
Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera - mwilcox
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikileaks_takes_down_the_head_of_al_jazeera.php
======
potatolicious
> _"The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners
> are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency
> agenda."_

Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being
"radically pro-transparency"?

I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of
context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about
a clear abuse radical in any way whatsoever?

~~~
drivebyacct2
Should it be radical? No.

Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.

~~~
phillmv
That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always
been dangerous.

~~~
redthrowaway
I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that
today's climate makes it true.

------
reidbradford
"Don't Assume WikiLeaks Brought Down Al Jazeera's Director":

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-
wi...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wikileaks-
brought-down-al-jazeeras-director/42729/)

~~~
runn1ng
This reason is actually more likely, seeing that he is replaced by Qatari
royal.

------
robchez
[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920...](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/201192012481969884.html)

Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new
director general.

I guess their credibility is now completely out the window

~~~
kloncks
I wouldn't say "completely out of the window" simply because the alternatives
still don't come close to Al Jazeera's lack of bias.

It's of interesting timing - this ousting - especially with the theatre that
we're about witness at the UN.

~~~
brador
Care to expand on what the theatre we're about to witness at the UN part?

~~~
0x12
Palestine.

------
sliverstorm
I continually wonder if Wikileaks has considered that, in their fiery no-
compromise campaign, they may actually be setting back progress?

What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al
Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many
American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American
journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing if Al Jazeera
became a popular source for news in the USA. In that light, I can't help but
wonder if a little co-operation with the US government is a small price to be
paid compared to potential future payoff.

~~~
thaumaturgy
You respect Al Jazeera because of the differences between it and nearly all
(if not all) American media. I don't understand how you could support the
erosion of those differences and still expect to have in the end a media
organization that you respected.

Or, to put it another way: by the time Al Jazeera became a popular source for
news in the USA, it would no longer be Al Jazeera.

~~~
sliverstorm
My hope would be that with small compromises made in key areas, it could be
widely accepted otherwise unaltered.

It is a common enough occurrence in plenty of industries. Japanese auto makers
are heavily shaped by the demands of the American car industry- but did they
wind up just another GM, another Chrysler? No, they retained many of the vital
qualities that differentiated them and made them worth importing.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Probably you and I just have different ideas of what an acceptable compromise
is. If the request were to use news paper instead of parchment, or to bleep
out profanity on basic cable channels while on primetime (which I personally
think is stupid, but I might as well start suggesting that people raise their
own children), or if the request were to blur graphic images of mutilated
bodies under the same circumstances -- I might, after a bit of thought, decide
that those were reasonable compromises.

But that's not what this was.

This was the U.S. "asking" a foreign journalistic organization to be less
critical of U.S. activities -- and that organization agreeing. This _really_
should be bone-chilling, not just a reasonable compromise.

~~~
sliverstorm
Al Jazeera has a long-standing strong and vocal bias against the USA. It seems
to be pretty well known.

I have been reading their articles for months. I guarantee you that bias still
shows through. Even in their "toned-down" state, I have felt my ears get red
reading some of their articles.

They have hardly been warped to be "pro-US". I would be more concerned if
their voice had actually swung to be "pro-US"; as things stand, they seem to
have gone from "extremely critical of the US" to "still critical but a little
nicer about it".

~~~
mkr-hn
Can you cite a few so there's a basis for discussion? I see a lot of people
saying they're anti-US, but it's usually supported with articles and video
critical of government actions, not the country itself.

~~~
sliverstorm
I have been reading their articles less frequently in the last month, and do
not have any good examples in memory or on hand.

Edit: Today AJE has presented me with a decent example!
[http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011920...](http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192065551745558.html)

In regards to the anti-US bit- I do not mean to say they hate America. I have
no reason to believe they wish America ill- though they certainly seem to wish
America would get out of the Middle East. What I mean is they appear to have a
very critical bias towards the actions of America, and I suspect this is what
most people mean when they describe Al Jazeera as "anti-US". This bias is not
unilaterally a bad thing- but that does not mean it does not exist.

~~~
saturn
Biased? That article? I thought it a very fair analysis, evenhanded almost to
a fault.

You might not agree, of course, but bias isn't about whether you agree or not.
It's a systematic favouring of one side of an argument over others, regardless
of facts. I don't see much evidence of that in the article, which is a fairly
dry analysis of the _realpolitik_ affecting the region and the coming UN vote.

~~~
sliverstorm
True, I can't really demonstrate bias with one piece. I said I didn't have
good cites, and I didn't. Should have left it at that.

------
r00fus
So the took down the head of Al Jazeera who censored articles from it's own
journalists to placate the US government?

Another way of looking at this: perhaps it's not that Wikileaks is going
against Al Jazeera, but saving it from internal corruption.

------
nir
It's funny this is what causes people to question AJ credibility. Merely being
based in a Monarchy and financed by the ruling family wasn't some cause for
concern, you think?

(BBC comparisons commence in 1..)

This is not to say AJ should be ignored. But it should always be taken with
several grains of salt. The fact people consider it more ethical than, say,
Fox News is ridiculous. It just seems that way since it's closer to what _you_
want to believe, just as the people watching Fox love it since it confirms
_their_ biases.

------
noarchy
_"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which
were allegedly removed by Khanfar."_ When was the last time that the major
media in the US showed injured or dead civilians? The tendency to sanitize the
effects of war is hardly limited to Al-Jazeera.

~~~
krschultz
It's not a tendency to sanitize the effects of war, it is an effort to simply
keep death off of TV.

The US media doesn't play most of the images from 9/11. Period. They are too
graphic.

The US media barely played anything from the recent Reno airshow crash, the
images are far too graphic.

I'm not rooting for gore by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is
a general rule. They don't show murder victims, they don't show crash victims,
they don't show war casulities, etc etc etc. I'm not sure there politics is at
play.

~~~
noarchy
I think that _some_ politics are definitely in play. American news will often
feature photographs of fallen US soldiers, though this is as far is it will
usually go. You end up knowing how many soldiers have been injured or killed,
down to the last man or woman. Meanwhile, you're lucky to hear even a wild
guess as to how many "others" have died in the same war.

Part of this is obviously going to be due to better record-keeping by the US
where its own casualties are concerned, but the part about showing photos of
recently-killed American soldiers is unapologetically nationalistic. Mind you,
I'm not saying that the fallen should not be remembered, but I am advocating a
more complete approach to the matter of the effects of war.

------
aheilbut
Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set?

From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the
end of February 2010"

Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October
2010"

Is the actual cable available anywhere?

~~~
robchez
<http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1>

Great article -
[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikile...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikileaks_tells_us_about_al_jazeera)

------
andyv88
Compare the events to the News of the World hacking scandal. Good to see that
the Head of the company stood down immediately

------
0x12
If wikileaks was the cause of this - and that is unresolved as far as I can
see - it would actually increase their standing.

------
oldstrangers
Wadah Khanfar still has more journalistic integrity than anyone at Fox/News
Corp. Or really any American media outlet. Our media outlets can't even show
pictures of American coffins...

~~~
noarchy
You needn't single out Fox, since all of the major US networks behave
similarly in this regard. Some wear their bias on their sleeve a bit more than
others, it is true.

Instead of quoting a Fox News anchor, I can quote Dan Rather, who sad the
following when the Iraq war was just beginning: _“Look, I’m an American. I
never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And
when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition
of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a
prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.”_

------
bh42222
_...the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda_

This is an unsettling turn of phrase. I wonder what percentage of the
population agrees with it?

