Talk:Al Jazeera/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Name 2 Meaning 3 al Qaeda 4 Independence issue 5 Documentaries 6 Why again separated criticism and attacks 7 "Propaganda" 8 Broken link 9 ? 10 aljazeera.com and aljazeera.info 11 Resistance v. Insurgency 12 Some Things about the Wikipedia Entry 13 Time of notification of office location 14 erroneous label? 15 Grammar 16 Bush Blair "bomb AJ" memo? 17 Rendon Group 18 Muhammad cartoons 19 on-line section 20 Number of viewers 21 Morocco POV Materials 22 .com 23 Washington D.C.station launches in May 2006

Name

Please don't rename this article. -- Zoe

Moved from User talk:GrahamN:

Re Al Jazeera: As I understand it, you need to delete the page entry itself to allow it to be redirected to, not just delete its contents and leave it empty. There are some special-case exceptions to these rules as well, if I recall correctly, but I can't remember what they are. -- The Anome 20:24 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for responding. The "move page" page says:

Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is empty or a redirect and has no past edit history.

Well, "Al Jazeera" was a redirect with no past history, and I couldn't re-name "Al-Jazeerah". It is now blank, with a little history (the history of me making it blank), and I still can't re-name "Al-Jazeerah".

I think I will give up and just move the content across.

GrahamN 20:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Why are you moving the page? Please leave it where it is. This is the name the English-speaking world knows it by. -- Zoe

"Al-Jazeerah" is not the name the English-speaking world knows it by. All the British media spell it "Al Jazeera", or sometimes (erroneously) "Al-Jazeera". The reason is that Al Jazeera themselves spell the name of their organisation that way. If you don't believe me, take a look at their web site. It is no less absurd to spell Al Jazeera "Al-Jazeerah" as it would be to spell The Times "The-Timez". "Al Jazeera" is the correct spelling. Any other spelling is simply wrong. GrahamN 00:05 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Al Jazeera" is fine, but their official wesbite does NOT spell it "Al Jazeera", with very few exceptions they spell it "Aljazeera".--Brian Z 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning

Al Jazeera, meaning "The Island" or "The (Arabian) Peninsula"...

Is that right? I thought Al Jazeera was named in reference to Qatar, which is a Peninsula. - Efghij 04:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a good question. What I know is that the word "Al Jazeera" means "the island" in Arabic. Strictly speaking, it is never means "the peninsula", except in one case: when referring to the Arabian Peninsula. This is because the phrase "Al Jazeera", in this context, is the contraction of the phrase "Al Jazeera Al Arabia", which is furthermore the contraction of the phrase "Shibh Al Jazeera Al Arabia", which means "the Arabian Peninsula", thus if the phrase "Al Jazeera" is to refer to a peninsula, in the Arab mind, that peninsula would be the "Arabian Peninsula" Asser hassanain 07:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually Jazeerah can mean peninsula in other contexts than the Arabian Peninsula; rather more odd, why does the entry now say "Qatari"? Qatar is a peninsula, yes, but I don't believe anyone has taken that reference before. I am editing it out as incorrect. (Collounsbury 12:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

Is it worth it mentioning that Alger and Algeciras have the same etimology?

al Qaeda

These cartoons seem to at least borderline support for al Qaeda. Crusadeonilliteracy 02:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as such, they said they are against terrorism, it looks like they are criticizing the "heavy-handed" response by Americans that is causing more harm for the people than the terrorists. That's how I read into the cartoons. mr100percent 12, Mar 2004

Did you watch the previous ones? They're like NAZI propaganda Crusadeonilliteracy 07:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, the cartoons also criticise Arab leadership and the Arab League, although you need to go back about 8 months before you get very much of this. The main targets do seem to be the USA, the West, and Israel - reflecting the concerns of the audience I suspect (they would have no credibility if they failed to do this).

They could do more to challenge the counterproductive nature of some violent actions (which highlight grievances, but hamper negotiations), or the willingness of a number of anti-American fighters to target ordinary people or expose them to harm. Some might interpret the concentration on suffering caused by pro-American Arab regimes and by western governments, and the lack of treatment of suffering caused by jihadists, the Intifada, and Iraqi insurgents, as an anti-western bias. -Paul 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Independence issue

The article should address the extent to which Al Jazeera television is "independent" from goverment sponsorship, as well as from other influences. If, as de Borchgrave claims, it was created by an emir and receives a hefty subsidy from a goverment, then not everyone is going to agree that it's "independent."

On the other hand, PBS gets a US subsidy but its consistently anti-Bush tone leaves no question as to its independence. So I'm a bit confused. Anyway, let's try to avoid making this article a bit of pro-A.J. propaganda, and take an accurate and neutral look at it.

Who founded it, who funds it, what other sources of income does it have?

Who runs it, and what are their aims?

Who has made claims or counterclaims about its "objectivity" or "reliability"?

--Uncle Ed 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact of the Qatari subsidy is no secret; al-Jazeera doesn't try to hide that, and it certainly should be in the article. It does claim that that does not affect its reporting, as seemingly vindicated by the strong divergence between Qatari government positions and al-Jazeera's angle. Its critics in the Arab world do say it doesn't report much on Qatari politics, but really, what is there to report in a country where the idea of democracy is more popular with the emir than with the citizens, and where the previous supposedly absolute ruler was deposed by a tribal council for being silly? - Mustafaa 19:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Now I'm confused! I've found two sources that say that the emir's funding has stopped - Christian Science Monitor and Branchannel.com. This is gonna take some research. - Mustafaa 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I think this explains it: FutureTalk, quoting The Independent. - Mustafaa 19:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all that hard work, Mustafaa. --Uncle Ed 19:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

PBS has a consistently anti-Bush tone? Why are you using this talk page to get across your own political views? Why don't you get a blog and leave this page to those who want to actually talk about the article. This isn't a place for political statements that don't have anything to do with the article. Lurker 11:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You should take your own advice then.

Documentaries

I don't know where the link should be added, but since the Control Room documentary is mentioned, the official site is:

http://www.controlroommovie.com

Another documentary is:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/aljazeera/index.html

I think the Control Room site is too tangential to this article to be included here. I'm adding it to the separate article on Control Room, which is currently just a stub. JamesMLane 23:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why again separated criticism and attacks

By google criticism is define as "a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; 'they were involved in a violent argument'"

on wikipedia it is defined as

"Criticism is the activity of judgement or interpretation. Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one."

Attacks of Al jazeera are not disbutes, they are fact, its removing from the listing in stock exchanges, is also a fact. Similar to attacks on 9/11 are fact. you can't put it in a section titling contoversies surrounding united states. 9/11 is not a contoversy surrounding united states its simply an attack. not a contoversy from neutral view point these attacks should also be seen as attacks. calling them contoversies is not right according to the definition given on google and on wikipedia.

so attakcs on al jazeera can't be put under that heading. and for conveince point of view a person will look at table of contents and can easily choose whether he wants to look at attacks on al jazeera or its history. thanks . Zain 13:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Setting it up the way you did it reflects a POV that's biased toward Al Jazeera. It suggests that a government official who charges the network with bias isn't sincerely offering a "judgement or interpretation" (criticism) but rather is making an attack, one that can reasonably be analogized to 9/11. I think "controversies" is perfectly apt, but I noticed that most of that section concerns Iraq, so it's actually more helpful to the reader to label it that way, and move the non-Iraq items. JamesMLane 17:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I observed all the topics in that section are related to iraq but it should also be noted that all those topics mention the point of view of the people who think Al Jazeera are bad gays. and mention what they have done to punish that bad guy. but currently I can't find any appropriate heading which in one two words tells you what the content is about.

if any one finds any appropriate heading plz put it there.

thanks

Zain 21:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The heading that refers to Iraq tells what the content is about. The section could certainly accommodate substantive content that's pro-Al Jazeera on the subject of Iraq. For example, there might be a comment from some government official, media bigwig or other notable person praising Al Jazeera for providing good information about the war or the occupation, information that no one else broadcast. JamesMLane 05:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Propaganda"

The category Propaganda defines it as follows:

"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments. The intent of the category is for government sponsored and items easily classified as propaganda."

Even a cursory examination of Qatar's governmental policies should make it obvious that Al Jazeera is no more promoting a Qatari agenda than the BBC is promoting Tony Blair's agenda; and, unlike the BBC, Al Jazeera is to a large extent funded by advertising and film revenue, and is moving towards complete financial independence. There is absolutely no justification for adding this (highly inflammatory) category; I'm surprised it would even come up. - Mustafaa 10:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can read french have a look at this informative article about Al Jazira : http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3230,36-385330,0.html (the article is in free access for one week) Khalid hassani it shows that Al Jazira is far from profitable and is still alive thanks to it's founder generosity how injects nearle 40 Millions $ a year.

Well put -- the comparison with BBC in particular since one of the main guys at al-J is formerly from BBC. When interviewed (I think by Tom Friedman but I don't have the article) he pointed out that he had more freedom as a journalist at al-J than he had at BBC! The network may be relentlessly subjective and sensational, like most Western networks, but it is certainly not doing the bidding of any government. Of course, while it is critical of many Arab leaders, it doesn't go out of its way to upset the Qatari government in any way, but that is mere survival practice, like NBC not criticizing GE too heavily, and hardly qualifies as "propaganda." --csloat 01:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Broken link

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040807_595.html is broken. I tried searching on ABCs website for the story but couldn't find it. Is there another source? Wuzzeb 22:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

?

Can anyone confirm the recent anon edits? - Mustafaa 14:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

independent audit figures show it is also the most popular. Millions of people from the West are turning to Al Jazeera too, with its English News website receiving the largest amount of visitors for any news site,

aljazeera.com and aljazeera.info

Who Is Al Jazeera's Audience? Deconstructing the Demographics and Psychographics of an Arab Satellite News Network

By Philip Auter, Mohamed M. Arafa, and Khaled Al-Jaber

I. Introduction:

As time passes and the Middle East remains on the forefront of world events, Al Jazeera and its competitors - other Arab satellite news services - are becoming more well known and perhaps understood by audiences, governments, and scholars. But as they are relatively new media offerings, neither identical to Western news outlets nor bearing much resemblance to traditional state-run Arab media, one might ask: "Just who is the audience for these services? What are their beliefs and values?" Little research has been done to identify the characteristics of the Arab satellite news service audiences. This study takes a step in that direction by providing some demographic and psychographic breakdowns of the Al Jazeera audience in an attempt to define and describe this group of over 45 million individuals.

II. Research Questions and Methodology:

This study attempted to answer two research questions: Who is watching Al Jazeera and how much time are they spending with the network? The Al Jazeera audience will be described via the following demographic characteristics: age, gender, marital status, education, and household income. The psychographic variables "religion/life philosophy" were also studied. An online survey was utilized to gather responses by viewers of Al Jazeera TV around the world. For a two-week period (August 20, 2002 to September 4, 2002), an Arabic survey was linked to Al Jazeera TV's companion website (www.Al Jazeera.net) with the network's permission. People who could read Arabic and chose to participate accessed the survey by clicking on a link on Al Jazeera's homepage. Usable responses were obtained from 5379 respondents from 137 countries around the world. The online survey was written in Arabic and consisted of mostly closed-ended quantitative questions. Items measured amount of time spent watching Al Jazeera TV and a variety of demographic and psychographic characteristics including age, education, and philosophy of life. Time spent watching Al Jazeera TV was determined from responses to two questions: amount of time spent watching Al Jazeera on the average weekday and amount of time spent watching Al Jazeera on the average Saturday or Sunday. Weekday scores were weighted by five and weekend scores by two. The results were summed and divided by seven to result in average daily viewing scores.

Number of Arab Respondents Living in Arab Nations

Country Number of Respondents Living in Arab World Percent of Total Sample Algeria 124 2.3 Bahrain 107 2.0 Comoros 0 0.0 Djibouti 0 0.0 Egypt 238 4.4 Iraq 30 0.6 Jordan 304 5.7 Kuwait 151 2.8 Lebanon 94 1.7 Libya 103 1.9 Mauritania 58 1.1 Morocco 135 2.5 Oman 109 2.0 Palestinian Territories 206 3.8 Qatar 106 2.0 Saudi Arabia 1215 22.6 Somalia 2 0.0 Sudan 69 1.3 Syria 268 5.0 Tunisia 27 0.5 United Arab Emirates 356 6.6 Yemen 80 1.5 Total 3782 70.3

III. Findings:

Many respondents in the sample spent quite a large amount of time watching Al Jazeera TV - or at least leaving it on in the background while attending to other tasks. About one third of the participants average more than five hours a day of Al Jazeera TV viewing (n=2039, 37.9 percent). Sixteen percent of the respondents watch for about 4-5 hours daily (n=864), 13.3 percent (n=714) for 3-4 hours daily, and another 13.3 percent for 2-3 hours every day. Ten percent of the sample (n=541) watched the network for 1-2 hours a day and only 4 percent (n=215) watched for less than an hour. Only 5.4 percent (n=291) of the sample spent no time watching Al Jazeera TV on an average day.

Audience Age

Respondents ranged between 18 and over 65, with nearly half falling between 25 and 35 (n = 2378, 44.2 percent). The next largest group was between 18 and 24 years old (n= 1428, 26.5 percent). Respondents between 35 and 44 were the third largest group (n = 1151, 21.4 percent). The remaining participants were 45 and above (n = 422, 7.8 percent). While most viewers, based on age, watched between 3 and 4 hours of Al Jazeera on the average day, the group that clearly spent the most time watching Al Jazeera were viewers age 35-44, averaging an hour more daily (N = 1151). Respondents 65 and older, however, tended to view less on average, only 2 to 3 hours per day (N = 15).

Gender

Men (n=4948, 92 percent) far surpassed women (n=430, 8 percent) in this sample. Men and women seem to watch the same amount of Al Jazeera programming - between 3 and 4 hours daily.

Marital Status

Almost half of the sample reported that they were single and never married (n=2435, 45.3 percent) while most of the remaining respondents reported that they were married (n=2847, 52.9 percent). Only a few stated that they were widowed (n=82, 1.5 percent) or divorced (n=15, 0.3 percent). Again, most respondents viewed between 3 and 4 hours of Al Jazeera on the average day. However, widowed respondents appear to have viewed a bit more on average (N = 82, daily viewing = 4-5 hours)

Education

The majority of respondents had received a bachelors degree or its equivalent (n=2497, 46.4 percent) while 18.8 percent (n=1010) had obtained a Master's, Ph.D., J.D. or similar advanced degree. About one third of the sample (n=1595, 29.7 percent) had finished high school and possible some college. One hundred and eighty six respondents (3.4 percent) had received less than the equivalent of a high school degree. While most viewers watched 3-4 hours of Al Jazeera on average, those with limited education tended to watch about one hour more per day (less than or equal to a US high school degree: N = 969).

Household Income

The majority of the participants had an annual household income equivalent to less than $15,000 US dollars (n=1931, 35.9 percent) while another 30.4 percent (n=1633) made between $15,000 and $35,000 USD per year. Only 776 participants (14.4 percent) had no annual household income. One fifth of the sample had an annual household income over $35,000 USD (n=1039, 19.3 percent). Respondents in the middle of the range - with a household income of approximately $40,000 (US equivalent) tended to watch one hour more per day of Al Jazeera than did other viewers (N = 371).

Location

While three quarters of the audience polled live in the "Arab World," (N = 4782, or 70 percent), the total sample (N = 5379) hailed from 137 countries worldwide. (See Appendix.) The majority of people living in the Arab World that responded to the survey hailed from Saudi Arabia (22 percent of the total sample). The majority of those replying to the survey that were not living in the Arab World lived in the United States. Interestingly, in the Middle East, Qataris only represented 2 percent of the overall sample, while Saddam Hussein-controlled Iraq contributed 30 respondents.

Religion

The overwhelming majority of the sample was Muslim (n=5192, 96.5 percent), followed by a limited representation of Christians (n=130, 2.4 percent), Jewish (n=10, 0.2 percent), and other faiths and belief systems (n=46, 0.9 percent). Both Muslim and Christian respondents viewed 3-4 hours of Al Jazeera daily. Respondents with other religions watched about one hour less of Al Jazeera per day (N = 56).

Life Philosophy

Although self-ascribed life philosophy varied widely in the sample from extremely liberal (n=481, 8.9 percent) or liberal (n=942, 17.5 percent) to conservative (n=1044, 19.4 percent) and extremely conservative (n=218, 4.1percent), half of the sample, considered themselves to be moderate (n=2693, 50.1percent). Those who watched the most Al Jazeera programming (4-5 hours per day) consider themselves liberal or extremely liberal in their worldview (N = 1423).

IV. Discussion:

Clearly, the overwhelming number of viewers watch Al Jazeera for hours on end - or at least keep the network on in the background while doing other things - keeping it on for nearly half their waking hours. Middle-aged viewers spent the most time with the satellite news network, while elderly viewers watched the least, with widows spending slightly more time viewing than average. Those with some, but only a little, education watched the most, and lower income individuals watched more than those who made more money. Muslims and Christians watched approximately the same amount of Al Jazeera, but Jews and viewers of other faiths watched quite a bit less. Interestingly, liberal viewers watched more Al Jazeera than did conservative viewers. So what does this tell us about the Al Jazeera audience? First that it is certainly a pervasive group. The network's message reaches Muslims and Christians world-wide and viewers keep it on round the clock. Also, education and income are somewhat negatively related to viewing levels - generally speaking the less income a household makes, or the lower the income, the more Al Jazeera is viewed. This could be the result of several factors. First, households with less income - but enough to support satellite TV - may find Al Jazeera to be a relatively "inexpensive" method of keeping up with world events. Second, households where the respondent is of a high school educational level equivalent might rely more heavily on Al Jazeera solely as their news provider while more educated households look to many sources for their news It is perhaps not surprising that Muslims strongly support the network, but not significantly more than Arabic-reading Christians. It is also expected that more liberal respondents rely more heavily on the network - which is diverse in the opinions it presents. These summary findings offer but a glimpse into the world of the Al Jazeera audience. As global communities become more and more interrelated, and Middle Eastern issues become interwoven into world politics, free Arabic satellite news networks like Al Jazeera will become more and more important players in the global news business. TBS

---

Philip Auter is an assistant professor of communication at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Mohamed Arafa, the former chairman of the Department of Communications at the University of Qatar and an international media consultant, is currently the communications officer at the Georgia DOT. Khaled Al-Jaber is an employee of the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Resistance v. Insurgency

It appears that a user has gone on his own little holy war changing all references in wikipedia to "resistance" to "insurgency" when talking about Iraq. I'd like to know the rationale for this. It is my perception that these words refer to two different things -- the resistance refers to organized groups of Iraqis resisting the U.S. occupation of Iraq whereas the "insurgency" seems to me a more general term that would include foreign fighters and others who aren't part of organized resistance groups. More importantly, there seems to be an implicit value judgement being enforced through the use of "insurgency" over "resistance" in every sentence on the wikipedia. I'd like to start changing some of these references back (particularly the first one in this piece) but I want to see what other people think first? --csloat 21:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

has this issue been solved now? As Wikipedia is neutral, it must avoid to put politically coloured labels on things, different from the press which is not generally neutral. Harald88 12:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some Things about the Wikipedia Entry

I think whoever wrote the entry on Al Jazeera has been withholding information. Why did you not include information about how they warp american broadcasts or how their station has been partly funded by Osama and Co for years? If you want to truly be unbiased and informative you need to include shady dealings like this in your article as well.

Wikipedia is collaborative; if you have evidence that OBL funded al-Jazeera (yeah right), or any other relevant information you think should be here, edit the entry yourself and include the evidence; it's a better solution than whining about it. If the evidence really is there, the chances are your edits will stay.--csloat 06:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Time of notification of office location

The article used to say that the US had been informed "just prior" to it's bombing the office. That implies (to me at least) a few seconds or minutes prior to the bombing. I have never seen anything to indicate that the notification was that short, if it was that would no doubt have made it into the news releases covering the item. Web searches and the documentary control room seem to indicate that the US had ample (days or weeks) notification. Flying fish 03:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

erroneous label?

This article is labeled "This article documents a current event." However, a news station isn't a current event, and indeed for example the BBC article doesn't have such a banner. Thus it must be removed, but I like to know, who put it there? Harald88 12:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It was added here: 21:42, 23 November 2005 132.205.45.110. I was going to make the same remark, so I will remove it. --Stevage 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

Currently, the last paragraph of On the Internet section starts with "The site was forced to change providers several times, due in its opinion to political pressure.". That does not make any sense since (please correct me if I'm wrong) "due" is never followed by "in + [possessive pronoun]" in English. The way I interpret the sentence is "The site was forced to change providers several times due to Al Jazeera's (controversal) opinions and political pressures." When I tried to edit the article to make it more coherent, my change was reverted. May I ask why? Does anyone else have the same/different interpretation? If I changed the meaning in my edition, would someone please clear up the ambiguity in the meaning instead of merely reverting? Thanks.Mimson 01:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is you aren't just changing the grammar, you're changing the meaning completely of the sentence:

• "The site was forced to change providers several times, due in its opinion to political pressure.", which is bad grammar, yes, but:
• "The site was forced to change providers several times due to Al Jazeera's (controversal) opinions and political pressures."

is a completely different meaning, implying that Al Jazeera was "pressurized" into removing it's sites when as far as I know it was not - this is only it's an opinion/a sob-story to claim "persecution" by non-Arab media/companies

Maybe better would be:

• "The site was forced to change providers several times due to, in its opinion, political pressure."

Though both are unsourced, it all seems rather dubious that they were "forced" to move sites.... --Chaosfeary 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction. I didn't realize that I committed an ambiguity myself. So both opinion and political pressure belong to the website's host? By the way, I think the reference at the end of the next sentence, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/07/al_jazeera_and_the_net/ , is the source it draws on. Mimson 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get the meaning of the passage at last. Would this make slightly more sense? "The site was forced to change providers several times (due, in Al Jazeera's opinion, to political pressure)."Mimson 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bush Blair "bomb AJ" memo?

See the following 13MB non-streaming video -- this is significant to say the least... What should be added to the main article re. this "leak" and what the U.S. has done and wants to do against journalists?

http://www.wakahiru-me.com/media/vid/indy/uk_chan4_bush_bombs_al-jazeera_051124a.wmv

- - - Above, there was a less descriptive heading...

"leaked #10 memo"

Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.[1]

Google News:

• [2]

CSMonitor.com:

• [3]

Update 17Feb2006: Yay, looks like this article has been greatly updated since last time: Al Jazeera bombing memo now has its own Wikipedia entry, and also this article links to a blog entitled "Don't Bomb Us" -- [4]

Rendon Group

A sentence was added about the Rendon Group that is slanted at best-- "Also in the runup to the war the US Pentagon hired the Rendon Group to target and possibly punish Al Jazeera reporters who did not stay on message. [18]"

The citation points to a really amazing and informative article (from Rolling Stone no less), but the RS article made no real claim that Al Jazeera reporters were targeted by the Rendon Group.

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment of the line, but the word 'possibly' should be cause enough to delete it.

The RS article does provide great fodder for inclusion in other Wikipedia articles.

Muhammad cartoons

I removed the following paragraph because it cannot be understood without some contextualizing. If anyone knows what it means, please add to it and replace it.

Following a live televised interview, it is reported [3] that the "apology for any offence caused" made at the opening of the interview by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, was not translated into Arabic.

on-line section

The description in wikipedia doesn't seem to match up with the Al Jazeera website [5] at all?--210.246.2.238 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of viewers

"Al Jazeera ... now rivals the BBC in worldwide audiences with an estimated 50 million viewers."

(1) Can anybody give a cite for this, please?

(2) Can anybody give a date for this, please?

Thanks -- Feb 14, 2006

There is a blog, http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/ written by a US university professor which covers Arab media issues. I vaguely recall recent informed and cited discussions re readership numbers there. (Collounsbury 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)).

Morocco POV Materials

I have edited the off-subject addition by Arre Western Sahara protests in late 2005. Having (i) been there, and (ii) followed original reporting, I can attest the addition is highly POV and tenditious. It is also largely irrelevant to al-Jazeera. (Collounsbury 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I added that al-Jazeera has had at least two correspondents repeatedly harrassed by Moroccan reporters and banned from reporting. How is that irrelevant to a section on government intervention against al-Jazeera? About your edit, i changed some stuff (the protests broke out in May 2005, which is not "late 2005"), and although I didn't revert, I generally can't see what the problem was with the rest. For example, of course the protests were carried out by independence-minded protestors -- those Sahrawis that oppose independence would not participate in demonstrations for independence, would they? I don't particularly mind what you did to the paragraph, but calling the previous version "highly POV" is just insulting. Arre 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

.com

I keep noticing ppl around the web confusing .net with .com, i know it's mentioned on the first part of the article, but i think considering the mess, it should be right under the title in italics.

Washington D.C.station launches in May 2006

..and Washington D.C., when the station launches in May 2006..

Has it? 161.133.11.225 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)