Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera | Hacker News Reader

Wikileaks Takes Down the Head of Al Jazeera

readwriteweb.com

250 pointsmwilcox60 comments

> "The incident illustrates that not even Wikileaks' former media partners are safe from the wrath of the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda."

Wait, pointing out a clear conflict of interest and censorship is being "radically pro-transparency"?

I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent, but since when is releasing information about a clear abuse radical in any way whatsoever?

People often think of the less extreme act that more people can get behind as being more extreme. It's the same reason that the person who risks death to save 100 people is more heroic than the person who risks death to save 2 people.

The person who risk deaths to save 100 people is indeed more heroic than the person who save 2 people.

Are you saying there's no difference between 1 or 100 people?

Heroism is a question of character, not just results. For example, an assassin who gets cold feet when he sees his target's bodyguards is not as heroic as a police officer who takes a bullet to save the assassin's victim, even though both decisions save the person's life.

It requires a greater degree of selflessness to value two lives over your own than it does to value a hundred lives over your own. A fairly large number of people would consider sacrificing themselves to save half the world — that many lives lost is such a tremendous tragedy, it almost seems like an obligation. But few people would seriously think about exchanging their life for a stranger's — they'd say sorry, too bad, you got unlucky.

On the other hand, the level of sacrifice and risk is usually quite great when you consider heroic acts that saved hundreds of people.

I'm saying that a person taking the same risk to save just 2 people is more heroic, even though peoples' intuition is the opposite. Risking yourself to save 2 people takes guts and a serious commitment to the greater good. Doing the same for 100 people takes guts, but is kind of a no-brainer.

I think you're on the verge of discovering that a utilitarian philosophy isn't the only way to look at the world. It's just so ingrained in us that it's hard to look beyond it.

Really? I find that utilitarianism is not at all the common way of looking at the world. It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.

It is trivial to come up with ethical examples that utilitarianism disagrees with the gut-instinct version.

That's true. But the typical formulation for utilitarianism -- "if a trolley is hurtling down the track, certain to kill 5 people ahead of it, is it OK to divert it onto a different track if that will result in killing a single person?" -- is very difficult to talk someone out of.

The idea that minimizing the number of deaths overrides any absolute prohibition on taking a person's life is pretty much impossible to overcome. Hence my conclusion that utilitarianism is, or has become, the default mode of reasoning.

Since the dawn of time. Standing up to power is an act which takes courage. Not many stand up to power so it is radical.

Should it be radical? No.

Is it? In today's media climate? You bet your ass.

That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.

I didn't read his comment as saying that it's a new phenomenon, rather that today's climate makes it true.

> That's strikes me as being a bit naïve. Speaking truth to power has always been dangerous.

Well, there are a few, outstanding exceptions. I'm thinking of French philosophers of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), England in most of the 1600s and 1700s (Swift will probably be in jail for at least 30+ years in in this day and age for writing things like "A Modest Proposal") and probably Athens around Pericles' time or the Roman Republic. But, unfortunately, you're of course correct in the great scheme of things.

I'm pretty sure you can get away with a lot more than you could have in past times when the people in power would have likely just had your head lopped off.

so, let's prove it.

> I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent

That most certainly isn't their mantra.

>I don't believe in WikiLeak's mantra that all information, regardless of context, should be transparent

Is that even their mantra? They didn't release all the diplomatic cables right away, and at least tried to protect the names of some people in these documents.

"Don't Assume WikiLeaks Brought Down Al Jazeera's Director":

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/dont-assume-wi...

This reason is actually more likely, seeing that he is replaced by Qatari royal.

If this is true - and it sounds really plausible especially in the Middle East - I fear for how much of a step backwards this is going to be, especially with the Arab Spring going forward.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/09/2011920...

Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general.

I guess their credibility is now completely out the window

I wouldn't say "completely out of the window" simply because the alternatives still don't come close to Al Jazeera's lack of bias.

It's of interesting timing - this ousting - especially with the theatre that we're about witness at the UN.

Care to expand on what the theatre we're about to witness at the UN part?

Palestine.

Why? He has been their chairman of the board all this time and this seems like a interim measure until they find a new CEO.

Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is the chairman of the board.

Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general.

Also[1] : The U.S. State Department clearly views Al Jazeera as a tool of Qatar's foreign policy; one cable from November 2009 claims that the Persian Gulf state uses the channel "as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by al-Jazeera's broadcasts, including the United States." Al Jazeera devotes suspiciously little time to covering the politics of the Gulf; for instance, after Qatar's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, criticism of the Saudi royal family dropped dramatically.

[1] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/the_end_of_th...

I don't understand why people think "objective news reporting" is possible within this universe.

Anyone trying to sell you that line is lying to you; much better to at least have theses bias' be overt.

Very few care anyway and those that know will forget. There's no such as independent back there to begin with. Even here NBC will probably back down on a story after a call from GE that may have a pending deal with X corp.

I guess their credibility is now completely out the window

and from a reply to this post:

There's no such as independent back there to begin with.

I find this to be incredibly annoying. Asimov's essay on relativity of wrong should be mandatory reading for people engaging in debates. People forget that even if people make mistakes the world is not black-and-white, not 0 or 1. There's a whole infinity inbetween. People often don't look beyond the fact that no one scores a 1 to see that there are some that are teetering terribly close to 0, a 0.1 maybe, while a few put in a lot of effort to be at a 0.9. This comes up so many times in debates it is not even funny anymore.

* When talking about both the left and the right, in American politics, having radical ideas. They completely overlook how radical these ideas are, and the amount of airtime given to them.

* When talking about bias in media. Sure Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central (if you view the Daily show as a news source) are biased in their own ways, but they're not equal.

* When talking about a few false steps in various scientific theories (which is what prompted Asimov to write his essay). Sure there are some unknown and possibly sticky problems with evolution, but that doesn't equate its incorrectness to the incorrectness of creationism (young-earth and otherwise) or intelligent design.

* When talking about anti-consumerist behavior. Sure Netflix, Apple, MSFT, and AT&T engage in anti-consumerist (or unpopular) behavior. That doesn't mean that they're all equally wrong, or equally short-sighted.

* When talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sure both sides are wrong, but that doesn't absolve either side of their respective faults.

/end rant

Edit: To make it more informative.

* https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Relativit...

* http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

I continually wonder if Wikileaks has considered that, in their fiery no-compromise campaign, they may actually be setting back progress?

What on earth could I mean? Well, in this particular case- I respect Al Jazeera. I am generally pleased with their journalism as compared to many American firms, and they have a different perspective from many American journalists, which is valuable. It could be a really good thing if Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA. In that light, I can't help but wonder if a little co-operation with the US government is a small price to be paid compared to potential future payoff.

How would Al Jazeera becoming a popular news source be a good thing, if you now know that the network is a US gov't shill?

There's no progress, only perceived progress, where the US gov't gave you the illusion of choice of news networks.

Just because select bits of information are altered or omitted does not mean they do not carry other valuable information. Al Jazeera had excellent coverage of the recent uprisings, in none of which was the USA involved.

Also I would argue this does not make them a shill. A shill has a very close association with the other entity, and the shill's number one purpose is promoting the other entity. It hardly sounds like that is the case here.

We expect the trend in favor of using Al Jazeera as an informal tool of GOQ foreign policy to continue undiminished.[1]

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/...

You respect Al Jazeera because of the differences between it and nearly all (if not all) American media. I don't understand how you could support the erosion of those differences and still expect to have in the end a media organization that you respected.

Or, to put it another way: by the time Al Jazeera became a popular source for news in the USA, it would no longer be Al Jazeera.

My hope would be that with small compromises made in key areas, it could be widely accepted otherwise unaltered.

It is a common enough occurrence in plenty of industries. Japanese auto makers are heavily shaped by the demands of the American car industry- but did they wind up just another GM, another Chrysler? No, they retained many of the vital qualities that differentiated them and made them worth importing.

Probably you and I just have different ideas of what an acceptable compromise is. If the request were to use news paper instead of parchment, or to bleep out profanity on basic cable channels while on primetime (which I personally think is stupid, but I might as well start suggesting that people raise their own children), or if the request were to blur graphic images of mutilated bodies under the same circumstances -- I might, after a bit of thought, decide that those were reasonable compromises.

But that's not what this was.

This was the U.S. "asking" a foreign journalistic organization to be less critical of U.S. activities -- and that organization agreeing. This really should be bone-chilling, not just a reasonable compromise.

Al Jazeera has a long-standing strong and vocal bias against the USA. It seems to be pretty well known.

I have been reading their articles for months. I guarantee you that bias still shows through. Even in their "toned-down" state, I have felt my ears get red reading some of their articles.

They have hardly been warped to be "pro-US". I would be more concerned if their voice had actually swung to be "pro-US"; as things stand, they seem to have gone from "extremely critical of the US" to "still critical but a little nicer about it".

Can you cite a few so there's a basis for discussion? I see a lot of people saying they're anti-US, but it's usually supported with articles and video critical of government actions, not the country itself.

I have been reading their articles less frequently in the last month, and do not have any good examples in memory or on hand.

Edit: Today AJE has presented me with a decent example! http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011920...

In regards to the anti-US bit- I do not mean to say they hate America. I have no reason to believe they wish America ill- though they certainly seem to wish America would get out of the Middle East. What I mean is they appear to have a very critical bias towards the actions of America, and I suspect this is what most people mean when they describe Al Jazeera as "anti-US". This bias is not unilaterally a bad thing- but that does not mean it does not exist.

Conflating "America" with "the US Government" plays into the simplistic arguments of those that try to paint their enemies as "hating our freedom" when they simply take issue with having their families murdered.

That's an opinion piece. It's even filed under "opinion" with a big section header so you can't confuse it for a news report. Are we talking about bias in opinion pages or news reporting?

Biased? That article? I thought it a very fair analysis, evenhanded almost to a fault.

You might not agree, of course, but bias isn't about whether you agree or not. It's a systematic favouring of one side of an argument over others, regardless of facts. I don't see much evidence of that in the article, which is a fairly dry analysis of the realpolitik affecting the region and the coming UN vote.

True, I can't really demonstrate bias with one piece. I said I didn't have good cites, and I didn't. Should have left it at that.

If that's all for the good, what is wrong with being transparent about it? If you respected Al Jazeera before and they are still worthy of respect, no harm has been done.

If they did compromise, and declared friendly actors to be off-limits, then they'd be just another politically-driven organization. It's their lack of compromise that lends them credibility.

When they report on Rumsfeld et al ordering torture, it is more easily dismissed as partisan propaganda than when they also report on misdeeds by the Left.

Wikileaks' philosophy is that power structures tend towards corruption unless their dealings are made public. This is inherently apolitical, inasmuch as it does not target or support any political group. Read Assange's 2006 essay on conspiracy as a basis of government and its asymmetric susceptibility to leaks for an in-depth view of the philosophy that informs Wikileaks:

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

Edit, as I can no longer edit the parent:

The essay I linked to appears to be incomplete, or is at least two drafts of an essay. I've googled for a complete version, but haven't found it. A link would be greatly appreciated.

So the took down the head of Al Jazeera who censored articles from it's own journalists to placate the US government?

Another way of looking at this: perhaps it's not that Wikileaks is going against Al Jazeera, but saving it from internal corruption.

It's funny this is what causes people to question AJ credibility. Merely being based in a Monarchy and financed by the ruling family wasn't some cause for concern, you think?

(BBC comparisons commence in 1..)

This is not to say AJ should be ignored. But it should always be taken with several grains of salt. The fact people consider it more ethical than, say, Fox News is ridiculous. It just seems that way since it's closer to what you want to believe, just as the people watching Fox love it since it confirms their biases.

"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar." When was the last time that the major media in the US showed injured or dead civilians? The tendency to sanitize the effects of war is hardly limited to Al-Jazeera.

It's not a tendency to sanitize the effects of war, it is an effort to simply keep death off of TV.

The US media doesn't play most of the images from 9/11. Period. They are too graphic.

The US media barely played anything from the recent Reno airshow crash, the images are far too graphic.

I'm not rooting for gore by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is a general rule. They don't show murder victims, they don't show crash victims, they don't show war casulities, etc etc etc. I'm not sure there politics is at play.

I think that some politics are definitely in play. American news will often feature photographs of fallen US soldiers, though this is as far is it will usually go. You end up knowing how many soldiers have been injured or killed, down to the last man or woman. Meanwhile, you're lucky to hear even a wild guess as to how many "others" have died in the same war.

Part of this is obviously going to be due to better record-keeping by the US where its own casualties are concerned, but the part about showing photos of recently-killed American soldiers is unapologetically nationalistic. Mind you, I'm not saying that the fallen should not be remembered, but I am advocating a more complete approach to the matter of the effects of war.

Is this referring to a leak distinct from the origianal wikileaks set?

From the wikileaks.org site: "The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February 2010"

Yet the nytimes article cites "the leaked U.S. diplomatic cable dated October 2010"

Is the actual cable available anywhere?

apparently it is actually from 2005:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/10/05DOHA1765.html#par1

Great article - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikile...

Compare the events to the News of the World hacking scandal. Good to see that the Head of the company stood down immediately

If wikileaks was the cause of this - and that is unresolved as far as I can see - it would actually increase their standing.

Wadah Khanfar still has more journalistic integrity than anyone at Fox/News Corp. Or really any American media outlet. Our media outlets can't even show pictures of American coffins...

You needn't single out Fox, since all of the major US networks behave similarly in this regard. Some wear their bias on their sleeve a bit more than others, it is true.

Instead of quoting a Fox News anchor, I can quote Dan Rather, who sad the following when the Iraq war was just beginning: “Look, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.”

...the organization's radical, pro-transparency agenda

This is an unsettling turn of phrase. I wonder what percentage of the population agrees with it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com