Very interesting question. I'll try to answer. I feel this way myself although I haven't taken much time to consume their material or examine why I have my opinions.
I believe it was because that I figured that any network owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East wouldn't have my best interests, or the interests of the average citizen, in mind. Seems like I also remember OBL releasing tapes to AJ -- they always seemed to have a magic touch of finding these terrorism videos nobody else could get. From the rumors I heard, they ran so much pro-terror and anti-Israel commentary and opinion shows (in my mind) I began to think they were part of the problem and not part of the solution. I also remember quotes from some of their shows with the most ridiculous Islamist propaganda. Seems like there were some spying allegations involving their reporters too. And IIRC, didn't they have reporters/producers that were so close to insurgents that it was difficult for the U.S. Military to separate where journalism ended and where terrorism began?
But thanks for asking that. I need to reexamine my feelings and make sure they are valid. Most of the items I bring up above I heard third-hand or from rumors. Perhaps they run a fine news organization and just have editorial content I might find objectionable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
AFAIK they are now owned by a sheikh from Qatar not a bunch of dictators. Granted a sheikh is not a democratically elected person but it's a bit far from being a dictator too.
didn't they have reporters/producers that were so close to insurgents that it was difficult for the U.S. Military to separate where journalism ended and where terrorism began?
The US military has killed a lot of journalists and photographers from many different news organizations around the world. These killings are often not well reported because many of the journalists are Arab stringers and the public and news organizations aren't too interested when someone besides white pretty-boy journalists die, but you can certainly find out about them online. I have seen zero indication that Al Jazeera is any worse in this regard than other major media presence in Iraq.
I believe it was because that I figured that any network owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East wouldn't have my best interests, or the interests of the average citizen, in mind.
I don't know how to understand naivete this extreme. I mean, in America, we don't have state run media. We have media that is extremely close to the government [1]. And we have media that was uncritical in the face of a government that started a war for no reason that exterminated a million people. Now, if any of our media expressed some sorrow for their failure to do their job in 2002-2003, or even remorse at the million corpses their failure abetted, that would be one thing.
While you're re-examining, throw in Russia Today (http://rt.com/). Not quite the same calibre, but interesting to watch your thoughts while watching it.
Hogwash. What an unbroken stream of vague unsubstantiated hogwash.
"owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East". proof please.
"OBL releasing tapes to AJ". yes, it's called journalism. you remember what news organisations are meant to do, right?
"they always seemed to have a magic touch of finding these terrorism videos nobody else could get". well, they are based in the middle east, might give them an advantage. i remember RTE (the national radio and television broadcaster in ireland) being the first to receive IRA messages so that puts RTE "magically" in bed with the terrorists doesn't it?
"From the rumors I heard". good, unsupported rumor, i'd just go ahead and not listen to those rumors maybe.
"I also remember quotes" "ridiculous Islamist propaganda" "spying allegations" "close to insurgents" unlike for instance the way western media underreports and misreports events, and has worked far too closely with the military. but again, i'd like to see some citation or proof please.
Drawing on the legacy of the groundbreaking Al Jazeera Arabic channel, Al Jazeera English (AJE) was launched on November 15, 2006 to more than 80 million households worldwide.
The 24-hour news and current affairs channel is the first international English-language news channel to broadcast across the globe from the Middle East.
Al Jazeera English’s global footprint continues to grow and now broadcasts to more than 220 million households on six continents in more than 100 countries.
Al Jazeera English is broadcast from four strategic broadcast centres: Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London, and Washington, DC. Unlike other international channels, Al Jazeera English’s broadcast shifts as the world turns providing the most comprehensive and contextual news coverage.
Al Jazeera English’s mission is to provide independent, impartial news for an international audience and to offer a voice to a diversity of perspectives from under-reported regions.
In addition, the channel aims to balance the information flow between the South and the North.
The channel of reference for the Middle East and Africa, AJE has unique access to some of the world’s most troubled and controversial locations. AJE’s determination and ability to accurately reflect the truth on the ground in regions torn by conflict and poverty has set our content apart.
I'm just asking that people think a bit more before knee-jerkingly rushing to judgement.
From the article: The channel was founded in 1996 by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, a small, oil-rich American ally on the Persian Gulf. Though sponsored by the Qatari government, in its early years the channel was considered by some western observers to be a beacon for democracy in the highly censored world of state-controlled Arabic media. In 1999, John Burns of the New York Times called Al Jazeera "hard-hitting" and "revolutionary." In his book "Al Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel that is Challenging the West," journalist Hugh Miles writes that Al Jazeera drew ire from across the Middle East for, among other things, allowing Israelis to appear on-air.
I believe it was because that I figured that any network owned by a bunch of dictators from the Middle East wouldn't have my best interests, or the interests of the average citizen, in mind. Seems like I also remember OBL releasing tapes to AJ -- they always seemed to have a magic touch of finding these terrorism videos nobody else could get. From the rumors I heard, they ran so much pro-terror and anti-Israel commentary and opinion shows (in my mind) I began to think they were part of the problem and not part of the solution. I also remember quotes from some of their shows with the most ridiculous Islamist propaganda. Seems like there were some spying allegations involving their reporters too. And IIRC, didn't they have reporters/producers that were so close to insurgents that it was difficult for the U.S. Military to separate where journalism ended and where terrorism began?
But thanks for asking that. I need to reexamine my feelings and make sure they are valid. Most of the items I bring up above I heard third-hand or from rumors. Perhaps they run a fine news organization and just have editorial content I might find objectionable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.