Hmm....is it, government by a certain sort of people in line with some linear, self-indulgent, sociopathological-narcissistic principles?? This fits well with ANY 'ocracy' in the long list historically.

Rachel Maddow and Al Jazeera: Like cold-coffee stirred with a soggy cigarette

To be honest, if I film something spectacular the news wants to show (in between their commercials), I want my cut. Exceptions could be made for genuinely non-profit news outlets of course, but I don't believe for a second that applies to the major network news outlets.

I'd also, of course, be happy to provide it to law enforcement, the NTSB, FAA, or whoever needs it for official reasons or evidence.

edit: I suppose there is also a "public good" angle. I wouldn't, for instance, charge for something like the LAPD beating on Rodney King, nor would I be inclined to just hand it over to the LAPD themselves, internal affairs or otherwise. That's a special case though, and today we have things like Youtube.

Final thought edit: Come to think of it, I find this depressing. My media news pretty much comes exclusively from NPR, the BBC, PBS and Al Jazeera, and this is a good illustration of why. They're certainly biased, but at least they're trying rather than towing some company line dictated by commercial pressure.

How I got onto this rant based on a cool video of two planes crashing in mid air without anybody getting seriously hurt is a bit of a mystery though. I must be in one of those moods.

The Pakistani Taliban leadership spoke out emphatically after the shooting to be very clear they did it and were proud they did it. The Taliban leadership just this week spoke with Al Jazeera to reiterate that they fully intend to finish the job if they ever have the opportunity. That seems to me pretty strong indications of the Taliban supporters wishes, no?

I like the al Jazeera logo touch...

I wish this conflict were as simple as the courageous young woman reporter in this video portrays it but it doesn't take much research to discover that the FSA is increasingly being co-opted by anything BUT pro-democracy elements, namely Islamic jihadists allied with al-Qaeda.

For example:

"Hundreds of fighters under the command of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) have reportedly switched allegiance to al-Qaeda-aligned groups, in a move described as a huge blow to moderate rebel forces.

Activists and military sources have told Al Jazeera that the 11th Division - one of the biggest FSA brigades - has switched allegiance to the al-Nusra Front in Raqqah province, a border province with Turkey.

A video was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday purporting to show members of the 11th Division parading through Raqqah with Nusra fighters.

In the video clip, a voice can be heard saying in Arabic, "Raqqah ... September 19, 2013 ... The convoy of Nusra ... God is great ... Nusra in Raqqah province."

The switch, if confirmed, tightens Nusra's control of Raqqah just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) attacked members of the Free Syrian Army in Azaz, on the border with Turkey.

The Reuters news agency, citing sources inside Syria, also reported that entire units of the FSA had joined Nusra and the ISIS in recent days.

The Raqqah Revolutionaries - which is part of the 11th Division - has about 750 fighters in total, according to a source close to al-Qaeda linked forces.

Abdulhamid Zakarya, military spokesman of Chiefs of Staff of the FSA, denied that Division 11 had joined Nusra. However, he said it had signed an agreement to collaborate in military operations.

In a separate statement, the FSA also condemned the ISIS for its actions in Azaz, saying it was going against the principles of the Syrian revolution.

“ISIS no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas at the expense of the safety of civilians. ISIS is inflicting on the people the same suppression of the Baath party and the Assad regime.”

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Antakya in neighbouring Turkey, said that if proved true, the switches of allegiance would be a serious blow to the FSA's strength, and could have significant implications outside of Syria.

The US State Department designated Al Nusrah Front a terrorist organisation on 11 December 2012. There are financial sanctions in place.

"This means that the FSA has suddenly lost serious amounts of loyal fighters ... it's basically being swallowed up by Nusra," she said, adding that it would be very difficult for the West to support a rebel army dominated and commanded by al-Qaeda linked groups."

Current.com is *dead

" To Our Faithful Current.com Users:

Current's run has ended after eight exciting years on air and online. The Current TV staff has appreciated your interest, support, participation and unflagging loyalty over the years.

Your contributions helped make Current.com a vibrant place for discussing thousands of interesting stories, and your continued viewership motivated us to keep innovating and find new ways to reflect the voice of the people.

We now welcome the on-air and digital presence of Al Jazeera America, a new news network committed to reporting on and investigating real stories affecting the lives of everyday Americans in every corner of the country. You can keep up with what's new on Al Jazeera America and see this new brand of journalism for yourself at http://www.aljazeera.com/america.

Thank you for inspiring and challenging us. We are incredibly proud of what we have been able to accomplish together!

– The Current TV Staff "

@enoch,

If Israel is the only place you've seen evidence from then you are reading the wrong news sources. Al Jazeera's coverage and first whiff of the chemical weapon story originally came from reports by field medics in Syria observing huge numbers of dead in the area with no noticeable violent cause of death. Al Jazeera then reported on the UN inspection team set to go into the area to gather evidence of what happened, noting Assad's steadfast refusal to allow the team access to the area. When the team finally was granted much delayed access to the area they were shot at on the way by snipers within territory controlled by Assad. Now Putin is on television not to deny that chemical weapons were used, not even to deny there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they were used, but instead to make the sole denial that we lack evidence of who used the chemical weapons deployed against the civilians in a rebel stronghold. That is as much or more evidence than we had of the gassing of Iraqi Kurds or the Rwandan genocide while they were in progress. Sure, the world denied both of those as well until they were long over, but I resent that and want that willful contempt for civilian suffering to change.

As for your followup questions, I don't much care WHO goes in and punishes Assad's regime for it's crimes so long as it succeeds in discouraging him from continuing to do so. I'd support Putin sending in a limited strike against Assad's suspected chemical weapons supplies. I want to see ANYBODY step up and say using chemical weapons against civilians is sufficient crime to warrant a military response to ensure that dictators don't have more to gain than lose by doing so.

You seem to have a very perverted way of looking at things. You are so interested in America's past crimes of both action and inaction that you don't seem to actually give any though or consideration to what you'd actually WANT to see done. America supported Saddam while he waged a war with Iran that killed millions and saw extensive use of chemical weapons. America entirely ignored the genocide in Rwanda. You seem to share a contempt for those things with me. I at least assume so by you referencing the general idea behind them as a list of reasons America is no white knight or respectable global police force. If you agree those actions where horrifically wrong though, doesn't it follow that if you could turn back time, you'd be willing to advocate for American action in Rwanda? That you'd advocate for at the least American sanction on Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, if not outright military action to stop his excessive deployment of chemical weapons?

You can't have it both ways, if you decry American action and inaction in the past, that must amount to a call for taking a different and better course.

aaronfr and Kofi,

You both seem to have the notion that Israel is, has and always will be the aggressor in it's relationship with it's neighbours. If you want to talk about unjustified acts of aggression between Israel and neighboring arab states, you can't decide to only look at the time frame which supports your position.

What is your view on Israel's declaration of independence? Even Al Jazeera describes the events as the culmination of a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians, in which the Jewish Palestinians were the minority. The Jewish Palestinians were largely victorious, and declared independence within the the territory they held. Immediately, all neighboring Arab states declared war on them and proceeded to promise a cleansing that would drive the Jews into the sea. They even encouraged an extensive temporary mass exodus of all Arab Palestinians for the expected short duration of the conflict. After all, each individual Arab state vastly outnumbered Israel by itself. To their great consternation, Israel survived and has been in constant conflict ever since.

Don't come out pretending that nobody ever attacks Israel when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah launch attacks into Israeli territory every week. Don't claim you support Syria's or Iran's 'peaceful', position in this when they promise the destruction of Israel and continually provide funding, training and weapons to groups directly launching attacks on Israel.

You cry double standard, and that Israel's attacks are unjustified. Where are you similar cries against Syria and Iran when weapons made by them, and deployed by people they have trained hit Israel?

The point is that violence against and from Israel has been a two way street since before it's declaration of independence, and demanding Israel just take it's lumps and do nothing but file complaints at the UN in it's own defense is naive in the extreme.

I will get to what is wrong with strongly denouncing Islam in a second....

As for the article, I hadn't actually read the whole thing but rather had heard coverage about it along with an article on Al Jazeera. Specifically, I take issue with Harris and his stance on the 'war on terror' (and aren't you essentially advocating for religious profiling by condemning Islam and its practitioners? Or is it rather that you identify it as a threat but wish to see no action taken?) I also have problems with Hitchens and his enthusiasm for the invasion of Iraq.

As for the quote I posted, after re-reading it, I think that I saw something that wasn't there. I believe that trying to prove that one religion is more evil than another is pointless. Reading history books, which oddly I have done, will not disprove that belief but rather reinforce it as the tragedy of all religions would be laid bare.

Finally, I would gladly take up your 'snidely', non-issued challenge. As a matter of fact, I've already done it. I lived in Indonesia for a year both in Muslim dominated areas and tribal, animist Christian dominated areas. While I am by no means an atheist activist, I nonetheless lived openly as an atheist and honestly answered the question of my religion (I have none) when it was asked of me. Nothing happened to me. Furthermore, I currently live on the Thai-Burma border in a Buddhist dominated country and do not hide my lack of belief when asked about it.

And that is where I come back to the problem of denouncing Islam. Just last month there were pogroms against Muslims by Buddhists in Burma (a smaller conflict than that which occurred last year against the Rohingya in Rakhine state). The proximate cause of this pogrom was a Muslim jeweler refusing to pay for damaged jewelry of a Buddhist woman. But more generally, it is a result of a campaign of extremist Buddhist monks issuing edicts about the evils of Islam and the dangers it represents to Burmese culture. Unequivocally condemning an entire religion invariably leads to this type of violence, and therein lies my concern.

I've no burning desire to defend major news channels. I do care about what is happening in our world though, and Al Jazeera fills a niche that is missed by many domestic outlets. You can expect CNN to sensationalize a story like this, you can expect Fox or even MSNBC to wholly or partially fabricate this story. And sure, Al Jazeera has as much of an agenda as the others, but it it an agenda with a very much pro-sunni, pro-arab leaning, as one would expect from Saudi funded organization. When a pro-sunni, pro-arab network runs a story like this, showing something as saddening as this being done by a sunni-arab organization it has weight.

The only purpose in pointing out this is from Al Jazeera was to declare that with out question, this story is really happening and accurately represents a real ongoing tragedy.

Well Hamas wouldn't be Hamas without training up youngsters in the path now, would it??


This report is no extreme example of propagandizing or slant any more than it can be construed as objective observer-and-report journalism-I don;t know why everyone makes such a big fuss about how wonderful Al Jazeera is, breath-of-fresh-air, blah-blah-blah (folks have in the past, anyhow), it's owned by the Al Thani family's (of Qatar, an "absolute and hereditary emirate) 7th richest member.

It's a private mouthpiece for someone's unilateral masturbatory romp, and they hire some real cute anchors!

In the spirit of Godwin, I propose a new internet law that describes the inevitability of the MSNBC false equivalency whenever a comment or topic criticizes FOX news.

I love ya, choggie, and VS is way better and more interesting with you here, but this dog just don't hunt.

I think the days of intrepid journalism are largely over for most of the news sources you mentioned, but there still are pockets of resistance to the inanity that passes as news in America. Regardless of whichever political ideolgy you most identify with, you cannot dismiss MSNBC as opposite but equal to FOX. MSNBC is most definitely liberal/progressive, but they wear it on their sleeve, and their spin is backed by facts and reality. FOX spins everything, and completely misinforms it's viewers fans by simply making shit up, not to mention the ubiquitous fear-mongering, the subliminal programming of their crawl, the always-angry, paranoid, petty, spiteful, and shrill talking heads, and the daily memo'd bullet points that are regurgitated verbatim and hammered into the brains of their veiwers all day long from show to show. The dolts on FOX and Friends have got to be the three DUMBEST people ever to thousand-yard stare into a camera. FOX is "news entertainment" at best.

There are infinite shades of gray between black and white, and MSNBC is definitely biased, but you can't say it isn't factual (the vast majority of time). If there was a true "equal but opposite" version of MSNBC, I would watch it. Unfortunately, FOX serves only as a source of amusement for me. "No Spin Zone" makes me giggle every time Papa Bear says it. It's brilliant parody.

That said, we agree that Americans are largely low information because low information is exactly what we get from the news sources readily available. But the "truth" is out there if one cares enough to go look for it.

For starters...
Al Jazeera
CBC News
BBC News
Christian Science Monitor
Reuters

>> ^alcom:

Excellent point. Drone use, according to the video, began in 2004. It doesn't matter who's in power, drones are here to stay until reporting of civilian casualties breaks into mainstream media.
>> ^Hive13:
Honestly, saying they are living under "Obama's" drones is a bit trite don't you think?



I think you are a very blind if you think civilian casualties are being under reported when it comes to drone strikes. Admittedly, I spend more time on Al Jazeera than most, but still. How many civilian casualties in tribal Pakistan from Taliban and extremists militants make the news here? Maybe 1 per year? How many civilian casualties due to drone strikes make the news here? Probably monthly?

Here is the reality though. For every single person killed in Pakistan by drone strikes, almost 100 people in Pakistan are killed by the Taliban and religious extremists. That's some pretty unbalanced and poor reporting out west don't you think? And it doesn't even take into account the painstaking hours and effort made by America to target Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders with their strikes, while the Taliban proudly and publicly declare that women and student civilians are among their intended and preferred targets for killing.

Sure, using Drones to kill people is bad. Unfortunately we live in a bad world, and the alternatives are a ground war against the Taliban(more deaths) or ignoring them(more deaths). The choice is between bad and worse, and so yes a 'bad' choice has been accepted.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Januari:
Is there a single person watching this that is the least bit surprised... I mean AT ALL? Does anyone really think this is different than anyone else who's put forward legislation like this?

Not surprised, but quite pleased someone's admitted that they haven't really thought about what they've been proposing.

Sorry, I don't see it this way. I see him so flabbergasted that he resorted to the truth because nothing else came to mind. No advisor-driven pat statements, no prepared party-endorsed positions, no damage-control spin.


Just a question that nobody else thought to ask.


That Al Jazeera interviewer, or whoever created that line, deserves a Pulitzer.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, UAV, air strikes, due process' to 'al jazeera, people, power, drones, UAV, RPA, air strikes, due process' - edited by calvados