7 ms·

Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

250 points by mwilcox 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago
> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda." Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being "radically pro-transparency"? I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about a clear abuse radical in any way whatsoever?
- spiffage 15y ago
  People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.
  - kiba 15y ago
    The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
    - chc 15y ago
      Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life. It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        On the other hand, the level of sacrifice and risk is usually quite great when you consider heroic acts that saved hundreds of people.
    - spiffage 15y ago
      I'm saying that a person taking the same risk to save just 2 people is more heroic, even though peoples' intuition is the opposite. Risking yourself to save 2 people takes guts and a serious commitment to the greater good. Doing the same for 100 people takes guts, but is kind of a no-brainer.
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        I think you're on the verge of discovering that a utilitarian philosophy isn't the only way to look at the world. It's just so ingrained in us that it's hard to look beyond it.
        aidenn0 15y ago
        Really? I find that utilitarianism is not at all the common way of looking at the world. It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.
        CWuestefeld 15y ago
        It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version. That's true. But the typical formulation for utilitarianism -- "if a trolley is hurtling down the track, certain to kill 5 people ahead of it, is it OK to divert it onto a different track if that will result in killing a single person?" -- is very difficult to talk someone out of. The idea that minimizing the number of deaths overrides any absolute prohibition on taking a person's life is pretty much impossible to overcome. Hence my conclusion that utilitarianism is, or has become, the default mode of reasoning.
- Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
  Since the dawn of time. Standing up to power is an act which takes courage. Not many stand up to power so it is radical.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Should it be radical? No. Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that today's climate makes it true.
    - paganel 15y ago
      > That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous. Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), England in most of the 1600s and 1700s (Swift will probably be in jail for at least 30+ years in in this day and age for writing things like "A Modest Proposal") and probably Athens around Pericles' time or the Roman Republic. But, unfortunately, you're of course correct in the great scheme of things.
  - edswangren 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can get away with a lot more than you could have in past times when the people in power would have likely just had your head lopped off.
    - justatdotin 15y ago
      so, let's prove it.
- streptomycin 15y ago
  > I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent That most certainly isn't their mantra.
- joelthelion 15y ago
  >I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent Is that even their mantra? They didn't release all the diplomatic cables right away, and at least tried to protect the names of some people in these documents.
reidbradford 15y ago
"Don't Assume WikiLeaks Brought Down Al Jazeera's Director": http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wikileaks-brought-down-al-jazeeras-director/42729/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wi...
- runn1ng 15y ago
  This reason is actually more likely, seeing that he is replaced by Qatari royal.
- kloncks 15y ago
  If this is true - and it sounds really plausible especially in the Middle East - I fear for how much of a step backwards this is going to be, especially with the Arab Spring going forward.
aheilbut 15y ago
Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set? From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February 2010" Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October 2010" Is the actual cable available anywhere?
- aheilbut 15y ago
  apparently it is actually from 2005: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html
- robchez 15y ago
  http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1 http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1 Great article - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikileaks_tells_us_about_al_jazeera http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikile...
stmartin 15y ago
Hey ... it's kind of like, if you don't get caught cheating, then is it really cheating? I mean, if "no one" sees you removing clips of injured civilians, jerking off to pornography, cheating on your spouse, paying a hooker, abusing drugs/alcohol, stealing from your employer, etc. - it "must not count" then.
robchez 15y ago
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/201192012481969884.html http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920... Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. I guess their credibility is now completely out the window
- kloncks 15y ago
  I wouldn't say "completely out of the window" simply because the alternatives still don't come close to Al Jazeera's lack of bias. It's of interesting timing - this ousting - especially with the theatre that we're about witness at the UN.
  - brador 15y ago
    Care to expand on what the theatre we're about to witness at the UN part?
    - 0x12 15y ago
      Palestine.
- hristov 15y ago
  Why? He has been their chairman of the board all this time and this seems like a interim measure until they find a new CEO.
  - robchez 15y ago
    Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is the chairman of the board. Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. Also[1] : The U.S. State Department clearly views Al Jazeera as a tool of Qatar's foreign policy; one cable from November 2009 claims that the Persian Gulf state uses the channel "as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by al-Jazeera's broadcasts, including the United States." Al Jazeera devotes suspiciously little time to covering the politics of the Gulf; for instance, after Qatar's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, criticism of the Saudi royal family dropped dramatically. [1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/the_end_of_the_al_jazeera_decade http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/the_end_of_th...
sliverstorm 15y ago
I continually wonder if Wikileaks has considered that, in their fiery no-compromise campaign, they may actually be setting back progress? What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing if Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA. In that light, I can't help but wonder if a little co-operation with the US government is a small price to be paid compared to potential future payoff.
- narkee 15y ago
  How would Al Jazeera becoming a popular news source be a good thing, if you now know that the network is a US gov't shill? There's no progress, only perceived progress, where the US gov't gave you the illusion of choice of news networks.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Just because select bits of information are altered or omitted does not mean they do not carry other valuable information. Al Jazeera had excellent coverage of the recent uprisings, in none of which was the USA involved. Also I would argue this does not make them a shill. A shill has a very close association with the other entity, and the shill's number one purpose is promoting the other entity. It hardly sounds like that is the case here.
    - robchez 15y ago
      We expect the trend in favor of using Al Jazeera as an informal tool of GOQ foreign policy to continue undiminished.[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/235574 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  You respect Al Jazeera because of the differences between it and nearly all (if not all) American media. I don't understand how you could support the erosion of those differences and still expect to have in the end a media organization that you respected. Or, to put it another way: by the time Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA, it would no longer be Al Jazeera.
r00fus 15y ago
So the took down the head of Al Jazeera who censored articles from it's own journalists to placate the US government? Another way of looking at this: perhaps it's not that Wikileaks is going against Al Jazeera, but saving it from internal corruption.
oldstrangers 15y ago
Wadah Khanfar still has more journalistic integrity than anyone at Fox/News Corp. Or really any American media outlet. Our media outlets can't even show pictures of American coffins...
- noarchy 15y ago
  You needn't single out Fox, since all of the major US networks behave similarly in this regard. Some wear their bias on their sleeve a bit more than others, it is true. Instead of quoting a Fox News anchor, I can quote Dan Rather, who sad the following when the Iraq war was just beginning: “Look, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.”
seedlessso 15y ago
Biased? That article? I thought it a very fair analysis, evenhanded almost to a fault. You might not agree, of course, but bias isn't about whether you agree or not. It's a systematic favouring of one side of an argument over others, regardless of facts. I don't see much evidence of that in the article, which is a fairly dry analysis of the realpolitik affecting the region and the coming UN vote.
0x12 15y ago
If wikileaks was the cause of this - and that is unresolved as far as I can see - it would actually increase their standing.
andyv88 15y ago
Compare the events to the News of the World hacking scandal. Good to see that the Head of the company stood down immediately
noarchy 15y ago
"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar." When was the last time that the major media in the US showed injured or dead civilians? The tendency to sanitize the effects of war is hardly limited to Al-Jazeera.
- krschultz 15y ago
  It's not a tendency to sanitize the effects of war, it is an effort to simply keep death off of TV. The US media doesn't play most of the images from 9/11. Period. They are too graphic. The US media barely played anything from the recent Reno airshow crash, the images are far too graphic. I'm not rooting for gore by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is a general rule. They don't show murder victims, they don't show crash victims, they don't show war casulities, etc etc etc. I'm not sure there politics is at play.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    I think that some politics are definitely in play. American news will often feature photographs of fallen US soldiers, though this is as far is it will usually go. You end up knowing how many soldiers have been injured or killed, down to the last man or woman. Meanwhile, you're lucky to hear even a wild guess as to how many "others" have died in the same war. Part of this is obviously going to be due to better record-keeping by the US where its own casualties are concerned, but the part about showing photos of recently-killed American soldiers is unapologetically nationalistic. Mind you, I'm not saying that the fallen should not be remembered, but I am advocating a more complete approach to the matter of the effects of war.
nir 15y ago
It's funny this is what causes people to question AJ credibility. Merely being based in a Monarchy and financed by the ruling family wasn't some cause for concern, you think? (BBC comparisons commence in 1..) This is not to say AJ should be ignored. But it should always be taken with several grains of salt. The fact people consider it more ethical than, say, Fox News is ridiculous. It just seems that way since it's closer to what you want to believe, just as the people watching Fox love it since it confirms their biases.
bh42222 15y ago
...the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda This is an unsettling turn of phrase. I wonder what percentage of the population agrees with it?
c0nsilience 15y ago
Would have been nice to link the original source instead of RWW http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/20/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Qatar-Al-Jazeera.html?_r=3&ref=world http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/20/world/middleeast/...

250 points by mwilcox 15y ago

> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda." Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being "radically pro-transparency"? I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about a clear abuse radical in any way whatsoever?

spiffage 15y ago
People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.
- kiba 15y ago
  The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people. Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?
  - chc 15y ago
    Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life. It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      On the other hand, the level of sacrifice and risk is usually quite great when you consider heroic acts that saved hundreds of people.
  - spiffage 15y ago
    I'm saying that a person taking the same risk to save just 2 people is more heroic, even though peoples' intuition is the opposite. Risking yourself to save 2 people takes guts and a serious commitment to the greater good. Doing the same for 100 people takes guts, but is kind of a no-brainer.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      I think you're on the verge of discovering that a utilitarian philosophy isn't the only way to look at the world. It's just so ingrained in us that it's hard to look beyond it.
      - aidenn0 15y ago
        Really? I find that utilitarianism is not at all the common way of looking at the world. It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.
        CWuestefeld 15y ago
        It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version. That's true. But the typical formulation for utilitarianism -- "if a trolley is hurtling down the track, certain to kill 5 people ahead of it, is it OK to divert it onto a different track if that will result in killing a single person?" -- is very difficult to talk someone out of. The idea that minimizing the number of deaths overrides any absolute prohibition on taking a person's life is pretty much impossible to overcome. Hence my conclusion that utilitarianism is, or has become, the default mode of reasoning.
Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
Since the dawn of time. Standing up to power is an act which takes courage. Not many stand up to power so it is radical.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Should it be radical? No. Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.
- phillmv 15y ago
  That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that today's climate makes it true.
  - paganel 15y ago
    > That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous. Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), England in most of the 1600s and 1700s (Swift will probably be in jail for at least 30+ years in in this day and age for writing things like "A Modest Proposal") and probably Athens around Pericles' time or the Roman Republic. But, unfortunately, you're of course correct in the great scheme of things.
- edswangren 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can get away with a lot more than you could have in past times when the people in power would have likely just had your head lopped off.
  - justatdotin 15y ago
    so, let's prove it.
streptomycin 15y ago
> I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent That most certainly isn't their mantra.
joelthelion 15y ago
>I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent Is that even their mantra? They didn't release all the diplomatic cables right away, and at least tried to protect the names of some people in these documents.

reidbradford 15y ago

"Don't Assume WikiLeaks Brought Down Al Jazeera's Director": http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wikileaks-brought-down-al-jazeeras-director/42729/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wi...

runn1ng 15y ago
This reason is actually more likely, seeing that he is replaced by Qatari royal.
kloncks 15y ago
If this is true - and it sounds really plausible especially in the Middle East - I fear for how much of a step backwards this is going to be, especially with the Arab Spring going forward.

aheilbut 15y ago

Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set? From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February 2010" Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October 2010" Is the actual cable available anywhere?

aheilbut 15y ago
apparently it is actually from 2005: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html
robchez 15y ago
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1 http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1 Great article - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikileaks_tells_us_about_al_jazeera http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikile...

stmartin 15y ago

Hey ... it's kind of like, if you don't get caught cheating, then is it really cheating? I mean, if "no one" sees you removing clips of injured civilians, jerking off to pornography, cheating on your spouse, paying a hooker, abusing drugs/alcohol, stealing from your employer, etc. - it "must not count" then.

robchez 15y ago

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/201192012481969884.html http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920... Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. I guess their credibility is now completely out the window

kloncks 15y ago
I wouldn't say "completely out of the window" simply because the alternatives still don't come close to Al Jazeera's lack of bias. It's of interesting timing - this ousting - especially with the theatre that we're about witness at the UN.
- brador 15y ago
  Care to expand on what the theatre we're about to witness at the UN part?
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Palestine.
hristov 15y ago
Why? He has been their chairman of the board all this time and this seems like a interim measure until they find a new CEO.
- robchez 15y ago
  Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is the chairman of the board. Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general. Also[1] : The U.S. State Department clearly views Al Jazeera as a tool of Qatar's foreign policy; one cable from November 2009 claims that the Persian Gulf state uses the channel "as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by al-Jazeera's broadcasts, including the United States." Al Jazeera devotes suspiciously little time to covering the politics of the Gulf; for instance, after Qatar's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, criticism of the Saudi royal family dropped dramatically. [1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/the_end_of_the_al_jazeera_decade http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/the_end_of_th...

sliverstorm 15y ago

I continually wonder if Wikileaks has considered that, in their fiery no-compromise campaign, they may actually be setting back progress? What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing if Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA. In that light, I can't help but wonder if a little co-operation with the US government is a small price to be paid compared to potential future payoff.

narkee 15y ago
How would Al Jazeera becoming a popular news source be a good thing, if you now know that the network is a US gov't shill? There's no progress, only perceived progress, where the US gov't gave you the illusion of choice of news networks.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Just because select bits of information are altered or omitted does not mean they do not carry other valuable information. Al Jazeera had excellent coverage of the recent uprisings, in none of which was the USA involved. Also I would argue this does not make them a shill. A shill has a very close association with the other entity, and the shill's number one purpose is promoting the other entity. It hardly sounds like that is the case here.
  - robchez 15y ago
    We expect the trend in favor of using Al Jazeera as an informal tool of GOQ foreign policy to continue undiminished.[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/235574 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...
thaumaturgy 15y ago
You respect Al Jazeera because of the differences between it and nearly all (if not all) American media. I don't understand how you could support the erosion of those differences and still expect to have in the end a media organization that you respected. Or, to put it another way: by the time Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA, it would no longer be Al Jazeera.

r00fus 15y ago

So the took down the head of Al Jazeera who censored articles from it's own journalists to placate the US government? Another way of looking at this: perhaps it's not that Wikileaks is going against Al Jazeera, but saving it from internal corruption.

oldstrangers 15y ago

Wadah Khanfar still has more journalistic integrity than anyone at Fox/News Corp. Or really any American media outlet. Our media outlets can't even show pictures of American coffins...

noarchy 15y ago
You needn't single out Fox, since all of the major US networks behave similarly in this regard. Some wear their bias on their sleeve a bit more than others, it is true. Instead of quoting a Fox News anchor, I can quote Dan Rather, who sad the following when the Iraq war was just beginning: “Look, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.”

seedlessso 15y ago

Biased? That article? I thought it a very fair analysis, evenhanded almost to a fault. You might not agree, of course, but bias isn't about whether you agree or not. It's a systematic favouring of one side of an argument over others, regardless of facts. I don't see much evidence of that in the article, which is a fairly dry analysis of the realpolitik affecting the region and the coming UN vote.

0x12 15y ago

If wikileaks was the cause of this - and that is unresolved as far as I can see - it would actually increase their standing.

andyv88 15y ago

Compare the events to the News of the World hacking scandal. Good to see that the Head of the company stood down immediately

noarchy 15y ago

"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar." When was the last time that the major media in the US showed injured or dead civilians? The tendency to sanitize the effects of war is hardly limited to Al-Jazeera.

krschultz 15y ago
It's not a tendency to sanitize the effects of war, it is an effort to simply keep death off of TV. The US media doesn't play most of the images from 9/11. Period. They are too graphic. The US media barely played anything from the recent Reno airshow crash, the images are far too graphic. I'm not rooting for gore by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is a general rule. They don't show murder victims, they don't show crash victims, they don't show war casulities, etc etc etc. I'm not sure there politics is at play.
- noarchy 15y ago
  I think that some politics are definitely in play. American news will often feature photographs of fallen US soldiers, though this is as far is it will usually go. You end up knowing how many soldiers have been injured or killed, down to the last man or woman. Meanwhile, you're lucky to hear even a wild guess as to how many "others" have died in the same war. Part of this is obviously going to be due to better record-keeping by the US where its own casualties are concerned, but the part about showing photos of recently-killed American soldiers is unapologetically nationalistic. Mind you, I'm not saying that the fallen should not be remembered, but I am advocating a more complete approach to the matter of the effects of war.

nir 15y ago

It's funny this is what causes people to question AJ credibility. Merely being based in a Monarchy and financed by the ruling family wasn't some cause for concern, you think? (BBC comparisons commence in 1..) This is not to say AJ should be ignored. But it should always be taken with several grains of salt. The fact people consider it more ethical than, say, Fox News is ridiculous. It just seems that way since it's closer to what you want to believe, just as the people watching Fox love it since it confirms their biases.

bh42222 15y ago

...the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda This is an unsettling turn of phrase. I wonder what percentage of the population agrees with it?

c0nsilience 15y ago

Would have been nice to link the original source instead of RWW http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/20/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Qatar-Al-Jazeera.html?_r=3&ref=world http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09/20/world/middleeast/...