What a Surprise!! Al Jazeera "Outed".........

[MMMMMM]

Wrong about al-Jazeera.

We're not talking about predictions, we're talking about when Baghdad was actually being taken and the entire West knew that it was almost over. The Arab street who watched only Al-Jazeera did not.

[nicky g]

When exactly are you talking about? I had no idea it was on the verge of collapse till the morning the statue was pulled down. It was incredibly sudden - up till that all we knew was that they were on the outskirts and that the odd unt was ducking in and out of more central areas. Maybe al-Jazeera didnt focus on that as much as Western media, but Western media had embedded journalists with those troops while al-Jazeera's journalists were in the city centre. Even that only lasted a day or so. I'm pretty sure the statue would have been broadcast to the Arab world along with everyone else. I was very surprised myself.

[MMMMMM]

I guess you missed the multiple interviews, quotes and reports of how the Arab world was thunderstruck and shocked and dismayed that al-Jazeera had "lied to us."

While the rest of the world knew collapse was occurring, those watching only al-Jazeera didn't.

[nicky g]

In all honesty, the only place I've heard that is from you. D'you have any links? I was probably travelling at them time. It still doesn't make sense to me, though - the collapse was overnight - i went to bed with troops in the suburbs, and woke up to them in the city centre - and once it happened there was no way people could have not heard about it.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't see any reason to save or bookmark any of those links at the time.

I do recall reading many excerpts from interviews with the Arab street in various countries after the collapse.

Granted, the collapse happened fairly quickly, but apparently al-Jazeera had been overplaying scenes that indicated the Iraqis were putting up a much better resistance than was really taking place. As a result, after the collapse, the Arab street who had watched only al-Jazeera was far more surprised than everyone else, and they did not hide their disappointment. Not only were they dismayed and shocked by the outcome, but they felt greatly let down by al-Jazeera for slanted reporting which gave them a false impression and false hope--and they said so. In other words al-Jazeera did not portray American troops being in Baghdad to nearly the appropriate extent, and also over-portrayed the resistance.

[andyfox]

Pull out your copy of the collected writings of Mencken, and you'll have all you need to know. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Parmenides]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[BruceZ]

It has at least as much relevance as does Fox News, which yesterday promoed the Democrats' budgetary plans while playing the song "The Candy Man." Fair and unbiased, huh?

No, not if you use music as your basis for extracting information.

They have an entertainment aspect, especially on the morning show, and they have some conservative analysts. They also report hard news, have liberal personalities, e.g. Alan Colmes, and have liberal guests. BTW, it is not biased to report that certain ideas are flaky if in fact they really ARE flaky. To do otherwise would be biased or simply incorrect.

To say it has as little relevance as Al Jazeera shows your bias, and seriously damages your credibility. FOX was named the best station for war coverage by at least one major city newspaper.

[nicky g]

"They also report hard news"

Well the bits I saw with Col. North as an embedded reporter and the anchor musing that it was ok that people were being lynched cos they were looters was in a "hard news" section.

Which paper voted Fox best war coverage? It wouldn't happen to be owned by Rupert Murdoch (who also owns Fox)?

[ACPlayer]