Tom Nelson points out that Michael Mann’s sabbatical gives him time to take a break from his sober, objective, apolitical, just-the-facts, hard-science-only work to discuss the environmentalist movement on:
Seems rather ho-hum until you look up what network “Inside Story” is on:
Great, maybe after appearing on Al Jazeera, he’ll be inspired to some sort of Hockey Stick Jihad. Oh, wait.
He seems desperate to me.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/04/201242462010275243.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Al Jazeera English actually turns out to be the best way to find out about the Middle East and get a view of the United States from the outside. Very good journalism, actually.
My defense of Al Jazeera is not a defense of MAnn, who represents a much lower standfard of ethics.
Anthony – this post of yours is a miss. As shown as the time of Libya, AJ is very much ‘Western mainstream’ at the moment.
The author here doesn’t like foreign journalists?
A little crude and unnecessary.
REPLY: Likewise, painting a broad brush to “all” foreign journalists seems a bit crude and unnecessary, but then again you live in a bubble of academia, like Mann. So, such generalizations are expected. I think Al Jazeera has an agenda, and they wear it on their sleeve. I don’t watch it for that reason. The fact that Mann would appear on it seems desperate. – Anthony
Onologos-
They are more mainstream than some – but less so than the BBC, and the BBC less so than the very myopic U.S. press – and their coverage of Egypt and Libya was pretty amzingly good stuff.
Mann needs a misanthropic audience. With Al Jazeera ,he has an audience of Western civilization haters.
Close enough.
Good journalism doesn’t hide bad science.
I’ve watched AJ in the Middle East. It’s good, better than the BBC, but actually staffed with ex-BBC (or BBC-like) people. But I understand your drift: the American government considered AJ to be a pro-terrorist organization when it was first set up. It offers a view that is “balanced”, in that it says/suggests that American interests may not be either pure or in the interests of the Middle East, except for the Israelis, of course. (Fancy that!) So it is still “anti-us”.
This is a political mistake by one who should have known better. Of course, Strong and Hansen and others are politically to the left of left (the totalitarian part, not the I”ll-share-my-money-with-others, Marxist part). So maybe the anti-us is an expression of their anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-Western-consumerist beliefs.
Love it. Mann on AJ. Hansen likes the Chinese. What’s next: Strong relocates to Moscow and Schmidt, to Germany? And Al, well, he goes to the Maldives, where there are no taxes and his mansion IS an island?
I’ll believe that Al Jazeera has no bias or agenda when Michael Mann announced that the hockey stick was just a prank.
Al Jazeera is bar none the best news channel if you’re interested in the workings of “non-Western” countries. I’ve not seen any bias from them that I haven’t seen much worse from other news organizations.
“Don’t shoot the messenger” and all that.
Al Jazeera is a good news source because:
#1 – You know their bias.
#2 – They admit it.
So you know why they are doing the piece. It is refreshing to see a news outlet proudly proclaim their bias. It gives the viewer the information they need to take the stories with a grain of salt.
I often watch AJ along with RT while in hotels. Both appear to be very professional and competent and often appear to be a better source of quality international news than as reported by CNN, BBC, etc, don’t assume.
Here are some of Michael Mann’s Earth Day supporters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdJGQp6kjE
The BBC is as biased as they come, so Al-Jazeera being staffed by ex-BBC staff is not exactly a comforting thought.
wikipedia, BTW, has largely memory-holed the Ira Einhorn/Earth Day connection, only some remnants in the German wikipedia. I don’t give a hint. You know who you are, you’ll find it.
Anybody who thinks Al Jazeera is “Western mainstream” is very confused. Of course they are going to give glowing coverage to any “Arab Spring” uprising, which movements are bringing al Qaeda to power all across the middle east. Al Jazeera is rabidly pro-Islamist, or Islamic supremacist. In other words, they are orthodox, and orthodox Islam demands the conquest of all non-Muslims. Osama bin Laden was a perfectly orthodox Wahhabist (the official Saudi state interpretation of Islam). Al Jazeera daily cheerleads the ascention of this ideology across the Islamic world.
I only wish the US mainstream media were as good as al Jazeera. It is a better source for Mideast news and a wider view of world news than our domestic journalists. To bypass the agenda-driven pap peddled on network TV every morning, I check al Jazeera English daily. No, they’re neither perfect nor unbiased – but they’re better than most.
And they seem to hire folks based on knowledge, and not on how blond their hair is or how much they work out.
philjourdan says:
April 24, 2012 at 9:29 am
Al Jazeera is a good news source because:
#1 – You know their bias.
#2 – They admit it.
>>>>>>>>>
A murderer is a good person provided that they admit it?
Sorry, but wrong is wrong. A good news source has no bias. Does scu exist? Rarely. Is that an excuse to allow a news source off the hook in regard to their reporting because their bias is known and they admit it?
Hardly.
What if their bias was against philjourdan, they advocated philjourdan be executed because his name is philjourdan, would that be OK if they admitted it?
Bias is wrong, period. It matters not what they admit or how bad it is elsewhere.
Agree on AlJ. They are, as a rule less biased than their Western counterparts… Especially the BBC. they are HORRIBLE! And in this case, it’s AJ’s association with Michael Mann that is more damaging, not the other way around.
I swear, every time I watch ABC World News it has at least one story on climate change, with no skeptical or dissenting opinions offered. No balance and no fact checking, either.
I have to agree, our media is no better. Remember the flag pin controversy after 9-11? Why wouldn’t a member of the American media support the USA in the war on terror? Do they believe they will be allowed freedom of the press if Al Qaeda wins?
Rms says:
April 24, 2012 at 9:40 am
“I often watch AJ along with RT while in hotels. Both appear to be very professional and competent and often appear to be a better source of quality international news than as reported by CNN, BBC, etc, don’t assume.”
RT? Oh please. You’re an OWSer, is that it?
Antony,
So you stand by “Hockey Stick Jihad”? Jihad, that’s Al Jazeeras agenda? Looks more like generalized Muslim bashing by you rather than some investigation of AJ’s agenda.
REPLY: Typical academic, misses the humor. Note the tag -“satire”. But please, be as upset as you wish.
I will say though Peter, that your organization, to its credit, doesn’t seem to have global warming on it’s agenda that I can find. – Anthony
REPLY: Likewise, painting a broad brush to “all” foreign journalists seems a bit crude and unnecessary, but then again you like in a bubble of academia, like Mann. So, such generalizations are expected. I think Al Jazeera has an agenda, and they wear it on their sleeve. I don’t watch it for that reason. The fact that Mann would appear on it seems desperate. – Anthony
Anthony – I’ve been on WUWT since pretty much the beginning and have had few reasons to criticize something you’ve written. But I have to challenge you here. Isn’t this attitude, “I don’t have to watch it – or read it – because I already know what the POV is” EXACTLY the type of attitude and mind set we are ultimately fighting against? I mean, we were all rightly very critical of Peter Glieck as it was obvious he hadn’t bothered to read Donna LaFramboise’s book because he already “knew” what was in it? I would recommend watching AJ for a couple of weeks and then compare the reality of the content to your current POV of it. Sure, it’s not a perfect news source. But it is from a different angle. As both a skeptic and former media major, I appreciate that.
REPLY: You forget that I’m a TV Radio journalist, and I’ve spent more time in satellite feed control rooms at my TV station than I care to admit. I’ve watched hours and hours of Al-J, particularly after 9/11, but also recently as our radio station also has several satellite feeds running. So please don’t paint me with “I don’t have to watch it – or read it” when you have absolutely zero idea of my actual experience with it. My experience with it formed my opinion, so I don’t choose to watch it anymore if I can help it. – Anthony
HR,
Haven’t you noticed? It is the Muslims who do the bashing. Among other things.