Al-Jazeera English covered the “anti-war” rally in Washington on Saturday, highlighting the appearances of Jane Fonda and Rep. John Conyers. Interestingly, the story quoted Hani Khalil, “a member of the United for Peace and Justice Group,” as saying the protesters wanted to send a message that “Americans are against the war in Iraq.”As AIM has pointed out, United for Peace and Justice is a Marxist-oriented group led by Leslie Cagan, who has substantial communist connections.
It is significant that Al-Jazeera singled out Hani Khalil, an Arab-American who works with the anti-war paper War Times. Khalil, who was put forward by United for Peace and Justice to give an Arab-American face to the protests to a worldwide audience, has written that, “The antiwar movements of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s were able to end or seriously hinder U.S.-sponsored wars in Vietnam, Central America, and elsewhere. Though we face unique challenges, we have the same responsibility - and ability - today.”
In other words, they want America defeated in Iraq. That’s Al-Jazeera’s goal as well.
Posted: January 28, 2007 at 9:49 am
Danny Schechter of media channel.org laments that too few foreign propaganda channels, such as Al-Jazeera English, were at the recently concluded National Conference for Media Reform. He asks, “Why no presence from the Al Jazeera English Channel that can’t get on the air in the US?” Maybe it’s because Al-Jazeera English correspondent Josh Rushing, a former Marine who looks like a PLO terrorist on his personal website, was busy elsewhere. He’s reportedly visiting Fort Riley, Kansas, doing a story about U.S. troops training Iraqis.
Can someone tell me why Al-Jazeera has been given access to that U.S. military base? What do mediachannel.org and the Free Press organizers of the media reform conference have in common? They’ve both been funded by George Soros.
Posted: January 16, 2007 at 11:09 pm
How did cell phone video footage of Saddam’s execution appear on Al-Jazeera television just hours after Saddam was hanged?
AP said the “leaked” video showed the former dictator being “taunted” near the end, with some witnesses shouting “Go to hell!” before he dropped through the gallows floor in a noose. The video has been exploited by Al-Jazeera. But who “leaked” it? CNN is reporting that an Iraqi official claims that Al-Jazeera itself was behind the leak, having recruited somebody to record the execution, for the obvious purpose of exploiting the scene in order to undermine the Iraqi government and its American backers. So Al-Jazeera leaked the video to itself! Not surprisingly, Al-Jazeera is denying the charge. But an Al-Jazeera role in obtaining, even recording, the video, makes sense, in terms of how quickly the terror TV channel was able to exploit it. As various news reports pointed out, Al-Jazeera was the first channel to air the footage.
If the charge stands up, it add to the case AIM has made that that Al-Jazeera has been a consistent supporter of the Saddam regime and its remnants, now waging a terrorist war against the U.S.-backed Iraqi government.
Posted: January 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm
The Weekly Standard has taken note of our criticism of the new channel. In an article, Louis Wittig finds Al-Jazeera English (AJE) guilty of airing ”deceptive and terrorist-promoting segments.”
One example: “ON ONE OF THE DAYS I was watching, the London desk had breaking news from Gaza. A hundred-plus Hamas gunmen had formed a human shield around their leader’s house to ward off an Israeli air strike. This began a string of short reports on recent events in the Strip: The U.N. Assembly had voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel; accompanying footage showed Palestinian bodies. The next item was Israel’s bombing of a building that housed (AJE authoritatively asserted) a charity. The broadcast made no mention either of what the Israelis believed the building contained or why the Israelis were attacking in Gaza in the first place.”
Another is one that we have noted: a glorified report about the terrorist Islamic Army of Iraq. Wittig explains: “AJE aired a short segment on the Islamic Army of Iraq. The publicity video showed disciplined rows of masked men drilling: bursting out from the cover of tall reeds and scanning the horizon with their AK-47s. An off-camera voice described how they fight all foreigners. Their tactics of kidnapping and releasing ‘grisly videos’ were noted as ‘effective intimidation technique[s].’ A group spokesman, his face obscured, gave a boasting quote but doesn’t field any questions.”
Wittig concludes that, ”If this isn’t propaganda for America’s enemies, that’s only because the definition of propaganda in today’s constantly shifting media environment isn’t perfectly clear.”
He adds:
“AJE supporters try to claim that the new network is independent from the original Al Jazeera. But as Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media, notes, both Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English are funded directly by the emir of Qatar, and three of the four top managers at the English-language channel come from the Arabic one.
“TAKING A HANDS-OFF APPROACH to Al Jazeera English is, Kincaid continues, akin to giving Tokyo Rose an anchor’s seat on NBC radio during World War II. This is not an uncommon reference for the network’s critics and it sounds vaguely right. Only Tokyo Rose probably never had U.S. Navy spokesmen on her show to discuss Guadalcanal. Al Jazeera English, on its Inside Iraq program, does.”
Posted: January 4, 2007 at 9:57 am
