Yesterday they had a brief mention claiming that there was information posted to Wikileaks showing that the U.S. was behind the protesters, but none of their earlier reporting had made any suggestion of a connection. Most reporting is solid. Once in a while they'll say something that's a bit out there, and some might have issue with their use of "reconstruction" (shown in tiny font on screen) for video simulating the negotiations. There were cases were actors spoke dialog, yet the reporter later said the actual text of that particular conversation wasn't known.
Their release of information from the Palestine Papers initially was accurate but unbalanced by omission. They showed concessions without showing what the Palestinians would get.
They later had an interview with Martin Indyk, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, who protested that they didn't show the information in perspective by failing to mention that Palestine was to get the sought after separate state status, along with some territory from the Israel side to compensate for loss of some developed areas. When added to access corridor area, the amount gained equaled what was lost. It was pretty clear they'd had him on just to validate the papers, and hurried / talked over him some when he raised these issues, but they deserve credit for still airing it. They do a lot of good reporting, but as always it's wise to compare reports from a number of sources. I'm curious how that interview came across when translated for their Arab-language coverage or if it was included.
In addition to Aljazeera English, MHz Worldview carries broadcasts from Japan, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Taiwan and some others. The Russian one comes across as the most propaganda oriented with them going out of their way to emphasize things, often misleadingly, that cast the U.S. in a negative light. They say things like NBC won't report stories because G.E. is a defense contractor and G.E. leaked massive amounts of PCBs into the Hudson river (Which they did, but in 1977 and earlier, long before they bought RCA/NBC) They find plenty of quotes from people that give the wrong impression (They used one of John McCain in 2008 to make it look like the U.S. supported those that make have attacked their airport. That tone was gone later, but they quick to throw out negative comments)
The combination of most of the international sources on MHz WorldView, the BBC, and PBS Newshour seems to cover most things pretty well. The two that seem to work to twist things fairly often are Fox and RT (the Russian service), with the remainder of the U.S. networks just not giving much time/depth to a great many issues that matter.
If one gets past the negative tone, the Russian service does point out things other media skips, like the lock down due to the missing nerve agent at the Dugway miltary testing grounds in Utah a few days ago. (the place that released an airborne toxin years ago killing thousands of animals 30 miles away) They also immediately covered the release of the U.S. Financial Crisis Investigative Report a few days ago. They make quite a fuss over U.S. human rights issues, pointing out the the U.S. and Sudan are the only U.N. members failing to sign on with never giving children life sentences or execution for serious crimes. The eerie part is that facts generally check out. It's too bad they make so many poorly founded negative conclusions and report few positive developments.
http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/