- Oct 20, 2013
- 55,576
- 17,637
- 2,250
I suspected right from the beginning that Al Jazeera in America was going to be an Islamist propaganda mill. They started off oh so nice and moderate, with no bias of anything. That's changed now. Al Jazeera has enacted a ban on perfectly legitimate words in the English language, simply because they don't like them.
Among theses are >> “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist” and “jihad.” Another case of Islamization taking place in America. They’ve got the entire internal email at the link and it’s worth a read, if only for a peek inside the inner workings at AJ in America. It tells a story of what’s actually going on over there, and the inside picture isn’t a pretty one. These types of directives go well beyond anything you’d even see on the evening line up at MSNBC.
It’s one thing to run a network with a bit of editorial bias in one direction or the other, but moves like this cross the line straight over to out and out propaganda. What do they offer in place of "extremist" ? They suggest that “violent group” would be a better way to talk about Boko Haram, for example, because you might find yourself reporting on a violent group that’s in the news for a non-violent reason. How does anyone in the news business even arrive at that point in the thought process? If you’re reporting on anything to do with Boko Haram, you’re talking about an army of evil murderers. There is really no need to dance around the subject.
The examples continue, and they demonstrate a very calculated strategy to bring their employees in line to deliver a message designed to “soften the image” of terrorist groups. I still don’t think we can shut down Al Jazeera in America without treading on some delicate lines of how we define “the press.” But we also are under no obligation to take them seriously.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/2...tant-islamist/
Aktham Suliman was born in Damascus, and an Al Jazeera correspondent for Germany since 2002. "It was an honor to work for this broadcaster." he says. Not any more. And it wasn't just because the broadcaster seemed less interested in reports from Europe. Rather, Suliman had the feeling that he was no longer being allowed to work as an independent journalist.
Last August, he quit his job. "Before the beginning of the Arab Spring, we were a voice for change," he says, "a platform for critics and political activists throughout the region. Now, Al-Jazeera has become a propaganda broadcaster." Interesting how when a top Al Jazeera executive was asked what was wrong with using the word "terrorist", he replied "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-883343.html
Among theses are >> “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist” and “jihad.” Another case of Islamization taking place in America. They’ve got the entire internal email at the link and it’s worth a read, if only for a peek inside the inner workings at AJ in America. It tells a story of what’s actually going on over there, and the inside picture isn’t a pretty one. These types of directives go well beyond anything you’d even see on the evening line up at MSNBC.
It’s one thing to run a network with a bit of editorial bias in one direction or the other, but moves like this cross the line straight over to out and out propaganda. What do they offer in place of "extremist" ? They suggest that “violent group” would be a better way to talk about Boko Haram, for example, because you might find yourself reporting on a violent group that’s in the news for a non-violent reason. How does anyone in the news business even arrive at that point in the thought process? If you’re reporting on anything to do with Boko Haram, you’re talking about an army of evil murderers. There is really no need to dance around the subject.
The examples continue, and they demonstrate a very calculated strategy to bring their employees in line to deliver a message designed to “soften the image” of terrorist groups. I still don’t think we can shut down Al Jazeera in America without treading on some delicate lines of how we define “the press.” But we also are under no obligation to take them seriously.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/2...tant-islamist/
Aktham Suliman was born in Damascus, and an Al Jazeera correspondent for Germany since 2002. "It was an honor to work for this broadcaster." he says. Not any more. And it wasn't just because the broadcaster seemed less interested in reports from Europe. Rather, Suliman had the feeling that he was no longer being allowed to work as an independent journalist.
Last August, he quit his job. "Before the beginning of the Arab Spring, we were a voice for change," he says, "a platform for critics and political activists throughout the region. Now, Al-Jazeera has become a propaganda broadcaster." Interesting how when a top Al Jazeera executive was asked what was wrong with using the word "terrorist", he replied "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-883343.html
