4 ms·
That's a guilt-by-association argument that doesn't really hold water. In its early days Aljazeera was known for broadcasting dissenting views and was perceive
by edj 17y ago
That's a guilt-by-association argument that doesn't really hold water.
In its early days Aljazeera was known for broadcasting dissenting views and was perceived as more objective than state run Middle Eastern media entities. Many of its staff were former BBC. Aljazeer was shut down by the Saudi government because it failed to stick with the party line. It had to relocate to Qatar as a result, where it seems to enjoy more independence.
Sources: Control Room (documentary about Aljazeera); Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera]
- gamble 17y agoYes, when Aljazeera first began broadcasting the American press had nothing but praise for them. It was only when they refused to parrot the party line on Iraq and 9/11 that the media turned against Aljazeera.
- etherael 17y agoI'm finding it really interesting that people are taking my original statement as an attack on Al Jazeera... All I said was it's a media company that exists within the most religious civilisation in the world. If I were to point out that MSNBC is a media company that exists within the most materialistic civilisation in the world, would this be equally considered as an attack? Curious stuff.