Al Jazeera’s Fall From Grace – How A News Outlet Became A Tool Of The State

Though viewed by many as one of few unbiased news sources in the Middle East, Al Jazeera’s stripes are showing as it expands into social media. The network’s subservience to the government of Qatar has become unmistakably obvious as it tries to expand its audience.
By | Follow on Facebook | |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    MINNEAPOLIS – Long a prominent voice in the Arabic-speaking world, Al Jazeera has more recently become a notable force in Western media. Despite receiving all of its funding from the government of Qatar, Al Jazeera English – in contrast to other Western media outlets – has enjoyed a reputation for unbiased and in-depth reporting with a focus on hard news, one that continues to persist in the minds of many of its English-speaking viewers.

    As Middle East geopolitical analyst and former Al Jazeera contributing writer Sharmine Narwani told MintPress News:

    “Al Jazeera [English] was largely successful because it was viewed as an alternative network that challenged the stale narratives of mainstream corporate media. […] This was a huge departure from major satellite news networks that were barely differentiable from each other. And I think that altered the news industry and drew in more discerning viewers.”



    However, in the last few years, the basis for the network’s supposedly unbiased reputation has melted away.

    Beginning in 2008 and culminating in 2011-2012, Al Jazeera began seeing mass resignations, with many of its journalists citing loss of editorial control and subservience to Qatari political interests as their main reason for leaving.

    But many Western readers continue to remain unaware of the dramatic shift that took place at the network less than five years ago, still trusting the network to deliver unbiased reporting, despite documented and often drastic instances of bias and factual inaccuracy. As Narwani noted, “Western AJ viewers may not have noticed this shift in bias, but it was glaringly obvious to those watching events unfold from inside the region.”

    Nowhere has this bias been more evident than in Al Jazeera’s coverage of the six-year-long conflict in Syria, a conflict in which the Qatari government has a definite stake. Not surprisingly, Al Jazeera has worked to normalize extremist elements in the Syrian opposition, particularly regarding those groups that have been confirmed to have received funding from Qatar – groups that include the terror group Daesh. Al Jazeera’s reputation has allowed these instances of bias to largely go undetected by Western viewers, a trend exacerbated by the viral success of Al Jazeera’s newest addition: the online news and video service AJ+.

     

    Qatar’s Chilling of Journalistic Freedom

    Launched in 1996 with the help of the BBC, Al Jazeera has since grown into the largest and perhaps most controversial Arabic-language news channel in the Middle East. Though a fixture in the Arabic-speaking world, Al Jazeera is also the most well-known Middle Eastern news channel outside of the region, owing to its massive budget of 650 million dollars – all of which comes directly from Qatar’s government.

    A constitutional monarchy ruled by the House of al-Thani since the 19th century, the wealthy nation of Qatar has a tendency to prosecute journalists or writers who criticize its government, its ruling family or its political Wahhabi ideology. One of the most famous cases involved the imprisonment of poet Mohammed Rashid al-Ajami, who was originally sentenced to life in prison for allegedly insulting Qatar’s emir, though he was later pardoned after serving five years in prison.

    More recently, foreign journalists reporting from within Qatar have been targeted, including a BBC journalist who was arrested for covering the deplorable conditions under which migrant laborers have worked while building infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup, which will be hosted in Qatar.

    While censorship of the press has long been legal within Qatar, the nation’s 2014 cybercrime law took things to the next level by criminalizing the distribution of “false news,” as well as disseminating information that violates “social values or principles” or any type of online behavior that could jeopardize state security.

    Based on Qatar’s past and recent treatment of dissident writers and journalists, the chilling effect of this law on freedom of expression and freedom of the press is clear. A leaked U.S. government cable noted that such intimidation – more than overt persecution or censorship – has created a “lack of overall freedom in Qatar.”

    This, of course, makes the Qatari government’s commitment to funding an ostensibly independent media organization seem quite unusual, considering its treatment of journalists working within its borders.

     

    Al Jazeera Devolves – Mass Staff Exodus, Move To Social Media

    Though Al Jazeera may have initially gained a reputation for providing unbiased reporting on issues in the Middle East and abroad, it soon became clear that it was a matter of time before the Qatari government’s penchant for silencing dissent against it and allied regimes would make itself known throughout the network.

    While accusations of bias have existed as long as the network itself, the influence of Qatar’s government on Al Jazeera’s editorial freedom became decidedly more pronounced a little over a decade ago, when resignations due to allegations of bias began to take place en masse.

    One of the first and most notable resignations was that of David Marash, a former ABC correspondent who later worked as an anchor for Al Jazeera English from 2006 up until his resignation in 2008. As the New York Times reported at the time, Marash directly cited “an increased level of editorial control” by Qatar as his reason for leaving the network. “[Al Jazeera] started covering the whole world very well, but from the point of view and the interests of Doha and the surrounding region,” Marash told the Times.

    Just a few years later, resignations at Al Jazeera became increasingly regular. Sharmine Narwani told MintPress that Al Jazeera’s former reputation for neutral reporting drastically “changed in 2011 when AJ became a mouthpiece for Qatari military and political adventurism, backing Muslim Brotherhood ‘revolutions’ throughout the Mideast and working closely with the old colonials to do it.”

    It was around this time that long-time Al Jazeera contributors started to find their submissions being rejected on a regular basis. “For a long time I ascribed it to incompetence on their part because they weren’t very good at getting back very quickly, but over time I came to learn through various people there that the politics of the channel were changing,” former Al Jazeera English contributor Ted Rall told RT.

    The resignations were by no means exclusive to Al Jazeera English, with many resignations also taking place at their Beirut and Cairo bureaus among others. Many of these resignations were related to Qatar’s insistence that Al Jazeera’s coverage remain aligned with the government’s official stances on key regional conflicts. As Narwani noted regarding her time as an Al Jazeera contributor: “We could see for ourselves how AJ discriminated in its coverage of events in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, etc, a bias that divided AJ from inside and caused the departure of several key journalists.”

    Though it has still clung to its reputation as a counter to corporate media narratives in the minds of many Westerners – particularly Europeans – Al Jazeera has been unable to establish loyal viewership in key English-speaking markets. In the U.S., the Qatari government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. distribution and publicity – only to be met with dismal results.

    Not content to lose more ground – or money – in the United States, Al Jazeera has turned its attention to social media and begun to develop its online video and news service AJ+, a service that would soon become the network’s “real success story,” as well as its most successful attempt thus far to rebrand itself for a Western audience.

    Targeting younger viewers and social media users, AJ+’s success has become the envy of the industry. Officially launching in 2014, AJ+ boasted 7.4 billion views just a year later, with Facebook alone representing half of AJ+’s viewership. It now ranks within the top 10 most popular and most viewed publishers of Facebook video content worldwide, indicating that its influence and reach has grown substantially. This is particularly true of its influence in the United States, where 44 percent of the adult population receive their news from Facebook alone.

    The success of Al Jazeera’s social media outreach should be particularly worrisome for those who value accurate and unbiased reporting, as its massive reach and influence can no longer be ignored. But for the government of Qatar, AJ+’s reach has given them precisely the platform they need to advance their agenda, particularly on issues where the geopolitical goals of Western governments and Qatar’s government conveniently overlap.

     

    Al Jazeera Advancing A Pro-Opposition Agenda

    Nowhere has this overlap been more clear than in Al Jazeera’s coverage of the six-year-long conflict in Syria. The mass resignation of the company’s reporters has largely stemmed from Al Jazeera’s coverage of Syria, as it has largely supported any and all elements committed to the removal of current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.

    According to Narwani, Al Jazeera’s coverage has involved “literally manufacturing information about events in the country, and burying data points that contradicted its narrative” in order to create the perception among its readers that opposition forces were “peaceful,” despite the fact that they were armed and funded largely by foreign governments, including Qatar. While even U.S. lawmakers have admitted that there “are no moderate rebels” in Syria, Al Jazeera continues to push what Narwani called a “widespread corporate media exercise to ‘market’ the Syrian conflict to a global audience in order to frame [the rebels] as ‘liberators’ and justify foreign ‘humanitarian’ intervention.”

    For instance, while the opposition against the Syrian government has been confirmed to be largely violent and chiefly funded by foreign entities, Al Jazeera reporting still continues to maintain that the conflict began as a result of “peaceful uprisings” – even following the emergence of terrorist groups such Al Qaeda and Daesh.

    In an Al Jazeera article published earlier this month, the outlet continued to assert that the conflict began “as a peaceful uprising demanding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,” additionally stating that the only solution to the conflict is “achieving political transition in the country,” or, in other words, the replacement of Assad with a leader from the opposition forces. While the article claims that this is “the most challenging part of ongoing diplomatic efforts,” they fail to mention that ousting Assad is a coup and not a form of diplomacy.

    But what is worse is Al Jazeera’s normalization of opposition groups that have been confirmed to have slaughtered innocent Syrians and committed egregious war crimes. Though this facet of Al Jazeera’s Syria coverage is long-standing, one recent example stands out. Earlier this month, Al Jazeera published an interview with the official spokesperson of Ahrar al-Sham, a group that it referred to as “moderate opposition” and a “key player in the latest political and military developments in Northern Syria.” The interview discussed “the armed group’s vision for the future of Syria,” painting them as a potential future leader in determining Syria’s post-Assad future.

    But what the Al Jazeera interview neglected to mention was Ahrar al-Sham’s documented connections to Al Qaeda and its reputation as a violent Salafist group. Even mainstream Western news outlets have recognized Ahrar al-Sham’s dangerous connections, with publications such as Foreign Policy calling them “a key node in the [Syrian] Al Qaeda network” and “the largest and most powerful recipient of Al Qaeda tutelage after Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.” In addition, Ahrar al-Sham worked directly with the Islamic State until 2014, only breaking ties because the Islamic State killed an Ahrar al-Sham fighter in retaliation for criticism of Islamic State commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The UN envoy to Syria also reported in 2016 that Ahrar al-Sham had made plans to use white phosphorus in an attack on civilians – a use of chemical weapons that constitutes a war crime – and then blame it on pro-Assad forces.

    In addition to the blatant normalization of terrorist groups in Syria, Al Jazeera has also sought to misdirect blame for the massive death toll in the six-year conflict on the Syrian government and their Russian allies. For instance, another recent Al Jazeera article detailing the massive human suffering resulting from the Syrian conflict chose to largely skip over the civilian casualties caused by Daesh, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, instead choosing only to discuss allegations of civilian deaths caused by Syrian and Russian forces.

     

    Mouthpiece Of The Qatari State

    Why would Al Jazeera distort the facts and misdirect narratives so egregiously? What does it stand to gain? While Al Jazeera gains little from distorting the facts about the Syrian conflict, the Qatari government that funds it is a major beneficiary in the network’s portrayal of Assad as a villain and terrorist groups as “liberators” and “moderate rebels.”

    Qatar’s interest in Syria – as recognized by the Syrian government and numerous geopolitical analysts – is related to Assad’s rejection of a Qatari gas pipeline proposal in 2009. As the Guardian reported in 2013: “Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North Field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was ‘to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’”

    The proposed gas pipeline from Qatar via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey to Europe.Source:Supplied

    The proposed gas pipeline from Qatar via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey to Europe.

    This, combined with long-standing attempts by the United States and Israel to destabilize the Assad regime, created the perfect opportunity to create an international alliance aimed at opposing Assad, whose removal would economically benefit Qatar.

    Qatar has also been proven to financially support many of the rebel groups that Al Jazeera’s coverage seeks to normalize. For example, Ahrar al-Sham, the Al Qaeda affiliate positively portrayed in the aforementioned Al Jazeera article, are directly supported by the Qatari regime. However, it isn’t just “moderate” rebels that Qatar supports, as leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair have revealed that the Qatari government also directly funds Daesh due to its determination to remove Assad from power at any cost.

    However, Qatar is also interested in the Syrian situation for other reasons. Sharmine Narwani explained to MintPress that Qatar has “a region-wide interest in subverting the domestic political systems of several Arab states to install Ikhwan-majority governments – a move that would allow tiny little Qatar to project power in key Arab nations from the Levant to North Africa.”

    She continued

    “The Qataris have always sought to ‘punch above their weight’ – now imagine their ability to puppeteer the Arab world with proxies installed in important regional countries like Egypt and Syria. Doha would not only extend its strategic depth this way, but would also be able to humble its much bigger neighbor Saudi Arabia – a goal Doha has actively pursued since it invited the US military to establish its biggest regional base in Qatar.”

    Indeed, Al Jazeera’s wide reach – particularly following the ascendancy of AJ+ and its viral success on social media – has certainly allowed Qatar to reach greater audiences. Leaked U.S. embassy cables from 2009 revealed that the U.S. government has long considered Al Jazeera t be “an instrument of Qatari influence” and that the Qatari government continues “to use Al Jazeera as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by Al Jazeera’s broadcasts, including the United States.”

    However, Al Jazeera’s – and thus Qatar’s – influence in the United States seems to reach beyond its biased coverage of international events. In 2013, Al Jazeera paid National Public Radio (NPR) significant amounts of money for sponsorship ads, an arrangement that went unmentioned in NPR stories. This cast NPR in a positive light and lent it legitimacy with listeners who trust the broadcaster.

    Al Jazeera has been using this falsified reputation to justify the goals set by its sponsor – namely, the government of Qatar. The country’s interest in removing Assad from power is manifest in Al Jazeera’s reporting. The network has demonstrated its commitment to supporting Qatar’s geopolitical goals, including the unimpeded expansion of Qatar’s gas routes and the installation of friendly Wahhabist proxies in key regional states – both of which allow Qatar to act as a major player in global politics. Yet, as Sharmine Narwani concluded: “there is a limit to what a country of 300,000 people can do without tripping over itself.”

    Be Sociable, Share!

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs, Front Page: Inside Stories, Inside Stories, Investigations, Top Stories and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Pingback: Al Jazeera, CNN & BBC Cover Up Genocidal Crimes of US – Backed Syrian Rebels – Awareness Act()

    • Pingback: CNN Covers Up Genocidal Crimes of U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels - Australian National Review()

    • Pingback: Al Jazeera, CNN & BBC Cover Up Genocidal Crimes of US – Backed Syrian Rebels | Shafaqna English()

    • Pingback: CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera Cover Up Genocidal Bus Bombnig by Trump-Backed Syrian Fighters Targeting Shiites()

    • Pingback: CNN/BBC/Al Jazeera Cover Up Genocidal Massacre in Syria | Political Film Blog()

    • Pingback: The Media's Whitewashing Of Syrian Rebel War Crimes()

    • James Wherry

      A Shi’ite website accusing a Sun’ni website of propaganda.

      How. . . “surprising.”

    • citizen78

      If you start watching AJ you will learn that there unbiased is biased and is a hate news outlet Boycott AJ

    • Pingback: Al Jazeera’s Fall From Grace – How A News Outlet Became A Tool Of The State | Shafaqna English()

    • Dorian Geiger

      Nice hit job, guys. I am a Canadian working at Al Jazeera. We can’t do anything on Syria without people calling us terrorists, pro-Al Qaeda, or Assad fans. Nice job of quoting an RT article to bash our reporting and using one source, a former disgruntled journo, who I’ve never heard of btw, and who was JUST a contributor, not an in-office employee, to discredit our work. This is no better than Gawker’s smear campaign on VICE. Shame on you. We’ll keep on telling the human story – you keep watching from the sidelines. And, please, by all means, keep tuning in 🙂

      • comiskonr

        AJ has been a mouthpiece for those terror groups, especially in Syria. That’s a fact, not a propaganda. And Whitney’s article is definitely a hit. 🙂

        • Dorian Geiger

          I’m afraid you’re ill-informed—and sound like an Assad sympathizer. Please contextualize what terror groups and provide examples to back up your argument. I’m guessing you only read Mint, given your thumbnail. And a hit amongst who? The one hundred people who read it?

    • Pingback: #NoWar Articles – All About Being Human (award-free zone)()

    • Ron Chandler

      On the 1st of May 2011, the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news network broadcasted images of an enormous demonstration in Moscow in solidarity with Syrian democrats, calling for the overthrow of president Bashar al-Assad. Muscovites in the crowd interviewed by news channel, sternly condemned “a regime which sheds the blood of its own people.”
      In fact, Al-Jazeera had planted actors in the crowd of May Day demonstrators in order to produce the fake report. There never was a protest rally against Bashar al-Assad in Moscow.
      http://www.voltairenet.org/article169722.html

    • Ron Chandler

      THE FLIGHT OF THE ASSAD FAMILY

      al-Jizzera fabricated the story below — and even filmed a fake SANA set, with lookalike newsreaders, to announce the fraudulant report, while their accomplices shut down SyriaTel’s broadcast antennas and prepared to transmit a fake signal. Fortunately, the SANA people warned Damascenes in advnce. They were not fooled — but many Westerners were ( as in much fake news since!)

      The Western and Gulf press reports of heavy fighting on the outskirts of Damascus. With maps to prove it, it claims that the revolutionaries are about to take the capital. The wife and children of President al-Assad were supposedly intercepted on their way to the airport attempting to escape and were forced to turn back. The fate of the tyrant’s family will soon resemble that of the Gaddafi’s, said Haitham Maleh, a leader of the pro-Western opposition.
      In reality, the fighting took place in the outlying areas of the capital, no major armed group having penetrated the suburbs of Damascus.

      The airport road was never shut down and the al-Assads were never on it.

      Also, look up the al-Jizzera faking of ‘The Fall Of Tripoli’ broadcast from an enormous sound stage in Doha, long before Libya’s capital actually fell. All these lies were cooked up by Obama’s fake news chief, one Benny Rhodes.
      The story is at VoltaireNet.

    • James Wherry

      Jealous much, MintPressNews?

      Nah: MPN is a Shi’ite website. Al-Jazeera is a Sun’ni website. Typical middle eastern drama.

      • S N Smith

        Yes, Mint support Assad and Iran, so no surprise here.

      • navre12

        James Wherry…I have two questions for you.

        1. Question: What hard proof do you have that Mint Press is a Shi’ite website?

        2. Question : For someone who derides Mint Press as being a lackey for the Shi’ite Why do you spend so much time and attention in commenting on this perceived,(your opinion), biased website?

        • James Wherry

          1. Mnar is a Muslim who criticizes Sun’nis, but never Iran or Syria or Shi’ites. While she adopts a liberal tolerant view of gays, she ignores Iranian brutality toward gays.

          Ms. Muhawesh has worked for PressTV before. That’s “PressTV.Ir” – as in “Iran.” You’ll find their stories reposted on MintPressNews. Please use the search engine.

          2. This website is cotton candy for the mind. Easy to refute. Obvious Far Left bias. A bit of catharsis. Plus, with new- NAZ!s like “tapatio” running around and proselytizing for his Jew Hatred and gay hatred, it illustrates the bias of the Far Left so well.

          • Mandelsohn

            Lol now we understand James hatred for Mintpress reporting on the region.

            He was a soldier in the illegal war in Iraq in 2003!

            James wheery said:
            “Gee, that’s interesting. When I served with the 18th MP Brigade in
            Iraq in 2003, the S-1, the S-3 and another staff officer were Jews. I
            remember Jews holding Sabbath celebrations in the desert in Kuwait,
            prior to the invasion.”

            Link, copy and paste: nationalinterest.org/feature/how-iran-became-the-middle-easts-moderate-force-12451

            Google his name along with Iran, this guy a profound hatred for shiites/Iran, remember that next time he accuse this site for spreading hatred..

            • James Wherry

              LOL! You must be one of “tapatio’s” neo-NAZ! friends – combining a truth with a lie to create an even greater lie.

              1. My first large encounter with Shi’ites was in a Shi’ite village in south Iraq, near An-Nasryiah. All the males of the village from age 5 to 95 converged on us (about 100 people) – and THANKED US for liberating them from Saddam Hussein. There was a Shi’ite village across the river that was empty, and they explained that those Shi’ites had been allied with Saddam and that they all fled.

              2. I remember entering Baghdad and having a Shi’ite husband and his wife come up to us, shake our hands, and welcome us and thank us for over-throwing Saddam Hussein.

              Yes, I agree I am disgusted with the murders committed by Iran against my fellow service members in Beirut, in Lebanon, and in Iraq from 2004-2011. Aren’t you?

              Your fake claim the war was “illegal” is an opinion long since disproven. The U.N. Security Council approved “all measures necessary” to enforce its resolutions on WMD. Congress approved the military action, as well. Pretend all you want. You seem to forget that I and my fellow service men left a peaceful democracy run by Shi’ites beholden to Iran. Hardly the “American colony” you’d like to try to pretend that we wanted.

              This I will say: the Shi’ite leaders like Muqtadar al-Sadr were bent on REVENGE. Forgiveness “is not in the nature of Muslims.” Instead of going after Saddam and his accomplices, though, they went after the average Sun’ni Muslim. You know perfectly well they forced whole neighborhoods of Sun’ni’s out of Baghdad and took their properties. You may not know that the Shi’ite security forces also kidnapped and held for ransom the Sun’ni leaders in the Sons of Iraq who worked with the Coalition to stop the violence during the Surge in 2005-2008. They helped turn the Sun’nis to ISIL so that they were willing to welcome “The Devil Himself.” Blame Iran for its own criminal actions.

            • TeeJae

              I had gathered that just based on his many anti-Iran comments on this site. But thanks for the additional info.

              • Mandelsohn

                Thanks. Yeah, this was a pretty easy find, a simple googling is all what it takes.

      • Aer O’Head

        Never mind that. It’s been obvious for quite a long time that AJ reporting on Syria is … hmmmm …. slanted.

        • Ivyrrussell

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj672d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !mj672d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash672ShopCloudGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj672d:….,……