4 ms·

Uncensored - yes just as Fox News or CNN or the BBC is uncensored. But all practice some degree self-censoring, where they. for example, beep out language deem

Uncensored - yes just as Fox News or CNN or the BBC is uncensored. But all practice some degree self-censoring, where they. for example, beep out language deemed offensive More importantly all have some degree of bias. (Let's not get into the discussion of who is and more or less biased and in which direction.) The only true way to get the news these days is to watch from different viewpoints and form your own opinion. That's all Al Jazerra is asking for. They are also offering coverage of news that is otherwise unavailable - isn't that a good thing?

nhangen 16y ago
I have no bias against them other than the fact that they seemed a pulpit for AQ, but even then I'd rather have something than nothing. I don't watch Fox, MSNBC, or the rest unless I have to, so it's not an issue of who's better or the least biased as much as it is who will waste my time least.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  To claim that someone is a mouthpiece for a terrorist organization is a pretty serious claim. You cannot seriously claim this and then just leave it without substantiation.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    Provided a pulpit or were used as a pulpit? The post is poorly worded I agree but there's a difference; if I as a hypothetical editor went searching for such people as regular op-ed voices I think that would be unethical, but is it the same to broadcast their latest threatening diatribe when sent it? Al Jazeera seem to be the largest regional news source by some margin so it's logical for someone wanting to spread a message to send it via them and it's equally logical (to me) for them to report that the threatening message has been sent.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    eftpotrm below has it right - I'd argue that they provided a platform for the release of Bin Laden's videos, and as I said above, I'd rather have the videos than not, so I don't fault them for doing it. I just get concerned any time an organization gets too close to their source. I thought this interview was a good look into their policy and goings-on: http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1903649/the-bin-laden-connection-isnauseating-photos/ http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1903649/the-bin-...

nhangen 16y ago

I have no bias against them other than the fact that they seemed a pulpit for AQ, but even then I'd rather have something than nothing. I don't watch Fox, MSNBC, or the rest unless I have to, so it's not an issue of who's better or the least biased as much as it is who will waste my time least.

potatolicious 16y ago
To claim that someone is a mouthpiece for a terrorist organization is a pretty serious claim. You cannot seriously claim this and then just leave it without substantiation.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  Provided a pulpit or were used as a pulpit? The post is poorly worded I agree but there's a difference; if I as a hypothetical editor went searching for such people as regular op-ed voices I think that would be unethical, but is it the same to broadcast their latest threatening diatribe when sent it? Al Jazeera seem to be the largest regional news source by some margin so it's logical for someone wanting to spread a message to send it via them and it's equally logical (to me) for them to report that the threatening message has been sent.
- nhangen 16y ago
  eftpotrm below has it right - I'd argue that they provided a platform for the release of Bin Laden's videos, and as I said above, I'd rather have the videos than not, so I don't fault them for doing it. I just get concerned any time an organization gets too close to their source. I thought this interview was a good look into their policy and goings-on: http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1903649/the-bin-laden-connection-isnauseating-photos/ http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/content/1903649/the-bin-...