[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.