Al Jazeera or America? Who is telling the truth?
"No matter how hard we try, we cannot beat Al Jazeera at it's own game. But one thing is sure: there is no need to reward a channel that has made a name for itself through stridency and anti-Americanism. There is a war on the battlefield, and that is America's to win."
This quote from an article in the New York Times, by Fouad Ajami, expresses a lot of nationalism and a negative tone toward the Arabic news station Al Jazeera. When reading the article I had to remind myself that it was written in November of 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks. So at this time many Americans did feel very negatively toward people of the Arabic cultures. Also during this time Al Jazeera was known for playing videos sent to them by America's number 1 enemy, Osama Bin Laden. So there are many reasons as to why this article seemed so bias.
What I got from the article is that Al Jazeera was reporting their side of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan as they saw it. They are station that was made for Arabic speaking Muslims in the Middle East, so their news is going to favor their views, not the views of Americans. What Ajami's article seemed like it was doing was basically bashing Al Jazeera in presenting the news to their people in a "anti-Americanism" way. But why would a news station, located in a country that were fighting in a war against, report news supporting the American way? American news stations weren't uplifting Al Jazeera at this time (as we can see in this article), so why should Al Jazeera uplift us in their news?
This article didn't seem objective at all. I'm guessing it was a review of the news station Al Jazeera in itself. But even the background history that Ajami provided about Al Jazeera seemed negative as well. The whole article was based on making Al Jazeera seem like an Osama Bin Laden supporter and a huge enemy of American liberty. I don't feel like this is what American journalism should be based on. Journalists have a job at being non bias in thier reporting, and I don't think this was practiced in this article.
This quote from an article in the New York Times, by Fouad Ajami, expresses a lot of nationalism and a negative tone toward the Arabic news station Al Jazeera. When reading the article I had to remind myself that it was written in November of 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks. So at this time many Americans did feel very negatively toward people of the Arabic cultures. Also during this time Al Jazeera was known for playing videos sent to them by America's number 1 enemy, Osama Bin Laden. So there are many reasons as to why this article seemed so bias.
What I got from the article is that Al Jazeera was reporting their side of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan as they saw it. They are station that was made for Arabic speaking Muslims in the Middle East, so their news is going to favor their views, not the views of Americans. What Ajami's article seemed like it was doing was basically bashing Al Jazeera in presenting the news to their people in a "anti-Americanism" way. But why would a news station, located in a country that were fighting in a war against, report news supporting the American way? American news stations weren't uplifting Al Jazeera at this time (as we can see in this article), so why should Al Jazeera uplift us in their news?
This article didn't seem objective at all. I'm guessing it was a review of the news station Al Jazeera in itself. But even the background history that Ajami provided about Al Jazeera seemed negative as well. The whole article was based on making Al Jazeera seem like an Osama Bin Laden supporter and a huge enemy of American liberty. I don't feel like this is what American journalism should be based on. Journalists have a job at being non bias in thier reporting, and I don't think this was practiced in this article.
posted by Jeroslyn J at 12:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home