51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Care to expand on what the theatre we're about to witness at the UN part?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the 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.
> "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…
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.
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...
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.”
"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.
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.
"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.
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…
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.
(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.