Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#21

Post by sliverstorm »

narkee wrote: post #20
sliverstorm wrote: post #18

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…

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.

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.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#22

Post by thaumaturgy »

sliverstorm wrote: post #18

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…

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.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#23

Post by r00fus »

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.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#24

Post by spiffage »

kiba wrote: post #6
spiffage wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#25

Post by sliverstorm »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #22
sliverstorm wrote: post #18

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…

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.

My hope would be that with small compromises made in key areas, it could be widely accepted otherwise unaltered.

It is a common enough occurrence in plenty of industries. Japanese auto makers are heavily shaped by the demands of the American car industry- but did they wind up just another GM, another Chrysler? No, they retained many of the vital qualities that differentiated them and made them worth importing.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#26

Post by itswindy »

robchez wrote: post #9

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

Very few care anyway and those that know will forget. There's no such as independent back there to begin with. Even here NBC will probably back down on a story after a call from GE that may have a pending deal with X corp.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#27

Post by robchez »

hristov wrote: post #17
robchez wrote: post #9

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

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.

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_th...

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#28

Post by robchez »

sliverstorm wrote: post #21
narkee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 lik…

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/...

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#29

Post by phillmv »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #15
potatolicious wrote: post #2

> "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 abu…

Should it be radical? No. Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.

That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.

Re: Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

#30

Post by bdhe »

robchez wrote: post #9

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

I guess their credibility is now completely out the window

and from a reply to this post:

There's no such as independent back there to begin with.

I find this to be incredibly annoying. Asimov's essay on relativity of wrong should be mandatory reading for people engaging in debates. People forget that even if people make mistakes the world is not black-and-white, not 0 or 1. There's a whole infinity inbetween. People often don't look beyond the fact that no one scores a 1 to see that there are some that are teetering terribly close to 0, a 0.1 maybe, while a few put in a lot of effort to be at a 0.9. This comes up so many times in debates it is not even funny anymore.

* When talking about both the left and the right, in American politics, having radical ideas. They completely overlook how radical these ideas are, and the amount of airtime given to them.

* When talking about bias in media. Sure Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central (if you view the Daily show as a news source) are biased in their own ways, but they're not equal.

* When talking about a few false steps in various scientific theories (which is what prompted Asimov to write his essay). Sure there are some unknown and possibly sticky problems with evolution, but that doesn't equate its incorrectness to the incorrectness of creationism (young-earth and otherwise) or intelligent design.

* When talking about anti-consumerist behavior. Sure Netflix, Apple, MSFT, and AT&T engage in anti-consumerist (or unpopular) behavior. That doesn't mean that they're all equally wrong, or equally short-sighted.

* When talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sure both sides are wrong, but that doesn't absolve either side of their respective faults.

/end rant

Edit: To make it more informative.

* https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Relativit...

* http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Post reply on HN