Last week the Iraqis decided to kick Al-Jazeera TV reporters out of Baghdad; later they decided to let the reporters stay. Kuwait banned Al-Arabiya reporters from working there because their reporters are “biased” against the official Kuwaiti stand. Al-Jazeera English website is repeatedly hacked, and their correspondent in New York Stock Exchange had his press credentials revoked.

A news release reported that Phil Donahue’s talk show was canceled because, according to a memo leaked to ALL YOUR TV website: “He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war.” The Yellowtimes.org website was terminated by its Web hosting company for the same reason — that it was an outlet for anti-war sentiments.

Then there is the case of Peter Arnett who was fired because, according to NBC, “It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV — especially in a time of war — and it was wrong of him to present his personal observations and opinions in that interview.” Arnett said in the now-famous interview that the US/UK had underestimated the determination of Iraqi forces, and that there was “a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war.” Arnett then was employed by an Belgian TV station and he now reports as a war correspondent for Al-Arabiya. One just hopes that he doesn’t lose his contract with either of them because of another “opinion” that networks consider improper!

Readers’ e-mails to Arab News show different views of the war coverage. One striking thing in them is that a considerable number of Americans believe that what the Arab media reports is basically lies; on the other side, another group thinks that the Western side is biased and a third group seems to think that whatever is missing from one side can be taken from the other to form a picture.

That makes us wonder of how much truth is out there. How much of what is available represents the truth or even comes close to it. In Iraq reporters have to work under the eye of an Iraqi censor; embedded reporters work under the eye of a military censor and if one of them seems to venture some news that is not exactly what the military wants, they are accused of undermining the safety of the troops. UK Home Secretary David Blunkett attacked embedded reporters who, he seems to think, work behind enemy lines: “... we have broadcast media behind what I would describe as enemy lines, reporting blow-by-blow what is happening. We have it reported certainly in our own media in the United Kingdom on occasions as though they were moral equivalents. Those of a progressive, or liberal bent, in my view, are egged into believing that this is the right way to get to the facts.” Blunkett also questioned the credibility of Al-Jazeera reports: “It’s hard to get the facts if the reporters of Al-Jazeera are actually linked to, and are only there because they are provided facilities and support by, the regime.”

That sort of logic basically means that people should listen only to what their governments say as the truth. Ironically it is the only premise that is shared by both Third World and Western countries.