Al-Jazeera, the worst news network with the biggest set of "morals"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

Al Jazeera English forced out of China
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/05/201257195136608563.html

Al Jazeera English has closed its bureau in Beijing after the Chinese authorities refused to renew its correspondent's press credentials and visa, or allow a replacement journalist.

The channel expressed its disappointment at the situation and said it would continue to request a presence in China.

It has been requesting additional visas for correspondents for some time through the normal procedures but these have not been issued.

Melissa Chan, who has been Al Jazeera English's China correspondent since 2007, has filed nearly 400 reports during her five years in the country.

She has covered stories about the economy, domestic politics, foreign policy, the environment, social justice, labour rights and human rights.

Salah Negm, director of news at Al Jazeera English said: "We've been doing a first class job at covering all stories in China.

"Our editorial DNA includes covering all stories from all sides. We constantly cover the voice of the voiceless and sometimes that calls for tough news coverage from anywhere in world.

"We hope China appreciates the integrity of our news coverage and our journalism. We value this journalist integrity in our coverage of all countries in the world.

"We are committed to our coverage of China. Just as China news services cover the world freely we would expect that same freedom in China for any Al Jazeera journalist.

"Al Jazeera Media Network will continue to work with the Chinese authorities in order to reopen our Beijing bureau."

Bob Dietz of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Chan's case, the first expulsion of a journalist since 1998, "marks a real deterioration in China's media environment and sends a message that international coverage is unwanted".

<--- what got them banned

Remember kids, when you're running in international news agency, don't ever be brave or socially conscious. Remember poor Al-Jazeera, it flew too close to the sun and is going to have to bribe an awful lot of people to get its wings back.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The zionist controlled western media strikes again...

**AustonT**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The zionist controlled western media strikes again...

Yeah...wait what?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Auston, I've been watching the trailer for 'dictator,' and got a bit carried away. I'm calling everyone a zionist!

Back OT. China has a track record for clamping down on journalists as a way of lashing out at negative events i.e the whole activist/Hilary Clinton thing that happened recently. Given time, this journalist will probably get back in.

**Ouze**

Al Jazeera's a terrible news network. Just look at their homepage - how the hell can anyone find out what Lindsay Lohan or Teen Moms are up to with "news" like this? Why does only CNN.com have properly positioned news coverage of the expert medical advice of noted scientist Suzanne Somers's new book? Why does their front page, unlike Fox News, not tell me What Dogs Are Really Thinking? And so on.

**ShumaGorath**

Ouze wrote:Al Jazeera's a terrible news network. Just look at their homepage - how the hell can anyone find out what Lindsay Lohan or Teen Moms are up to with "news" like this? Why does only CNN.com have properly positioned news coverage of the expert medical advice of noted scientist Suzanne Somers's new book? Why does their front page, unlike Fox News, not tell me What Dogs Are Really Thinking? And so on.

Because they aren't a news organization, they're a propaganda wing of the Iranian Saudi oil-n'-Islam alliance. But fo' rizzle, they're one of the least petty 24 hour networks available which is bizarre to me. I guess that you don't have to be as childish when you aren't playing to an American dominated venue. News presentation is really lowest common denominator when it's crafted for the U.S.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:Al Jazeera's a terrible news network. Just look at their homepage - how the hell can anyone find out what Lindsay Lohan or Teen Moms are up to with "news" like this? Why does only CNN.com have properly positioned news coverage of the expert medical advice of noted scientist Suzanne Somers's new book? Why does their front page, unlike Fox News, not tell me What Dogs Are Really Thinking? And so on.

You missed MSNBC:
"Sad mews: Meow, the 39-pound cat, dies"

Russia Today is also light on fluff pieces, but does anyone actually consider them a serious news source?

But really, when you run headlines like the following on your homepage (although they're listed as opinion):
Palestinian hunger strikes: Media missing in action
The 'United' States? A house divided
Slamming the door to justice on Palestinians
Afghanistan: More questions than answers
Fracking: A dehydrated UK, watered only by capitalism
...

is it any wonder people don't take you serious?

**elrabin**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Because they aren't a news organization, they're a propaganda wing of the Iranian Saudi oil-n'-Islam alliance. But fo' rizzle, they're one of the least petty 24 hour networks available which is bizarre to me. I guess that you don't have to be as childish when you aren't playing to an American dominated venue. News presentation is really lowest common denominator when it's crafted for the U.S.

The English arm of Al-Jazeera is actually pretty good. They are probably one of the least biased mass media outlets I've run into. I usually read the Al-Jazeera English article if I read something from a Western source that seems a little fishy.

biccat wrote:Russia Today is also light on fluff pieces, but does anyone actually consider them a serious news source?

I have found RT to be OK for news, but once they open their mouths and start opinionating, my head explodes. They are worse than Fox.

That said, I do remember watching an interview the the RT English (though it may have been RT USA) editor-in-chief. She said they are free to report on whatever they want, with no directives from RT Russia.

**Frazzled**

That said, I do remember watching an interview the the RT English (though it may have been RT USA) editor-in-chief. She said they are free to report on whatever they want, with no directives from RT Russia.

Whats awesome is how you almost couldn't hear the racking of the AK offstage right before she said it.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
That said, I do remember watching an interview the the RT English (though it may have been RT USA) editor-in-chief. She said they are free to report on whatever they want, with no directives from RT Russia.

Whats awesome is how you almost couldn't hear the racking of the AK offstage right before she said it.

Yeah, RT isn't much better than Berlisconis news empire and is only one step of Kevin bacon away from China state TV. It's a bit worse than Murdoch properties for direct political bias, which isn't very flattering.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Russia Today is also light on fluff pieces, but does anyone actually consider them a serious news source?

As serious as any other news source.

biccat wrote:
But really, when you run headlines like the following on your homepage (although they're listed as opinion):
Palestinian hunger strikes: Media missing in action
The 'United' States? A house divided
Slamming the door to justice on Palestinians
Afghanistan: More questions than answers
Fracking: A dehydrated UK, watered only by capitalism
...

is it any wonder people don't take you serious?

Wait, what? The only headline in the bunch that's even remotely objectionable is the one about justice for Palestine, and that's far from an uncommon topic. I guess could also take issue with the idea of the United States as a house divided, but again that's far from an uncommon topic these days.

**ShumaGorath**

I guess could also take issue with the idea of the United States as a house divided, but again that's far from an uncommon topic these days.

It's common topic in U.S. media. I've seen riffs on that dozens of times in the last few years from all major American news sources. Partisanship isn't an anti-american topic to cover, we do it more than anyone.

**Frazzled**

Fracking: A dehydrated UK, watered only by capitalism

Are you out of your fracking minds?

**AustonT**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Auston, I've been watching the trailer for 'dictator,' and got a bit carried away. I'm calling everyone a zionist!

Back OT. China has a track record for clamping down on journalists as a way of lashing out at negative events i.e the whole activist/Hilary Clinton thing that happened recently. Given time, this journalist will probably get back in.

I actually thought it was mean to be funny (satire?) because you know...west:china al jazeera: zionist. I got a good laugh intentional or not.

**Ouze**

biccat wrote:You missed MSNBC:
"Sad mews: Meow, the 39-pound cat, dies"

I didn't miss it, exactly, so much as I loaded it up, started typing it out, and decided 2 examples were enough as I was typing it.... because I didn't scroll down far enough to see the 39 pound cat story. If I had, I assure you it would have been first on the list. All 3 sites are utterly atrocious and I have nothing but contempt for all 3 more or less equally, for slightly different reasons.

**biccat**

It bore inclusion for two reasons:
1- it's about a fat cat;
2- it's a really bad pun.

The fact that MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the DNC is just a side benefit.

**Ouze**

It's not news....

It's MSNBC.com

**ShumaGorath**

biccat wrote:It bore inclusion for two reasons:
1- it's about a fat cat;
2- it's a really bad pun.

The fact that MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the DNC is just a side benefit.

Stay on topic, we're critisizing Al Jazeera here, not defending Hannity&Friends comedic levels of bias by striking out at a different off topic news agency!

**biccat**

ShumaGorath wrote:Stay on topic, we're critisizing Al Jazeera here, not defending Hannity&Friends comedic levels of bias.

Actually, we're now talking about overweight felines.

Try to keep up.

In other news, Tiny Tim is doing OK. He's down to a svelte 35 pounds.

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Stay on topic, we're critisizing Al Jazeera here, not defending Hannity&Friends comedic levels of bias.

Actually, we're now talking about overweight felines.

Try to keep up.

In other news, Tiny Tim is doing OK. He's down to a svelte 35 pounds.

These are fat

ing cats. Seriously.

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Are you out of your fracking minds?

Yeah, it causes all these fracking quakes in New York. Granted, I just came from Cali and got to make 'That's not a quake. Now THIS is a quake!' jokes.

Just remember folks, the 1% make 75% by laying a steel rail across the still twitching bodies of the other 99%. British politicians have danced a merry step and let the public pay the piper. But now it's time the common man called the tune, and it's looking like it might be the Tyburn Jig.

As the song says:

From Newgate now in carts we must go, [we must go],
From Newgate now in carts we must go,
From Newgate now in carts,
With sad and heavy hearts,
To have our due deserts we must go.

Some thousands they will flock when we die, [when we diel,
Some thousands they will flock when we die,
Some thousands they will flock
To Execution Dock,
Where we must stand the shock and must die.

**Albatross**

What on earth are you talking about?

**Amaya**

I'm starting to think "Ah, America even your poor are fat" should be changed to even your pets are fat.

**biccat**

Amaya wrote:I'm starting to think "Ah, America even your poor are fat" should be changed to even your pets are fat.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

**Harriticus**

Al Jazeera's Arab news station differs a lot from its English, intentionally so as the kind of material on its core news station wouldn't be accepted in the West. The former panders much more to conspiracy, villification of Western states, Islamism, and above all else an obsessive focus on Israel that creates an inaccurate picture that Israel is the cause of all the regions problems, when the Arab Spring has demonstrated just how truly unimportant to regional instability Israel really is.

Also their op-eds are full of loons and far-left radicals.

**AustonT**

biccat wrote:
Amaya wrote:I'm starting to think "Ah, America even your poor are fat" should be changed to even your pets are fat.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Please tell that's photoshop, because at first I was like, "FAKE!", and then I was like, "well..."

**BaronIveagh**

Albatross wrote:What on earth are you talking about?

Fracking is a process where water loaded with chemicals is pumped into the ground to force oil and natural gas out. Brittan has been having a bit of a dry spell, so, rather then use those thousands if not millions of liters for, you know, drinking water, irrigation, things to the public benefit, they're pumping them into the ground laden with deadly chemicals to get oil.

Further, studies have shown that fracking directly causes minor earthquakes.

So, in effect, rather then acting in the public interest, they're putting the public in danger in a number of ways in the name of profit. I've seen how London in particular reacts of student loan issues. Imagine Londoners panicked at the idea of dying of thirst as the city shakes from minor tremor after minor tremor, collapsing buildings full of the poor, because we know what fine building standards they use for public housing...

How long do you think it'd take for them to decide to take out their frustrations on whoever they think is responsible?

**dogma**

BaronIveagh wrote:Brittan has been having a bit of a dry spell, so, rather then use those thousands if not millions of liters for, you know, drinking water, irrigation, things to the public benefit, they're pumping them into the ground laden with deadly chemicals to get oil.

Since when is irrigation to the public benefit?

BaronIveagh wrote:
So, in effect, rather then acting in the public interest, they're putting the public in danger in a number of ways in the name of profit.

Allotting fresh water for the purposes of irrigation during a drought would similarly put the public in danger. The reality is that water is used for more than human consumption, it has agricultural, commercial and industrial purposes that are also of great importance.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I've seen how London in particular reacts of student loan issues. Imagine Londoners panicked at the idea of dying of thirst as the city shakes from minor tremor after minor tremor, collapsing buildings full of the poor, because we know what fine building standards they use for public housing...

Strangely there don't seem to have any building collapses in Blackpool, nor have there been waves of death by dehydration, or seemingly any greater degree of death by dehydration than normal.

**biccat**

AustonT wrote:
biccat wrote:
Amaya wrote:I'm starting to think "Ah, America even your poor are fat" should be changed to even your pets are fat.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Please tell that's photoshop, because at first I was like, "FAKE!", and then I was like, "well..."

It's shopped. Those words were not in the original picture.

Foiled again

**mattyrm**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Albatross wrote:What on earth are you talking about?

Fracking is a process where water loaded with chemicals is pumped into the ground to force oil and natural gas out. Brittan has been having a bit of a dry spell, so, rather then use those thousands if not millions of liters for, you know, drinking water, irrigation, things to the public benefit, they're pumping them into the ground laden with deadly chemicals to get oil.

Further, studies have shown that fracking directly causes minor earthquakes.

So, in effect, rather then acting in the public interest, they're putting the public in danger in a number of ways in the name of profit. I've seen how London in particular reacts of student loan issues. Imagine Londoners panicked at the idea of dying of thirst as the city shakes from minor tremor after minor tremor, collapsing buildings full of the poor, because we know what fine building standards they use for public housing...

How long do you think it'd take for them to decide to take out their frustrations on whoever they think is responsible?

I read an article about it in the Telegraph, it didn't sound like a big deal to me. They are allowing some to occur with increased safety measures, its common all over, who gives a gak?

Answer me this my ecofascist friend, which is more likely...

London carries on working as normal despite an increase in fracking.

Or..

Everyone in London is dying of thirst and buildings full of poor people are collapsing everywhere?

Answers on a postcard....

Preferably one that isnt sustainably sourced, and with whales blood instead of ink.