[phillipamann]

I'm sorry but why do people love a news organization that is funded by Qatar? People claim that they were completely separate but they weren't at all and gripped by controversy that one would expect from an organization based out of Qatar [1]. I think there are better sources for American and global news than what is essentially the media arm for the corrupt and fascist government of Qatar.

[1] https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/al-jazeera-...

[surge]

Because oddly, in their attempt to build credibility, or maybe because a completely different set of people ran the American branch or the organization, the American version of it was really really good. It spoke out about issues other new orgs ignore, had little in the way of sensationalism and focus on non-sense stories and celebrity scandals. I expected some Islamic propaganda, but it was shockingly progressive in a lot of things it reported on (thinking mainly of its investigative specials). They would talk about the issues with drug prohibition, abuses by police, violations of free speech, one of the only networks that covered privacy issues especially when it comes to the Snowden leaks, NSA, etc and gave it more than the 4th grade reading level version of it and gave time to both arguments, didn't just end the discussion with "because terrorists/pedophiles" like most networks. Jon Oliver regularly used their clips in his show for a reason.

They would also mention their campaign to free investigative journalists jailed by the Muslim Brotherhood run government in Egypt.

[gotchange]

> I expected some Islamic propaganda, but it was shockingly progressive

The Islamist/conservative propaganda is reserved for the Arabic speaking channels such as their main channel AJN. They usually adopt editorial policies and fit their narrative based on the target market and Qatari foreign government policy goals. So, in the Arabic-speaking market, they push reactionary and backward messages to accommodate their conservative Islamist audience beside helping Qatar achieve goals like the wars in Yemen, Syria or Iraq (Sectarian and Sunni dominant militant propaganda) while for its English-speaking channels like AJE, they adopt softer stance on those issue and cater more for the Western liberal viewer with local relevant stories and progressive takes on current affairs.

> They would also mention their campaign to free investigative journalists jailed by the Muslim Brotherhood run government in Egypt.

Sisi the military dictator who staged the coup in 2013 not the MB who jailed those 3 journalists and then reluctantly freed them after much fanfare.

[tome]

Knowing very little about what AJA actually broadcast but knowing quite a lot about the Qatari regime I can't help thinking that AJA were not the least biased TV news outlet in the States, but rather the one whose bias was least perceptible to the well-educated, relatively young, slightly liberal-leaning, frequenters of HN.

[phillipamann]

This is exactly my thoughts exactly. Reality is biased. It just depends which opinions and ideologies you subscribe to. I am progressive and am against police brutality and a lot of the drug policies, I just could never trust the intentions of the Qatari news organization. I read the NYT for domestic and world news. Being Jewish and with all of my relatives in Israel, I read Times of Israel and Haaretz for Israel / Middle East coverage. I am a news junky and I subscribe to both NYT and Haaretz.

[CamperBob2]

It's sort of like the Middle Eastern version of the Christian Science Monitor. Kooky religion, surprisingly professional and credible newspaper.

[lmm]

I wouldn't expect them to be objective about stories in or involving Qatar, but what proportion of important news is that? A source whose biases are irrelevant to you is almost as good as an unbiased source.