http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200910/al-jazeera-wide.jpg

Has anyone watched the English-language version of Al Jazeera lately? The Qatar-based Arab TV channel’s eclectic internationalism—a feast of vivid, pathbreaking coverage from all continents—is a rebuke to the dire predictions about the end of foreign news as we know it. Indeed, if Al Jazeera were more widely available in the United States—on nationwide cable, for example, instead of only on the Web and several satellite stations and local cable channels—it would eat steadily into the viewership of The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. Al Jazeera—not Lehrer—is what the internationally minded elite class really yearns for: a visually stunning, deeply reported description of developments in dozens upon dozens of countries simultaneously.

Over just a few days in late May, when I actively monitored Al Jazeera (although I watched it almost every evening during a month in Sri Lanka), I was treated to penetrating portraits of Eritrean and Ethiopian involvement in the Somali war, of the struggle of Niger River rebels against the Nigerian government in the oil-rich south of the country, of the floods in Bangladesh, of problems with the South African economy, of the danger that desertification poses to Bedouin life in northern Sudan, of the environmental devastation around the Aral Sea, of Sikh violence in India after an attack on a temple in Austria, of foreign Islamic fighters in the southern Philippines, of microfinancing programs in Kenya, of rigged elections in South Ossetia, of human-rights demonstrations in Guatemala, and of much more. Al Jazeera covered the election campaigns in Lebanon and Iran in more detail than anyone else, as well as the Somali war and the Pakistani army offensive in the Swat Valley. There was, too, an unbiased one-hour documentary about the Gemayel family of Christian politicians and warlords in Lebanon, and a half-hour-long investigation of the displacement of the poor from India’s new economic zones.

The fact that Doha, Qatar’s capital, is not the headquarters of a great power liberates Al Jazeera to focus equally on the four corners of the Earth rather than on just the flash points of any imperial or post-imperial interest. Outlets such as CNN and the BBC don’t cover foreign news so much as they cover the foreign extensions of Washington’s or London’s collective obsessions. And Al Jazeera, rather than spotlighting people who are loaded with credentials but often have little to say, has the knack of getting people on air who have interesting things to say, like the brilliant, no-name Russian analyst I heard explaining why both Russia and China need the current North Korean regime because it provides a buffer state against free and democratic South Korea.

Al Jazeera is also endearing because it exudes hustle. It constantly gets scoops. It has had gritty, hands-on coverage across the greater Middle East, from Gaza to Beirut to Iraq, that other channels haven’t matched. Its camera crew, for example, was the first to beam pictures from Mingora, the main town of Swat, enabling Al Jazeera to confirm that the Pakistani military had, in fact, prevailed there over the Taliban.

And Al Jazeera also excels at opening your mind. I have spent the past two years reporting from the Indian Ocean region, dealing predominantly with Muslims and indigenous nongovernmental organizations; watching Al Jazeera is the vicarious equivalent of engaging in the kinds of conversations I have been having. One of the multitude of problems I have with Fox News is that even its most analytically brilliant commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, seem to be scoring points and talking to their own ideological kind rather than engaging in dialogue with others. Watching Fox, you have to wonder whether many of its commentators have ever had a conversation with a real live Muslim abroad.

Of course, Al Jazeera has some overt prejudices. In covering the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, for example, it is clearly on the Palestinian side. Tear-jerking features about the sufferings of the Palestinians are not matched with equal coverage of the Israeli human terrain. What you get from Al Jazeera is the developing-world point of view, or, more specifically, that of the emerging developing-world bourgeoisie; and that outlook is inherently pro-Palestinian, as well as deeply hostile to American military power. You can actually measure President Barack Obama’s partial success in already changing America’s image abroad by the positive coverage he has been getting lately from Al Jazeera.

Overlying Al Jazeera’s pro-Palestinian and anti-Bush sentiment is a breezy, pacifist-trending internationalism. In too many of its reports, the subliminal message appears to be that compromise should be the order of the day. According to Al Jazeera, the politically weak, merely by being so, are automatically in the right. A certain kind of moral equivalency is Al Jazeera’s lifeblood. The history of human suffering seemingly begins and ends with that of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and that of the Iraqis under erstwhile American occupation.

TBC...

Yet Al Jazeera is forgivable for its biases in a way that the BBC or CNN is not. In the case of Al Jazeera, news isn’t so much biased as honestly representative of a middle-of-the-road developing-world viewpoint. Where you stand depends upon where you sit. And if you sit in Doha or Mumbai or Nairobi, the world is going to look starkly different than if you sat in Washington or London, or St. Louis for that matter. By contrast, in the case of the BBC and CNN, you are explicitly aware that rather than presenting the world as they find it, those channels are taking a distinct side—the left-liberal internationalist side—in an honest and fundamental debate over foreign policy.

Halford Mackinder, the turn-of-the-20th-century father of modern geography, stated that provincialism is very useful, since it prevents the tyranny of the wider, geographical majority. What Mackinder feared, writes one of his biographers, W. H. Parker, was the horizontal organization of the world according to class and cultural and ideological tendencies. Instead, Mackinder promoted a vertical organization of the world by regions and localities. And so, just as American states and individual counties curtail the power of the federal government, other news outlets in various parts of the world may pose the only defense there ever will be against Al Jazeera, which, excellent as it is, has its own developing-world perspective.

Unfortunately, the BBC and CNN don’t have so much a different viewpoint from Al Jazeera’s, as a similar philosophical outlook that is more weakly and dully presented. Then there is Fox, with its jingoistic, meatloaf provincialism straight out of an earlier, black-and-white era. Could Fox cover the world as Al Jazeera does, but from a different, American-nationalist perspective? No, because what makes Fox so provincial is its utter lack of interest in the outside world in the first place, except where that world directly and obviously affects American power. What use does Fox have for Niger River rebels or dispossessed Indian farmers? Thus, we are left with the insidious despotism of Al Jazeera: and it is despotism, because we have really no other serious news channel to turn to.

George Orwell intimated in 1984 that purity can be a form of coercion, and in that respect, I find Al Jazeera’s moral rectitude disturbing. Because its cause is that of the weak and the oppressed, it sees itself as always in the right, regardless of the complexity of the issues, and therein lies its power of oppression. But I will continue watching Al Jazeera wherever I can, because I find it so riveting compared with other news channels. And if my politics crawl to the left as a result, that will be yet more evidence of just how insidious Al Jazeera’s influence is.

Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.

Source: The Atlantic

abu the deflector - tell us all about mohammads 10 (or so) "wives".
and how some nights he would "visit" them all !!!!

Was because he has assassainated someone?, or murdered plenty of jews?

what a spiritual guide.
I spit on him

Well, I like Al Jazeera because it provides such a different view of the world when compared with the Australian mass media. Little distraction with sports and sex scandals, more frequent reports exposing the hypocrisy of the yanks, less suppression of stories highlighting the troubles Israel is causing the world... and best of all it's free! Why would anyone buy newspapers which mislead them, when they can get better for nothing? The sports, comics, and recipes, perhaps?  http://english.aljazeera.net/

I like Al Jazeera too.

My favourite news website is probably the Indy.

http://www.independent.co.uk

Along with John Pilger and photojournalist James Natchwey, Robert Fisk is one of the only reporters whose integrity and dedication I admire and trust. He writes for the Independent. Most of their news and opinion pieces seem to have those qualities.


(edited to fix link)

If I were a muzzie terrorist living in a cave plotting to blow up some old ladies and kids in a market, I'd love Al-Jizzy too.

bugger all muzzies.

Quote:

If I were a muzzie terrorist living in a cave plotting to blow up some old ladies and kids in a market, I'd love Al-Jizzy too.

Because your average cave has access to TV, right?

I'll bet this jihad recommending muzzie likes that muzzie channel too.



Quote:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has turned up the heat in his country's dispute with Switzerland, calling for jihad against it over a ban on the construction of minarets. "It is against unbelieving and apostate Switzerland that jihad (holy war) ought to be proclaimed by all means," Gaddafi said in a speech in the Mediterranean coastal city of Bengazi to mark the birthday of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. "Jihad against Switzerland, against Zionism, against foreign aggression is not terrorism," Gaddafi said. "Any Muslim around the world who has dealings with Switzerland is an infidel (and is) against Islam, against Mohammed, against God, against the Koran," the leader told a crowd of thousands in a speech broadcast live on television. In a November 29 referendum, Swiss voters approved by a margin of 57.5 per cent a ban on the construction in their country of minarets, the towers that are a signature part of mosques. Relations between Libya and Switzerland have been strained since July 2008, when Gaddafi's son, Hannibal, and his wife were arrested and briefly held in Geneva after two domestic workers complained he had mistreated them. The row escalated when Libya swiftly detained and confiscated the passports of two Swiss businessmen, Rashid Hamdani and Max Goeldi. It deepened again last year when a tentative deal between the countries fell apart. Both men were convicted of overstaying their visas and of engaging in illegal business activities. Hamdani's conviction was overturned in January, and he has returned home, while Goeldi surrendered to authorities this week and is serving a reduced sentence of four months. Adoption of the minaret ban was an unexpected outcome. It had been opposed by the Swiss government, the bulk of Switzerland's political parties and the economic establishment. The ban drew widespread criticism, with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay calling it "deeply discriminatory, deeply divisive and a thoroughly unfortunate step for Switzerland to take". The Swiss government sought to assure its 400,000 Muslims, who are mainly of Balkan and Turkish origin, that the outcome was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture". Switzerland has about 200 mosques, with just four minarets among them. AFP

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gaddafi-calls-for-jihad-against-switzerland-over-minaret-ban-20100226-p692.html

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 26^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

Quote: If I were a muzzie terrorist living in a cave plotting to blow up some old ladies and kids in a market, I'd love Al-Jizzy too. Because your average cave has access to TV, right?

satelite communication enables it  ;)

it promotes and supports terrorists. Once they gain power, the terrorist will shut down Al Jezeera and stomp on the reports like bugs.  But first the reporters will be tortured and their women will be stoned.

tanshia wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 6:49am:

it promotes and supports terrorists. Once they gain power, the terrorist will shut down Al Jezeera and stomp on the reports like bugs.  But first the reporters will be tortured and their women will be stoned.

Only after all that has come to pass will the sky begin to fall.

I have never looked at El Jazeera, but one thing I'am sure , in the so-called West, there is no such thing as unbiased media, be it TV or Newspapers, and they only pander to the top 20% of the people.
Maybe I better look at Al Jazeera

In what way are they the top 20%?

I like Al Jazeera because it's (slowly) changing Middle Eastern society and talking about things that have not been covered previously in Islamic societies, such as women's rights. It's slowly bringing the Gulf States out of the Middle Ages.


The English language version provides a different perspective to mainstream media. You can watch the same story on different sources and decide for yourself where the biases are.

Let's face it. All media sources are biased. Our media is even censored. I'm aware of several cases where the true story is not presented  for various reasons.

Example - The case of the police arrest of a runaway prisoner. They intercepted him in a car park. He had abandoned his car and was being pursued on foot. He was heading straight for my son and his girlfriend when he was brought down by a taser.

The reporters arrived on scene and interviewed police and members of the public who were on the scene.

The official story said that police managed to overpower the man without having to use a taser.

I was chatting to a senior police representative at an opening 3 months later and we discussed the case. He actually said that in the interests of public safety, they decided not to use a taser although they had one on the scene. When I described what my son saw, he cleared his throat and changed the subject.    

This was around the time that there was controversy over tasers following the death of a man at an airport.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 19^th, 2009 at 6:42am:

Yet Al Jazeera is forgivable for its biases in a way that the BBC or CNN is not. In the case of Al Jazeera, news isn’t so much biased as honestly representative of a middle-of-the-road developing-world viewpoint. Where you stand depends upon where you sit. And if you sit in Doha or Mumbai or Nairobi, the world is going to look starkly different than if you sat in Washington or London, or St. Louis for that matter. By contrast, in the case of the BBC and CNN, you are explicitly aware that rather than presenting the world as they find it, those channels are taking a distinct side—the left-liberal internationalist side—in an honest and fundamental debate over foreign policy.

Exactly. I've been watching Al Jazeera on channel 31. It does present a refreshingly different take on things, but it's not about Islam as some here seem to believe.

Al Jazeera is made for middle and upper class interests. Often, it's about providing info for investors. All that surplus capital in the Middle East has to go somewhere, and Saudis and Kuwaitis need advice on what to invest in like anyone else.

What makes Al Jazeera so interesting to me is its take on the global South - its not another Northern perspective on the world, like CNN and BBC.

muso wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

I like Al Jazeera because it's (slowly) changing Middle Eastern society and talking about things that have not been covered previously in Islamic societies, such as women's rights. It's slowly bringing the Gulf States out of the Middle Ages. The English language version provides a different perspective to mainstream media. You can watch the same story on different sources and decide for yourself where the biases are. Let's face it. All media sources are biased. Our media is even censored. I'm aware of several cases where the true story is not presented  for various reasons. Example - The case of the police arrest of a runaway prisoner. They intercepted him in a car park. He had abandoned his car and was being pursued on foot. He was heading straight for my son and his girlfriend when he was brought down by a taser. The reporters arrived on scene and interviewed police and members of the public who were on the scene. The official story said that police managed to overpower the man without having to use a taser. I was chatting to a senior police representative at an opening 3 months later and we discussed the case. He actually said that in the interests of public safety, they decided not to use a taser although they had one on the scene. When I described what my son saw, he cleared his throat and changed the subject.     This was around the time that there was controversy over tasers following the death of a man at an airport.

How are they supposed to get genuine stats on taser use if they lie about it? You should follow that up. We cannot let the police lie to the public.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 6:04pm:

How are they supposed to get genuine stats on taser use if they lie about it? You should follow that up. We cannot let the police lie to the public.

That's just the tip of the iceberg :)

In what way are they the top 20%?

It all comes down to finamces, and I mean the financial top 20% of wealth holders, and please do not consider me just jealous or being a Communist, although I still consider that Communism would be the best and sustainable government system, but not being run by the ex.Communists of the former USSR, because they were the worst Capilists ever.

Karnal,


Quote:

Exactly. I've been watching Al Jazeera on channel 31. It does present a refreshingly different take on things, but it's not about Islam as some here seem to believe.

If it's got an Arabic name and logo then it has to be Islamic!!! And it must be a terrorist mouthpiece, not just because several anti-Islamic websites say it is, but because it always has special access to OBL videos, not that this has anything to do with their closeness to the region, it's because they're funded by terrorists!!!

And I mean it, they are funded by terrorists, the U.S's largest ally in the region, the Qatari government, so indirect terrorist funding maybe.

The sad thing is, that half of the biggest anti-Islamic characters in the world, like Wafa Sultan for instance, got their start on al-Jazeera, but the nay-sayers tend to just pass this kind of stuff over.

So is Al Jazeera like "Fox News" for HeyRabs? ;)

Of course Abu is right in thinking that some wackos will just attack anything that sounds arabic, as being anti-american, as there are some who believe that everything that is anti-american will always be right.

Who would ever have guessed that no side has a monopoly on the truth?

So while Al Jazeera may provide an interesting perspective on events from a middle eastern perspective, it is not without it's own prejudices, and should be viewed with the same jaundiced eye that is reserved for all media.

Quote:

So while Al Jazeera may provide an interesting perspective on events from a middle eastern perspective

I wouldn't so much say a Middle Eastern perspective. I'd say from the perspective of the 80% of the world that up until now hasn't really had it's view (or stories) represented in the media. al-Jazeera show a lot of news from far east Asia, from Africa, Latin America, and all the other places the mainstream Western media usually couldn't give a damn about.

They also show a lot of news from the U.S and Europe which simply doesn't receive coverage there, either because it's deemed unimportant, or because of a desire to divert attention from said issues, or for more sinister reasons.


Quote:

it is not without it's own prejudices, and should be viewed with the same jaundiced eye that is reserved for all media.

My guess is you've probably never even watched al-Jazeera. Like with everything Mozza, you have a burning desire to jump in and declare all parties must be the equally to blame.

Quote:

My guess is you've probably never even watched al-Jazeera. Like with everything Mozza, you have a burning desire to jump in and declare all parties must be the equally to blame.

-Abu

Right, and Right.

You are correct Abu, I have never "watched" Al Jazeera, I have "seen" bits of it, but most of what I have seen was on you tube, not on the telly, as I have the choice to watch The Simpsons on my telly instead. ;)
Of Course I do think everyone is to blame, as I do not have a "god" to divide humans into true believers and kafirs for me.

I haven't watched it for a few years now.
I used to think it was a good and honest reflection, until I met some of it's viewers. Now I think it's pretty much futile.

Quote:

I used to think it was a good and honest reflection, until I met some of it's viewers

Right... so you consider it a dishonest source of news, not because of anything related to it's content whatsoever, but because of your biases and stereotypes about it's viewers.

Nice one.

Quote:

Right... so you consider it a dishonest source of news, not because of anything related to it's content whatsoever, but because of your biases and stereotypes about it's viewers. Nice one.

Not totally dishonest, but I'd certainly have to consider it to be biased going by it's mainstream viewers.