Al Jazeera journalists: Don't treat us like 'criminals'

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/03/media/al-jazeera-demand-press-freedom/index.html

Al Jazeera is fighting back against demands that the government of Qatar should close down the media network.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have called for Qatar to shut Al Jazeera. It's one of 13 things they say Qatar must do before they'll restore diplomatic and economic ties.
The Doha-based network released a video Monday showing its corespondents and anchors pleading for media freedom, as a new deadline for Qatar to meet the demands looms.
"To those who demand that Al Jazeera be shut down and that people's right to the truth be suppressed, we too have demands. We demand journalists be able to do their jobs free from intimidation and threat," the network's staff say in the video.
The journalists also insist that they should not be "treated as criminals" and that "diversity of thought and opinion be cherished, not feared."
The Arab countries cut ties with Qatar on June 5, accusing the Gulf state of supporting terrorism and destabilizing the region. Qatar, which shares its only land border with Saudi Arabia, has rejected the accusations, calling them "unjustified" and "baseless."
Qatar built Al Jazeera into a global brand. But the network has made enemies from Riyadh to Cairo with its criticism of Arab governments and coverage of deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Morsy.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have accused Al Jazeera of acting as the mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood, a group they have listed as a terrorist organization. Qatar denies this.
UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohammed Gargash told CNN on Sunday that any future agreement with Qatar must be monitored by U.S. and European states to ensure Al Jazeera and others did not incite terrorism or extremism, and that terror groups were not aided politically by or from Qatar.
The United Nations weighed in on the issue on Friday, calling the demand to close the network "an unacceptable attack on the right to freedom."
"Whether or not you watch it, like it, or agree with its editorial standpoints, Al Jazeera's Arabic and English channels are legitimate, and have many millions of viewers," said Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Colville said that shutting down the network would "open a Pandora's Box of powerful individual states or groups of states seriously undermining the right to freedom of expression and opinion in other states, as well as in their own."
The Committee to Protect Journalists has also voiced concerns. It has written an open letter to the leaders of the countries ordering the closure, saying the demands show "clear contempt for the principle of press freedom."
Reporters without Borders and Human Rights Watch joined the calls for the demand to be dropped.
"Governments don't have the right to close down media outlets and criminalize speech to shut out criticism they find uncomfortable," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.
CNNMoney (London)
First published July 3, 2017: 12:21 PM ET

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/al-jazeera-demands-press-freedom-170702214335307.html

**feeder**

Shutting down the press is usually the opening play from an oppressive regime.

**LordofHats**

Part of the issue is that when it comes to Middle Eastern politics Al Jazeera has made noticeable and rather blatant breaks from reality, publishing very clear propaganda articles that is at least somewhat directed by the Qatar government. It's kind of a bizarre happenstance that they've got rather fair and even coverage of just about anything else, or maybe the journalists there are only able to produce that kind of work when it is about something indirectly or unrelated to Qatar's geo-political interests.

I don't think we really need to wonderif Qatar is has an "opening play" for an oppressive regime. Qatar already is an oppressive regime, they're just slightly unoppressive enough and quality of life is good enough no one in the country really cares. Turns out people can be sort of okay with kings who do as they please so long as life itself on a daily basis is pretty good

**Jihadin**

My used butt wipes is more important to me then AJ

**Ustrello**

Jihadin wrote:
My used butt wipes is more important to me then AJ

But are they the official alex jones butt wipes for only 30 dollars a package.

Jokes aside AJ is super bias and it is easy to see. One example was Josephs Tomb, where Jewish visitors went there illegally AJ threw a giant hissy fit calling it a travesty etc. But when the tomb was burned by palestinians there was no mention of it and of the one article I found in AJ about it it was one sentence towards the end of the article.

**sebster**

Al Jazeera have a clear Arabic bias, but they remain an important media source in the region because most other media is directly tied to their governments, if not outright controlled by them. This makes them quite valuable in providing a media POV that can contradict governments, even if it still often represents overall regional bias.

**Peregrine**

If being biased is enough to make Al Jazeera worthless then the rest of the media is worthless too. There are very few, if any, unbiased sources out there. The only question is what bias there is and to what extent, and how much effort you want to put into seeking alternative sources for confirmation vs. evaluating each source based on how well it aligns with your own biases and selecting the ones that agree with you.

**nels1031**

sebster wrote:
Al Jazeera have a clear Arabic bias, but they remain an important media source in the region because most other media is directly tied to their governments, if not outright controlled by them. This makes them quite valuable in providing a media POV that can contradict governments, even if it still often represents overall regional bias.

Al Jazeera is state owned.

Another thing that needs to be mentioned, our experiences with Al jazeera are through its english language variants, which is pretty tame and tends to be fairly liberal.

The Arab language variant(the main one), not so much from what I remember.

**LordofHats**

The Arab Language one still advertises the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the most important book for Muslims to read (you know, other than that other one

).

Yeah. Their regional broadcasting is chalk full of insanity.

**Cothonian**

Isn't Al Jazeera a mouth piece for multiple terrorist organizations? Albeit unofficially?

**feeder**

AJ is the closet thing to a free press for millions of people in that part of the world. They are critical of the Saudis, which is why shutting them down is part of SA's casus bel-, er, list of demands.

**Vaktathi**

AJ, like all press outlets, has bias and issues.

That said, on non-middle east issues, they generally do a very good job. I dont think its possible for any ME based media outlet to do even handed coverage of ME issues, and AJ is absolutely guilty of uneven treatment of issues there, rather absurdly so in many instances. But on stuff outside of that they're a pretty reliable outlet.

As for AJ being a mouthpiece for terrorists, I think theyre simply the most logical choice for middle east terror groups if they're going to reach out to any sort of worldwide media, as opposed to AJ being in active cahoots. Why bother calling the BBC or CNN on the other side of the planet when AJ is there?

The bigger issue is that its very clear that AJ is seen as a threat by Qatar's neighbors, and given those neighbors, that's enough to tell me it's worth keeping AJ around.

**feeder**

Vaktathi wrote:

The bigger issue is that its very clear that AJ is seen as a threat by Qatar's neighbors, and given those neighbors, that's enough to tell me it's worth keeping AJ around.

Exactly, given who is arrayed against AJ, I'm inclined to side with AJ, even as I recognize their failings.

**LordofHats**

Cothonian wrote:
Isn't Al Jazeera a mouth piece for multiple terrorist organizations? Albeit unofficially?

No. Al Jazeera is just one of the largest news organizations in the Middle East, and easily the one with the largest global audience, so when a terrorist wants to read of their latest manifesto or speech Al Jazeera is who they send the tape to cause that's just the best place to send it if they want to maximize their audience. Of course more recently terrorists have been forgoing Al Jazeera entirely and just releasing over the internet like normal people

**jmurph**

You forget that to many Americans Middle East = Terrorist. They are not interested in the differences between Shias, Sunnis, or Kurds. They don't understand how Iran is different from Iraq or even KSA. They are not interested in the nuances of regional politics; they just see scary brown people talking funny who have oil.

It's very disheartening.

**sebster**

nels1031 wrote:
Al Jazeera is state owned.

You're not getting what I'm saying. In Saudi Arabia you get Saudi controlled tv, and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera might be owned by a state, but the owning company is not Saudi Arabia. Same for any other country, except Qatar of course. That's a big deal - just getting any other voice than your own governments is a big deal.

Hell, if the Saudis get pissed about Qatar broadcasting AJ, they should set up their own variant. They used to sponsor a BBC Arabic thing.

Another thing that needs to be mentioned, our experiences with Al jazeera are through its english language variants, which is pretty tame and tends to be fairly liberal.

The Arab language variant(the main one), not so much from what I remember.

That's a fair point, but AJ is hardly unique about that in the region. All TV in region is none too liberal, dumping AJ is not part of the solution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cothonian wrote:
Isn't Al Jazeera a mouth piece for multiple terrorist organizations? Albeit unofficially?

Statements from various terror groups are often made public through AJ, that's true. But AJ never represents any of these statement's as truth, nor as the opinion of the station. They simply report the statements.

**avantgarde**

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cothonian wrote:
Isn't Al Jazeera a mouth piece for multiple terrorist organizations? Albeit unofficially?

Statements from various terror groups are often made public through AJ, that's true. But AJ never represents any of these statement's as truth, nor as the opinion of the station. They simply report the statements.

Depends if you want to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization", a ridiculous claim to be sure. Regardless of the MB's status, AJ definitely has ties to them, for example one of their popular religious shows al-Sharīʿa wa al-Ḥayāh is hosted by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a MB heavy weight and is not afraid to push that political agenda. To that end AJ had a hand in stirring the pot during the Arab Spring, especially in promoting MB alternatives in Egypt, Syria and Libya. Like the short lived Al Jazeera Mubasher Misr channel, essentially a mouth piece for the Morsi government; small wonder al-Sisi is on board with the Sauds. Their coverage of the early days of the Syrian protests was blatantly biased and atrocious and I'd say they have some blame in the Syrian civil war spiraling out of control.

AJ likes to hide behind the fig leaf of objective journalism but is good at carefully curating its content for its consumers. To the West it presents all the elements of a legitimate news organization but to the ME they present something wholly different.

**Peregrine**

avantgarde wrote:
Depends if you want to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization", a ridiculous claim to be sure. Regardless of the MB's status, AJ definitely has ties to them, for example one of their popular religious shows al-Sharīʿa wa al-Ḥayāh is hosted by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a MB heavy weight and is not afraid to push that political agenda. To that end AJ had a hand in stirring the pot during the Arab Spring, especially in promoting MB alternatives in Egypt, Syria and Libya. Like the short lived Al Jazeera Mubasher Misr channel, essentially a mouth piece for the Morsi government; small wonder al-Sisi is on board with the Sauds. Their coverage of the early days of the Syrian protests was blatantly biased and atrocious and I'd say they have some blame in the Syrian civil war spiraling out of control.

AJ likes to hide behind the fig leaf of objective journalism but is good at carefully curating its content for its consumers. To the West it presents all the elements of a legitimate news organization but to the ME they present something wholly different.

So, how exactly is this any different from, say, Fox News?

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
avantgarde wrote:
Depends if you want to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization", a ridiculous claim to be sure. Regardless of the MB's status, AJ definitely has ties to them, for example one of their popular religious shows al-Sharīʿa wa al-Ḥayāh is hosted by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a MB heavy weight and is not afraid to push that political agenda. To that end AJ had a hand in stirring the pot during the Arab Spring, especially in promoting MB alternatives in Egypt, Syria and Libya. Like the short lived Al Jazeera Mubasher Misr channel, essentially a mouth piece for the Morsi government; small wonder al-Sisi is on board with the Sauds. Their coverage of the early days of the Syrian protests was blatantly biased and atrocious and I'd say they have some blame in the Syrian civil war spiraling out of control.

AJ likes to hide behind the fig leaf of objective journalism but is good at carefully curating its content for its consumers. To the West it presents all the elements of a legitimate news organization but to the ME they present something wholly different.

So, how exactly is this any different from, say, Fox News?

AJ had better Seth Rich coverage. Wake up, Sheeple!

**jhe90**

Just been shut down in Israel now.

That's least the 5th nation to rescind there status and broadcasting rights.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
My used butt wipes is more important to me then AJ

they are offended by the comparison!

**LordofHats**

At the end of the day this is just a continuation of the Saudi-Iran geo-power conflict that Qatar had found itself in. Well not found so much as walked right into down the red carpet confusing the burning building for a hot party

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
At the end of the day this is just a continuation of the Saudi-Iran geo-power conflict that Qatar had found itself in. Well not found so much as walked right into down the red carpet confusing the burning building for a hot party

it's far older than SA/Iran. It goes back to the Arabs vs. Persia.

**LordofHats**

That's basically the same thing XD

But specifically I'm saying that the assault on Al Jazeera is just an extension of an ongoing diplomatic conflict. Al Jazeera is a powerful tool for Qatar in the region and a major influence source. The Saudis don't actually care about AJ, they care about forcing Qatar into line with the rest of the Arab world and part of that is cutting out their most important source of soft power.