I'm curious why Al Jazeera has such a negative reputation in the US. Is their Arabic-language reporting different? I don't regularly follow them, but their English-language reporting seems to be professional and not greatly slanted whenever I've run across it. It's actually less obviously partisan, from what I can tell, than a lot of typical Western news sources (think MSNBC v. Fox News), even well-respected ones (think Libération versus Le Figaro), possibly due to their attempt to appeal to a fairly broad pan-Arab-world audience.
When America was invading Iraq in 2003, al-Jazeera was called out by Bush and Rumsfeld as the network of terrorist propaganda. This was partially because it was the network of choice for Osama bin Laden to release his taped announcements, but also because they tended to report from a point of view that wasn't in line with American wishes.
If you are interested in this topic check out The Control Room, a 2003 documentary about al-Jazeera and the Western media in the runup to war. The best part is when they're all holed up together in a military briefing center in the middle of nowhere; tension is high and all the differing agendas are laid bare.
Systemic bias, plus negative media during the Bush period (i.e. Iraq war).
I think receiving the Bin Laden tapes was probably what ruined their US reputation (which is ironic; seeing as getting those tapes is what any good, objective, media agency in that region should have been doing! :D)
Al Jazeera is one of the best news sources I know of - they report on a region fraught with extreme opinions, differing cultures and a lot of nastiness (both from within and without). And manage to do it well/consistently.
That is my impression of English Al Jazeera anyway, have no experience of the Arabic arm (and I feel it would be silly to automatically assume they are the same :)).
Interestingly I find them a good source on Western stories too; when writing Wikipedia articles I will often use Al Jazeera both as a source & to cut down into the meat of the story - they tend to have a "back to basics" style of journalism.
EDIT: BTW, over the Egypt issue I have been enjoying their coverage; a lot less flag waving than the Western media. They just had an interesting report about the problems of looting and thugs inciting violence in the crowds.
In a sermon, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 9, 2009 [...] "Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. [...] Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."
Edit: I realize that racist hate mongering and asking ghod for genocide is removed in the English versions... But can any sane person claim that those showing such content on TV is "one of the best news sources"?
You have a point; but that is more editorial (well, live "opinion") than the news side. I don't think such an incident is representative of a general trend at Al Jazeera.
But the media all over the world has problems with anti-Semitism; just because they don't advocate death does not make it any better :)
See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it (which appears to be; they were airing a sermon from a slightly more hard line cleric, and he made extreme comments. Turning that into not having moral problems accepting... etc. is something of a leap.
And I don't think you could prove/show this is systemic problem at the channel. (We occasionally have racist/nasty comments made on UK media, and lots of fuss about it, that doesn't make the channel racist!)
You should always generally distrust your media source as a matter of course.
I'm not going to argue this with you because it looks like you have an axe to grind, and this really isn't the place. But put AJ next to a lot of US media and I find them more neutral and informative :) Anti-Semitism is a huge problem in a wide portion of media (as I mentioned), it is one of the problems that means we have to take what they say with caution in some matters, but from my observation (and barring a few slips) AJ has a better track record than, says, FOX.
> I should also note that you lack references for your claim?
In case it is not obvious... this is my opinion... sheesh. :)
>>you have one incident ... And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it
First, do you have a reference to that claim, then?
Second, it took me five seconds to find this: "Former Inmate: Guantanamo Jews Used Witchcraft on Prisoners, Made Me Feel a Cat Was Trying to Penetrate Me"
Or is that just normal Al Jazeera news -- which you claim is one of the best...?
Or was that also sent directly without the standard five seconds safety to be able to cut off? :-)
Edit: It is problematic with tv, since you can't just check the original language versions by translate.google.com. It do seem to be easy to find lots of weird stuff covered by non-English Al J. Which I think I'll base an opinion on. I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility.
Ahem, If we are talking about bias then MEMRI is possibly the worst source you could have used :)
> I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility.
This is unfair, and bad rhetoric. The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility. So we are entirely on the same page.
You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :)
(also; as noted above - I have no opinion on the Arabic channel, never watched/read it and my Arabic is pretty rusty. They could be different)
>>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility.
AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
Then, the tv program is on the memri web site. There should be at least a million people in your Britain which understands it. Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...?
And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources.
>>You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :)
Disclosure:
I almost trust NY Times, as long as none of their big advertisers etc are involved. They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations. I read my local (Swedish) media carefully too, but mainly for the laughs in comparing content to NYT/BBC.
> AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
Umm, yes, my using English AJ as a news source. I think I would have noticed if they regularly advocated (note - a distinction from broadcasting) extremist views. :)
You, on the other hand, have noted that you have no first hand knowledge of AJ or their reporting. But have taken content from a website that exists to track down examples of anti-Semitic material to inform your view of them...
> Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...?
No, more bad rhetoric. You know I am not claiming that. I am explaining that they hunt down these clips, often presenting them out of context, with the agenda of exposing news agencies as anti-Semitic.
Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ.
> They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations
I'm mildly unconvinced that airing scandal is a good marker for neutrality & credibility :)
The BBC are pretty good - probably the best "simple" news source, although it has its biases (most notably it is often anti EU). NYT I am always divided over, but generally pretty good. They make up my four "preferred & relatively trustworthy" news sources along with AJ and the Financial Times. There is probably a slight liberal bias in my choice of news consumption, but I have yet to find a conservative media source that I am comfortable with.
BUT; you could pick up lots of examples of problems.. the BBC, for example, tends to be very "white middle class Christian" centric (and sometimes, ultra-politically-correct). They also, recently, broadcast some BNP interviews which had pretty nasty/racist comments in them - basically the same sort of lines as the first incident you pointed to with AJ.
We picks our source and then take them with a grain of salt. The point is not to find you a "source" to prove Al Jazeera's credibility to you, the point is I am giving you my opinion as a cynic and AJ watcher that I find them to be a relatively neutral and balanced news source. If you have respect for my opinions you might take that as an endorsement, or otherwise you might not :) I don't mind.
The points you have raised do concern me; enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source, at least in the near future. I'm afraid it is not enough to convince me they are anti-Semitic and completely non-neutral/compromised.
> AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
To recap that thread in the discussion:
a. You claim AJ is a good news site.
b. I point out that they have racist content in non-English editions; suspect agenda.
c. You make claims about the racist content.
d. I ask multiple times for references to that claim.
e. Finally, you base that upon the English content?!?!
It seems you just made up a fantasy about that original sermon?
After that you claim I do bad rhetoric?!?! WTF?!
Either you're drunk or trolling.
>>Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ.
WTF?!
I made that point in what you commented on, against you...
I wrote: "And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources."
The rest of the comment looked like a total change of subject, I'm not going to read it. But I saw this ending:
>>enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source
Again: (a) There might be be double messages to different languages/audiences and (b) Even if not, no one has a clue to the agenda/spin of Al J.
I don't know if the web site is the same company? Try reading it with translate.google.com, then.
These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.)
I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still:
I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.)
How the Hell can that be voted up like that?
I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
Sorry for the meta-discussion, I only want to help berntb understand.
> I argue against someone that made claims
No you don't, because ErrantX only stated his opinion.
In this thread, ErrantX has shown that he has watched, and is watching, several different news channels. From that experience he has formed the opinion that English Al-Jazeera is one of the best news channels around.
You on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera, and you are dismissing them outright. That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity, and that is why you are being downvoted.
> I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, and since a majority of HN readers disagree with you, that they also are stupid. Really?
Go back up, here is his first comment to the racist sermon asking for genocide:
>>See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it
That was a claim of facts.
But he obviously has never seen any explanation for it. And had no idea if it was one or more incidents (it took me seconds to find another -- I have no idea how common it really is for Al J in Arabic).
>>on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera
I know enough that no one really knows their agenda. (Well, except that they don't criticize the country they are sited in.)
Edit: I might also add that ErrantX acknowledged that point.
>>Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid
How do you get that from "intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected"? (Edit: If you really don't get it, I'm writing the opposite.)
I have been voted -30 or -40 here. That doesn't happen on HN if you are just wrong, which happens to everyone.
In case it is not clear, that was my opinion. I appreciate that using "definitely" might have confused the issue - but I was only trying to imply the strength of my opinion (rather than as fact).
And also; as I keep saying - I have no opinion on the Arabic version, it is my understanding the two are very separate channels.
All my comments refer to English AJ, period.
I think you really have no experience of AJ - either English or AJ, and possibly (though I hate to suggest this, and apologise if it is not the case) little knowledge of the region. And you've come to this conversation assuming a) I am the same and b) I am misguided. It would have been nice to have a proper discussion (indeed you have raised points I will be looking into for myself)
Bottom line is; the middle east is a passion of mine (hence, rusty Arabic :)). And AJ, I find them a great general news source; their agenda is the same as any news agency (or, rather, they have slight agenda's and bias like all news agencies). But on comparison it is my opinion that AJ are better than most.
I think that clears up the points I wanted to get straight..
> Either you're drunk or trolling.
This was just uncalled for and, in light of it, I'm not interested in continuing our discussion, sorry.
I have followed it a bit, mostly on the net since I try to avoid tv. The net variant might be different from the tv.
I stopped when I realized why a news story was weirdly handled. It was done so it could be taken as not contradicting that some US military started shooting into a crowd without provocation. Which I really doubt would happen any western army. (Didn't save a reference, years ago.)
>>the middle east is a passion of mine
Frankly, I follow the ME news because the Middle East is a passion of my local (Swedish) media. :-)
I have lots of fun comparing e.g. Reuters translations and checking in NY Times what is censored locally.
I grew up trusting my local media -- it really shocked me, when I started to fact check them a decade ago. That is probably why I react to media which covers areas, but you have no idea of the spin and the political correctness.
And my real interest in the Mid East isn't about the politics. It is the food and the music -- klezmer, Arabic music and their mixes (typically Balkan, which also has Turkish influences).
I should also note that you contradicted that also, above:
>>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility.
If you base everything off the English content, then how do you know I "cherry picked" conecerning the Arabic content??
(I have also no clue about the Arabic content of Al J. I just found a few examples in seconds.)
I've been down voted around 50 times for pointing out inconsistencies like this... I claim that depends on idealists. Sad, but not unusual for political extremists.
I also think this is interesting. It seems like only yesterday that Al Jazeera was ridiculed by people as well as the industry in our neck of the woods around the time 911 happened and afterwards. Now that the stories are more aligned with our values they seem to be heroes at least amongst Internet circles. One take away perhaps is that people will consume what they want to hear. To navigate the complex world and gain a critical advantage is to understand that these outlets represent one perspective that to many people is very real, even if we personally don't agree. You could compare this in some ways to outlets like Fox News. I'm often skeptical about the reporting, but considering the number of people that do see this as their major meal of the day, I'm going to listen every now and then so I can try and understand where others stand and come from. News will always be inherently biased because people construct what is truth regarding their world. While we aren't directly involved in what comes out, we have the ability to process the stuff that comes in and make our own understanding.
This may sound cynical, but people like to hear a point of view they agree with. By being less partisan Al Jazeera is pissing 100% of the people off some of the time.
I don't think Al Jazeera is less partisan, they just have partisan biases that don't align with anyone in the west.
One thing I observed while watching them - they have a very distinct pro-Arab bias. It's readily apparent if you watch their reporting on the occupation of Kurdistan and the occupation of Palestine (Arabs are the victim, whether they are the occupier or the occupied).
That's partisan, but very few Americans have much of an opinion on it. The small minority with an opinion are pro-Israel and think Kurdistan is in Russia.
I do think they have a general pro-Arab bias, but that's sort of what I'd expect, and it's not particularly egregious I don't think. It's pro-Arab sort of in the way that most French media is pro-French, most Greek papers are pro-Greek, etc., and on the more moderate side of that spectrum--- it's not the Arab version of Jean-Marie Le Pen or anything.
There's an even smaller minority of us who know where Kurdistan is, think Israel is usually bad juju, and recognize that 'Muslims' are not a single entity.
I wish people would stop downvoting comments because they don't agree with them. This contributes. I want to see things like this and the sibling comments to mine, even if they're wrong. Stop breaking the conversation with mindless downvotes. Thank you.
They don't endorse the Kurdish nationalistic sentiment, but that doesn't make them biased against the Kurds. For instance, they don't portray Kurds as bad guys.
You are right though, they are partisan. They're biased towards the Palestinian cause, for example. But they still give all sides a chance to voice their views.
I don't think it's cynical at all - you see the same thing in the tech world when people try and do an objective comparison of two competing technologies, the comments that get the most hate are the ones trying to take a balanced view.
Very interesting question. I'll try to answer. I feel this way myself although I haven't taken much time to consume their material or examine why I have my opinions.
I believe it was because that I figured that any network owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East wouldn't have my best interests, or the interests of the average citizen, in mind. Seems like I also remember OBL releasing tapes to AJ -- they always seemed to have a magic touch of finding these terrorism videos nobody else could get. From the rumors I heard, they ran so much pro-terror and anti-Israel commentary and opinion shows (in my mind) I began to think they were part of the problem and not part of the solution. I also remember quotes from some of their shows with the most ridiculous Islamist propaganda. Seems like there were some spying allegations involving their reporters too. And IIRC, didn't they have reporters/producers that were so close to insurgents that it was difficult for the U.S. Military to separate where journalism ended and where terrorism began?
But thanks for asking that. I need to reexamine my feelings and make sure they are valid. Most of the items I bring up above I heard third-hand or from rumors. Perhaps they run a fine news organization and just have editorial content I might find objectionable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
AFAIK they are now owned by a sheikh from Qatar not a bunch of dictators. Granted a sheikh is not a democratically elected person but it's a bit far from being a dictator too.
didn't they have reporters/producers that were so close to insurgents that it was difficult for the U.S. Military to separate where journalism ended and where terrorism began?
The US military has killed a lot of journalists and photographers from many different news organizations around the world. These killings are often not well reported because many of the journalists are Arab stringers and the public and news organizations aren't too interested when someone besides white pretty-boy journalists die, but you can certainly find out about them online. I have seen zero indication that Al Jazeera is any worse in this regard than other major media presence in Iraq.
I believe it was because that I figured that any network owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East wouldn't have my best interests, or the interests of the average citizen, in mind.
I don't know how to understand naivete this extreme. I mean, in America, we don't have state run media. We have media that is extremely close to the government [1]. And we have media that was uncritical in the face of a government that started a war for no reason that exterminated a million people. Now, if any of our media expressed some sorrow for their failure to do their job in 2002-2003, or even remorse at the million corpses their failure abetted, that would be one thing.
While you're re-examining, throw in Russia Today (http://rt.com/). Not quite the same calibre, but interesting to watch your thoughts while watching it.
Hogwash. What an unbroken stream of vague unsubstantiated hogwash.
"owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East". proof please.
"OBL releasing tapes to AJ". yes, it's called journalism. you remember what news organisations are meant to do, right?
"they always seemed to have a magic touch of finding these terrorism videos nobody else could get". well, they are based in the middle east, might give them an advantage. i remember RTE (the national radio and television broadcaster in ireland) being the first to receive IRA messages so that puts RTE "magically" in bed with the terrorists doesn't it?
"From the rumors I heard". good, unsupported rumor, i'd just go ahead and not listen to those rumors maybe.
"I also remember quotes" "ridiculous Islamist propaganda" "spying allegations" "close to insurgents" unlike for instance the way western media underreports and misreports events, and has worked far too closely with the military. but again, i'd like to see some citation or proof please.
Drawing on the legacy of the groundbreaking Al Jazeera Arabic channel, Al Jazeera English (AJE) was launched on November 15, 2006 to more than 80 million households worldwide.
The 24-hour news and current affairs channel is the first international English-language news channel to broadcast across the globe from the Middle East.
Al Jazeera English’s global footprint continues to grow and now broadcasts to more than 220 million households on six continents in more than 100 countries.
Al Jazeera English is broadcast from four strategic broadcast centres: Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London, and Washington, DC. Unlike other international channels, Al Jazeera English’s broadcast shifts as the world turns providing the most comprehensive and contextual news coverage.
Al Jazeera English’s mission is to provide independent, impartial news for an international audience and to offer a voice to a diversity of perspectives from under-reported regions.
In addition, the channel aims to balance the information flow between the South and the North.
The channel of reference for the Middle East and Africa, AJE has unique access to some of the world’s most troubled and controversial locations. AJE’s determination and ability to accurately reflect the truth on the ground in regions torn by conflict and poverty has set our content apart.
I'm just asking that people think a bit more before knee-jerkingly rushing to judgement.
From the article: The channel was founded in 1996 by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, a small, oil-rich American ally on the Persian Gulf. Though sponsored by the Qatari government, in its early years the channel was considered by some western observers to be a beacon for democracy in the highly censored world of state-controlled Arabic media. In 1999, John Burns of the New York Times called Al Jazeera "hard-hitting" and "revolutionary." In his book "Al Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel that is Challenging the West," journalist Hugh Miles writes that Al Jazeera drew ire from across the Middle East for, among other things, allowing Israelis to appear on-air.
Being the source of news for most of the useless major U.S. news outlets at the moment is probably doing more to fix their image in the west than anything else I've seen in the past.
Al Jazeera is actually the only source that I generally read when I'm looking for actual news. They come off to me as not only significantly less biased, but also bring up issues that are missing from US newspapers. For example, I discovered on Al Jazeera that the US had begun its first stem cell test on humans.
You know Al Jazeera is reporting the truth because every side is complaining it is against them. Every Arab country - including my own, Bahrain, has thrown out Al Jazeera at one point or another, for being "anti".
For the record, for the Israeli side, I gather they actually (privately) like the station because it was the first Arab station to interview them. Whenever they report about an Israeli issue, they actually get an Israeli to talk about the Israeli point of view.
The problem is not with Al Jazeera, it is that it is the only station with global reach that actually speaks truth to power, challenging those with power on any side. They alone remember that the journalist's role is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
(The one exception is Qatar, which they never report on, but frankly nobody cares about that.)
From what I understand, this stems largely from the fact that they were the only major news organization with an embedded presence in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war (others being unable to get in after it broke out due to the lockdown.) Their ability to report the actions of the IDF and provide graphic images to back it up did far more to generate international condemnation of Israel at the time than any other voice. They played a similar role more recently with a reporter aboard the Mavi Marmara, although he was able to get far less real-time footage out.
I was surprised to see the parent downvoted. Some people do think AJ is at least partially a mouthpiece for AQ and Islamists; some people think that Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican party. It's a defensible comparison, and not something others had said.
It's like watching the kind of news I remember when I was a kid, not the present information free, opinion laden broadcast we get in the States these days. It's actual journalism.
Just watching now I heard "he can't confirm this yet, but this is what we heard" which is something so very rare to hear these days. The American media will often report even the vaguest rumors without the necessary caveats. Fox will even run questions along the bottom "outrageous thing is true?"
The BBC charter, the documents that detail the BBC's legal obligations as recipients of the license fee, includes extensive rules on political impartiality in broadcasting.
However, these are simply the BBC's own internal guidelines which complement the legal codes of "due impartiality" which apply to all television in the united kingdom
Observers sometimes construe this as state censorship. In fact it is only applied in response to mass citizen complaint against blatantly objectionable programming, and in to my memory works more often against the government than in their favor.
Aside from the political and journalistic implications, I think it's interesting that they're making this available under a Creative Commons license. Are there any other major news organizations that CC license any of their content? I'd be shocked if any of the major US news organizations use the CC licenses in any meaningful way.
Has there been any talk about how Al Jazeera is getting their footage out of Egypt? I'm assuming they're probably using their own communication satellites, has the Egyptian government made any public comments about what they think of Al Jazeera reporting on this?
>has the Egyptian government made any public comments about what they think of Al Jazeera reporting on this?
At some time around 3PM UK time yesterday (bang in the middle of the rioting), they suddenly broke off the commentary from their studio in downtown cairo, saying "The police have entered the building." There was a knock at the door, some shouting in arabic, a moment of silence then they carried on with the news, perhaps sounding slightly shaken.
Take from that what you will.
EDIT: Also at one point they had a split screen with their live footage of a burning upturned APC on one side, and the feed from egyptian state TV showing a calm and placid view of the skyline on the other. They then spent the next few minutes roundly mocking the regime for living in a dream world. It was pretty funny.
I am attempting to understand the political landscape in Egypt. Two questions:
1. would it be correct to say that there are in fact two MB orgs, one that is non violent and slightly good and one MB org that is violent and not good?
2. Given the almost outright banning of opposition political parties in Egypt what political parties is the military involved with?
As far as I know, all current prominent leaders in the Egyptian MB support nonviolence, which the group officially adopted in the 1970s--- that led to the more radical factions leaving to form groups like Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group.
There's a range of politics within that, though, from religious-conservative types who'd like a more traditionalist Islamic republic, to almost-secular moderates who focus on the movement's social institutions and see Islam's role as mainly spiritual/charitable. Since it's been operating semi-underground, I'm not sure anyone is 100% sure which leaders would end up dominating if it were to operate in the open and have some degree of power. The hope among western analysts is that its strength over the past ~20 years in universities and social services means that it's picked up enough educated moderates so that they would dominate a legalized version of the organization.
I am not in a position right now to cite my sources but FWIW I heard a spokesperson from the muslim brotherhood on the phone to al jazeeera a few hours ago saying "we do not intend to contest any presidential election."
They have basically been saying that the events are not in any way caused or prompted by them, but they support them fully as participants.
