Egypt shuts down Al Jazeera bureau

I doubt that Ahmadinejad or Bashar elAssad have anything to fear from al-Jazz. In fact, I'm pretty sure that those two would agree with your glowing assessment of their activities.

President Obama has expressed his disdain for Fox News on several occasions. Wouldn't that make Fox a network that is hated by the ruling class?

> where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

Actually, it all makes sense now. In the West we're used to having free speech as a given right. We don't do much to protect, expand, or enhance it.

> I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense.

"pure nonsense" is exactly what it is :)

The only reason it seems that way from the western perspective is because:

1) They interview Islamist figures 2) They don't portray them as evil

But they also interview people from every color of the political spectrum.

> given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

I was shocked that most channels in North American report mostly on local news (e.g. man bitten by a dog), and if they ever report on global events, it's usually brief. And that's when they run any news at all; most TV is focused on entertainment 100%. From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.

Saying that US Networks do a poor job of reporting because their coverage sucks is exactly like saying that Wal-Mart does a poor job of retailing because they sell plastic junk. It's what the people want.

Being impartial means that everybody hates your guts equally.

Qatar's dictators don't fear Al Jazeera at all.

(I like AJ's role in Egypt, but not the naivete of these comments. Standing up to one dictator doesn't make you a freedom fighter if you're funded by another)

The English arm of Al Jazeera is based in Washington DC

All undemocratic Arab governments fear Al Jazeera.

ie all Arab governments and the US if they are US backed ones.

with one exception. Al Jazeera obviously never digs into the affairs of the Qatari royal family.

Wouldn't it be interesting if someone like Keith Olberman went to Al Jazeera.

Yesterday they had a brief mention claiming that there was information posted to Wikileaks showing that the U.S. was behind the protesters, but none of their earlier reporting had made any suggestion of a connection. Most reporting is solid. Once in a while they'll say something that's a bit out there, and some might have issue with their use of "reconstruction" (shown in tiny font on screen) for video simulating the negotiations. There were cases were actors spoke dialog, yet the reporter later said the actual text of that particular conversation wasn't known.

Their release of information from the Palestine Papers initially was accurate but unbalanced by omission. They showed concessions without showing what the Palestinians would get. They later had an interview with Martin Indyk, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, who protested that they didn't show the information in perspective by failing to mention that Palestine was to get the sought after separate state status, along with some territory from the Israel side to compensate for loss of some developed areas. When added to access corridor area, the amount gained equaled what was lost. It was pretty clear they'd had him on just to validate the papers, and hurried / talked over him some when he raised these issues, but they deserve credit for still airing it. They do a lot of good reporting, but as always it's wise to compare reports from a number of sources. I'm curious how that interview came across when translated for their Arab-language coverage or if it was included.

In addition to Aljazeera English, MHz Worldview carries broadcasts from Japan, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Taiwan and some others. The Russian one comes across as the most propaganda oriented with them going out of their way to emphasize things, often misleadingly, that cast the U.S. in a negative light. They say things like NBC won't report stories because G.E. is a defense contractor and G.E. leaked massive amounts of PCBs into the Hudson river (Which they did, but in 1977 and earlier, long before they bought RCA/NBC) They find plenty of quotes from people that give the wrong impression (They used one of John McCain in 2008 to make it look like the U.S. supported those that make have attacked their airport. That tone was gone later, but they quick to throw out negative comments)

The combination of most of the international sources on MHz WorldView, the BBC, and PBS Newshour seems to cover most things pretty well. The two that seem to work to twist things fairly often are Fox and RT (the Russian service), with the remainder of the U.S. networks just not giving much time/depth to a great many issues that matter.

If one gets past the negative tone, the Russian service does point out things other media skips, like the lock down due to the missing nerve agent at the Dugway miltary testing grounds in Utah a few days ago. (the place that released an airborne toxin years ago killing thousands of animals 30 miles away) They also immediately covered the release of the U.S. Financial Crisis Investigative Report a few days ago. They make quite a fuss over U.S. human rights issues, pointing out the the U.S. and Sudan are the only U.N. members failing to sign on with never giving children life sentences or execution for serious crimes. The eerie part is that facts generally check out. It's too bad they make so many poorly founded negative conclusions and report few positive developments.

http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/

It reads that the bureau has been shut down, not their activities.

They are still doing their coverage, but:

  - They have been kicked out of their Cairo office [1] [2]
  - Their "tv uplink" has been shut down [3]
  - Their correspondants in Egypt are no longer being named when reporting on air "for their safety"

[1] http://twitter.com/nolanjazeera/status/31681013461557248 [2] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011130... [3] http://twitter.com/nolanjazeera/status/31755344522772481

How quickly we forget. Tunisia, earlier this month.

In fact that example was the impetus behind the Egyptian protest movement. If (as seems likely at this point) Egypt falls, expect to see several other governments fall as well.

This is as momentous a time for the Middle East as the fall of the Iron Curtain was for Eastern Europe. (Incidentally said fall gives several more examples of how military might doesn't prevent democratic revolutions.)

Isn't it likely that the F16s are up for reconnaissance? Any time there's a touch of trouble here (in Belfast), there's invariably several helicopters over head. Nowadays these are normally small police helicopters, but up until a few years ago heavier military helicopters were common. I imagine that a plane would be preferable in a bigger city such as Cairo, especially if the protests are spread out.

If this is not true about other news bureaus, this says a lot about Al Jazeera.

For a news organization that can be taken as a complement.

I would think so since censorship is a topic that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".

Yes. On Hacker News, we discuss subjects that people who like startups and hacking find interesting. That's not solely hacking, programming, IT or startups, there are a lot of things that young, educated people like to talk about, and major political events are one of them.