the Arab news outlets were destroyed. In one day, three separate attacks were clearly aimed at news outlets, under the pretense that they were distributing terrorist propaganda, but still with the result that it showed the Iraqi and all of the Arab world that the Americans want total control of what anyone hears about the war. As Bush said, you're either with us or against us. It kind of reminds me of how, if any newspaper or television news station or any kind of media outlet criticizes one of the countless blunders made by the Bush administration, it is instantly dubbed left-wing media by mostly the more idiotic right wing nutcases, like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and the malicious Ann Coulter.
Theaters and video stores, in the run up to the 2004 election, have been increasingly bombarded with a barrage of political documentaries, mostly after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opened the floodgates of political fervor in the film and video industry. Both sides are guilty of underhanded tactics, and Control Room is not entirely free of taking one side or the other, but it doesn't do it in the same way that Fahrenheit 9/11 twisted things and theorized, nor does it do it in the same way as Fahrenhype 9/11, which criticized Fahrenheit 9/11 as much as possible for as many different underhanded tactics as possible, and then went on to employ those same tactics itself.
Control Room is not a fancy documentary; it was filmed, I believe, entirely on MiniDV, which is becoming the standard in home video cameras, and is comprised mostly of people involved with al Jazeera talking about what it's like to work there, as well as interviews between al Jazeera reporters and American soldiers. Personally, the most disturbing moments in the film were the entirely believable suggestion that the Iraqis celebrating in the streets when Saddam's statue was torn down were brought in by the Americans for the purpose of the photo shoot (this is the definition of textbook military propaganda), and the sickening scene in which one soldier absolutely insists that the nation of Iraq is at least partially responsible for the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam.
This, more than anything else I've ever seen in news or any kind of media, is the clearest example of the total lack of any kind of postwar planning by the Bush administration. They were so clueless about what was going to happen even minutes after they succeeded in taking out Saddam Hussein (by the way, I say 'they' referring to the Bush administration, not to Americans as a whole, in which case I would, of course, use 'we') that I genuinely wonder if they even planned on how to get the soldiers back home to America, or if they thought that Saddam was gone so let's go back to Camp David and play golf.
Oops, there I go going over the top. Now I sound like Michael Moore. But the point that the movie sets out to make, and succeeds in very well, is showing that all sides are necessary. No one side can be in control of all news outlets, because that is a recipe for propaganda. And not only do we have to make sure to allow other people to broadcast their views, we can't just go in and destroy their news stations and claim that it was because they were terrorist agencies, because that act alone presents America as the bullies and, given our logic (or lack thereof) in attacking Iraq after 9/11 rather than seeking out that tragedy's perpetrators, we're doing badly enough in that area already.
If You Think Micheal Moore Is A Bad Filmmaker With Good Ideas...
honeybearrecords11 March 2005
For me, Al-Jazeera means one thing: proof. When I think of how skewed and yellow video journalism is, I remember that millions and millions of people in the world are getting their news from Al-Jazeera. That's my proof that there is hope for the world. That they are willing to challenge and question everything from Arab leaders to the United States to the nature of unbiased news coverage
Since their start in 1996, they've been slammed in the Arab world for being too pro-American and by the US for being pro-Al Qaeda. As most good lefties know, that usually means you're doing something right. I have much respect for Al-Jazeera and was excited to know that a documentary was being made about them and their take on the War with Iraq.
The film "Control Room" is further proof. With time-tested verité technique, we see what it is like to run Al-Jazeera and what kinds of people make up the staff from the translators to the journalists. The film travels back and forth between the stations headquarters in Qatar and CentCom which is the main press briefing room set up by the US military in Iraq. It's a breath of fresh air to see an entire network of people who are smart and committed to the idea of debate and communication. I don't think you could find that at any of the major news networks in the States. Their operations, anecdotes and analysis are worthy of a documentary alone.
But there are specific moments in the film that are especially profound and upsetting even to a long-time commie like myself. First and foremost, there is the death of an Al-Jazeera journalist. Before the troops entered Baghdad, the US committed air strikes on civilian targets including the building housing Al-Jazeera. In the attack, one of their correspondents is killed along with three other journalists. There is footage of the journalist facing him head-on right up until seconds before the attack. That along with a plea for justice from the journalist's wife and a completely absurd justification for the attack from the US is both infuriating and literally sickening.
The second most important moment in the film is the so-called liberation of Baghdad. As a result of the attack on Al-Jazeera, their remaining correspondents were forced to return home to Qatar where the network is based. Now recognized as a target of the US military, Iraqis were naturally hesitant to house anyone representing the station. In the end, only the ridiculous foreign press was there to cover the troops coming into the town square and the people toppling over the statue of Saddam Hussein. What's most illuminating is the analysis from the Al-Jazeera journalists as they watch the events unfold. Senior Producer Samir Khader talks about how he's from Iraq. He's lived in Iraq. The people that toppled the statue were not Iraqi. They didn't look Iraqi and they didn't have Iraqi accents. Another journalist wonders why there are only a dozen people celebrating. Where were the village people? Where were the women from the area? How is it that one of them just happened to have the old Iraqi flag in his pocket? Had he "just kept it there for the past ten years?" Producer Deema Khatib wonders where the troops were. Where was the army? It becomes very obvious, as people have been muttering for some time now that it was all a faked, staged event for Western "news" cameras.
Finally there is the case of Lt. Josh Rushing. Throughout the film, he is the American representative that has debates and discussions with the many Arab journalists. Despite having to take the absurd position of defending US aggression, he is intelligent and empathetic. At one point he becomes self-analytical and candid talking about how he had seen images of dead Iraqi casualties one day and it didn't affect him. The next day, he was footage of American casualties and it made him sick. At that point he really had to face himself and while still in the process at least recognize how much he hates war. That story doesn't end there. With the release of the film, the Pentagon ordered Rushing not to comment on the film. Offended by this gesture, he is now seeking to leave the Marines.
"Control Room" is a movie about the War with Iraq. But that's not the half of it. It's a movie that will hopefully widen the debate about television and what is objective journalism in this country. It's also another stone catapulted through the wall of Arab stereotypes. It's also an intelligent and engaging film that is as challenging as it is satisfying.
The film "Control Room" is further proof. With time-tested verité technique, we see what it is like to run Al-Jazeera and what kinds of people make up the staff from the translators to the journalists. The film travels back and forth between the stations headquarters in Qatar and CentCom which is the main press briefing room set up by the US military in Iraq. It's a breath of fresh air to see an entire network of people who are smart and committed to the idea of debate and communication. I don't think you could find that at any of the major news networks in the States. Their operations, anecdotes and analysis are worthy of a documentary alone.
But there are specific moments in the film that are especially profound and upsetting even to a long-time commie like myself. First and foremost, there is the death of an Al-Jazeera journalist. Before the troops entered Baghdad, the US committed air strikes on civilian targets including the building housing Al-Jazeera. In the attack, one of their correspondents is killed along with three other journalists. There is footage of the journalist facing him head-on right up until seconds before the attack. That along with a plea for justice from the journalist's wife and a completely absurd justification for the attack from the US is both infuriating and literally sickening.
The second most important moment in the film is the so-called liberation of Baghdad. As a result of the attack on Al-Jazeera, their remaining correspondents were forced to return home to Qatar where the network is based. Now recognized as a target of the US military, Iraqis were naturally hesitant to house anyone representing the station. In the end, only the ridiculous foreign press was there to cover the troops coming into the town square and the people toppling over the statue of Saddam Hussein. What's most illuminating is the analysis from the Al-Jazeera journalists as they watch the events unfold. Senior Producer Samir Khader talks about how he's from Iraq. He's lived in Iraq. The people that toppled the statue were not Iraqi. They didn't look Iraqi and they didn't have Iraqi accents. Another journalist wonders why there are only a dozen people celebrating. Where were the village people? Where were the women from the area? How is it that one of them just happened to have the old Iraqi flag in his pocket? Had he "just kept it there for the past ten years?" Producer Deema Khatib wonders where the troops were. Where was the army? It becomes very obvious, as people have been muttering for some time now that it was all a faked, staged event for Western "news" cameras.
Finally there is the case of Lt. Josh Rushing. Throughout the film, he is the American representative that has debates and discussions with the many Arab journalists. Despite having to take the absurd position of defending US aggression, he is intelligent and empathetic. At one point he becomes self-analytical and candid talking about how he had seen images of dead Iraqi casualties one day and it didn't affect him. The next day, he was footage of American casualties and it made him sick. At that point he really had to face himself and while still in the process at least recognize how much he hates war. That story doesn't end there. With the release of the film, the Pentagon ordered Rushing not to comment on the film. Offended by this gesture, he is now seeking to leave the Marines.
"Control Room" is a movie about the War with Iraq. But that's not the half of it. It's a movie that will hopefully widen the debate about television and what is objective journalism in this country. It's also another stone catapulted through the wall of Arab stereotypes. It's also an intelligent and engaging film that is as challenging as it is satisfying.
Rumsfeld's 'truth' may come more from the beleaguered Arab network than the carefully controlled coalition.
JohnDeSando17 June 2004
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares in the early stages of the Iraq War, ''Truth ultimately finds its way to people's eyes and ears and hearts,'' I knew I would like 'Control Room.' I did feel truth peeking through the eyes of the Al Jazeera Satellite Network war coverage, perhaps the most damning moment coming when the coalition forces attack the Al-Jazeera building and kill a prominent journalist.
Egyptian-born, Harvard-educated director Jehane Noujaim, having worked with D. A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus on ''Only the Strong Survive'' and ''Startup.com,' is no objective documentarian: She cuts her film to the best advantage of the Arab network as the voice of the Arab oppressed and to the obvious discomfort of the ' occupying' forces, especially the US.
If you factor in her bias and listen to the occasionally reasonable Centcom Press Officer, Lt. Josh Rushing, you may yet believe that Rumsfeld's 'truth' comes more from the beleaguered Arab network than the carefully controlled coalition. But Rushing provides the most truth in the film, for instance, when he confesses, 'Our rule back here is to not spin, but sometimes we catch ourselves doing a little spin on a story. You can't help it.' Lt. Rushing is one of the more interesting characters, at first a central-casting officer spouting the Pentagon message. But when he sees film of suffering and dead American soldiers, he admits, "It makes me hate war." Regardless of which side you're on, most viewers can relate.
When an Arab producer exclaims that the drama unfolding is just like an American movie, where the god guys are easily identifiable, the bad guys will be punished, and the audience wants to know how the ending will be reached, the director mixes fiction and reality in a way that reminds all students of film there cannot be truly unbiased films once someone picks up a camera.
Let 'Control Room' stand tall next to last year's Earl Morris documentary 'Fog of War,' starring a still-sharp and still-deluded Robert McNamara, looking a bit like Donald Rumsfeld. His statement about Al Jazeera, ''We are dealing with people who are willing to lie to the world to make their case,'' is too ironic to be left out of a documentary that makes a liberal criticism of the neocons' great war seem, well, believable.
There are so many secrets and lies in the world political scene today that I am reminded of Joseph Conrad's Marlow in 'Heart of Darkness,' who said there was 'a flavor of mortality in lies, -- which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world -- what I want to forget.' The official body count in Iraq may be mute testimony to the legacy of lies. Like the 9/11 Commission report on the lack of connection between Iraq and al Quaida, 'Control Room' tries to balance the scales before Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' upsets it even more.
Egyptian-born, Harvard-educated director Jehane Noujaim, having worked with D. A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus on ''Only the Strong Survive'' and ''Startup.com,' is no objective documentarian: She cuts her film to the best advantage of the Arab network as the voice of the Arab oppressed and to the obvious discomfort of the ' occupying' forces, especially the US.
If you factor in her bias and listen to the occasionally reasonable Centcom Press Officer, Lt. Josh Rushing, you may yet believe that Rumsfeld's 'truth' comes more from the beleaguered Arab network than the carefully controlled coalition. But Rushing provides the most truth in the film, for instance, when he confesses, 'Our rule back here is to not spin, but sometimes we catch ourselves doing a little spin on a story. You can't help it.' Lt. Rushing is one of the more interesting characters, at first a central-casting officer spouting the Pentagon message. But when he sees film of suffering and dead American soldiers, he admits, "It makes me hate war." Regardless of which side you're on, most viewers can relate.
When an Arab producer exclaims that the drama unfolding is just like an American movie, where the god guys are easily identifiable, the bad guys will be punished, and the audience wants to know how the ending will be reached, the director mixes fiction and reality in a way that reminds all students of film there cannot be truly unbiased films once someone picks up a camera.
Let 'Control Room' stand tall next to last year's Earl Morris documentary 'Fog of War,' starring a still-sharp and still-deluded Robert McNamara, looking a bit like Donald Rumsfeld. His statement about Al Jazeera, ''We are dealing with people who are willing to lie to the world to make their case,'' is too ironic to be left out of a documentary that makes a liberal criticism of the neocons' great war seem, well, believable.
There are so many secrets and lies in the world political scene today that I am reminded of Joseph Conrad's Marlow in 'Heart of Darkness,' who said there was 'a flavor of mortality in lies, -- which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world -- what I want to forget.' The official body count in Iraq may be mute testimony to the legacy of lies. Like the 9/11 Commission report on the lack of connection between Iraq and al Quaida, 'Control Room' tries to balance the scales before Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' upsets it even more.
Somewhere Betwixt East and West Lay the Truth
fwomp25 October 2005
It's pretty tough to review and rate a documentary like this. Mainly because it's taken almost solely from an Arab perspective: an Arab news media, living in a deeply Arab culture, and run by Arab men and women.
That's not to say that what we see on NBC and Fox News here in the States is any less insightful. Skewed toward the Lazy-Boy recliner news watcher, the American news media is just as blind to its prejudices and half-truths as many other media outlets around the world.
So when I read reviews of this documentary and they lambaste it for being "one-sided", I have to shrug and say, "Yeah, so what news media do you watch?" Covering the Iraq War, Al Jazeera focused on what happened and was happening from inside Bahgdad. A pretty risky proposition, a move that ends up killing one of their correspondents. Looking at the Ba'athists and other political affiliations within the country was interesting and, again, a bit skewed.
The anti-American sentiment can be felt smoldering under the surface of Al-Jazeera, too. But whether this is simply a survival strategy (they do have to live there after the Americans are gone) or real is anyone's guess.
This IS a great documentary to watch, though. Being spoon fed Fox News' version of the war is just as blinding as Al Jazeera's. But after watching CONTROL ROOM, I know now that somewhere between the American TV reports and Al Jazeera, the truth does lie.
That's not to say that what we see on NBC and Fox News here in the States is any less insightful. Skewed toward the Lazy-Boy recliner news watcher, the American news media is just as blind to its prejudices and half-truths as many other media outlets around the world.
So when I read reviews of this documentary and they lambaste it for being "one-sided", I have to shrug and say, "Yeah, so what news media do you watch?" Covering the Iraq War, Al Jazeera focused on what happened and was happening from inside Bahgdad. A pretty risky proposition, a move that ends up killing one of their correspondents. Looking at the Ba'athists and other political affiliations within the country was interesting and, again, a bit skewed.
The anti-American sentiment can be felt smoldering under the surface of Al-Jazeera, too. But whether this is simply a survival strategy (they do have to live there after the Americans are gone) or real is anyone's guess.
This IS a great documentary to watch, though. Being spoon fed Fox News' version of the war is just as blinding as Al Jazeera's. But after watching CONTROL ROOM, I know now that somewhere between the American TV reports and Al Jazeera, the truth does lie.
Life at Cent-Com
jotix1001 February 2005
"Control Room" shows the preparations prior to the Iraq conflict, as the world news media was positioning itself for the war that everybody knew was coming. The Cent-Com, or center of communications, was something the United States arranged in order to disseminate news about the Coalition's invasion of Iraq. This way, the different representatives of the global media would get the news from one source, without having to follow the fighting troops on the ground.
In a way, this was the U.S. attempt to put its own input in what it wanted to the world to know. In doing so, little did the powers that be considered what a small Arab news network would do to tell viewers in that part of the world about what they perceived was going on. In doing so, Al Jazeera became one of the most hated news group by the people trying to liberate Iraq. From Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues, one couldn't expect any differently.
In a democracy, all voices have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, for Al Jazeera, they stepped on too many toes by telling a different story from the official one Washington wanted everyone to know. That was only the beginning.
Up to that point, Al Jazeera was considered an enemy by most Arab states in the region because in their way of thinking. This news agency was pro-coalition, therefore, pro-American and anti-Arab. Al Jazeera became a symbol of opposition to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Al Jazeera had the advantage of being from the region and understanding the mentality of the people, something the American planners didn't take into consideration.
At the Cent-Com commanding post we meet Josh Rushing, the American in charge of coordinating the news. He is a decent man. At times, he is seen torn between reality, as the Al Jazeera correspondents tell him and his own loyalties to his country and the war cause. We doubt that after this documentary was shown, he is still at his post!
There are disturbing moments when we watch people hurt in the conflict. War is ugly and lots of innocents die. There is a segment in which one of the Baghdad's reporters sits at the roof of the building that housed the Al Jazeera's studios visually frightened as the bombing increases. Later on we get to know that Tarek Ayoub was killed in the bombing of that building. Was it a coincidence or a deliberate attempt to silence those irritating little men?
Al Jazeera was the antidote to the Fox News machinery. In watching the documentary, the viewer gets to see the story told from a different perspective. In a way, our view is balanced because we see the other side in a way we didn't know existed.
In a way, this was the U.S. attempt to put its own input in what it wanted to the world to know. In doing so, little did the powers that be considered what a small Arab news network would do to tell viewers in that part of the world about what they perceived was going on. In doing so, Al Jazeera became one of the most hated news group by the people trying to liberate Iraq. From Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues, one couldn't expect any differently.
In a democracy, all voices have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, for Al Jazeera, they stepped on too many toes by telling a different story from the official one Washington wanted everyone to know. That was only the beginning.
Up to that point, Al Jazeera was considered an enemy by most Arab states in the region because in their way of thinking. This news agency was pro-coalition, therefore, pro-American and anti-Arab. Al Jazeera became a symbol of opposition to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Al Jazeera had the advantage of being from the region and understanding the mentality of the people, something the American planners didn't take into consideration.
At the Cent-Com commanding post we meet Josh Rushing, the American in charge of coordinating the news. He is a decent man. At times, he is seen torn between reality, as the Al Jazeera correspondents tell him and his own loyalties to his country and the war cause. We doubt that after this documentary was shown, he is still at his post!
There are disturbing moments when we watch people hurt in the conflict. War is ugly and lots of innocents die. There is a segment in which one of the Baghdad's reporters sits at the roof of the building that housed the Al Jazeera's studios visually frightened as the bombing increases. Later on we get to know that Tarek Ayoub was killed in the bombing of that building. Was it a coincidence or a deliberate attempt to silence those irritating little men?
Al Jazeera was the antidote to the Fox News machinery. In watching the documentary, the viewer gets to see the story told from a different perspective. In a way, our view is balanced because we see the other side in a way we didn't know existed.
a solid documentary about a very important news network
colettesplace14 March 2006
Control Room is the latest film from the Egyptian-born Harvard-educated director of startup.com, Jehane Noujaim.
It follows the only independent news service in the Middle East, Al Jazeera, for six weeks, starting one week before the US invasion of Iraq in 2004.
The war's press coverage was delivered from US military Central Command in Qatar, right near Al Jazeera's HQ. One of the things Control Room demonstrates is just how manufactured the news stories of the war were.
We hear from several Al Jazeera employees (including women), some Western journalists and also from US Lieutenant Josh Rushing, the idealistic Central Command Press Officer.
There are several reasons why Control Room is compelling viewing. Firstly because Al Jazeera is an independent satellite service in a culture which does not have a history of freedom of the press.
Also, because both the US Government and many Middle Eastern governments condemn Al Jazeera for broadcasting propaganda, it reminds me of the conundrum often facing Australia's ABC. Yes, Al Jazeera gets it wrong sometimes, like any other broadcaster, but they are attempting and I'd suggest, often succeeding, at delivering relatively balanced journalism.
One of the things most criticized about Al Jazeera was for broadcasting messages from Osama Bin Laden. But I think just about any network that had that exclusive would do the same thing, as demonstrated by so many networks quoting the Bin Laden tapes. Unfortunately this is not covered in the film, but another Al Jazeera technique criticized in Control Room is their decision to broadcast footage of US military hostages, including the dead. As an NBC correspondent said, they just don't do that kind of thing in America. But it's very common for Western viewers to see and be shocked by horrific images on television. By broadcasting footage of these US soldiers, at least some of the Al Jazeera demographic would empathize with the suffering Westerners. Before that, much of their footage was of how Iraq's civilian population was suffering. In hindsight, now that it's been revealed that the US tortured prisoners, Al Jazeera's stance seems vindicated.
It follows the only independent news service in the Middle East, Al Jazeera, for six weeks, starting one week before the US invasion of Iraq in 2004.
The war's press coverage was delivered from US military Central Command in Qatar, right near Al Jazeera's HQ. One of the things Control Room demonstrates is just how manufactured the news stories of the war were.
We hear from several Al Jazeera employees (including women), some Western journalists and also from US Lieutenant Josh Rushing, the idealistic Central Command Press Officer.
There are several reasons why Control Room is compelling viewing. Firstly because Al Jazeera is an independent satellite service in a culture which does not have a history of freedom of the press.
Also, because both the US Government and many Middle Eastern governments condemn Al Jazeera for broadcasting propaganda, it reminds me of the conundrum often facing Australia's ABC. Yes, Al Jazeera gets it wrong sometimes, like any other broadcaster, but they are attempting and I'd suggest, often succeeding, at delivering relatively balanced journalism.
One of the things most criticized about Al Jazeera was for broadcasting messages from Osama Bin Laden. But I think just about any network that had that exclusive would do the same thing, as demonstrated by so many networks quoting the Bin Laden tapes. Unfortunately this is not covered in the film, but another Al Jazeera technique criticized in Control Room is their decision to broadcast footage of US military hostages, including the dead. As an NBC correspondent said, they just don't do that kind of thing in America. But it's very common for Western viewers to see and be shocked by horrific images on television. By broadcasting footage of these US soldiers, at least some of the Al Jazeera demographic would empathize with the suffering Westerners. Before that, much of their footage was of how Iraq's civilian population was suffering. In hindsight, now that it's been revealed that the US tortured prisoners, Al Jazeera's stance seems vindicated.
Great Look Inside Al Jazeera
lmarie2016 May 2005
Control Room is a documentary on the Arab news network Al Jazeera, and how this network presented the war between Iraq and America to the public. This documentary contains no narration, nor elaborate filming technology; hence, making this movie very simple. Instead of the writer, director, or producer guiding the viewer through this movie, a few screens are displayed throughout the film giving minimal information to make sure the viewer is not lost. These screens, however, do not persuade the audience on what to think, which is what narration usually tends to do. Without narration, the viewer is forced to be engaged in the film and absorb and consider all of what is being said. This documentary is not entertainment, but a well done, thought provoking film on Al Jazeera.
Towards the beginning of Control Room, a reporter for Al Jazeera says that the message of their news network is "wake up, there is a war out there and you are still sleeping". This network is trying to educate Arabs on the war that their country is partaking in. Many of the Arab citizens would be completely unaware of the daily events of this war if Al Jazeera did not exist. Besides just informing Arabs of the war, Al Jazeera wants to "gain grief" from the American people by showing pictures of mass dead bodies. Americans were very upset when Al Jazeera released film of American POWs, some alive, but others lying on a concrete floor dead. The grotesque footage that Al Jazeera will put on their news network, American networks would not even consider doing.
Another flaw of Al Jazeera that the American soldier speaks of is how this Arab news network shows propaganda over and over. This instills the same image into the mind of the viewers; therefore, making this particular event seem to be more important or have more meaning than others. After a bomb is dropped, the reporters find women and children to pretend they have been hurt this bomb, and then have them talk about it on camera. The views presented by the American soldier and reporters for Al Jazeera are both commendable arguments that give the audience the opportunity to take this information in, and come to their own conclusion. The bombings on Arab news outlets by America are talked about in great detail in Control Room. In one day, three separate attacks were clearly aimed at Al Jazeera, and two other network's outlets. The explanation by America for these bombings was that the networks were distributing terrorist propaganda. Arabs thought the missiles were sent because Al Jazeera would not side one hundred percent against Saddam. This example demonstrates how this film is a documentary in that it leaves the audience with only the information of the event; hence, giving the viewer the opportunity to make of it what they want. Control Room did a wonderful job is showing exactly how Al Jazeera is run, and the people that work for the network. I thought this documentary was very factual, and it left me thinking about the war and American and Arab news networks in a different way. This film seemed to be more of the truth than any of the news that I had seen prior. I would say that Control Room is a unique and informative look in Al Jazeera. It was a better way to see what this network is trying to show without actually watching their show
Towards the beginning of Control Room, a reporter for Al Jazeera says that the message of their news network is "wake up, there is a war out there and you are still sleeping". This network is trying to educate Arabs on the war that their country is partaking in. Many of the Arab citizens would be completely unaware of the daily events of this war if Al Jazeera did not exist. Besides just informing Arabs of the war, Al Jazeera wants to "gain grief" from the American people by showing pictures of mass dead bodies. Americans were very upset when Al Jazeera released film of American POWs, some alive, but others lying on a concrete floor dead. The grotesque footage that Al Jazeera will put on their news network, American networks would not even consider doing.
Another flaw of Al Jazeera that the American soldier speaks of is how this Arab news network shows propaganda over and over. This instills the same image into the mind of the viewers; therefore, making this particular event seem to be more important or have more meaning than others. After a bomb is dropped, the reporters find women and children to pretend they have been hurt this bomb, and then have them talk about it on camera. The views presented by the American soldier and reporters for Al Jazeera are both commendable arguments that give the audience the opportunity to take this information in, and come to their own conclusion. The bombings on Arab news outlets by America are talked about in great detail in Control Room. In one day, three separate attacks were clearly aimed at Al Jazeera, and two other network's outlets. The explanation by America for these bombings was that the networks were distributing terrorist propaganda. Arabs thought the missiles were sent because Al Jazeera would not side one hundred percent against Saddam. This example demonstrates how this film is a documentary in that it leaves the audience with only the information of the event; hence, giving the viewer the opportunity to make of it what they want. Control Room did a wonderful job is showing exactly how Al Jazeera is run, and the people that work for the network. I thought this documentary was very factual, and it left me thinking about the war and American and Arab news networks in a different way. This film seemed to be more of the truth than any of the news that I had seen prior. I would say that Control Room is a unique and informative look in Al Jazeera. It was a better way to see what this network is trying to show without actually watching their show
Control Room
willib316 May 2005
The act of war has been taking place for thousands of years. Over these years the goal has always remained the same; to win. To achieve victory one use to have to be the biggest, strongest, and most powerful. The rule has been that the country with the most fire power generally is the most successful. Now while this is still usually the case, there is a relatively new weapon that has begun to level the playing field. It is a weapon that most all countries have access to and can affect millions in minutes. It is a weapon that can moralize, enlighten, destroy, and confuse a nation. It is a weapon of the people. This powerful weapon is TV news; one of the leading tools in warfare today.
Control Room is a film that captures the role of the media and TV news in the art of modern war. The film focuses on the Al Jazeera news network, the most popular and controversial news network in the Middle East. The documentary showcases the influence and usage of propaganda, both U.S. and Arab, in the Iraqi War. The film does this by interviewing Al Jazeera reporters and staff. Interviews with U.S. soldiers also make their way into the movie. Two sides to the story are always presented, often with argument. Some of the most interesting parts of the film are when an Al Jazeera reporter and a U. S. soldier discuss propaganda aspects of the war. Both have solid arguments and valid points. Their discussions reveal the fact that propaganda is not secret and it isn't something that the media and military is in denial about. In fact the film acknowledges that much of the war is fought through the TV using propaganda.
Some of the most compelling images in the film are of the Iraqi people. Images of women and children crying, bleeding, and cursing the U.S. leave a lasting impact. Are these images real? Or were they created or misused to stir up certain emotions in the Arab world? These are the kinds of questions that Control Room has you asking. The film also examines American propaganda, such as in the event of Saddam's statue being torn down. Everyone has seen the footage of one of Saddam's giant statues being torn down by the Iraqi people and an American flag being raised. Were all those young guys just sitting around in the square at that certain moment carrying a U.S flag? Or did the U.S. army plant them there and give them an American flag to fly? Either way, what the world saw were images of the Iraqi people tearing down the statue of their leader. They were images that created a sense of victory for the United States.
It is the images of war that are so powerful, emotional, and disturbing. But it is also the images of war that we need to be leery of. People tend to think pictures and videos equal proof and it's these beliefs that the TV news stations are counting on. Control Room brings this to our attention. Straight from the mouths of the reporters and soldiers come the details and levels of the propaganda. The reasons behind certain images and footage becomes clear. Millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East watch Al Jazeera, believe in it, and trust it. The power it holds is incredible.
"They are trying to manage the news in an unmanageable situation", is one of the most captivating quotes of the movie and is spoken by a fed up Al Jazeera news reporter. This quote sums up the message of Control Room. The TV news is no longer just reporting the news, they are managing it. News no longer just happens, it is created. This is a growing concern, and one that David Perlmutter writes about in his essay entitled "Living-Room Wars". Perlmutter comments on how wars are now fought on large part by the media and on TV. The misconception that we are getting the straight and true facts when we watch the news is huge problem. Viewers hold a false perception of how informed they are. When viewers see footage of something they tend to believe that the footage they are seeing is the same as what they are being told it is. Perlmutter discusses how this isn't always the case and certain footage is often chosen to entice certain emotions. Control Room gives us a sense of how strong these emotions can be and the levels of propaganda that can accompany them. It is a movie that makes you think about modern war and how much of what you know about it is actually true.
Control Room is a film that captures the role of the media and TV news in the art of modern war. The film focuses on the Al Jazeera news network, the most popular and controversial news network in the Middle East. The documentary showcases the influence and usage of propaganda, both U.S. and Arab, in the Iraqi War. The film does this by interviewing Al Jazeera reporters and staff. Interviews with U.S. soldiers also make their way into the movie. Two sides to the story are always presented, often with argument. Some of the most interesting parts of the film are when an Al Jazeera reporter and a U. S. soldier discuss propaganda aspects of the war. Both have solid arguments and valid points. Their discussions reveal the fact that propaganda is not secret and it isn't something that the media and military is in denial about. In fact the film acknowledges that much of the war is fought through the TV using propaganda.
Some of the most compelling images in the film are of the Iraqi people. Images of women and children crying, bleeding, and cursing the U.S. leave a lasting impact. Are these images real? Or were they created or misused to stir up certain emotions in the Arab world? These are the kinds of questions that Control Room has you asking. The film also examines American propaganda, such as in the event of Saddam's statue being torn down. Everyone has seen the footage of one of Saddam's giant statues being torn down by the Iraqi people and an American flag being raised. Were all those young guys just sitting around in the square at that certain moment carrying a U.S flag? Or did the U.S. army plant them there and give them an American flag to fly? Either way, what the world saw were images of the Iraqi people tearing down the statue of their leader. They were images that created a sense of victory for the United States.
It is the images of war that are so powerful, emotional, and disturbing. But it is also the images of war that we need to be leery of. People tend to think pictures and videos equal proof and it's these beliefs that the TV news stations are counting on. Control Room brings this to our attention. Straight from the mouths of the reporters and soldiers come the details and levels of the propaganda. The reasons behind certain images and footage becomes clear. Millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East watch Al Jazeera, believe in it, and trust it. The power it holds is incredible.
"They are trying to manage the news in an unmanageable situation", is one of the most captivating quotes of the movie and is spoken by a fed up Al Jazeera news reporter. This quote sums up the message of Control Room. The TV news is no longer just reporting the news, they are managing it. News no longer just happens, it is created. This is a growing concern, and one that David Perlmutter writes about in his essay entitled "Living-Room Wars". Perlmutter comments on how wars are now fought on large part by the media and on TV. The misconception that we are getting the straight and true facts when we watch the news is huge problem. Viewers hold a false perception of how informed they are. When viewers see footage of something they tend to believe that the footage they are seeing is the same as what they are being told it is. Perlmutter discusses how this isn't always the case and certain footage is often chosen to entice certain emotions. Control Room gives us a sense of how strong these emotions can be and the levels of propaganda that can accompany them. It is a movie that makes you think about modern war and how much of what you know about it is actually true.
A New Point of View
tristie_t214 May 2005
In "Living Room Wars," author David D. Perlmutter, a senior fellow of the Reilly Center for Media and Public affairs, claims that the "pretense that we are better informed than ever in history about wars in distant lands is the big lie in the television age." We live in the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful military. However, we have no true understanding of what war really is because we have the benefit of not having to experience it. Our relationship to war is completely mediated by the major media corporations in the United States. What makes "Control Room" worth seeing is that it allows Americans to see another point of view in the Iraq War.
"Control Room" helps us to see the Iraq War from the perspective of the Al Jazeera Satellite Network, a controversial, popular Arab news network. The main point of the documentary is not to convince viewers that American intervention in Iraq is right or wrong, but instead to get people thinking about the role of the media in shaping our perception and understanding of the Iraq War and whether our opinion is justified based on correct evidence or not. It is no hidden secret that the media, if manipulated correctly, can be a powerful weapon in war. The beginning of the documentary opens with a candid shot of an Al Jazeera Network executive saying that war cannot be waged without the media and that the media should be on the top of the military agenda. Perlmutter also agrees that because of the prevalence of the television, "the military could no longer completely ignore or completely censor the press, yet they would wage war under the assumption that the battle to control the content and captioning of TV pictures was decisive as campaigns in the air, sea, and land." One of the most shocking examples of the power of the media in the documentary was when the US bombed the headquarters of Al Jazeera and another Iraqi television news networks which resulted in the death of one of an Al Jazeera reporter. After the Al Jazeera headquarters was bombed the reporters who worked for them were forced to leave wherever they were because the Iraqi people thought they were "targeted" by the US military and did not want to be put in danger by aiding an American enemy. Obviously, the US military viewed Al Jazeera as a threat or it wouldn't have bombed them in the middle of the city. A US military official said the US spends massive amounts of money to buy precision bombs so they don't make mistakes on what they're bombing. The day after the bombing took place, there were native villagers who gathered to celebrate the liberation of Baghdad. However, interviews with Al Jazeera correspondents suggest that the whole celebration was staged by the US military in order to spur American nationalism. Only the foreign press was there to cover the event because Al Jazeera was forced to leave. This is a powerful example showing how the management of the media can be used fight wars. The images that we tend to see on TV in America are, as Perlmutter says, "limited, homogeneous, and leave out much of the panorama of war." "Control Room" reinforces that idea. Seeing clips from Al Jazeera television stations left me feeling more informed about the war. In the American media, the most we see of war tend to be images of liberation or of tanks rolling across empty land. On Al Jazeera, American troops are seeing busting through people's doors, cussing, and threatening them with guns. That probably happens on a regular basis. War is brutal, but the American media censors those images out and accuses the networks who don't of showing enemy propaganda. However, this is not to say that Al Jazeera is without bias. Each channel caters to their own demographics nationalism. However, as an American, I find myself at a loss trying to understand how we can pride ourselves on spreading democracy and freedoms that come along with that (including freedom of speech), yet exercise such control not only over our own media but the media of the countries we are trying to spread that democracy to as well. The most refreshing (when I say refreshing, I don't necessarily mean pleasant) about "Control Room" is its subtly. "Control Room" engages audiences instead of repulsing them with an over the top opinionated documentary. Perlmutter says one of the dangers about the visual media is that the "words can say one thing, but the pictures could be almost anything." Part of the beauty of "Control Room" is that there is no narration and there are no fancy visual effects. The simple way the documentary was filmed made me feel as if I were right there watching all of the interviews take place. The interviews felt real instead of staged and rehearsed. The director leaves a lot of room for viewer interpretation and opinion. I didn't walk away from the film feeling like I had just been told what's right and what's wrong. Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can find something to appreciate in the film.
"Control Room" helps us to see the Iraq War from the perspective of the Al Jazeera Satellite Network, a controversial, popular Arab news network. The main point of the documentary is not to convince viewers that American intervention in Iraq is right or wrong, but instead to get people thinking about the role of the media in shaping our perception and understanding of the Iraq War and whether our opinion is justified based on correct evidence or not. It is no hidden secret that the media, if manipulated correctly, can be a powerful weapon in war. The beginning of the documentary opens with a candid shot of an Al Jazeera Network executive saying that war cannot be waged without the media and that the media should be on the top of the military agenda. Perlmutter also agrees that because of the prevalence of the television, "the military could no longer completely ignore or completely censor the press, yet they would wage war under the assumption that the battle to control the content and captioning of TV pictures was decisive as campaigns in the air, sea, and land." One of the most shocking examples of the power of the media in the documentary was when the US bombed the headquarters of Al Jazeera and another Iraqi television news networks which resulted in the death of one of an Al Jazeera reporter. After the Al Jazeera headquarters was bombed the reporters who worked for them were forced to leave wherever they were because the Iraqi people thought they were "targeted" by the US military and did not want to be put in danger by aiding an American enemy. Obviously, the US military viewed Al Jazeera as a threat or it wouldn't have bombed them in the middle of the city. A US military official said the US spends massive amounts of money to buy precision bombs so they don't make mistakes on what they're bombing. The day after the bombing took place, there were native villagers who gathered to celebrate the liberation of Baghdad. However, interviews with Al Jazeera correspondents suggest that the whole celebration was staged by the US military in order to spur American nationalism. Only the foreign press was there to cover the event because Al Jazeera was forced to leave. This is a powerful example showing how the management of the media can be used fight wars. The images that we tend to see on TV in America are, as Perlmutter says, "limited, homogeneous, and leave out much of the panorama of war." "Control Room" reinforces that idea. Seeing clips from Al Jazeera television stations left me feeling more informed about the war. In the American media, the most we see of war tend to be images of liberation or of tanks rolling across empty land. On Al Jazeera, American troops are seeing busting through people's doors, cussing, and threatening them with guns. That probably happens on a regular basis. War is brutal, but the American media censors those images out and accuses the networks who don't of showing enemy propaganda. However, this is not to say that Al Jazeera is without bias. Each channel caters to their own demographics nationalism. However, as an American, I find myself at a loss trying to understand how we can pride ourselves on spreading democracy and freedoms that come along with that (including freedom of speech), yet exercise such control not only over our own media but the media of the countries we are trying to spread that democracy to as well. The most refreshing (when I say refreshing, I don't necessarily mean pleasant) about "Control Room" is its subtly. "Control Room" engages audiences instead of repulsing them with an over the top opinionated documentary. Perlmutter says one of the dangers about the visual media is that the "words can say one thing, but the pictures could be almost anything." Part of the beauty of "Control Room" is that there is no narration and there are no fancy visual effects. The simple way the documentary was filmed made me feel as if I were right there watching all of the interviews take place. The interviews felt real instead of staged and rehearsed. The director leaves a lot of room for viewer interpretation and opinion. I didn't walk away from the film feeling like I had just been told what's right and what's wrong. Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can find something to appreciate in the film.
interesting and good movie
wellsortof7 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The first thing I did after seeing this movie was tell my girlfriend to see it too, because I wanted to talk about it. This is definitely not a perfect documentary, but it is very engrossing and worth the dialogue. Most of the comments I've read captured the essence of the movie and the plot/situations, so I'll comment on a few that I hadn't read about much in depth.
One point that should not be lost is the fact that Al-Jazeera has only been around for 8-9 years, not the 225 years that free press has been around in the U.S. One commentator in the movie made a point to say that the Arab world is still quite young and inexperienced within the structure of non-biased reporting. Someone watching this movie should keep that in mind.
Spoiler* The conversation between an Arab and European reporter was intriguing from a point of view perspective. The European was giving the Arab a short lesson on interviewing technique, and trying to make it clear that the Arab reporter needs to come into the interview as unbiased and contented as usual. The Arab, for as long as the interview lasted, was trying to make his case that he was angry, and it seemed clear wasn't ready for the disassociation needed for unbiased reporting.
As another commentator witnessed, I also saw the Daily Show interview with Hassan Ibrahim, and he mentioned that the Army Lieutenant he conversed with throughout the movie was the first one he's ever known who was willing to have a dialogue and wasn't short with Ibrahim. I have to believe the Army PR guy is in a tough position, and I certainly wouldn't want that job.
My reason for my vote of 7 and not higher is that the documentary lacked the backstory and finish I would have liked. I think it's fair to criticize the movie as being just a series of scenes in the life of Al Jazeera and lacking enough commentary and perspective. But it's definitely worth seeing and certainly worth talking about after.
One point that should not be lost is the fact that Al-Jazeera has only been around for 8-9 years, not the 225 years that free press has been around in the U.S. One commentator in the movie made a point to say that the Arab world is still quite young and inexperienced within the structure of non-biased reporting. Someone watching this movie should keep that in mind.
Spoiler* The conversation between an Arab and European reporter was intriguing from a point of view perspective. The European was giving the Arab a short lesson on interviewing technique, and trying to make it clear that the Arab reporter needs to come into the interview as unbiased and contented as usual. The Arab, for as long as the interview lasted, was trying to make his case that he was angry, and it seemed clear wasn't ready for the disassociation needed for unbiased reporting.
As another commentator witnessed, I also saw the Daily Show interview with Hassan Ibrahim, and he mentioned that the Army Lieutenant he conversed with throughout the movie was the first one he's ever known who was willing to have a dialogue and wasn't short with Ibrahim. I have to believe the Army PR guy is in a tough position, and I certainly wouldn't want that job.
My reason for my vote of 7 and not higher is that the documentary lacked the backstory and finish I would have liked. I think it's fair to criticize the movie as being just a series of scenes in the life of Al Jazeera and lacking enough commentary and perspective. But it's definitely worth seeing and certainly worth talking about after.
Decent documentary with good "focus" characters
MRavenwood2 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The "characters" followed around in this film and who are commenting on-the-fly are interesting. Overall, if you have a good understanding of American culture, which the Al Jazeera personnel do not, it is frustrating to see the continuous misunderstandings, misinterpretations, unrealistic expectations between the cultures.
Americans are completely acclimated to media coverage, whereas unfettered media is new to the Arab world. This alone colors the intent, interpretation, and basic understanding of veracity to any reported event. (If you don't want to know anything about the contents of the film at all, here is the spoiler.) In one scene, a Jazeera employee rants that the Americans claim to have captured a certain bridge, which is not possible because there is no bridge in the area. Simultaenously, (his rant continues)the Americans are claiming they are headed to that area. How, he asks, can the Americans capture a bridge in a place where they are not? His conclusion is that the Americans therefore completely lied about capturing any bridge. Several other cases are more likely: the Americans are in error about the bridge location; (or) the Jazeera employee forgot about a bridge that IS in the area; (or)they could have installed a temporary bridge themselves in order to control the area and it was reported "captured" instead of "installed"; (or) a small "forward" unit captured a bridge in an area that the main force of the Marines are, in fact, headed toward, and they intentionally misreported the city so as to not reveal their true location for tactical reasons. It is also possible that this is misinformation being supplied for a military purpose. But just to conclude, as the worker does, that Americans are randomly reporting nonsense is fairly irrational, and it's important to see this in the documentary. Worthwhile piece.
Americans are completely acclimated to media coverage, whereas unfettered media is new to the Arab world. This alone colors the intent, interpretation, and basic understanding of veracity to any reported event. (If you don't want to know anything about the contents of the film at all, here is the spoiler.) In one scene, a Jazeera employee rants that the Americans claim to have captured a certain bridge, which is not possible because there is no bridge in the area. Simultaenously, (his rant continues)the Americans are claiming they are headed to that area. How, he asks, can the Americans capture a bridge in a place where they are not? His conclusion is that the Americans therefore completely lied about capturing any bridge. Several other cases are more likely: the Americans are in error about the bridge location; (or) the Jazeera employee forgot about a bridge that IS in the area; (or)they could have installed a temporary bridge themselves in order to control the area and it was reported "captured" instead of "installed"; (or) a small "forward" unit captured a bridge in an area that the main force of the Marines are, in fact, headed toward, and they intentionally misreported the city so as to not reveal their true location for tactical reasons. It is also possible that this is misinformation being supplied for a military purpose. But just to conclude, as the worker does, that Americans are randomly reporting nonsense is fairly irrational, and it's important to see this in the documentary. Worthwhile piece.
media criticism
youngdubzgirl2 June 2005
I found myself watching this film by myself in the dark, got up half way into it and emailed every person in my family and extended family that they had to netflix this film.
I found that because it wasn't trying to be artsy, or controversial, or uncover any hidden secrets, this film truly worked magic in its "roll the cameras and lets see what happens" form of cinema.
I tried thinking of my favorite part of the film, but really, it was all amazing. Without making insinuations or suggestions, the film truly lets the viewer decide for himself what the real truth is, more so than in any Michael Moore film ever made on any subject. This film truly puts Michael Moore to shame.
Pay attention to every "character" in this film: they all have important roles on how the media and government, and in turn society, collide and interact.
I found it most amazing that any assumption or doubt I had about any of these characters were completely wrong in the end, and what you find is that they are all on the same side: the side of truth....the only problem is whose truth they believe.
I can't express clearly enough how important it is for everyone to see this film. If you saw Farenheit 9/11, you absolutely have to see this film. ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO SEE THIS FILM!!!!
I found that because it wasn't trying to be artsy, or controversial, or uncover any hidden secrets, this film truly worked magic in its "roll the cameras and lets see what happens" form of cinema.
I tried thinking of my favorite part of the film, but really, it was all amazing. Without making insinuations or suggestions, the film truly lets the viewer decide for himself what the real truth is, more so than in any Michael Moore film ever made on any subject. This film truly puts Michael Moore to shame.
Pay attention to every "character" in this film: they all have important roles on how the media and government, and in turn society, collide and interact.
I found it most amazing that any assumption or doubt I had about any of these characters were completely wrong in the end, and what you find is that they are all on the same side: the side of truth....the only problem is whose truth they believe.
I can't express clearly enough how important it is for everyone to see this film. If you saw Farenheit 9/11, you absolutely have to see this film. ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO SEE THIS FILM!!!!
See this instead of Fahrenheit 911
csymeonides12 August 2005
An absolute must-see documentary that gives an incredibly illuminating view of the Arab world. It's not just about Al-Jazeera, it's mainly about the war in Iraq and the perspectives of different people about it. The "characters" are so interesting: the US army press officer that comes to see the other point of view, the Al-Jazzera senior produce that wants to send his kids to study in America... There are so many amazing moments, of which perhaps the most important and moving is the killing of an Al-Jazeera journalist by a US bomb.
The film is balanced, gripping and excellent in terms of picture and sound editing. See it if you want to learn more about Iraq, the Arab world, the Muslim world, the war reporters and the soldiers they interact with. See it if you want to get facts and multiple perspectives, as opposed to the single perspective given by films like Fahrenheit 911.
Rating: 9/10
The film is balanced, gripping and excellent in terms of picture and sound editing. See it if you want to learn more about Iraq, the Arab world, the Muslim world, the war reporters and the soldiers they interact with. See it if you want to get facts and multiple perspectives, as opposed to the single perspective given by films like Fahrenheit 911.
Rating: 9/10
Excellent Insight into the Arab Point of View of the Iraq War
tom_oldani18 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
All too often in today's world, truth is forced to take a back seat to partisanship. To a combatant who has taken up arms in the fight of left-vs.-right and red-vs.-blue, it doesn't make much difference what's true or not. If the other side said it, it's not true, or at the very best it's either a distortion of the truth or part of some insidious scheme to appear legitimate. Truth has been reduced to a weapon in this fight, used to pick apart every statement of the opposing team, and misconstrue it to mean something that wasn't intended at all. All this partisan bickering has led to real truth going largely unnoticed, often to grievous consequences.
"Control Room" is all about the quest for truth, in this case as it pertains to the Arab news network Al-Jazeera, which is often portrayed by American politicians and news outlets as being fiercely anti-western. In truth, this reputation surrounds them mostly because they report on things that the American government would rather people not see. They've shown the US military bringing people in from elsewhere to stage pro-coalition events, interviews with Iraqis that vehemently hate the coalition, and video footage of civilian victims of American bombings. The American military even bombed an Al-Jazeera base because of this, killing a reporter, because they were defying a ban on media coverage of the war.
Although many Arab extremists hate the US without question, this film goes to great lengths to show that these are not the people Al-Jazeera caters to. What really stood out to me was a scene in which one of the reporters arranged a video interview with a correspondent in Washington. The American man was very critical of his country's government and insisted that the war was only about oil, and that the US was only trying to exploit Iraqis. As soon as the interview ended, the reporter immediately berated the man who had arranged it, insisting that this American knew nothing of his government and he had no concept of the truth of the matter.
This film is an earnest look into the minds of all involved in the Iraqi War. It paints a much broader picture than any news segment covering this subject ever could. One of their disputes with the coalition occurred on account of the Al-Jazeera coverage of Iraqi civilians that were killed and seriously injured by various US bombings. The American military has been very critical of the news network for showing this footage, claiming that it is slanted and biased against Americans. But this is about something greater than partisan bias, this is about portraying the truth.
"Control Room" is all about the quest for truth, in this case as it pertains to the Arab news network Al-Jazeera, which is often portrayed by American politicians and news outlets as being fiercely anti-western. In truth, this reputation surrounds them mostly because they report on things that the American government would rather people not see. They've shown the US military bringing people in from elsewhere to stage pro-coalition events, interviews with Iraqis that vehemently hate the coalition, and video footage of civilian victims of American bombings. The American military even bombed an Al-Jazeera base because of this, killing a reporter, because they were defying a ban on media coverage of the war.
Although many Arab extremists hate the US without question, this film goes to great lengths to show that these are not the people Al-Jazeera caters to. What really stood out to me was a scene in which one of the reporters arranged a video interview with a correspondent in Washington. The American man was very critical of his country's government and insisted that the war was only about oil, and that the US was only trying to exploit Iraqis. As soon as the interview ended, the reporter immediately berated the man who had arranged it, insisting that this American knew nothing of his government and he had no concept of the truth of the matter.
This film is an earnest look into the minds of all involved in the Iraqi War. It paints a much broader picture than any news segment covering this subject ever could. One of their disputes with the coalition occurred on account of the Al-Jazeera coverage of Iraqi civilians that were killed and seriously injured by various US bombings. The American military has been very critical of the news network for showing this footage, claiming that it is slanted and biased against Americans. But this is about something greater than partisan bias, this is about portraying the truth.
Not quite great, but thought-provoking and moving (***)
Ronin474 July 2004
Thought-provoking documentary about the way the media is covering the war in Iraq, concentrating on the work done by the Arab network Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera is continually accused of bad reporting and using anti-American propaganda, but the truth revealed in this documentary is that they are, if at all, only slightly more biased than any U.S. news organization. And that's only because they are under pressure from Arab officials and of course, because they actually live where the bombs are falling (one reporter who is interviewed in the film is killed by a U.S bombing raid that seemed almost intentionally aimed at Arab news networks).
Despite the way U.S. politicians try to portray them, the Al Jazeera staff are on the whole balanced, calm, intelligent, and many admire the U.S. (one man even plans to send his children there for school), but strongly oppose the way The Idiot (oops, I mean Bush) is handling it. And who can blame them? They're the ones with bombs falling on their heads.
The best scenes in the film are the discussions between an Al Jazeera journalist named Hassan Ibrahim and a U.S. Military Press Officer named Josh Rushing. They are on opposite sides of the war, but both men are kind and open-minded and willing to truly listen to and consider the other's points. Discourse like this, between two rational and humane people, is what we need more of.
Al Jazeera is continually accused of bad reporting and using anti-American propaganda, but the truth revealed in this documentary is that they are, if at all, only slightly more biased than any U.S. news organization. And that's only because they are under pressure from Arab officials and of course, because they actually live where the bombs are falling (one reporter who is interviewed in the film is killed by a U.S bombing raid that seemed almost intentionally aimed at Arab news networks).
Despite the way U.S. politicians try to portray them, the Al Jazeera staff are on the whole balanced, calm, intelligent, and many admire the U.S. (one man even plans to send his children there for school), but strongly oppose the way The Idiot (oops, I mean Bush) is handling it. And who can blame them? They're the ones with bombs falling on their heads.
The best scenes in the film are the discussions between an Al Jazeera journalist named Hassan Ibrahim and a U.S. Military Press Officer named Josh Rushing. They are on opposite sides of the war, but both men are kind and open-minded and willing to truly listen to and consider the other's points. Discourse like this, between two rational and humane people, is what we need more of.
Hard hitting and well-made documentary
Chris_Docker19 August 2004
Saw this documentary at the Film Festival in Edinburgh prior to its release on British TV. If you are interested in the war reporting on Iraq and Al Jezeera at all, see this movie by top director of Startup.com. Very upsetting stuff but also gets at the heart of the difficulty of 'objective' reporting (even when there is a will to be objective, which of course there isn't always).
One of the producers (who works for the Beeb) was at the EIFF screening and said how Fox and various US news channels are now issuing retractions about their bias during the war. Whilst not all the Al Jezeera reporters admit to being capable of avoiding bias, most of them and the channel's producers seem very committed to truth in reporting.
The programme also casts doubt on several 'official' U.S. stories that are no longer of major interest but were accepted as gospel at the time - a bridge they had taken on a river that has no bridges - the 'Iraqi' supporters who marched and toppled the statue of Saddam - were they brought in by the U.S. from outside? Iraqis suggest they can recognise other Iraqis and these were neither Iraqis nor had they Iraqi accents. The shooting of the Iraqi news reporter and the simultaneous 'accidental' strikes on three news services (inc Al Jezeera) shortly before this publicity coup are particularly harrowing.
One of the producers (who works for the Beeb) was at the EIFF screening and said how Fox and various US news channels are now issuing retractions about their bias during the war. Whilst not all the Al Jezeera reporters admit to being capable of avoiding bias, most of them and the channel's producers seem very committed to truth in reporting.
The programme also casts doubt on several 'official' U.S. stories that are no longer of major interest but were accepted as gospel at the time - a bridge they had taken on a river that has no bridges - the 'Iraqi' supporters who marched and toppled the statue of Saddam - were they brought in by the U.S. from outside? Iraqis suggest they can recognise other Iraqis and these were neither Iraqis nor had they Iraqi accents. The shooting of the Iraqi news reporter and the simultaneous 'accidental' strikes on three news services (inc Al Jezeera) shortly before this publicity coup are particularly harrowing.
And the point was?
daelomin24 August 2004
An overall very interesting documentary,yet it kind of lacks a clear point. Yes the US military lies through its teeth, yes they try to manage the information, yes Al Jazeera is partial, but nothing is really new.
What amazed me what Lt.Rushing's evolving conscience throughout the movie. I wish all pro-war people could have the guts to put themselves out there too and envision another point of view the way he did. I read that he got in serious trouble after this documentary. For once, a genuine military press officer: it deserves praise. Congratulations to you mister Rushing.
7/10
What amazed me what Lt.Rushing's evolving conscience throughout the movie. I wish all pro-war people could have the guts to put themselves out there too and envision another point of view the way he did. I read that he got in serious trouble after this documentary. For once, a genuine military press officer: it deserves praise. Congratulations to you mister Rushing.
7/10
Enlightening
zaphara0414 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Control Room is a remarkable documentary which examines the Arab news network al Jazeera and its depiction of the U.S. war with Iraq. It further illustrates the biases that permeate the media, which projects a skewed representation of the world to the public. Control Room is one of the first genuine attempts to show the Iraq War from an objective point of view. While U.S. media often justifies the presence of American troops in Iraq, glorifying U.S. soldiers as liberators, it becomes apparent that the Arabs perceive the United States as invaders. This film helps to shed some light on the blunders of the Bush Administration, exposing the truth about many aspects of this war that are continually filtered from American television.
The central focus of this film is to raise awareness of newscasters' blatant fabrication of information for the purpose of inducing specific reactions out of television viewers. This is well illustrated in a segment of the video where an al Jazeera employee describes how one British newscaster, in an attempt to glorify American war efforts, recorded a group of children who were chanting in Arabic about President Bush. Even though this reporter did not understand Arabic, he reported that the children were cheering for Bush, when in fact they were cursing at him. This example supports an argument made by David Perlmutter in his essay "Living Room Wars," where he analyzes the role that media plays regarding war coverage. In a portion of his essay entitled Realism, Perlmutter discusses the damaging effects of news videos. He says that the juxtaposition of images and captions often does not convey the whole truth yet, " .very few people challenge the notion that television can express falsehood" (541). The media's censorship blinds the public from the truth about the war. Most people don't think to contend the accuracy of the information that is presented to them and as a result, willingly absorb the media's propaganda.
One of the most eye-opening clips in this movie is a statement made by an Iraqi who said that American media is a leverage to induce fear in the American public. Fear is perpetuated by making Americans feel like they are under siege by the Iraq government. From an American standpoint, fear for the safety and well-being of the country justifies the Bush Administration's decision to declare war with Iraq. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of these fears are media induced and are therefore unwarranted. Several times throughout the video, Iraqis name the United States as the single greatest military threat in the world. Iraq, who admits military inferiority to the United States, has much more to fear from us than we have of them. By exposing the intent of U.S. media to instill fear into American citizens, it becomes apparent just how manipulative and hypocritical the Bush Administration truly is. There has been repeated criticism of al Jazeera for the uncensored footage of dead Iraqi civilians, stirring up anti-American sentiments and deliberately staging media to promote Arab nationalism. America accuses al Jazeera of being untruthful when U.S. media uses the exact same tactic of aiming negative sentiments at the Iraqi government to heroify the efforts of American military troops. The glorification of Americans is no new concept. James Loewen, author of "Handicapped by History" argues that the heroification of American icons, like U.S. soldiers and President Bush, stir positive sentiments in Americans and this in turn ensures a continual approval of the United States. It is distressing that we need media enhanced icons to increase our acceptance for our country. Control Room does a compelling job of illustrating the biases of war coverage. As Americans, we are sheltered from the perspectives of other countries. It is amazing how much information is butchered by the media. By the time we see the war coverage on television, it has been manipulated so much that the stories contain only a fraction of their original truthful information. By refraining from any verbal narration, the director and producer of this documentary has helped to preserve the neutrality of the film. It is interesting to see how this war is perceived on both ends of the spectrum instead of one biased account.
The central focus of this film is to raise awareness of newscasters' blatant fabrication of information for the purpose of inducing specific reactions out of television viewers. This is well illustrated in a segment of the video where an al Jazeera employee describes how one British newscaster, in an attempt to glorify American war efforts, recorded a group of children who were chanting in Arabic about President Bush. Even though this reporter did not understand Arabic, he reported that the children were cheering for Bush, when in fact they were cursing at him. This example supports an argument made by David Perlmutter in his essay "Living Room Wars," where he analyzes the role that media plays regarding war coverage. In a portion of his essay entitled Realism, Perlmutter discusses the damaging effects of news videos. He says that the juxtaposition of images and captions often does not convey the whole truth yet, " .very few people challenge the notion that television can express falsehood" (541). The media's censorship blinds the public from the truth about the war. Most people don't think to contend the accuracy of the information that is presented to them and as a result, willingly absorb the media's propaganda.
One of the most eye-opening clips in this movie is a statement made by an Iraqi who said that American media is a leverage to induce fear in the American public. Fear is perpetuated by making Americans feel like they are under siege by the Iraq government. From an American standpoint, fear for the safety and well-being of the country justifies the Bush Administration's decision to declare war with Iraq. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of these fears are media induced and are therefore unwarranted. Several times throughout the video, Iraqis name the United States as the single greatest military threat in the world. Iraq, who admits military inferiority to the United States, has much more to fear from us than we have of them. By exposing the intent of U.S. media to instill fear into American citizens, it becomes apparent just how manipulative and hypocritical the Bush Administration truly is. There has been repeated criticism of al Jazeera for the uncensored footage of dead Iraqi civilians, stirring up anti-American sentiments and deliberately staging media to promote Arab nationalism. America accuses al Jazeera of being untruthful when U.S. media uses the exact same tactic of aiming negative sentiments at the Iraqi government to heroify the efforts of American military troops. The glorification of Americans is no new concept. James Loewen, author of "Handicapped by History" argues that the heroification of American icons, like U.S. soldiers and President Bush, stir positive sentiments in Americans and this in turn ensures a continual approval of the United States. It is distressing that we need media enhanced icons to increase our acceptance for our country. Control Room does a compelling job of illustrating the biases of war coverage. As Americans, we are sheltered from the perspectives of other countries. It is amazing how much information is butchered by the media. By the time we see the war coverage on television, it has been manipulated so much that the stories contain only a fraction of their original truthful information. By refraining from any verbal narration, the director and producer of this documentary has helped to preserve the neutrality of the film. It is interesting to see how this war is perceived on both ends of the spectrum instead of one biased account.
A good Documentary
dhaufrect-115 February 2005
Noujaim has produced an interesting documentary of the Saudi television entity, Al Jazeera. It is well done and a good review of the initial stages of the war in Iraq from an Arabic point of view. There are reporters from the satellite station who give their own viewpoints. There are soldiers from our country who are moved by the other side's reporting. There is an innate conflict of interest and understanding that pervades the film. The nascent satellite station is better understood after viewing the documentary. It is worth the effort to see the DVD. There are no actors but good editing of this film. It is not a sparking cinema, but it is an educational one. I give it a 7 out of 10 rating.
A brilliant documentary for our times
turkam13 October 2004
Our local art house showed this film over "Going Upriver," a documentary about John Kerry's service in Vietnam in what became a local controversy. As a political liberal, I was somewhat disappointed that occurred, in spite of my own reservativions with Kerry, since that film was not made by as a blanket endorsement or funded by the Kerry cmapaign. But, as a Turkish-American, I could not be more delighted that this film was its' replacement. Directed by an Egyptian-American, this is a revealing film which shows both how the Arab world saw the invasion of Iraq- some thing no one will see on Fox News- and, the restraints that all journalists had to follow while covering it. I think another telling aspect of the film was that it showed an army personnel who had to give our government's take for media in the Arab world as being someone with genuine concerns for the Arab people and not just a mere 'yes-man' which is sadly not indicative of most people in his awkward disposition. I think anyone who sees this film will better understand why people in Istanbul, Cairo, Damascus, Tunis and other parts of the Muslim and Arab world did not trust George W. Bush's intentions for war and why this war will become a greater source of controversy in the region as its' close becomes even more remote and distant. I felt that many Americans celebrated 'victory' way too early, and this film presents yet another reason why we still have a long, long road ahead of us.
control room
mesaj15 May 2005
When watching the news a person will get only what the media wants to give out. The media wants the people of their country to have pride and to do this the media will only show certain events that would make a person feel great about their country. But not every media network feels that way about leaving facts out about the news.
Control Room shows the Al Jazeera news and how they want to show the both sides of the U.S., Arabs war. The U.S. on the other hand only wants to show their side of the war and only their's. Al Jazeera really wants to show the world what is happening in this war no matter how upsetting it could be. Al Jazeera believe that the people have the right to know what is going in their world not just some pieces of a story that the U.S. calls news.
The movie portrayed the was not as entertainment but facts that a person should know. "Control Room" shows this through Al Jazeera. But in reality "Control Room" can not seem to be equal on both sides. "Control Room" leans more on the Arab side and seem to discard the U.S. The U.S. only shows one side of the war which I know is wrong but to some extent can not help it. The U.S. is not fighting on their own soil which can be hard to get coverage of the war. The U.S. in fact has never fought on their own soil so the Americans have never been on that side and have know idea what citizens feel or how it affects their country. So the media does not think that they should show that side of the coverage. Also an American news reporter would have a harder time trying to interview and Iraqi than and Iraqi interviewing an American. The fact is just that Iraqi's feel more upset about the war which they have the right too because it is affecting them more. "Control Room" tends to leave that part out. "Control Room" tries so hard to show Al Jaeezar and how they try to portray both sides of the war. But gives no credit at all to the U.S. media. The U.S. media is mention but not in a positive way and that is not the whole facts. Maybe the U.S. media does not know better or believes that they are giving the whole truth of the war. The fact that "Control Room" did not mention that makes me feel like they are not showing both sides fairly and is leaning towards Al Jaeezar. And the "Control Room" should lean more to that side because it is the right way to give news but the fact that "Control Room" does not acknowledge the U.S. American media makes it seem wrong for "Control Room" to complain about the U.S. media when "Control Room" just did the same thing. "Control Room needs to realize that the U.S. media will always be different because the U.S. never had experience what other countries have faced in the war. So then of course the media will be different because that is all they know.
"Control Room did make really good points about the media. It shows how the media wants to just entertain an audience rather than give the facts of the topic. Sandra Silbertein author of "From News To Entertainment" stated that media is really entertain the public rather than informing them of the news worthy events. How the media of the 911 would only take the drama part to make people be more entertain and want people to keep watching the news. "Control Room: portrays this one hundred percent. "Control Room" wanted to inform the people of the truth of how media is different in other countries and that showing the whole truth of a story especially the war is better than just parts of the news to make their country sound great.
Control Room shows the Al Jazeera news and how they want to show the both sides of the U.S., Arabs war. The U.S. on the other hand only wants to show their side of the war and only their's. Al Jazeera really wants to show the world what is happening in this war no matter how upsetting it could be. Al Jazeera believe that the people have the right to know what is going in their world not just some pieces of a story that the U.S. calls news.
The movie portrayed the was not as entertainment but facts that a person should know. "Control Room" shows this through Al Jazeera. But in reality "Control Room" can not seem to be equal on both sides. "Control Room" leans more on the Arab side and seem to discard the U.S. The U.S. only shows one side of the war which I know is wrong but to some extent can not help it. The U.S. is not fighting on their own soil which can be hard to get coverage of the war. The U.S. in fact has never fought on their own soil so the Americans have never been on that side and have know idea what citizens feel or how it affects their country. So the media does not think that they should show that side of the coverage. Also an American news reporter would have a harder time trying to interview and Iraqi than and Iraqi interviewing an American. The fact is just that Iraqi's feel more upset about the war which they have the right too because it is affecting them more. "Control Room" tends to leave that part out. "Control Room" tries so hard to show Al Jaeezar and how they try to portray both sides of the war. But gives no credit at all to the U.S. media. The U.S. media is mention but not in a positive way and that is not the whole facts. Maybe the U.S. media does not know better or believes that they are giving the whole truth of the war. The fact that "Control Room" did not mention that makes me feel like they are not showing both sides fairly and is leaning towards Al Jaeezar. And the "Control Room" should lean more to that side because it is the right way to give news but the fact that "Control Room" does not acknowledge the U.S. American media makes it seem wrong for "Control Room" to complain about the U.S. media when "Control Room" just did the same thing. "Control Room needs to realize that the U.S. media will always be different because the U.S. never had experience what other countries have faced in the war. So then of course the media will be different because that is all they know.
"Control Room did make really good points about the media. It shows how the media wants to just entertain an audience rather than give the facts of the topic. Sandra Silbertein author of "From News To Entertainment" stated that media is really entertain the public rather than informing them of the news worthy events. How the media of the 911 would only take the drama part to make people be more entertain and want people to keep watching the news. "Control Room: portrays this one hundred percent. "Control Room" wanted to inform the people of the truth of how media is different in other countries and that showing the whole truth of a story especially the war is better than just parts of the news to make their country sound great.
one throw-away line reveals the Al Jazeera bias
jcrowley-17 November 2004
The Iraqi journalist Ibrahim speaking to Army PR rep Josh Rushing reveals his true self by saying, apropos of nothing, "my wife was raised in Jerusalem and speaks perfect Hebrew." This moment is almost at the end of the 85 minute movie.
Watching this movie, it never occurred to me that Rushing was Jewish; there is nothing in his appearance to indicate that. Maybe his first name? But the Arab journalist reveals that all he sees when he looks at, and speaks to, this earnest military journalist liaison is a Jew.
This moment undermines an otherwise neutral portrayal of Al Jazeera. For an American media story on Al Jazeera's inaccuracies, check out:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-04-18-media-mix_x.htm
Watching this movie, it never occurred to me that Rushing was Jewish; there is nothing in his appearance to indicate that. Maybe his first name? But the Arab journalist reveals that all he sees when he looks at, and speaks to, this earnest military journalist liaison is a Jew.
This moment undermines an otherwise neutral portrayal of Al Jazeera. For an American media story on Al Jazeera's inaccuracies, check out:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-04-18-media-mix_x.htm
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
