Tarantulas wrote:Here are a couple of articles about why Al-Jazeera should always be questioned as a source of news.
Article one cited several of what may well be legitimate complainst. But it's also a far cry from the "in-bed-with-terror" accusations several people here level at them.
That their content is objectionable for military media management is one thing. The US military has frequently complained about them not broadcasting things as palatable to the military as the other embedded media outlets. But that does not override the fact that they are a group of journalists diametrically opposed to the many elements of Arab extremism. They are a shining light of free press in a region that has a dearth of it.
By all means criticize the tone and content of their reports and criticize the bias you feel they have.
But to equate them to a propaganda wing for said extremists is false. They are often sensationalist in nature and their reporting has a tabloid quality but they are not in bed with extremists.
They are not avoiding stories because of issues of heroism and such like you argued.
The second article references an arrested correspondent. Do you know what a correspondent is? In many cases it's simply someone who speaks the language of the network and who is willing to provide them information. I tried to become a CNN corresspondent in São Paulo Brasil and came closer than I could dream. And São Paulo is one of the largest cities in the world.
I posit that the correspondent in Jenin was selected out of convenience and does not indicate any alligiance with his associates.
Furthermore I posit that the case of a correspondent in the middle of a refugee camp does nothing to indict the media outlet a few countries away.
Correspondents are not much else than mules in the media.
Quote:
As for my "feckless accusation," please note my use of the word "probably." It's only my opinion, not an accusation.
Opinions and accusations are not mutually exclusive. Your accusation was a feckless one and was not contingient on the word "probably".
You said that "They don't want people to know about heroism".
You base this on a total ignorance of the content of the tape (do you know if the Italian was humilated and degraded?) and compare it to what you think they did with the Pearl tape (how is the Italian a hero and Pearl not?).
You wished to make a case about which you ahve not a shred of evidence.
1) You do not know whether the Italian man's death was not as gruesome as Al-Jazeera broadcast standards.
2) You do not know whether Al-Jazeera aired the slitting of Daniel Pearl's throat.
3) You do not know whether "They don't want people to know about heroism."
But you have no qualm with making the feckless accusation.
Quote:And they didn't shrink back from showing the security contractors killed and their bodies descrated by the mob in Fallujah. So, as usual, I doubt their motives.
Will you doubt the US media outlet's motives as well? They too published Fallujah mutilation. Will you indict them as not wanting people to know about heroism if they do not broadcast the execution of the Italian?