I was disappointed, but not terribly surprised, to read about Robert Fisk being barred from entering the US. After all, the man does not have very flattering things to say about "Western"/ US foreign policy -- especially as it is applied in the Middle East (as these articles illustrate)
I admit that I read this news with the pre-formed opinion that it would be typical of immigration officials to blacklist anybody who had non-government-approved views on a situation like, say, the war in Iraq. The official story, of course, is that Fisk didn't "have his papers in order". And while I am still not convinced that his bold and controversial opinions had nothing to do with him being refused entry -- I am inclined to believe they probably did -- I don't think there's enough evidence to support that assumption. So, while some bloggers and writers like Doug Ireland have indicated that they suspect it had to do with Fisk's political opinions, we can't be sure until the all-important question is answered:
Were his papers in order?
(On a side note, I wonder why this didn't generate any interest in the mainstream media? Not newsworthy enough, perhaps?)
willemmarx @ September 26, 2005 - 5:25pm
First of all, let me just confess: Robert Fisk is one of the very few journalists anywhere in the world whom I really really admire. He has the clout in the UK to make front page news with his stories, in a paper which does not affiliate itself with a political party, and seems to judge things purely on merit. Nobody I know would deny the credibility of the Independent, nor of Robert Fisk.
His stories (and I would heartily recommend that everybody in the class take the time to read at least 3 or 4 of them) from Iraq manage to get under the skin of the endless US and UK military soundbites.
He reports from the more dangerous parts of the country, does not agree with the concept of embedding, and speaks pretty decent Arabic to boot.
Yes, his pieces are very opinionated, but he represents a considered, and well-evidenced point of view which is diametrically opposed to much of what one reads in the mainstream press of the US and UK: he prefers to question, to probe, rather than just to report.
Whether or not this is the reason for his being barred from the US, I do not think we can be certain, unless INS officials were interrogated on the rack, just as may be happening to Iraqis caught operating against the US military....
Nevertheless, it seems a massive coincidence for a man who has been persistently critical of the US and UK governments' foreign policies in the Middle East to be prevented from entering the US. Didn't something similary happen to Cat Stevens? See the following UK Guardian article for details, as I don't think this was so widely covered in the US.
What also seems strange is that the link posted by Rhea seems to have been removed from the Free Mexican's website and server. Government controlling the media here in the US? Let's hope not.
»