The Journalistic Integrity of the Al Jazeera News Network

[threemae]

Over in the Pit, the issue of Al Jazeera’s credibility or journalistic integrity came into question. I, like most westerners I think, long assummed that Al Jazeera was propaganda thinly veiled as news, but once I began to look consistently at the website, I began to change my views. After a couple of weeks on admittedly inconsistent monitoring, I have found their news coverage to generally be pretty balanced. Here, I’m going to repost a post from the Pit in relation to Al Jazeera.

Home URL: english.aljazeera.net

Story 1:

“Innocents killed in Samarra bloodbath”
The article:
"
Lieutenant Colonel Bill MacDonald told journalists on Sunday that all the 46 were killed when troops fought off multiple attacks on military convoys.

But local residents said US troops killed innocent bystanders when they opened fire on anything that moved around midday.
"
It presents two sides without strong language in either direction and attributes a source to both. It allows the reader to credit respective credibility to either side. The rest of the article is either all facts or attributes quotes, and even giving more room for quotes from Gen. MacDonald than Iraqis.

Article 2:

“Resistance targets foreign workers”
This article is very plainly written and virtually entirely fact and very similar to articles in western media detailing the same events
"Aznar said Spain’s presence in Iraq “makes sense”. Spain has some 1300 troops in south-central Iraq in a zone under Polish command.
"

Nor does the article show selectivity in the facts it shows. It demonstrates western political leaders continuing to support the involvement in Iraq.

Article 3:

“Iraqis to be consulted on handover”
"The head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, told Aljazeera on Sunday his colleagues on the council had taken “a unanimous decision” to consult popular opinion. "

Again, factual in base, and the subject matter is even positive to the Coalition. It shows the people selected by the coalition showing concern for the opinions of ordinary Iraqis.

Article 4:

“WHO declares war on AIDS”

From the sub-headline:
“With 8000 Aids victims dying every day, the UN has unveiled plans to rush life saving anti-retroviral drugs to three million of the world’s poorest sufferers.”

Hardly controversial coverage.

Article 5:

“US to release some Guantanamo inmates”

This looks like a controversial subject. Let’s see how they approach it.

"Angelo Gnaedinger, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), last week called their legal status “not acceptable,” as one of Britain’s most senior judges, Johan Steyn, described their imprisonment as a “monstrous failure of justice”.

The US Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear an appeal lodged by lawyers for two Britons, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis challenging US claims that the detainees were outside the jurisdiction of American courts.
"

The most critical quotes so far. From a senior British judge. Remarks that I remember being covered by the BBC.

Article 6
“Syria hands bomb suspects to Turkey”
All of this deals with relationships between two Moslem countries. Again, pretty non-controversial stuff.

Again, the sub headline:
"Syria has turned over to Turkey 22 suspects who may have been involved in four human bomb attacks that killed 61 people in Istanbul, according to media reports. "

Article 7:

“Palestinian dies in car blast”

Israel vs. Palestine. Surely, this will expose anti-Israeli/Western/Etc. bias. And yet, the article gives quite fair play to the possiblity that, “which could make him the victim of a targeted attack, or whether he had been carrying a bomb that exploded prematurely.” And they mention, "staged in Gaza, including members of Islamic Jihad. The organisation has killed dozens of Israelis in bomb attacks.

But Israel has apparently held off launching such strikes in recent weeks as new Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmad Quraya seeks to negotiate a truce with armed resistance groups and restart peace talks with Israel.
"
So they talk both about the fact that Islamic Jihad is not just a paramilitary group but in fact a terrorist one, and that the Israeli army has lightened up off of attacks in an apparently good faith effort to support the peace process.

So, where’s the bias?

First, let us go ahead and exclude “Special Reports” or anything else along those lines not focused upon actual breaking news. Certainly, Fox News, the WSJ, or NY Times shows much more bias on the editorial pages than the news pages. I’m perfectly willing to allow that some fluff-piece about the Iraqi army is going to be biased, but my point is that the actual news reporting is not.

Also, lets limit the actual argument to the English Al Jazeera website because the actual satellite network is not really available to many posters here, unless you have actual first hand experience with it. And, unless you have actual evidence to contradict what I have observed here, it’s probably not necessary to state that me stating that Al Jazeera is balanced is going to require a new keyboard because you spilled Sprite/Coke/Coffe/Beer/juice on your current one laughing so hard.

[Mojo]

My criteria for judging AJ stories (or any other news source for that matter) is “when I read this story, do I get a complete and accurate view of what occured?” Most news orgs have bias- you pretty much have to in order to determine what is a credible source or not. That being said, I’d like to take a look at the Samarra story although Evil One did a pretty good job of dissecting it in the Pit thread. AJ has modified the original story since then, but a lot of the original aspects remain. Some examples:

AJ refers to the attackers as resistance fighters which seems fairly loaded when they don’t claim to have IDed any of them and it could’ve just as easily been an armed robbery. AJ mentioned that they had dropped off new currency; they don’t mention that they had taken old currency with Saddam’s pic on it with them. AJ also says also don’t mention that US troops claimed that some attackers were wearing Feyadeen uniforms but do mention that there are doubts about the US version. It would be nice if they actually told you the full US version.

The fact that they don’t ever run corrections (not that I’ve ever seen) speaks volumes.

[El_Kabong]

Seems to me the burden is on those that claim al-Jazeera is some sort of anti-western propaganda arm to prove that it is so. I’ll just mention that so far, most of the objections to the network I’ve seen have been by jingoistic types who seem to have little or no working knowledge of middle eastern politics. I will exclude a couple of the responses in the Pit thread, in which the posters discussed specific cases that showed at least a pro-Arab bias in choice of language by the network.

Here’s some background on the network. According to this article, the network is subsidized to the tune of about $30 million (USD) per year by the emir of Qatar, who, most sources agree, does not try to influence editorial content. Qatar, while it has to walk a narrow path politically due being surrounded by much larger and potentially aggressive neighbors, is nonetheless one of the more liberal Arab states (at least by the rather shabby standards of the region), and if I remember correctly, allowed the US to station military equipment there prior to recent conflict in Iraq.

I will say that if they are some sort of pro-Arab propaganda arm, they have done a piss-poor job, since in its short life the network has at one time or another pissed off just about every government in the region. For example, here is an article in which the Jordanian government (and its tame press) accuses al-Jazeera of promoting, of all things, an Israeli agenda.

While there is no doubt in my mind that the network could be accused of a general bias in favor of pan-arabism, what I’ve seen of their straight news coverage strikes me as no more or less biased than that of the big US corporate nets, just biased in a different direction. In any event, I would have to see specific, documented examples of bias in favor of a specific political agenda and a clear explanation of on whose behalf the bias is being maintained to accept the more extreme accusations made in the Pit thread.

[bump]

Well… as the starter of the digression in the pit thread, I’ll say that ** El_Kabong’s ** hit my thoughts on the head- they’re biased, but not any worse than say, Fox News.

What irritated me was ** threemae’s ** commentary about Al-Jazeera being a “relatively unbiased source of news”- relative to what? Other Arab sources- most definitely. Relative to most Western papers- I’m not so sure about that.

** Evil One’s ** deconstruction of the headline was pretty much spot-on, especially when compared to the rest of the world’s headlines for the same thing.

[threemae]

Bump and Mojo,

The BBC, thou, does the same thing. They don’t run corrections for their web-site, merely update content as it becomes available. Since I also often use BBC (my home page) as a news source, I recall going through both articles as news of the event became more complete. At the end of the BBC run, the BBC’s headline also changed to include acknowledgement of the possible death of civilians. However, I will grant that “Bloodbath” is a relatively loaded term. The article does not attempt to imply tht all 46 or whatever the number is now who died were civilians.

AJ refers to the attackers as resistance fighters which seems fairly loaded when they don’t claim to have IDed any of them and it could’ve just as easily been an armed robbery

From foxnews.com

“It was a well-organized and complex ambush, but they obviously picked the wrong convoy to attack. They could not have known,” a U.S. military source told Fox News.

I’m pretty sure that it has been well agreed from early on that the attackers were not only resistance/insurgents/whatever, but actually uniformed as such.

[rjung]

IMO, Al Jazeera knows that their main audience are folks living in or near the Middle East, predominantly Muslim, and slant their news to appeal to that audience. But as others have noted, that’s no worse than what a lot of other media outlets do, and dismissing them as mere propaganda is a disservice – heck, it can be argued that Fox News is closer to government-sponsored propaganda than Al Jazeera is.

It would be unwise to make Al Jazeera your sole source of news. But again, that’s true for any news outlet, and as a counterbalance to the pro-American news outlets most of us get, it’s worth keeping an eye on.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by bump *
Well… as the starter of the digression in the pit thread, I’ll say that ** El_Kabong’s ** hit my thoughts on the head- they’re biased, but not any worse than say, Fox News.

Al Jazeera as biased as Fox? Please.

The only criterion I’ve ever come across that works in assessing bias in the media is to assess who’s critical of the network – I mean genuine criticism not some faux, for effect complaining.

Al Jazerra gets genuine criticism from all sides. Fox . . . ?

That’ll do for me.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**
AJ refers to the attackers as resistance fighters which seems fairly loaded when they don’t claim to have IDed any of them and it could’ve just as easily been an armed robbery. **

Al Jazeera did so probably because that is what they were referred to by bystanders, which were interviewed by media from various nations.

I also don’t know where you get that they weren’t identified. We have nice pictures of two passports of attackers in the newspaper today.

**
The fact that they don’t ever run corrections (not that I’ve ever seen) speaks volumes. **

What you see or don’t see is irrelevant. If someone puts his hands over his eyes, does that mean the world has ceased to exist?

The fact that Al Jazeera doesn’t tell the story the way US Americans would like to hear it in no way speaks of excessive bias.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**AJ refers to the attackers as resistance fighters which seems fairly loaded when they don’t claim to have IDed any of them and it could’ve just as easily been an armed robbery. **

From CNN

U.S. military intelligence officials on the scene in Samarra said 46 insurgents were killed, 18 wounded and 11 taken prisoner in the weekend fighting there.

From CNN again:

Former CIA officer: Samarra ambush a ‘classic guerrilla tactic’

From the BBC

It is known that just before, and during, the Iraq war hundreds of Arab “volunteers” - some calling themselves mujahideen or “holy warriors” - filtered across the border into Iraq.

What word should be used? Please pick one which isn’t fairly loaded.

[Mojo]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**Al Jazeera did so probably because that is what they were referred to by bystanders, which were interviewed by media from various nations.

I also don’t know where you get that they weren’t identified. We have nice pictures of two passports of attackers in the newspaper today.

The fact that Al Jazeera doesn’t tell the story the way US Americans would like to hear it in no way speaks of excessive bias. **

It has nothing to do with what I want but everything to do with what I said earlier- in reading the story do I get a complete and accurate picture of what happened? In the case of the AJ story I don’t. If the people that AJ interviewed called them “resistance fighters” then they should say that’s where they got the term- I’ve seen other sources call them “Saddam supporters” and Arab News has the headline “Samarra Attack ‘Attempted Heist’”. CNN says that locals did use the term “resistance figters” but “Those fighters, the residents said, had been preparing for this attack since a previous currency exchange last month.” Since there have been currency exchanges there previously at which time the convoys came under fire “armed heist” seems more likely. And from the stories I read I was under the impression that the two passports were from Iranian tourists in a bus supposedly caught in the firefight, not from combatants, but either is possible. I’ve read several versions of what transpired and by my standards I’d say that the Philly Inquirer story has the best version in terms of lack of bias and being factually correct.

London Calling:

Al Jazerra gets genuine criticism from all sides. Fox . . .

The other interpretation of this is that everyone agrees that they suck;).

On preview:

---

What word should be used? Please pick one which isn’t fairly loaded.

“insurgent” and “resistance fighter” are loaded since they assume to know the attackers motives. “Armed robber” would also be loaded as well- none of these terms should be used unless they’re quoting a source. “Guerilla” or “armed attackers” would be better terms.

For the record I don’t normally read AJ or FoxNews for that matter. To quote Jon Stewart, “It’s like ice-skating: We throw out the high score and the low score.”

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**It has nothing to do with what I want but everything to do with what I said earlier- in reading the story do I get a complete and accurate picture of what happened? In the case of the AJ story I don’t. If the people that AJ interviewed called them “resistance fighters” then they should say that’s where they got the term- I’ve seen other sources call them “Saddam supporters” and Arab News has the headline “Samarra Attack ‘Attempted Heist’”. CNN says that locals did use the term “resistance figters” but “Those fighters, the residents said, had been preparing for this attack since a previous currency exchange last month.” Since there have been currency exchanges there previously at which time the convoys came under fire “armed heist” seems more likely. **

More likely than what? “Armed heist” in no way excludes they were resistance fighters -or Saddam supporters. Either could use anything sacked in the heist.

And no matter how you turn it, whether they are Saddam supporters or otherwise motivated militants, fact is that they fought against the US occupiers. Calling them Saddam supporters prejudges a motivation without having any evidence.

**
The other interpretation of this is that everyone agrees that they suck;).
**

I suggest reading Michael Moran’s column on Al Jazeera from a while ago, if it still can be found on MSNBC.com Googling the site might dig it out.

**
For the record I don’t normally read AJ or FoxNews for that matter. To quote Jon Stewart, “It’s like ice-skating: We throw out the high score and the low score.” **

Again, a different perspective on things doesn’t imply a lesser quality.

[Mojo]

No, but using loaded language, making assumptions, and leaving out facts that contradict the story that you wish happened does make it lesser quality.

[furt]

[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mojo *The fact that they don’t ever run corrections (not that I’ve ever seen) speaks volumes.

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**What you see or don’t see is irrelevant. If someone puts his hands over his eyes, does that mean the world has ceased to exist? **

No, but if they are indeed unwilling to admit fallibility, that does indeed speak volumes. Do you have any evidence that mojo is incorrect?

These seem relevant to the discussion; they are all separate incidents.

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2003/04/22/46198.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/06/spain.alqaeda/

http://www.arena.org.nz/iraqvc1.htm

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**The fact that Al Jazeera doesn’t tell the story the way US Americans would like to hear it in no way speaks of excessive bias. **

This is out of line. It’s poor rhetorical technique on your part to resort to stereotyping.

[PatriotX]

**Iraq disputes US casualty figures**

But now local officials say the American accounts of dead and wounded are wildly exaggerated.

The Samarra’s hospital director, Abd Tawfiq, said his staff treated 80 casualties and received just eight dead.

[Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt:]
“The reports that we have are from visual battlefield reports,” he said. “These are reports that we got from the soldiers who were involved in the engagement and that is why we have said that all of these are simply estimated killed and wounded.”

[AND]

An American military spokesman… described a battle that sounded like a blood-bath, as US troops turned their weapons on anybody shooting at them.

Auntie Beeb

So, how much is inherent inaccuracy of reporting the events of a chaotic situation and how much is bias, intentional or otherwise?

[threemae]

From Mojo:

AJ refers to the attackers as resistance fighters which seems fairly loaded when they don’t claim to have IDed any of them and it could’ve just as easily been an armed robbery. AJ mentioned that they had dropped off new currency; they don’t mention that they had taken old currency with Saddam’s pic on it with them. AJ also says also don’t mention that US troops claimed that some attackers were wearing Feyadeen uniforms but do mention that there are doubts about the US version. It would be nice if they actually told you the full US version.

The fact that they don’t ever run corrections (not that I’ve ever seen) speaks volumes.

It really is unfortunate that the “original story” is not available. I cannot use the search function on the Al Jazeera web page with my browser for some reason, but please, Mojo, could you be more specific on what exactly is being overlooked by Al Jazeera? The BBC made just as many assumptions/half assed truths/incomplete assertions in their initial reporting of the event, and for the most part, they paralleled each other.

Again, I’ve looked on the BBC website and several other news webistes, no one seems to run corrections on their web content, just update the stories. Care to provide me with a contrary example? Because I’ve looked on the BBC and I cannot find it.

The issue of who exactly these people are has been, IMHO, beat to death. They were wearing uniforms, fer’ Chrissakes! A multitude of news agencies have identified the attackers as “Resistance”, certainly a less loaded term than “Saddam Supporters.”

Why does the fact that they were carting away virtually worthless old currency matter? The BBC didn’t find it of central importance to the story, and did not mention it. The name of the leader in the first Bradley’s pet goldfish is ‘Bubbles’. Does the failure for Al Jazeera, the BBC, or anyone else to mention that show bias?

It has, I think, become clear that there are very substantial questions raised of the initial intelligence reports from the U.S. military’s initial report of the attacks. What is so loaded to say that doubts have emerged now that it is clear that civilians were also killed in the cross fire?

bordelond,

Would you care to elaborate?

[Mojo]

I hate to pull the old “I’m not at my home PC and can’t type out a full response” cliche, but it is true in this case (I’ll write a longer response when I get home, promise). I just wanted to quickly point out that the old currency is not worthless and is still used all over Iraq. And from what I understand the Feyadeen uniform isn’t much; basically a black scarf and a patch, not a full military uniform.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by furt *
**No, but if they are indeed unwilling to admit fallibility, that does indeed speak volumes. **

No, it doesn’t. A website is a website, and unless Mojo is a regular viewer of the Al Jazeera TV network, I frankly doubt he is in any position to claim that Al Jazeera never runs corrections. As was already pointed out, not posting corrections on WEBSITES is a pretty common occurence. When even the BBC can do so, we can hardly expect it from a network the primary language of which is NOT english, a translated correction thus being an added effort.

[Jackmannii]

To any rational observer, running a headline saying “Innocents Killed in Samarra Bloodbath” displays virulent bias and intent to inflame. Even if you are giving equal weight to the statements of unknown “bystanders” and U.S. official sources, the headline should read something like “U.S. Reports 46 Resistance Fighters Killed in Iraq, Bystanders Claim Innocents Among The Casualties”.

What’s disgusting is not so much that Al-Jazeera does this, but that the BBC stoops to it too, i.e.

"The spokesman described a battle that sounded like a blood-bath, as US troops turned their weapons on anybody shooting at them. "

Huh? How do you get from a military engagement to a “bloodbath”? Is it not sporting in the BBC’s view to use superior weaponry while defending onself?

“Used in a densely populated urban area, built with flimsy mud-bricks, it is almost inconceivable that people well out of sight of the gunners were not also injured in the battle.”

Translation: “We don’t know of any civilian casualties, but we’re happy to pin some on the Yanks anyway.”
Suggested non-biased revision: “The firefight took place in a densely populated urban area. There have been no reports as yet of casualties among civilian non-combatants.”

While I don’t get my news from Fox, I have to wonder if they’ve pulled anything as egregious as this crap from the Beeb, not to mention similar examples of blatantly slanted “reporting” I’ve heard on the BBC World Service.

[furt]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
No, it doesn’t. A website is a website, and unless Mojo is a regular viewer of the Al Jazeera TV network, I frankly doubt he is in any position to claim that Al Jazeera never runs corrections.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I took his remarks to indicate that he is at least an occasional reader. FWIW, I skim it once or twice a week, and have never seen a correction, either. Do you or do you not know more than we do? If so, I sincerely wish to have my ignorance fought.
If, OTOH, you are just spouting off opinion …

**

As was already pointed out, not posting corrections on WEBSITES is a pretty common occurence. **

http://slate.msn.com/?querytext=corrections&id=3944&searchfromtoc=Go&action=fulltext

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/news/news-34.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100765,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104438,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/print/corrections/?nav=left

http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html

Yes, as a rule, print-based-media are more scrupulous than broadcast-based about errors. Part of why, as a rule, I trust them more.

**

When even the BBC can do so, **

Ah, yes. “Even” the unimpeachable Beeb. FTR, I find the BBC’s practice (and anyone else who does it) to be quite disconcerting, and somewhat dubious ethically.

**

we can hardly expect it from a network the primary language of which is NOT english, a translated correction thus being an added effort. **

Easily the most absurd thing I’ve heard all day. They have enough english-speaking writers and editors to put together a well-written, first-rate news service, but when it comes to writing a one-paragraph corrction, all of a sudden they turn into grinning illiterates? If their staff is representative of the Muslim world, I would expect that their newsroom has plenty of graduates of US and UK universities.