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

[Dr Wogga]

......"LONDON — Iraqi intelligence agents infiltrated Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera (search) in a push to win favorable coverage, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported."

Gee, all you lefties who posted about the "impartiality" and "gosh dang, solid unbiased coverage" of this arab rag - what say you now? I spit on this pro-terrorist scumbag "news media outlet" - which is quite obviously nothing more than a political mouthpiece for anti-Americanism. Eff these al-jazeera arab bastards. They have always had zero relevence - now its official.

[andyfox]

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?

[MMMMMM]

Both may be biased but Al-Jazeera is more so. And now we have this BBC report.


For instance, note the widespread reactions of those on the Arab street who had been watching only Al-Jazeera for war coverage. "Huh? (or whatever's Arabic for 'huh?';-))" "Iraq lost the war?" "Already???" They couldn't believe it because Al-Jazeera had been continuously replaying images of the few incidents of apparently good resistance or of coalition casualties. The Arab street in many countries was let down by Al-Jazeera, and later said so. They really didn't know the war was nearly over, or how easily Baghdad was being taken.

So Al-Jazeera doesn't have at least as much relevance as Fox. Both may be biased but one at least covers the news more accurately.

Par for the course.

[nicky g]

Heh. Fox news when I saw it had Oliver North as one of its embedded correspondents. He was going on about the "terrorist death squads" (ie Iraqi troops) his unit had encountered. Apart from the absurdity of such a statement coming unchallenged from Mr Iran Contra himself (I mean, I think that may have been the absurdest thing I've ever scene, it almost made me cry - it was as if the Simmpons and the real world had switched places), how much less impartial can you get than having a man close to the administration as one of your reporters? I also liked a bit I saw in which the anchor man, on being shown horrific footage of alleged looters being beaten with rifle butts before being taken away and shot by other Iraqis, said "Yeah but these guys are thieves." That's alright then.

As for the war ending quickly, absolutely everyone was predicting a bloody battle in Baghdad that would last some time, that the Iraqi plan was to draw the coalition into Baghdad and have the real fight there. Al-Jazeera was hardly unique in this.

[Dr Wogga]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[andyfox]

Your usual inciteful and penetrating analysis.

How is it that our own scumbag media outlet, Fox News, doesn't upset you?

[andyfox]

Is should read "inciteful [sic]."

[John Cole]

Fox News reached a new nadir when it reported on the anniversary of the death of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands when the anchor moralized, "The moral of the story? Eat more." Even Sat. Night Live Weekend Update had more validity. Wonder if they'll keep trotting out Bill Bennett at every opportunity.

Take off on Lord Byron:

Bill Bennett made his living explaining
Morals to the Nation.
I wish he would
Explain his explanation.

[John Cole]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Zeno]

SO- What’s the "best" place to get the most inciteful (thanks Andy) News of the Day, Hour or last Second: Al-Jazerra, Fox, BBC, Local Astrology Channel, or Psychic News Service maybe. I'm lost here. My clairvoyance is in disarray. Should I just stick with print media for insightful news and commentary, like National Review [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img] or World Press Review? [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] or Mad Magazine? [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Inquiring minds want to know. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

-Zeno