Finally
An article on Yemen in a major US paper. Either Tony Blankley got sick of me pestering him or the news department figured it out on their own, but either way its spot on.
6 Comments »
1
Comment by Rezwan
4/1/2005 @ 4:07 am
But it doesn’t say about the blogger’s efforts in advocating his release (specifically your petition).
Nevertheless something is better than nothing. What about your articles in WSJ on Bangladesh & Yemen? Aren’t they gonna publish?
Comment by Jane
4/1/2005 @ 5:57 am
Rezwan, I don’t even think it says anything about his release. You know why? I didn’t tell them. I don’t try for the US market to much, so the only thing I sent around here for the last few months is about Yemen. The last article I wrote two weeks ago was so very harsh that it probably set Blankley’s desk on fire. He didn’t publish it but I know he read it because the editor tells me when she gives it to him to review. There’s also a few other errors. But this is the right paper-they call it Bush’s paper. Its the one that agrees with him and the Republicans. So its good the article is there. It might wake up the right people.
About the Bangladesh article, the Wall Strret Journal hated it. Why? Not enough about the jihadiis. Too much about the causes of extremism and solutions and the fine people of Bangladesh. I think they wanted like a trash-em piece. The media here sucks. It probably was poorly written, but they even specifically hated the conclusion, which you helped me with and lists the things that need to be done to assist the 140 million people in Bangladesh have a thriving state. So I’m pissed. Not really so much for me or you but for the Bangladeshis who really deserve to have their whole story told, not just this Bangla Bhai character. Its like what they did with binLaden. So I’m going to fix the article a little more and send it to some other big US papers. If that doesn’t work, theres the medium outlets that should take it. Sorry I didn’t email you with this but I was hoping to have it published somewhere else before I told you what total idiots they are. Jihadiis, Jihadiis, Jihadiis: that’s what sells. Its important, but the context is equally if not more important. I’ll send it around and hopefully I’ll have better news for you soon.
Comment by Jane
4/1/2005 @ 6:22 am
I just checked the Washington Times article. It doesn’t mention the amnesty at all and it was published March 30, a week after al-Khaiwani got released. pfff
Comment by Rezwan
4/2/2005 @ 2:08 am
Thanks Jane. It shows that you are humane and considerate as I believe many in the US are. You truely reflect the US which advocates human rights and try to be a partner in developing the underdevloped. If there were less people like Blankley, the growing hatred against the US in the world would never be there.
If people could diminish the hatred, Bin Laden et al. could never brain-wash people to use them in atrocities against US.
We don’t need blockbuster news items but news which is close to reality and not creating a wrong perception.
Comment by Jane
4/3/2005 @ 9:45 am
Well Rezwan thank you. Its only because of you that I understand Bangladesh at all.
Also I think I wasn’t clear when I was writing about the papers. Tony Blankly is really a great editor but he just wouldn’t publish anything I wrote about Yemen in the Washington Times. The Wall
Street Jounal is a different paper with a different editor and they’re the ones that rejected the Bangladesh article twice for lack of jihaddis. Sorry, I’m nearly incoherent when I’m mad.
Comment by Brodie
4/5/2005 @ 3:40 pm
It just makes you sit back and smile. Screw Blankly, he’s still living in the past. You did it, Jane!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
