[nir]

I think it's hilarious the same people who complain about corporate/government interests affecting Western media often praise Al Jazeera. Do you really assume Qatar's Emir funds the network out of sheer philanthropy, or some passion for quality journalism?

Al Jazeera does not cover issues that are uncomfortable to Qatar - whether it's the WikiLeaks Qatar documents, where they urge the US to strike Iran or issues within Qatar itself. Their hard-hitting coverage is limited to issues that won't harm Qatar's interests - in much the same way USSR's Pravda might cover American corruption.

It's amazing how easy it is to fool people with just a slightly more sophisticated approach.

[michaelchisari]

Al Jazeera's relationship with Qatar is similar to the BBC's relationship with the UK. Their internal reporting is very different from their international reporting due to this, just as with the BBC.

That doesn't change the fact that their international reporting, much like the BBC's, is quite good. To compare it to Pravda is ridiculous.

[nir]

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous relativism I'm talking about.

The UK is a democracy where some of the taxpayer's money goes towards financing the BBC.

Qatar is a monarchy, where the control of the nation is passed within Al Thani dyansty which uses some of its oil/gas revenues to finance Al Jazeera.

When the BBC reports something that is inconvenient to the UK government, as it often does, there's no real risk involved. Al Jazeera simply does not report things inconvenient to Qatar's Emir, with good reason.

[michaelchisari]

It's a very simple idea that one can independently evaluate the quality of the reporting, regardless of funding source, especially when Al Jazeera is not the primary source of information (as no news agency should be).

[nir]

>It's a very simple idea that one can independently evaluate the quality of the reporting

I would think that's actually very far from a simple idea. How do you evaluate the quality of reporting? By going to where the news happened and researching it yourself? By choosing the source that confirms what you wanted to believe?

If your answer is "by seeing who reports about Kim Kardashian and who interviews Chomsky", then this is exactly the trick AJ is pulling on you. Al Jazeera is well financed and can afford not to pander to ratings (that's the English version - the Arab version is a crasser version of Fox). This provides the appearance of quality reporting, until you dig deeper and see certain stuff is just not reported on at all.

It's a very simple idea that if someone gives you money, you're indebted to them. I'd rather my network indebted to the UK taxpayer than to the Qatar ruling family.

[mkramlich]

> f your answer is "by seeing who reports about Kim Kardashian and who interviews Chomsky"

I understood the subtle point your making, but what struck me was that it is roughly the heuristic I use to choose between whether to visit CNN.com or DemocracyNow.org on any particular day. And yes I prefer hearing what Chomsky has to say rather than Kimmie.

[nir]

I would prefer it too. But it wouldn't automatically validate the medium he's using - and I wouldn't unquestioningly take his words as well. I would take them as the opinions of a smart person.

[jacquesm]

> The UK is a democracy

The UK is a constitutional monarchy.

[nir]

Why, it's almost the same as Qatar then..