this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2010
1,533 points (68% like it)
2,865 up votes 1,332 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

comments

canadienne 326 points327 points 4 months ago[-]

I quoted Al Jazeera as a part of a paper... my teacher said it was a biased source that was run by a 'questionable' (aka terrorists) group of individuals and not to use it again.

It's also pretty interesting to note that I'm South Asian and my 'terrorist' contacts may have influenced her decision.

Psikhushka 119 points120 points 4 months ago* [-]

Dear 'Recently-My-Teacher-Told-Me-That-Al-Jazeera-English-Is-A-Questionable-Source-Not-To-Be-Used',

Tell your teacher that when the BBC stopped broadcasting BBC Arabic, in 1996 after two years, the newly formed Al-Jazeera "recruited a number of former BBC Arabic staff and devised its news and current affairs programme formats from programmes seen on the BBC." (BBC News, January 7th, 1999)

Ask her if she's familiar with the famous President Richard Nixon and David Frost interviews. You might draw a blank but fortunately there was a play based on the interviews which recently became a film directed by Ron Howard, or Richie Cunningham from Happy Days. So there is some chance of garnering a little recognition.

Tell her Sir David now works for Al Jazeera.

Ask her if she thinks Sir David is a terrorist or if his in-depth Al Jazeera interviews with the following, to name but a few, aren't worthy of attention:

           Martti Ahtisaari (Former Finnish president, UN Special Envoy to the Kosovo
           Peace Process and Nobel Peace Laureate), US General Wesley Clark,  
           Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, Benazir Bhutto, Richard Dawkins, Benjamin
           Netanyahu, John Major (UK Prime Minister during the 1st Gulf War), Shimon
           Peres, Desmond Tutu, Henry Kissinger, Dennis Kucinich, Ban Ki Moon, 
           Álvaro Uribe, Jacob Zuma, Mikhail Gorbachev and George Herbert Walker Bush.

Tell her David Frost is journalism royalty; he's respected as such, and he works for Al Jazeera.

Don't tell her that she's a blinkered fool who should know better. Do what you have to do to pass her class but never forget that until you have to call them Doctor or Professor chances are you're actually more intelligent than them. They just have all the course notes, the syllabus and, in all likelihood, will have repeated the same lesson at least a dozen times.

Or, you know....print this off and leave it on her desk. Either or.

JJayUk 20 points21 points 4 months ago[-]

David Frost is not journalism royalty. He's famous in the UK for being a soft touch and asking questions which require little depth to answer. Tony Blair would often appear on Frost's Sunday morning couch a number of times but rarely make an appearance on Newsnight, for example.

Basically, if you were a politician and wanted to appear accountable to the public, you would go on his show because you knew you were in for an easy time.

I suppose he's considered journalism royalty because people have noted the number of famous and important people he's interviewed but forget the fact that the only reason he's able to get them in for an interview is because they know they're in for a cuddly time.

Oh, and as to his qualifications regarding the 'founding of satire' he was famous around the Oxbridge scene for copying and 'ripping off' far funnier and talented people and riding on the coat tails of many others - Peter Cook springs to mind. To imply there would be no Monty Python without him is laughable. He begged John Cleese for a part on the show, but Cleese was considerably wiser by then.

amirman 7 points8 points 4 months ago* [-]

nice try, Nixon's ghost!

notomorrow 4 points5 points 4 months ago* [-]

Nixon's*

FTFY.

Edit: Original said: "Reagan's Ghost"

happybadger 15 points16 points 4 months ago[-]

Tell her David Frost is journalism royalty; he's respected as such, and he works for Al Jazeera.

David Frost isn't journalism royalty. He's the physical embodiment of journalism. He's the alpha and the omega.

the6thReplicant 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

And without him there'll be no Monty Python.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Was_The_Week_That_Was

In fact you might say he was the first Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert news presenter.

totalwarfiles_com 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

Peter Cook once remarked his only regret in life was saving Frost from drowning.

datakeep 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Have you actually watched any of his interviews lately? They're shit and so is he. He can get big names to come on his show 'Frost over the world' because of his name, but it never gets interesting. David Frost is nowhere near 'journalism royalty'.

And yes, I'm a journalist.

Psikhushka 2 points3 points 4 months ago* [-]

Have you actually watched any of his interviews lately? They're shit and so is he....And yes, I'm a journalist.

Well if that last bit is true then you just let yourself down.

I'll continue...

  • Remember the recent fatwa against terrorism by Dr Tahir ul Qadri? Frost got the interview like you say he can but he allowed Dr Qadri to speak, asked the pertinent questions and got the complete Dr Qadri story out there. Is he a cheap sensationalist? No. Is he raising the media standard? Most definitely; he's actually sets the bar. March 8th, 2010

  • Remember Iraq's election last week? Prior to it Frost gets the head of the Iraqi National Front, one of the most prominent Iraqi politicians barred from the election. March 6th 2010

  • Or Jesse Jackson on Obama and Edward Carr of The Economist on Zapatero's allegations. Again he asks the right questions and lets them speak. If there is a point of contention he calls it. It's called class. March 26th, 2010 [EDIT <<<FEB26th,2010]

When he interviews somebody you are actually left knowing what it is that person thinks and how they see things. It's not pushing dumbed-down talking points. It's not the forced 'David Frost's Opinion Show'. It's actually civilised and insightful.

It's what journalism aught to be so people can make their own informed opinion.

RCIIIcm 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

An interview in the future?! AMAZING!

judgej2 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

tl;dr: tell her to fuck off.

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

eldigg [!] 334 points335 points 4 months ago[-]

I had a running joke with an Indian friend where I would answer his calls like I was his terrorist buddy ("So what's the next target?"... etc).

One day he accidentally dialed the country code for Iraq rather than India. As soon as it connected he realized his mistake and hung up. Evidently, fifteen minutes later two city cops show up and ask him why he was calling Iraq... Turns out I may have gotten him on a watch list.

I am torn between thinking this is hilarious or profoundly disturbing.

apeman5291 141 points142 points 4 months ago[-]

Who says it's not both?

Nessie 216 points217 points 4 months ago[-]

Disturbularious.

usermeme 54 points55 points 4 months ago[-]

A quality addition to my spectacular vernacular.

deadapostle 17 points18 points 4 months ago[-]

It makes me want to get into some extracurricular, perpendicular, testicular adventure.

thisispeace 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

How did I not hear this in high school?

t_b 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

Spectacunacular...?

mulattolibido 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Your sentence is just fun to say. Almost as fun as disturbularious.

ThatMoron 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

thank you for making my world a better place to live in

panfist 13 points14 points 4 months ago[-]

If it's truly disturbing, then I dare say that's the opposite of hilarious.

italkshit 26 points27 points 4 months ago* [-]

Well, it's an unfortunate truth that a good portion of our American people are getting more and more ignorant (not stupid.) Thus, anything with "Al" in the name is associated with Al Qaeda. If they hadn't heard of Al B. Sure, Al Jerreau, or even, Al Bundy before, they'd think they were terrorists.

Brain21 59 points60 points 4 months ago[-]

Algebra? Goddamn terrorists adding our integers

espress0 48 points49 points 4 months ago[-]

"The word algebra is a Latin variant of the Arabic word al-jabr. This came from the title of a book, Hidab al-jabr wal-muqubala, written in Baghdad about 825 A.D. by the Arab mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi. The words jabr (JAH-ber) and muqubalah (moo-KAH-ba-lah) were used by al-Khowarizmi to designate two basic operations in solving equations. Jabr was to transpose subtracted terms to the other side of the equation. Muqubalah was to cancel like terms on opposite sides of the equation. In fact, the title has been translated to mean "science of restoration (or reunion) and opposition" or "science of transposition and cancellation" and "The Book of Completion and Cancellation" or "The Book of Restoration and Balancing." "

-http://www.und.edu/instruct/lgeller/algebra.html

rg11389 23 points24 points 4 months ago[-]

Also, Knuth notes in "The Art of Programming", that the word algorithm is from a bastardization of al-Khowarizmi.

andocmdo 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

What a beautiful title for a book about such a beautiful subject. Thanks for the info!

faultydesign 61 points62 points 4 months ago[-]

It was invented by muslims! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

aeoutfitters33 14 points15 points 4 months ago[-]

Al Gore?
(shudders)

mybuttwasprobed 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Al Bundy?

derwisch 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

If you'll be my bodyguard

I can be your long lost pal

I can call you Betty

And Betty when you call me

jfh2112 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

use a disposable phone and a vocal scrambler

Antebios 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

alright?

brakattak 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

alimony?

jay76 18 points19 points 4 months ago[-]

That dude with a broken jar up his arse made me laugh and squirm at the same time.

Maybe that's just me.

faultydesign 13 points14 points 4 months ago[-]

Well, at least you didn't fap to it...

tuutruk 17 points18 points 4 months ago[-]

I was laughing and squirming the first few times I watched it. My Kentucky toothpaste made an appearance around the fifth re-run.

mrkev333 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

Nothing like Kentucky toothpaste for that good, smooth, clean.

charliedayman 12 points13 points 4 months ago[-]

Ahaha. I am also currently on reddit and thus understand your reference.

IndianGuy79 65 points66 points 4 months ago[-]

I am an Indian and I call this utter bullshit. Either your friend is feeding you or you are trying to feed us.

Country code of Iraq is 964 and of India is 91. Most plausible thing happened is your Indian friend called 911 and hung up once he realized mistake.

This happened to me when my father was trying to call India and he by mistake added extra 1 after 91 - we got call back and within 5 mins cops show up - first thing cop asked was whether were trying to call India?

puneetla 42 points43 points 4 months ago[-]

Been there done that. First day in US, I dial 91-11 while trying to call Delhi (STD code 11). My first phone call in US was to 911, this isnt going to end well.

AussieSceptic 13 points14 points 4 months ago[-]

Look at his username, this guy's legit.

bitspace 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

Some sceptic you are.

counterplex 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

Extra 1? You'd need to dial 011 or some other escape numbers to allow international dialing. 911 wouldn't get triggered that way.

shadowfox 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

Well. If you did not know that and launched straight in to the international number ...

walrus51 28 points29 points 4 months ago[-]

Dude, do not fuck around like that, seriously. My friend is a lawyer in Philly and he has worked half a dozen federal cases of young guys screwing around over the phones, or when they think people are eavesdropping on them because they "look suspicious." It doesn't take much to get these paranoid fucks worked into a lather.

eldigg [!] 40 points41 points 4 months ago* [-]

Well, I suppose I should stop loudly directing him towards large buildings when he's playing flight sim at the coffee shop.

[deleted] 22 points23 points 4 months ago* [-]

I was working for a non-profit that was organizing linux testing in conjunction with the United Nations in Pakistan around 2003, I was working from home. I received a call from my phone companies "security" department asking me why I was calling Pakistan. The guy on the other end of the line told me I was "lucky" my name wasn't Mohammed or else he'd have to "report me to the federal officials he worked with". My last name is Jewish, I'm not. Literally, I think that's what saved me.

I permanently left the US several years later and married a SE Asian Muslim. That's how pissed I was.

Nachteule 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

You married someone to "show them" how pissed you are? Where I come from you marry someone you love - we are a little bit crazy...

[deleted] 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Take a joke much? Here, reach up, I just gave you one.

canadienne 51 points52 points 4 months ago[-]

It's not hilarious when you have to spend more time than others at the airport...

My dad who looks the most Islamic out of all of us ends up getting interrogated alone, spends more time getting scrutinized, ect. Irony is that he's agnostic and that he'll be the first one to claim that Islam's completely sexist bullshit.

eldigg [!] 46 points47 points 4 months ago* [-]

Here's the great bit, he has a light-aircraft pilots license. He's talked his way into the cockpit of several Air India flights.

Least successful terrorist ever.

The security at airports is just theater, incredibly pointless.

bonoes 38 points39 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm confused about you replying to that post as if you wrote the original post.

eldigg [!] 15 points16 points 4 months ago* [-]

I'm referring to the guy in my original post, rather than who canadienne is talking about. Was that the confusion?

neoumlaut 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

That was my boggle, thanks for clearing it up.

morgewan 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

No worries, it could happen to anyone.

redditforaction 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

So, moregewan, do you agree with what i said on this post?

treebright 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

Yes, and no. I'd rather not get into the specifics.

Gareth321 20 points21 points 4 months ago[-]

If that's true, it's beyond disturbing. You Americans have already lost.

frreekfrreely 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

Yes, we have.

vancouverite 12 points13 points 4 months ago[-]

He 'accidently' dialed 964 instead of 91? Suspicious

eldigg [!] 42 points43 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm pretty sure it was something like:

964-39... vs. 91-439... so only a single digit was wrong

ninjin 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

Jolly good Sir, allow me to insert a reference to old Levenshtein as well when we are judging differences between sequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance

dilithium 19 points20 points 4 months ago[-]

Worthy of a tazing, at least.

rmrilke 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

I call BS too. Two "city" cops showed up to investigate a national security threat? really? homeland security calls 911 when they intercept calls to iraq?

wejash 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

The TSA was busy stealing your laptop.

ziom666 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Eew? Wtf? It's not their fucking business, why he called Iraq. Where is the famous American freedom? Is it always that way, or just one exceptional situation?

judgej2 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

The famous American freedom is the freedom to do what you are told.

[deleted] 12 points13 points 4 months ago[-]

You should wear terrorist glasses instead.

Heyooooo!

ajehals 19 points20 points 4 months ago[-]

my 'terrorist' contacts

Shhh

KalamMekhar 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

He said Shhh guys don't upvote him!

fod 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

ســح

canadienne 13 points14 points 4 months ago[-]

أريد أن تهب شيء ما.

;)

fod 24 points25 points 4 months ago[-]

Reading arabic online is exceedingly difficult w/o glasses :(

yodacallmesome 25 points26 points 4 months ago[-]

I don't read Arabic, but I've always thought the Arabic fonts used on the web look way too small.

dont_exist 12 points13 points 4 months ago[-]

فوك يو

dr852 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

I see what you did there...

ours 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

Is that the Arabic look of disapproval?

erfwerm 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

فك يو ﺗﻭ

Gluesuf 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

Ctrl + +!

anasqtiesh 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

The problem is that with most Arabic fonts the best readable size is 13-14 pt. Which is a little bit larger than the default English font for web pages and documents. So that's why it's harder to read if it's not addressed separately be web developers.

ajehals 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

¿dn buıɥʇǝɯos ʍo1q

mybuttwasprobed 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

well if you are reading upside down, chances are you've already blown something up.

azth 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

LOL -- I know Arabic, and that made absolutely no sense until I plugged it into Google translate.

ours 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

I sort of agree with your teacher. Al Jazeera should be questioned. Just in the same way we should question any source of information like the BBC, CNN, CNBC, Reuters, AP or whatever local/national news source.

It also seems you're well on your way in terms of critical thinking by questioning your teachers. Congratulations.

dhotson 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that nearly all news you read is biased in some way.

I like to think that Al Jazeera provides an alternative view, which helps to balance things out a little bit.

SamFuckingNeill 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

..also interesting to note that you actually used any news at all as your reliable source.

commodoreperry 58 points59 points 4 months ago[-]

Control Room is a terrific documentary about al-Jazeera's war coverage.

happyscrappy 29 points30 points 4 months ago[-]

To me, that was Al Jazeera's shining moment, leading up to the 2004 US election. When every other news source embedded with US troops (giving up control of what they report to the US military) or was otherwise unable to leave the Green Zone (so they couldn't get out to get the stories), Al Jazeera was able to get out and report the actual situation on the ground.

The info was not well received in the US, the Bush Administration was still able to maintain the fiction that the war was going well, so Al Jazeera accurately reporting it was not was condemned as lies and propaganda. The US military even "accidentally" bombed Al Jazeera reporters in the field, despite being told of their positions.

While other outlets were reprinting US government press releases, Al Jazeera got to the truth. Sadly, they have failed to remain relevant to Americans in the years since then.

SWIFTNZ 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

Watched the trailer you linked, it looks good, going to have to watch it.
Thanks for letting me know about it. :)

neuron1007 129 points130 points 4 months ago[-]

They are pretty good, just not when it comes to anything regarding the Qatari Royals ...

Gauthaman 27 points28 points 4 months ago[-]

Hahaha the only way you'll get the downlow on actual qatari happenings is if you get it from people in the loop. No one will publish it so you only get scoop on the background by knowing a bunch of people who know other people.

Sylph 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

I know a bunch of people who know other people. But then I'm not really that interested in the Qatari happenings.

mattindustries 29 points30 points 4 months ago[-]

I know people who know people too! I know my friend who knows his brother. I also know my roommate who knows his parents.

reddithatesjews7 21 points22 points 4 months ago[-]

that's only for English version, it is part of their plan to become more legitimate and respected around the world.. even though you are right, i have watched many of their documentaries on youtube... thousands of them, fucking awesome! last one I watched was about a tradition in central asia of kidnapping women to become their brides which is how the -majority- of people living in the villages end up married.. lol they documented a live kidnapping where she was then raped that very night and she ended up as the guys wife.. perfectly legal and accepted in that country.. you would never see any american news agency cover that except vbs but vbs has too much worthless hipster/hippie shit

kwade 63 points64 points 4 months ago[-]

"lol"?!

Hraes 24 points25 points 4 months ago[-]

The 90s generation repeatedly uses "lol" in contexts that completely baffle me. Can a representative of the 90s please explain this?

kingawesome 36 points37 points 4 months ago[-]

At this point "lol" is more of like a "huh" or a "ha" or "heh"...in the context above, it would be understood to mean something like "can you believe it?" Funny weird, not funny haha.

You've really got to "LOL" or "rofl" or "hahaha" if you want to get it right nowadays.

Hraes 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

Nessie 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

Lots of love.

tlsmooth 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

Find the Moth podcast where the dad talks about thinking "lol" meant "lots of love." He would respond to "My father passed away last week" e-mails with LOL.

bamfb2 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

nervous laughter?

I'd try something more along the lines of: "uhhh heh..."

jesster114 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Look at username

the1pato 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

"vbs?"

Nick4753 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

I know someone who was familiar with their launch (did some consulting) then has done some work for them since...

it is really just one rich guy in the middle-east bankrolling the entire operation

ebob9 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Link?

aranasyn 76 points77 points 4 months ago* [-]

I read a combination of BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Al-Jazeera English and Arabic. Although every news media has bias in some way or another, I find the fact that these organizations report the actual news (while Fox, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN mostly report entertaining/entertainment bullshit) to be, overwhelmingly, my reason for watching them.

Japeth 37 points38 points 4 months ago[-]

What about NPR?

turtlestack 39 points40 points 4 months ago[-]

The thing about NPR that I've never heard anyone mention is that conservatives think it's too liberal and liberals think it's too conservative.

In my eyes (ears, anyway), they must be doing something exactly right to be seen this way.

ejp1082 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

I wouldn't call them liberal or conservative per se. They're definitely not "Fox News" style conservative. But they're not Olbermann/Maddow either. They're a notch above CNN, have a tad more fluff than PBS. But when it comes to political coverage they fall prey to the same problem a lot of media has - in their quest to be neutral, they sometimes wind up presenting "He said, she said", and letting some right wing nutjob say something insane without being challenged.

I think you just have to consider their audience - it's somewhat upper-middle class, and their programming reflects that. There's lots of stuff for the suburban bourgeoisie that forms their small donor base, especially in their arts and culture coverage. If I had to guess, it skews towards women as well. On the whole, I'd peg their orientation as "Democrat", but not "Progressive", and mostly I'd describe their content as very middle-class white.

Bornhuetter 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

Dunno, some conservatives think Fox is "fair and balanced". You don't have to be too centrist to be considered too liberal by some.

edit: not saying NPR is conservative, just that I don't think conservatives calling it liberal means it is.

mredd 22 points23 points 4 months ago[-]

The people at NPR are neo-liberals and that shows in their coverage. The Middle-East coverage is extremely pro-Israel which means that they fall into the Fox "News" family.

Hoodwink 46 points47 points 4 months ago[-]

It's not quite 'pro-Israel', most commentators stay relatively neutral. The way NPR avoids advocacy is sometimes quite problematic. So much so, that when any commentator even states an embarrassing fact about Israel they backtrack and say that they support Israel so they don't upset any of it's listeners. It's really quite shameful.

But, being neutral usually means you're going along with what has the most momentum. And at this point in America, the Israeli lobby has PR and Political machine in action that attacks anyone as anti-Semitic.

otakucode 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've been frequently disgusted with the NPR "reporters" so clearly taking sides and delivering opinion instead of news. I was really shocked at first, since I thought NPR valued objectivity, but whether a news organization is agreeing with my opinions or not, I avoid it if the "reporters" are clearly selling an agenda. I haven't ever really paid particular attention to their Israel coverage, but their coverage of other news topics is terrible so I'd be surprised if they chose that one subject to be objective about.

BeetleB 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've been frequently disgusted with the NPR "reporters" so clearly taking sides and delivering opinion instead of news.

I'd wager you're confusing NPR with local NPR stations. There are few NPR reporters, per se. Your local NPR station will broadcast a small number of "NPR" shows. The rest of the shows (majority) are chosen on their accord, not on NPR's. Perhaps you're conflating the two.

Krases 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

Yeah I am from Nevada. We have Nevada Public Radio and National Public Radio.

Igggg 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

In order to truly fall into the Fox family, they would need to not only be biased and unbalanced, but to actually and openly lie.

mredd 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Yeah but there is some kind of continuum, right? At the deep end we have Fox "News" then closer to the surface of decency we have CNN and NPR. They are still below what I can stand but not as bad as Fox "News".

Japeth 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

Is it really? Can you cite a article or story or something that shows a pro-Isreal bias? I'm not trying to challenge you, I just don't think I've ever noticed said bias.

EarnestMalware 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Its the NY thing

TMTjosh 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

The redeeming quality of NPR is that use the BBC for news.

ajehals 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

A decent set of choices, I have to say that being in the UK and speaking a couple of European languages coupled with internet radio makes getting real news and indeed different views aimed at different countries on the same story quite easy and entertaining. Hell, it's interesting just to see what BBC R4 is leading with vs WDR 5 and generally comical when compared to an equivalent US station. That isn't to say there isn't bias and nationalism to some extent everywhere, it's a matter of degrees...

otakucode 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

It astounds me how people in the US buy into the "cleansing" of their news post-Vietnam. They're so obsessed with censorship, they don't even consider that if a country cannot stomach the blood and guts of a war that maybe the war isn't justified in the eyes of the public and therefore the government should not be fighting it. The idea of the government representing the population is dead. And journalism as well is dead, at least in the US.

rasteri 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

I think the BBC is pretty good, but I'm from the UK, and it reflects the sort of attitude many of us have over here.

I'm surprised how many Americans (even liberals) find it anti-american though. I've never really gotten that impression from it at all. Maybe a Yank could enlighten me?

JeezumCrow 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

PBS NewsHour is pretty good.

TigerStyle 77 points78 points 4 months ago[-]

If you're only going to one news source you're doing it wrong.

DougBolivar 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

dude, he came to reddit to say this. do you think he does not goes to other sources?

kingtrewq 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

I think he was just proclaiming that it was the best out of all other options. He clearly uses other sources that's why it is so refreshing each time he returns to real news.

one2gamble 27 points28 points 4 months ago[-]

its because of their name more than anything, they also lack a legitimate US presence which also hurts their reputation.

brheath [S] 28 points29 points 4 months ago[-]

I've read that the lacking US presence is chiefly due to US satellite carriers refusing to broadcast the channel mostly for reasons, like you mention, due to the name more than the reporting. Sort of a Catch-22 (their lack of US presence hurts their reputation which in turns causes a lack of US presence)

bobsil1 17 points18 points 4 months ago[-]

If "al" = terrorist then algebra, algorithms, Al Bundy and the word "the" are verboten.

mredd 18 points19 points 4 months ago[-]

and alcohol

L320Y 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

alleluja!

jbisrael 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

Alabama, Alaska, Alterations and of course, Alliterations.

otakucode 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

If they aired in America, they would have to radically change their content. When there are bodies, they show them. Unacceptable in America. Censorship is far too loved in this country for any news agency to actually competently report on war or anything like that.

Sporkman 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

It's not the censors that do that, it's the networks. People don't WANT to see dead bodies, so stations don't show them, it's all about ratings.

livestradamus 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

People don't WANT to see REAL dead bodies, so stations don't show them, it's all about ratings. FTFY

People love violence, as long as its in movies and games. I'm for showing the real consequences of war.

Pooh_Bear 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

It isn't 'censorship' in the sense that anyone is forcing them to remove it. The state of journalism in this country is due to the fact that the TV-viewing public, instead of watching real news, would rather watch sex scandals, celebrity gossip, and other assorted garbage. Al-Jazeera doesn't have a strong presence in the US because they aren't showing what American (EDIT: news-watching) audiences really want to see (mindless crap). I doubt their inability to gain a foothold here is due to any other reason.

[deleted] 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

LinkTV has satellite access and they run segments from several Al-Jazeera stations, but not straight feeds or anything.

AbouBenAdhem 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

They should just translate the name (“The Peninsula”) for the English-language version.

evox777 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

al = the

Jazeera = island

edit:formatting

Ash09 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

'al jazeera' literal translation is 'The Island' referring to qatar, and not peninsula, as peninsula in arabic is 'shibih al jazeera'

oostevo 1 point2 points 4 months ago* [-]

Eh, the name of the station is closer to "the island."

I've heard "The Peninsula" in Arabic as "the almost island" or "the semi-island": شبه الجزيرة

Arabic definitely isn't my first language, though, so anyone who knows more should chime in.

[Edited for clarity]

dhatura 15 points16 points 4 months ago[-]

Like other news outlets they have their blind spots, but I agree with you - that you get news at AJ that is usually unreported in western media.

[deleted] 4 months ago[-]

[deleted]

brheath [S] 48 points49 points 4 months ago[-]

Or the even more egregious incident of Sami al-Hajj: Cameraman who was picked up in route to a story in Afghanistan, shipped to Guantanamo Bay where he was held extrajudicial detention, only to be released six years later without charge.

ajehals 18 points19 points 4 months ago* [-]

Hell, the Americans still won't extradite IRA terrorists to the UK.

[Edit: I'm being disingenuous and unfair, the correct point is probably that in the past and now there is a large amount of opposition to the extradition of people that the US sees as political, whether terrorists or not and extradition requests are not always denied.]

jmcqk6 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Could you explain this a little bit? I tried google, but didn't find much information. Are you talking about noraid?

ajehals 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

The short answer is yes it has a bit to do with Noraid, but the general point is that over a fairly long period of time the US, or at least judges in parts of the US have refused to allow the extradition of some IRA, Suspected IRA and convicted IRA terrorists to the UK. This is probably an interesting read and gives an indication as to why, even if it doesn't give a full picture.

cardiac_cath 17 points18 points 4 months ago[-]

The iPhone app lets you watch their channel live.

koan 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

Ha. Came into the thread to post just that. That app is pretty indispensable to me now.

ssnseawolf 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

Al Jazeera, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, really made a damn good effort to make all their reporting top-notch.

If anything, I think they've fallen even farther off the Western radar since then.

A complete shame.

notboring 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

Heck, it more American's would even switch over to watching the BBC news we'd have a better informed public. The US national news programs are essentially children's programs.

Neil_young_freak 12 points13 points 4 months ago* [-]

I'm living in Israel these days, and I can't get over how completely unbiased they come across even towards this place. Fox and CNN would have you believe that one side farts flowers and the other is evil.

Yet Al Jazeera reports equally on both sides, and doesn't have those annoying opinion pieces spouted in condescending tones by the ugliest people on TV (ahem...Fox...). Fantastic. It's no wonder they are always America's first bombing target in any war against the brown people...

Edit:fixed a typo

studentoflaw 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

It is a shame most Americans think that, but definitely not an accident.

Al Jazeera had to be discredited. The Bush administration couldn't risk Americans being exposed to the truth, especially from an Arab perspective:

"On November 13, 2001, during the US invasion of Afghanistan, 2001, a U.S. missile strike destroyed Al Jazeera's office in Kabul.

In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Pentagon hired the Rendon Group to target and possibly punish Al Jazeera reporters who did not stay on message.

When Al Jazeera went on to do reporting featuring very graphic footage from inside Iraq, US officials decried Al Jazeera as anti-American and as inciting violence. This sentiment was widely echoed throughout the US media and population...

On 8 April 2003 Al Jazeera's office in Baghdad was hit by a U.S. missile, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounding another.

Al Jazeera reports that it had mailed coordinates for their office to the U.S. State Department six weeks earlier and that these should have clearly identified their location...

On 22 November 2005, the UK tabloid The Daily Mirror published a story claiming that it had obtained a leaked memo from 10 Downing Street saying that former U.S. President George W. Bush had considered bombing Al Jazeera's Doha headquarters in April 2004, when U.S. Marines were conducting a contentious assault on Fallujah."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

qxcvr 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Yeah Al Jazeera is my number one source for news... Im just starting my masters degree and I plan on using much of their stuff as sources for my international relations degree. I hope I don't end up with an F :>) I also want to put in a word for SILOBREAKER. These guys really are the Google of news. you can read the same story from 10 different agencies... very interesting to see the political differences and spin!

post_hxc 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

Am I the only American who doesn't really "trust" our media? I consider the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Reuters the best news sources out there. CNN and Fox are jokes compared to them.

mrmoney 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

Idiots think it's terrorist because it has "al", at the front, like "al Qaeda"

highvolt4g3 12 points13 points 4 months ago[-]

My list of underrated new sources that most Americans don't read.

Al-Jazeera: www.english.aljazeera.net

BBC: www.bbc.co.uk

Christian Science Monitor (not trolling, I swear, they are good): www.csmonitor.com/

I_am_your_mother 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

I am continually mildly surprised to read very intelligent articles from the CSM. Who are they?

rasteri 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

It's run by an evil Christian sect that shuns most types of medical technology (preferring to rely on prayer) but as far as I can see the paper itself is essentially run independently. The worldview of its backers rarely seems to creep in, and it's generally considered to be an excellent news source.

Biophilia_curiosus 29 points30 points 4 months ago[-]

Uh... they may have interesting perspectives at times, but they still proselytize and condone rebuking science, such as the case with evolution. I think it's always important to have many outlets.

brheath [S] 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

Hmm... I've very rarely seen them make any sort of comments about evolution. The only thing that I could recall was a very civil one-on-one sit-down Dawkins did earlier this year. If anything, it's the few times I've seen Dawkins be given ample time for response to questions by a news organization without other talking heads/hosts shouting him down every five seconds.

As for proselytizing, certainly there are some tinges. They certainly gave ample time/coverage for The Hajj, with some reporters recounting their personal spiritual experience with the pilgrimage, but as a whole, I think the coverage was actually pretty muted.

And for sure, multiple outlets are the way to go to get a more complete picture of events, it's just that I think Al Jazeera should be considered one of those go-to outlets.

squidwalk 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

The first one I though of was this article. Granted, they're reporting on Americans saying they've refuted evolution, but I thought it seemed disreputable to report such a thing as fact.

I've always generally approved of their news coverage, and I saw Control Room in theaters, but that evolution stuff did bother me. I suppose that, in terms of news integrity, it could be worse.

thtanner 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Well, over half our country seems to have their head in the sand and don't believe evolution, so their article is pretty much correct. I couldn't read it to verify.. just by your paraphrase.

Dorcus0 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

It needs to be said more often.

ifiwasntintherapgame 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

It's a shame the word "terrorist" has become a catchall for anyone that doesn't go along with the agenda of the American military-industrial complex.

Rayc31415 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

During the attack of fallujah:

Fox news: U.S. Troops clear half of fallujah, terrorists using mosques as weapons depots

CNN: U.S. troops take half of fallujah, first Aid convoy reaches city .

BBC: Insurgents stop coalition troops halfway though fallujah, Aid convoy turned back due to heavy fighting.

Al Jazeera: Resistance fighters halt U.S. advance, half of city's mosques destroyed.

Jawajoey 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

It's amazing how much more information you can get with 4 headlines than you can with one, even if it's the best of the four.

zalos 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

I guess every news organization is a tad bit biased. However, watching a sniper vid on their site they failed to show whole clips. They showed a series of sniper attacks. In one shot a US soldier was shot and fell to the ground. I saw that same clip on CNN, they were doing a piece on body armor. However in that clip they let it keep rolling instead of cutting away. The soldier got back up and ran for cover, saved by his armor.

terabap 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

as a young adult in the subcontinent i got all of my news from either bbc, al jazeera english and cnn international. then when i came into the states i was astounded by all the useless bullshit people take for news, look at cnn for example, its international station (based in atlanta) is an articulate and legitimate news organization while its usa channel (also based in atlanta, hell in the same freakin building) is a melee of blitzers beard and larry kings suspenders all added with the latest sex offender case to be followed shortly by how to know if your cars gasket is malfunctioning. for any actual news content i watch the daily show and colbert (plus the ipod touch app of livestation which offers al jazeera- a must buy!)

MpVpRb 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

And...stupid celebrity gossip is not on the front page.

I like them a lot.

livejamie 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

You can watch them for free on livestation, they're pretty awesome.

crusty_old_gamer 18 points19 points 4 months ago[-]

I appreciate that Al Jazeera exists and is able to reach worldwide audiences. It is good to see credible reporting from the "other side". However, it is definitely NOT unbiased, and it would be a mistake to ignore the interests it represents (i.e. the wealthy Arab states) when evaluating their stories.

rimwalker 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

Any document proof of bias? rather than giving us the usual knee-jerk cynical they must have bias. Please substantiate those instances of bias.

Rather than a general statement that they are not unbiased. I would be interested to know of documented case of bias by Al-Jazeera English.

RckmRobot 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

I can almost understand why people make that connection, because I almost fell for that connection.

I never really paid much attention to the news before 9/11, and immediately afterward it was EVERYWHERE in the news. The sudden deluge confused me, and I kept noticing that Al Jazeera and Al-Qaeda were often mentioned together (because of all the terrorists' videos being submitted to Al Jazeera, among other things). Because of that connection and the associated confusion, I thought for the longest time that Al Jazeera was similar to Al-Qaeda.

I mean, seriously, they both start with "Al"! How can people NOT be confused?

lowrads 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

They're non-english programming is less censored and reveals their anti-western, anti-liberal bias.

One man's Al Jazeera is another man's Sankei Shimbun.

spinlock 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

My sister's friend did a documentary of Al Jazeera called "The Control Room." It's a great perspective on the invasion of Iraq. But, Al Jazeera english is different from the other languages and I'm sure their Arabic reporting is much more biased.

CaptainPash 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Wait why is Al Jazeera better? I don't get this. It is a news group that doesn't run the same stories as the American media. Wow, they must be telling the truth because we know the American media doesn't tell the truth. Just because I tell you that four puppies are waiting for you behind a door and then you open it and there aren't any puppies, but someone else tells you behind the next door there are kittens doesn't mean there are. Everyone can lie, cheat, and steal just as effectively. Why should I take Al Jazeera over the NY times, the BBC. Hell, the whole argument for Al Jazeera is that it was made up of former BBC guys. Why not go to the BBC. At least if they lie to me I can hold them accountable, but what happens when Al Jazeera lies to me? You can't do anything and how can you trust someone who you can't hold accountable with something as vital as information.

Cthulhu_fhtagn 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Dude, thanks for turning me onto Al Jazeera. I will admit, I was definitely among the misinformed until I just checked out their site. Mad props.

poetical_poltergeist 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

The English channel of Al Jazeera is quite good, I don't know about the Arabic version though.

a-lady 2 points3 points 4 months ago* [-]

I don't understand why the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is always overlooked in discussions about news sources. It is unparalleled in its coverage and analysis of domestic politics.

As far as print news...the sky is the limit. You can even subscribe to news and research organizations that will collect information in a niche category of your choosing and e-mail you with the list of the titles and short summary.

Examples: Radio Free Europe, Johnson's Russia List

HawkUK 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

It's quite weird seeing quite a few old BBC faces there.

They also have awesome idents/music!

loyalone 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

I subscribe to them on Youtube, simply because its good to have an alternate, non-Americentric view of the world's activities. And I have to agree with the submitter brheath, the number and variety of news items covered seems much wider than the regular fare shown on dthe big US networks.

haesuse 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

You missed the mark a little there.

Most Americans don't think they're in cahoots with terrorists...

Most Americans think they are terrorists.

Grue 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

As long as you ignore the fact that they are a bunch of loony creationists.

derpderderp 10 points11 points 4 months ago* [-]

I know its been said before, but why are you so retarded to assume that a company out to make money (by reporting news) would report anything other than what makes the most money?

U.S. MSM is a for-profit business. There is no reason to assume they care about anything other than their bottom line.

Gudeldar 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

Al Jazeera is also a for profit business.

[deleted] 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

MSM is the most powerful propaganda tool ever invented.

TJ11240 4 points5 points 4 months ago* [-]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this broad claim. American mainstream media is not even an invented device, it just evolved into the creature it is today. An invented propaganda machine is alive and well in North Korea, where we have starving citizens that fear and pity the rest of the free world. The government controls everything they see and hear. Or look back into the middle ages, where the church had a stranglehold over much of Europe, and would quickly silence all opposing views. Scientists were afraid to do their jobs.

Even Fox News isn't propaganda. Its incredibly biased and slanted, but there is a market for it, and they make money selling people what they want to hear. You give them too much credit if you think there is a larger motive; its just idiots feeding idiots.

edit: spelling

brheath [S] 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

I know, which is why it's so refreshing to see "real journalism" in an environment so filled with for-profit reporting.

chewyrunt 4 points5 points 4 months ago* [-]

Let's not forget that Al Jazeera threw a 'welcome home' party for Samir Kuntar, one of the most despicable terrorists around:

"On July 19, 2008, Al Jazeera TV broadcast a program from Lebanon that covered the 'welcome-home' festivities for Samir Kuntar. In the program, the head of Al Jazeera's Beirut office, Ghassan bin Jiddo, lavished praise on Kuntar by calling him a 'pan-Arab hero' and organized a birthday party for him."

For those who aren't familiar with Samir Kuntar: He traveled from Lebanon to Israel to abduct civilians that could be traded for jailed members of the PLF (he was also ordered to murder at least one police officer, which he did). He kidnapped Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter; when Samir found out that his escape boat had been damaged, he executed Danny in front of his daughter, and then used the butt of his rifle to smash her head in. Meanwhile Danny's wife and their 2-year-old daughter hid in a closet; while trying to keep her from making any sound, she accidentally suffocated the girl.

Of course they've tailored their English broadcasts to a western audience - if you want to gain some insight into where Al Jazeera's heart really lies, watch it in Arabic. Here's some footage from the party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIkrQGz5ats

nnrrrraah 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

...no, it's a shame most Americans haven't even heard of Al Jazeera

Walletau 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

Bit depressing for my taste:

AROUND THE WORLD NOW Africa

Sudan and Jem talks set to begin
Massacre leaves Nigerians on edge

Americas

Greek PM meets Obama over crisis
Guatemala mine 'exploiting' locals

Asia-Pacific

Bali bomb-maker killed in raid
Myanmar bars Suu Kyi from polls

CENTRAL/S. ASIA

Aid workers shot dead in Pakistan
Deadlock over India women's bill

Europe

Russian tycoon wins UK libel case
Quake exposes poor Turkish building

Middle East

US: Israel undermining peace effort
US family seeks Israeli damages

pyth 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

For unrivaled journalism, don't forget DemocracyNow.org which doesn't have the financial backing of the Sheiks of Quatar and requires viewer support to continue their dauntless tasks.

If you are not familiar, try listening (I prefer listening to watching) for an hour a day for a week, you'll wonder what you did before and not look back. The quality is unmatched.

kadjar 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Democracy Now gives me hope in humanity.

DirtySouth 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

It's a shame most Americans think they're in cahoots with terrorists.

A lot of us in the United States know them to be just as biased as any other mainstream news outlet.

raouldukeesq 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

"It's a shame most Americans think they're in cahoots with terrorists."

What kind of bullshit bias is that?