Adel, the rock star of the three, with his big black shades, spiky hair, and goatee, looks at the camera and describes how his date went last night. “The vast majority of girls will not allow you to get where you want,” he says coyly. We hear you, brother. But then he stops, considering the girl and the evening, and says, “It’s not cool when you’re on a date and explosions happen.” Then we cut to Saif, the stoner, usually in a wife-beater and clutching a hookah, just about to talk about what premarital sex is like, when a helicopter swoops down low and drowns out all sound. “American choppers make such a noise…” he yells and sits back in his lawn chair, smiling.
Where are we? Well, Baghdad it seems. But this is Baghdad thrown into an MTV blender and served in a glass with a cocktail umbrella.
The Los Angeles Times reported today on a new Internet sensation, “Hometown Baghdad,” a series made up of two-minute segments that chronicle the lives of three young men (Ausama, Saif, and Adel) trying to live normal lives in Iraq - the producers intended to include a woman but the logistics were too difficult. Filmed by Iraqis in what we imagine to be very dangerous circumstances, and then edited in New York, the short films are a remarkably complex look at life in Baghdad. There is a certain kind of unexpected normalcy to the three men’s lives. They have dinner with their families, hang out with friends, date. But there is always the constant reminder that they are living in a war zone, or, as Saif describes it, “hell.”
The one caveat before getting sucked into these compelling segments is that Ausama, Saif, and Adel represent a very particular slice of Iraqi society - the upper middle class. Incidentally, it’s this very population that is leaving the country in droves (as a recent New York Times Magazine article describes it) and the three young men spend a lot of time talking about how most of their friends and family are now in Syria and Jordan. They are, to borrow the Los Angeles Times descriptions, “hip, English-speaking stars [that] provide a largely upper-middle-class viewpoint in sync with most Western viewers. They are Muslim, but none is particularly devout. They’re not among the anti-American militants, and none will ever be forced to take risky jobs with the Iraqi police or army, unlike their less fortunate and less educated peers.”
The company that produces the show, Chat the Planet, says it choose these Western-friendly characters because the series is designed for American and European viewers. It’s intended to humanize the conflict and show the real individuals that are at its center. Unfortunately, it seems Chat the Planet had to turn to the Internet to gain viewers for these stories because the television networks it initially approached turned it down, claiming that the idea for the show was too depressing and that Americans were anyway far too saturated with news from Iraq.
Thankfully the Internet, and YouTube in particular, has provided a democratic space where such an experiment can be tested and reach a wide audience. This is precisely the type of material that could cut through the numbness that has set it when in it comes to news from Iraq. And, clearly, the series is hitting a nerve. Now, with millions of viewers online, those same dismissive television executives are beating down the doors of the creators of “Hometown Baghdad” to get a piece of it. Figures.

Is there any particular reason why my previous comment was deleted?...
HUH?...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 11:08 AM
Full Legal Disclaimer
By using the comments feature on CJR Daily or otherwise using this site, you agree that you will not post or otherwise distribute any content that is offensive, obscene, defamatory, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, or deceptive.
CJR Daily generally does not pre-screen, monitor, or edit the content posted by users, but it reserves the right at its sole discretion to remove (and to discard) or to not post any content that, in CJR Daily's judgment, does not comply with the foregoing or is otherwise objectionable.
Posted by pmcleary on Wed 16 May 2007 at 12:06 PM
Paul McLeary Justifies Censoring Padikillers Comments
By using the comments feature on CJR Daily or otherwise using this site, you agree that you will not post or otherwise distribute any content that is offensive, obscene, defamatory, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, or deceptive.
padikiller responds
Let's see...
In the two comments I posted that were deleted by the CJR censors...
I didn't post anything obscene or defamatory... I didn't harass anyone.... I didn't post anything deceptive... I didn't break any laws... I didn't threaten or abuse anyone....
All I did was point out the truth...
I suppose the only thing left is "offensive"- I guess reading the truth is offensive to you "watchdogs"
This is a SAD day in the history of "professional journalism"
You hacks have put yourselves in the same category as McCarthy and Stalin...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 12:34 PM
Let's try this again...
1. Mr. Beckerman makes the RIDICULOUS claim that YouTube is a "democratic" forum... This is just nonsense..
YouTube is a privately owned company with a highly restrictive Terms of Service that has a LONG history of censoring posts (like CJR is doing here)
2. Mr. Beckerman has DELIBERATELY deceived his readers by denying them context...
He wrote:
"We have to think that the ban on these sites has less to do with bandwidth and more with trying to control what kind of information comes out of the battlefield. Especially since it comes only one month after the Army outlawed military blogs, participation in online discussion groups, or even sending a personal e-mail unless first cleared by a superior officer."
In FACT... The Washington Post article states:
"The Defense Department Web site policy comes one month after the Army issued a regulation barring soldiers from posting entries on blogs, participating in online discussion groups or sending personal e-mail unless the content is cleared by an superior officer. Within days of Wired magazine reporting that regulation, the Army issued a fact sheet clarifying that soldiers' postings would not be subjected to review."
3. The military is NOT "banning" soldiers from using YouTube or MySpace.. The military is simply preventing the soldiers from using military networks for fooling around on high-bandwith, social networking websites..
As the policy makes CLEAR, soldiers are free to visit these sites on PRIVATE networks..
4. Mr. Beckerman has NO basis for his "need" to "believe' that some nefarious motive underlies the new policy...
We all need the truth, and it is more than a little ironic that CJR has chosen an article bemoaning a perceived censorship, to censor criticism of CJR!.
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 12:55 PM
PADIKILLER DERAILS
After seeing many of your rants, I would attest that you regularly veer into "abusive, harassing, or deceptive" territory. Since the definition of these behaviors is subjective and Paul McLeary has regularly ignored you, my guess would be that you went off the rails today when you attacked Beckerman for grievances against Mr. McLeary as you did in your original post.
I guess he's willing to put up with your jihad on him but objected to your tranferring the abuse to a colleague which is understandable.
Posted by not the senator on Wed 16 May 2007 at 04:24 PM
As padkiller states:
As the policy makes CLEAR, soldiers are free to visit these sites on PRIVATE networks..
He is exactly correct on this. The military is not allowing its soldiers to use its own network to post and they can post on private networks. I do not refute this in the least. However, I do have one small question.
How does a soldier on the field in Iraq go about using a "private" network? To the best of my knowledge, short of asking civilians to use theirs or buying their own while they're in Iraq they have no other means of posting except through the military network until they get home. Now either of the two alternatives are feasible but unlikely to work very well for military personnel.
This is the important part to Beckman's piece here that needs to be investigated and will lend credence to his claims.
Posted by buckyhomes on Wed 16 May 2007 at 05:00 PM
my guess would be... ...I guess he's...
padikiller responds
Your speculation is not only worthless... But also incorrect...
There was nothing in my deleted posts that CJR censored that isn't in the one that (for the time being, at least) is still there.. I guess maybe the CJR hacks have figured out that censorship isn't exactly the best policy...
Gal Beckerman not only ripped off the WaPo article nearly word for word (if you check, you will see that he altered the text slightly in order to suit his agenda) but he ALSO omitted a crucial sentence in the article that shoots down his silly claim that the military "outlawed" blog posting or emails...
Not The Senator Wrote
After seeing many of your rants, I would attest that you regularly veer into "abusive, harassing, or deceptive" territory
padikiller responds
Like HELL I do...
I have never harassed or abused anyone here, even in the midst of heated debate...
For every instance of insult or name-calling you can point to from me... I'll be able to provide worse examples from uncensored liberals...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 06:07 PM
Bucky Wrote
How does a soldier on the field in Iraq go about using a "private" network?
padikiller responds
By paying for it...
Like everyone else...
FROM ONE OF THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IN IRAQ...
http://www.satellite-provider.pl/LSA%20Anaconda%20%5BBalad%20AB%5D,%20Iraq/vsat.html
Internet service in LSA Anaconda [Balad AB], Iraq
Satellite Internet services are used in locations where terrestrial Internet is not available. Our satellite products NSS6 satellite (LinkStar), Intelsat 10-02 (iDirect) and personal rBGAN are available also in area of LSA Anaconda [Balad AB], Iraq [US Army Base]. This broadband service offer two-way high-speed internet access with no phone lines, no cable, no dial-up modem. It's always on, available virtually anywhere, and affordable. Your computer or Wi-Fi network can receive internet signal, through a special satellite modem which was usually set up in a building or tent when deployed.
Balad/ LSA Anaconda - delivery to CRSP, SSA, or individual units. TMO, RMY, UAV, MANTECH, WARLOCK, KBR, CJSOFT, CROWS, STRYKER, DYNCORP, AOA, INTL DIMENSION, BIG BOB'S, TOBYHANNA, CECOM, IAP.
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 06:13 PM
What is that you people can't understand?...
A policy forbidding "social networking" on the job using the military's network is NOT a Rovian conspiracy...
YouTUBE is NOT a "democratic" forum...
And the military did NOT "outlaw" bloggers...
PERIOD...
As an aide...
I'd like to know why the "logisitics" didn't allow a woman to participate in the reality show..
Mr. Beckerman kind of glossed right on over this little tidbit of reality..
What is "logistically" harder about filming a woman than three guys?...
I suspect that the "logistical" problems encountered had nothing to do with "logistics" at all, but instead had EVERYTHING to do with a backwards, middle-age, misogynist attitude that got in the way of plans...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 May 2007 at 06:20 PM