Is al Jazeera a legitimate news source?

[WilliamPitt]

Please explain your answer either way, and thanks.

[kiahzero]

1. They're just as legitimate as any other source

What's interesting is that they used to be seen as the Golden Boy in the Middle East, before September 11th. But just because they don't consistently show the news with a pro-US bias, it's assumeed that they're some sort of propagada network.

That's OK, though. The US hating the network is nothing new to them - most of the governments in the reason have had issues with them from time to time.

[Senior citizen]

4. Yes, as good as any other, it seems (nt)

[Darranar]

2. Yes....

they generally report the facts, and a lot of the percieved "bias" is simply the stark difference between it and the propaganda-infested US media.

Some of the bias is real, but it's obvious when it actually is real and can be easily ignored.

[JohnLocke]

18. Al-Jazeera isn't a paragon of journalism -- far from it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1423285
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABFEAC03-DA50-4EEF-A466-3BF09678BC95.htm

[Darranar]

33. Well, I was speaking of the english internet edition...

which is the only thing I have access to, so I can't judge what they do and don't show on their Middle Eastern channel. I think Mr. Pitt was referring to that one as well.

As for the second link, I think we've discussed that one endlessly enough.... The title is awkward, probably the translation, Aljazeera isn't great at that sort of thing. As for the rest, it basically sums up the facts in a rather objective way.

[Imperialism Inc.]

77. Very weak arguments.

Wow a flashy reader getting headline from a news agency. I almost had a heart attack!

[lanparty]

3. It's better than Fox!!! (nm)

[JohnLocke]

22. Not really. They're about equal in reliability.

[physioex]

5. To much of the Arab population it is...

They feel that the American media has failed to objectively cover the Israel/Palestinian conflict. On a certain level, I must agree with this assesment. We always see pictures of the atrocities of the suicide bomber, but we never saw the children being attacked by the Apache Helicopter or M1 tank.

I welcome their point of view, it will help keep everyone more even handed in their coverage.

[JohnLocke]

6. No (nt).

[WilliamPitt]

8. Why?

[JohnLocke]

10. This is one reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1423285

This is another.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABFEAC03-DA50-4EEF-A466-3BF09678BC95.htm

[Vladimir]

13. So they have an agenda - big deal

name me one news source which doesn't.

[JohnLocke]

14. They have an anti-Semetic, pro-terrorism agenda. That's a big deal to me.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

25. That is a complete non sequitur -- stop trying to change the subject.

Yes, the U.S. government does have an anti-Palestinian, pro-terrorist agenda, among other things. And Al-Jazeera has an anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agenda. But we’re not talking about the former, we're talking about the latter.

[physioex]

31. As long...

As you agree with my point, I am cool with your opinion.

[DrWeird]

24. How is it pro-terrorist?

I mean besides being muslim?

[JohnLocke]

28. For your consideration.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABFEAC03-DA50-4EEF-A466-3BF09678BC95.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1423285

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

37. dupe

nt.

[Vladimir]

53. The article you quote is not Anti-Semitic

from the link:


Jews should stop "playing the victim" for the Holocaust, European respondents to an anti-Semitism poll have said.

Thirty-five per cent of those polled by the Ipso research institute said Jews "should stop playing the victim for ... persecutions of 50 years ago".

<snip>

"Obviously the virus of anti-Semitism is far more resilient and determined than we might have thought in the past," said Rabbi David Rosen, of the American Jewish Committee.

<snip>

"The moral implications of anti-Semitism simply don't speak to a younger generation of Europeans," he said.

since when is reporting of anti-semitism not allowed??

[JohnLocke]

67. See post #40.

[Vladimir]

93. Post #76 sums up my response nicely n/t

[Darranar]

38. That's innaccurate, I've seen little evidence backing it.. n/t

[Vladimir]

42. They do not have an anti-semitic agenda

In any case no more so than any Western media outlet has an anti-Muslim agenda.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. That's your opinion...and I'll wager that you're clearly in the minority.

[Moloch]

78. I agree that the article had an anti-Semetic agenda..

but please explain to me how the whole network has a pro-terrorist agenda?? Have you actually watched the network?

[JohnLocke]

84. Perhaps "pro-terrorism" was overstating the case a bit.

A better word choice would probably be 'sympathetic.'

[kiahzero]

85. That's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit

But accusing Arabs of anti-Semitism with no evidence isn't a racist statement at all, is it?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[swag]

7. I voted "not sure" because I'm not sure what the criteria are

I would vote "no" if asked whether CNN, MSNBC, or (laugh - like anyone would ask) FAUX were a legitimate news source.

Information arbitrage is the name of the game. Is "Tehran Times" a legitimate news source? Probably not, but are they on to something with the planted WMDs?

As for the New York Times, well that's a can o' worms.

I say this as a moderate, fairly procapitalist, perhaps "pseudo-liberal": our media constitute a crazy maze of mirrors and at this point one hardly knows what to believe.

This may be a sad commentary, but I have come to trust more than anything the bullshit detectors at EU in conjunction with the bullshit detector that (I flatter myself) is inside my tiny brain.

[acmavm]

9. Yes it is. Just because they may give a totally different perspective to

a story than you might read in the American press, doesn't mean that it isn't a respectable source of information. Remember, there are always at least two sides to every story, and quite often one side has reason to fudge on the facts. Al Jazeera has been the source for a lot of stories that wouldn't have received coverage if they hadn't broke it. Also, how else are we ever going to hear how the Arabs or Iraqis really feel about what is happening in their part of the world. From the Washington Post or New York Times?

[freetobegay]

11. No! n/t

[scarletwoman]

21. How about offering a reason for your "No!"

What's not legitimate about it? On what criteria do you base your opinion?

sw

[freetobegay]

32. Same criteria I base that same opinion on Several U.S. media outlets!

Pure propoganda SHIT!

[scarletwoman]

48. That is not an explanation, that is merely an unsupported assertion. (n/t)

[freetobegay]

52. That is my opinion!

I don't need to explain anything! Got it?

ON EDIT: Correct me If I am wrong but I don't see anything in here on how you feel. Or do you just like jumping on other peoples opinions, without offering anything in return?

[scarletwoman]

60. I merely asked what you based your opinion on.

I saw that you had replied to my post so I clicked on your reply. I noted that you had not in fact responded to the question and said as much.

It goes without saying that you are not obliged to explain your opinion. I only asked because I was curious, and thought that the seeming vehemence of your initial "No!" might represent an interesting process of analysis behind it that you would perhaps be willing to share.

Apparently not.

sw

[JohnLocke]

63. See post #18 (nt).

[freetobegay]

64. I did not reply to you post, you replied to mine

Lets just keep the facts straight here. And you have yet to give you opinion so leave mine alone!

[scarletwoman]

68. This is getting silly, but here goes...

I DID reply to your first post. YOU then replied to MY reply. I therefore replied to YOUR reply to MY reply. You have now replied to my reply to your reply to my reply.

I'm sorry that my asking a question has apparently irritated you.

In any case, here's my opinion:

Yes, I consider Al Jazeera to be a legitimate news organization. I believe they play an extremely important role in bringing the people of the Ummah into modernity and provide a source of secular cultural pride and identity. No society can advance without information about the wider world around it, and there is absolutely nothing illegitimate about offering that information in the context of one's own cultural worldview.

sw

[Sporadicus]

12. I Lend More Credibility to al-Jazeera

than to many US mainstream media. I've found their news coverage to uphold the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

[JohnLocke]

17. Are these "high standards of journalistic integrity"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1423285
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABFEAC03-DA50-4EEF-A466-3BF09678BC95.htm

[physioex]

23. Oh Please......

Faux News, El Drugbo, Hannity now there is some real journalism right?

[JohnLocke]

29. Fox and al-Jazeera are both unreliable. It's NOT mutually exclusive.

[Sporadicus]

39. Check Out the Following Link

which shows systematic deception among US media.

http://mediamatters.org/

[JohnLocke]

41. Why do you insist on implying that I believe the US media is unbiased?

I don't. Stop trying to 'educate' me about the media.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. Stop trying to educate everyone else about Al Jazeera...

...and we might cut you some slack.

Just because you say something is a certain way doesn't make it so. In fact, you've posted very little in the way of evidence to back up your assertions.

[JohnLocke]

74. See post #18.

[Sporadicus]

34. Also of Concern

are Peter Jennings' membership on the Council for Foreign Relations, Tim Russert living in the same Maryland neighborhood as Dick Cheney, and Walter Cronkite cavorting with the boys at Bohemian Grove. How are these bastions of journalism supposed to maintain objectivity when their lifestyles approach that of the poobahs they are supposed to keep an eye on?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

40. Response

The headline is both misleading and anti-Semitic, and here's how:

The headline says "Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim." This clearly implies that Jews are "playing the victim," which is plainly a stock argument of the anti-Semitic community.

Furthermore, the headline distorts the poll's meaning. 35% of people is clearly not a majority, and the headline is curious considering the poll's actual results. A better headline would be "35% of Europeans say Jews "should stop 'playing the victim.'"

[Darranar]

43. If you're expecting clarity from a translated article...

where the title was clearly shortened, you aren't going to find it.

You don't even find such clarity in shortened titles of US articles, written by fluent English speakers for fluent English speakers.

The headline may be misleading, but it is not anti-semitic. 35% of Europeans urged Jews to "stop playing Holocaust victim". Is acknowledging that fact anti-semitic? Aljazeera never claimed that they WERE doing it, they claimed that they were being urged to STOP it.

[JohnLocke]

47. This implies that Jews ARE playing the Holocaust victim.

[Darranar]

51. Can you suggest a better title?

Keep in mind space restrictions...

[JohnLocke]

54. "35% of Europeans say Jews 'Play Holocaust Victim"

"New poll shows resurgence of anti-Semitism among Europeans"

"46% of Europeans say Jews have different "mentality"

"Jews have 'a particular relationship with money,' nearly half of Europeans say"

And so on...

[DrWeird]

56. How is this any more antisemitic...

then insinuating a news network is "pro-terrorist" because it's Arabic?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

62. The first title isn't accurate...

the poll wasn't asking how many Europeans thought Jews were playing "Holocaust victim" (which is clumsy terminology anyway, one of the reasons I think the title is simply awkward, not biased), rather it was asking how many Europeans thought Jews should stop playing it.

I think the evidence is inconclusive, and Aljazeera does get a lot of things right and usually drops the propaganda junk parroted by the US media about things.

[Djinn]

76. which is why you wont ever be employed

as a sub-ed John Locke.

EVERY news outlet makes their headlines as short and catchy as possible even if it twists the story a bit - the reason - to sell more - the title you take issue with would have had knee jerk anti Israeli folk going "shit yeah" AND buying the paper and it would have had others going "what a crock of shit" AND buyting the paper.

If the story then simply reported the facts about some survey (and I havn't read it so I can't say one way or the other) then I don't see "anti-semitism" in it - I see sensationalist headlines.

[kiahzero]

86. 35% is a mighty fuckton of people saying yes to that

I would have preferred if they had put "stop playing Holocaust victim" in quotes, like I just did, but I'm not about to suggest that a grammer issues equals anti-Semitism.

[kiahzero]

69. How does airing the results of a disturbing poll

conflict with standards of journalism?

Are you attempting to say that Al Jazeera falsified the poll results?

[physioex]

27. Exactly....

How much coverage has been given to innocent Iraqi casualties in the western media?

[burrowowl]

90. Many are former BBC

people.
I find their coverage as good or better than CNNI (note International) re Arab and Muslim issues, Haaretz is also good on Isreali issues (not very pro-Sharon or falling into U$ 'news' presentation).
CNNI is a hell of a lot different than the CNN broadcasts to the U$.
Also, one has to glean from several sources in order to get a 'global' view.
Ah! Could we see ourselves as others see us. (Idon't know who said that).

[Robin Hood]

15. Compared to what? Our legitimate news sources?

Then I guess that it is.

[nolabels]

16. I voted "What's al Jazeera?"

They are just people, same as anybody else. A person can even pick up information from satirical comedy if they know how to look at it :D

[graham67]

19. No!

[achtung_circus]

30. I pay more attention to the raw data than the analysis,

on any network. It's as legitimate as any other source and shows stuff the others choose not to disseminate.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[physioex]

45. Please be more specific....

[DrWeird]

50. Propaganda. With a "d".

And in order to be propaganda, it has to be a lie. For example, all of Bush's lies about Iraq and it's WMDs, and it's connections to Al Qaeda, and how we were going to liberate them from rape rooms (while sticking them in our own rape rooms), THAT was propaganda.

[JohnLocke]

57. Actually, no.

Propaganda does not necessarily have to be lies.
See this for more. A minor point, but an important one.

[never cry wolf]

44. I voted yes,

I believe that when they started up they were made up mostly of former BBC people and their intent was to offer open unbiased news within the Arab world, much as the BBC did worldwide, albeit with an obvious Arab viewpoint.

Didn't they cause alot of consternation amongst the petty satraps and various dictators and royal families in the region because they were a "free" press and and didn't close one eye to atrocities perpetrated by the Arab ruling classes? I seem to remember it that way, some monarchs even prohibited them from their countries so as not to arouse the masses.

It is a legitimate source, not the paragon and not without their own built in bias, but all sources have that. That is why it's important to read them all because usually the truth will be somewhere in between.

[billbuckhead]

49. As good as Fox or General Electric

I guess that's a meaningless assertion when talking about real journalism. They do seem to get a lot of reporters killed and they do get a lot of flak from allsides.

[never cry wolf]

55. I found a link to an article from "The Independent"

snip---------
Lately, the influence of Al Jazeera has been detected in the more mainstream Arabic media, with occasional quotes from Israeli ministers or non-official sources creeping into news coverage. "We are bringing a revolution within the Arab media," argues Kamal.

Talking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, Kamal argues that the censorship in the Arab world has been one of the factors behind the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. Bin Laden and many of the active members of his al-Qa'ida network grew up in the media-unfriendly and oppressive environment of Saudi Arabia.

Arguably, though, if the Saudi regime were not so hostile to free speech, Al Jazeera would not exist. The station, whose name means "peninsula" or "island" in reference to its home in Qatar, was launched in 1996 a few months after the BBC's Arabic television service closed down when the Beeb's joint venture partner, a Saudi company, tried to censor a documentary hostile to the Saudi regime. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the British-educated Emir of Saudi's small neighbour Qatar, decided he would fund an independent, unbiased Arabic channel to fill the void. The ethos was to "promote a dialog between civilisations". The Emir put $150m (£97m) of his own money into the venture and said he expected it to be self-funding by 2001. At first available for six hours a day, the channel went 24 hours in 1999.

Sheikh Hamad has been as good as his word in allowing Al Jazeera editorial freedom. It was the first Arabic station to interview an Israeli minister live and uncensored; it allowed Saudi dissidents to comment on political announcements; and its managing director, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, even invited Bahraini critics of the Qatar government to speak on it.

All of this would have gone unnoticed in the West had Al Jazeera not carried the taped broadcasts from Osama bin Laden which emerged in the months following 9/11. The bin Laden tapes and Al Jazeera's coverage of the Afghan war were roundly attacked by – among others – Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair.


more---> http://www.futuretalk.org/02/quarter4/11042314.html

on edit: I also found this:

snip-----
The station has been funded by the emir as part of a democracy-building effort. Subsidies are supposed to end shortly. But during its first five years, Al Jazeera ("The Island" in Arabic) has earned a reputation as an oasis of free speech in a region dominated by government censors. Its intrepid reporting, candid talk, and vivid documentaries are unlike anything most Arab viewers have seen. But it has also attracted the ire of many Arab governments - including Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia - unaccustomed to open criticism.

Al Jazeera gained exclusive access to Iraq in 1998, giving Mr. Hussein an opportunity to speak directly to the Arab world. But it also later aired a story about an extravagant birthday party thrown by the Iraqi leader for himself.

Many at Al Jazeera say it is highly ironic for the US, with its long history of a free press, to criticize an Arab television station famous for its free-speech approach. "They are adopting the official Arab strategy toward the media, which is censorship, censorship, censorship," says Maher Abdallah, host of the popular Al Jazeera program "Religion and Life."

"Who is teaching whom?" Mr. Abdallah asks.


more-----> http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1015/p1s3-wosc.html

[burrowowl]

91. Good points

especially:

snip-----
The station has been funded by the emir as part of a democracy-building effort. Subsidies are supposed to end shortly. But during its first five years, Al Jazeera ("The Island" in Arabic) has earned a reputation as an oasis of free speech in a region dominated by government censors. Its intrepid reporting, candid talk, and vivid documentaries are unlike anything most Arab viewers have seen. But it has also attracted the ire of many Arab governments - including Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia - unaccustomed to open criticism.

Al Jazeera gained exclusive access to Iraq in 1998, giving Mr. Hussein an opportunity to speak directly to the Arab world. But it also later aired a story about an extravagant birthday party thrown by the Iraqi leader for himself.

Many at Al Jazeera say it is highly ironic for the US, with its long history of a free press, to criticize an Arab television station famous for its free-speech approach. "They are adopting the official Arab strategy toward the media, which is censorship, censorship, censorship," says Maher Abdallah, host of the popular Al Jazeera program "Religion and Life."

"Who is teaching whom?" Mr. Abdallah asks.

[kaitykaity]

46. No, it's too easily dismissed as anti-American.

It's easy for the opposition to make anti-Bush
sentiments an issue, they don't have a problem using
anti-Americanism the same way. Then they don't have
to deal with the substance of the story.

[drdigi420]

58. Owned by corporation, can't trust it.

No more than you can trust any US media conglomerate.

[scarletwoman]

70. It's funded by the Emir of Qatar.

What "corporation" are you talking about?

[never cry wolf]

65. Strange...here's a link to a book about Al-Jazeera

The strange part is that only the cached version works,
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:0gKlWBXyt3cJ:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813340179%3Fv%3Dglance+%22al+jazeera%22+history&hl=en&lr=lang_en

The regular Amazon link says that item does not exist in their catalog. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813340179/103-8904624-3557403?v=glance

[pinto]

66. to wade in softly here,

I believe everything said is true.

The meaning is in the context.

A debate about the absolute right/wrong...false/true...reliable/unreliable of the situation
only works if someone is keeping score.

I don't see it as a win/lose proposition.

Is al Jazeera a reliable news source. Of course. In context.
Is the BBC a reliable news source. Of course. In context.
Is Fox a reliable news source. Of course. In context.

This begs the question, what's an unreliable news source.

I think an unreliable news source is one who doesn't take the news in context of the source.

thanks, pinto

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Not sure.

Legitimate is as legitimate does.

They're just as inaccurate as our media.

[JanMichael]

75. As much as Fox, or the NY Post, is I suppose. At times they're spot on...

...other times they sound like they're on crack.

They all have an "Agenda" whatever the fuck that is these days...

[jpgray]

79. One should certainly be aware that they still have great capacity for bias

Just like any other news network. A lot of the Al Jazeera folks came from something the Brits had set up there, I think.

[TankLV]

80. Absolutely - and they're about 99% correct based on the record.

Not many news sites can boast that kind of exemplary record.

Name one thing they got wrong. You can't because they are mostly correct.

[JohnLocke]

81. Kick (nt).

[Cleita]

82. I said yes and I'm not saying they are unbiased, but

they aren't any less legitimate than our corporate news sources.

[banana republican]

83. Al Jazeera v.s. FAUX

who wins????

[jakefrep]

87. Al Jazeera

by a longshot.

I'd love to see a NASCAR car sponsored by Al-Jazeera.

[JohnLocke]

94. Faux.

[genius]

88. It's better than any news source in America

It's also received all kinds of fairness awards.

[LibertyorDeath]

89. Any group hated by the rethugs as much as al Jazeera

must be laying down some heavy Truth IMO

[stickdog]

92. How about the NY Times or WP?

About the same, IMHO ...

Better than the WSJ.

[Deja Q]

96. Equal but opposite side of the coin when compared to FOX

FOX is biased as pro-repuke

Al-J is biased to be anti-American as possible, even for the few good things America has to offer. (but that's okay, unkie George will get rid of that with "patriot" act II.)

[donsu]

97. yes, the bushgang wouldn't be killing them off if it wasn't

nt

[sandnsea]

98. It's a point of view

They report information that U.S. news doesn't report and if a person can be objective, that's helpful. They have their own point of view on current events, and that's as legitiimate as Fox. If you're talking about using them as a news source, I would say yes, as long as the Arab view is pointed out in whatever article you might be writing. But to blindly report their point of view as fact, no, that wouldn't be legitimate. Just as reporting Rush Limbaugh's point of view of fact isn't legitimate. Or The Guardian, for that matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. I watch news reports from AJ on LinkTV.

Link also, recently, ran a documentary on Al Jazeera's coverage of the the invasion of Iraq. They were a helluva lot more accurate than the flagwaving pap we got from the networks, CNN and faux.

Do they have a bias. You bet. Are they anti-semitic? Not that I can detect. Unless you consider being anti-Israeli repression of the Palestinians anti-Semitic. So are a lot of Israelis.