" But the portrait the leaked cables paint is not evidence of any sort of conspiracy so much as an organization struggling to maintain professional standards"

Perhaps you could mention this before page 3 to avoid reinforcing doubt of AJ's integrity.

Conspiracy theories and controlling other countries media. Ultimately we need a to see a 'point' to it all, at least one provided by the culprits. I do agree though with that the reinforcing f AJ's integrity should have been included prior to the later page.

The two are often offered by one publication. Censorship should not be a substitute for dilleneation between the two. Opinions are always biased, all a writer can do is be clear that she is reporting opinion and not news.
Ar Condicionado Imoveis Acompanhantes Massagistas

This is especially true during times of conflicts. The respected BBC World Service for example is funded by the British government. Despite similar claims of independence from the government, did became more or less the voice of the government during the Iraq war. Then you have "news" organizations such as Radio Free Europe/Asia which are funded and functions as the propaganda arms of the US government designed at foreign audiences.

Personally I think news organizations are always biased one way or another. The key is to read more, even if the newspaper may be against your personal views.

I agree with Austin above. This is a sloppy, innuendo-type article that comes to two mutually exclusive conclusions.

The headline of this article is alarming and misleading, something that belongs in Fox News, not FP. It suggests Al Jazeera is guilty of something. Then the article cites a bunch of cables, I guess to draw the conclusion that something dark is going on, that this is more damming than it looks at first.

THEN SUDDENLY THE ARTICLE BACKTRACKS AND SAYS IT MIGHT JUST BE INEXPERIENCE.

Charging Al Jazeera with being in bed with the United States, with no iota of fact backing it up, is way beneath Foreign Policy's standards. Nothing the cables say is damming. As the article implied, embassy PR people from other nations stop by regularly and complain to Al Jazeera.

Are you naive? You think the WH doesnt complain to execs at CBS and NBC, too? My goodness, there was the much publicized time that Obama met with Roger Ailes to complain about Fox News.

It's to Al Jazeera's credit that when It realizes its reporting was flawed or amatuerish, it quickly fixed the problem.

UGH! The author himself is too inexperienced to write such a 'bombshell' type piece.

FP SHOULD TAKE THIS PIECE DOWN OR EDIT IT TO MAKE SENSE!

I agree with Austin above.
y8 | friv | girls games

Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news network financed by Qatar, named a member of the Qatari royal family on Tuesday to replace its top news director after disclosures from the group WikiLeaks indicating that the news director had modified the network’s coverage of the Iraq war in response to pressure from the United States.
Al Jazeera is under intense scrutiny in the Middle East over its varying coverage of the Arab Spring revolts, They can also make use of Affiliate Programs to get benefits for their social awareness programs. Although the network is nominally independent — and its degree of autonomy was itself a revolution in the context of the region’s state-controlled news media when it began in 1996 — many people contend that its coverage of the region still reflects the views of its Qatari owners.

Every news organization is driven by its benefactors. So much of what al jazeera shows is shocking to Americans that I'm forced to wonder what they actually didn't show. That's the real question.

Just as it turns out that al-jazeera isn't completely independent, one is forced to wonder if wikileaks has someone rich pulling its strings. I find it interesting that the majority of the things wikileaks releases cast America in a negative light. I find it hard to believe that no other countries have skeletons in their closets.

I can't watch it for long, it's one of the worst things that happened in Middle East in the recent years! Al Jazeera does not only broadcast news, it also promotes opinions, and it chooses the most backward and aggressive ones, those of islamization and nationalism!

And sure the former director has something to do with these trends, because he himself is part of the Muslims Brotherhood (Hamas - the Palestinian branch), or let's say has very close ties with them. and in the other hand the Qatar regime uses the channel and some the Islamic oppositions movements in middle east as to seek power and leverage.

Al Jazeera = Isreal !!

The US government, according to TV reports, has recruited 'writers' in the middle east soon after 9/11. The plan was to mix the sentiments in the area about the US; it was accuracy muddled and patently anti US. The goal of this 'plan' was/is to mix the information Arab public receives thus creating doubts in the minds of readers who have not made up their minds about America, its peoples and what it REALLY stands for.
With the Arab spring in full swing, indigenous and true feelings toward common values and aspiration of the US and the Arab culture would blossom into bridges of support between the US and Arab culture......then and only then,a need for planted 'writers' or 'educators could be made redundant.

Perception management, in some cases, is constructive!

It is evident that, U.S has been playing a secret role in endorsing the type of content that is being shown on Al Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network. The despicable plight of this news network is rattling the faith thousands of Arab people have invested in it and its status as the fearless mouth-piece of the Arab world becomes questionable. Although, until now, Al Jazeera has been the vitalzym for Arab people, the Arab world could employ to reflect the atrocities perpetrated by the on- going wars in the Middle East, its credibility takes a beating with the recent cables leaked by the Wikileaks accusing it of dancing to the tunes of U.S.

ok men
come Now ^^
Friv

Y8 kizi

Games of thrones

This leads to the second flaw: The two-state solution reflects only Israeli interests. It proposes to partition historic Palestine – an area that includes present-day Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem – massively and inequitably in favor of Israel as a Jewish state. By definition, this rules out possibility of Palestinian return except to the tiny, segmented West Bank territory that Israeli seslichat colonization has created, and to an overcrowded Gaza, which cannot accommodate the returnees. Thus the "peace process" is really about making the Palestinians concede their basic rights to accommodate Israel's demands.