First off, the “BBC paywall thread” didn’t occur on Beehaw, so you’re just confusing users here.
Al-Jazeera has a consistent history of objective journalism that covers topics Western sources don’t – or from an angle they’re unwilling to explore. That’s it. No conspiracy, no mystery. Objective news is objective news, regardless of whether you happen to like the name or the framing they start from.
Millions of people consider Fox News “journalism” when it simply isn’t. Al-Jazeera is. So, to answer the title question: because it is. Whether you like that or disagree because it’s a little too Muslim for you changes nothing about the empirical evidence of their coverage.
This really rises to the level of an interrobang?
First off, the “BBC paywall thread” didn’t occur on Beehaw, so you’re just confusing users here.
Al-Jazeera has a consistent history of objective journalism that covers topics Western sources don’t – or from an angle they’re unwilling to explore. That’s it. No conspiracy, no mystery. Objective news is objective news, regardless of whether you happen to like the name or the framing they start from.
Millions of people consider Fox News “journalism” when it simply isn’t. Al-Jazeera is. So, to answer the title question: because it is. Whether you like that or disagree because it’s a little too Muslim for you changes nothing about the empirical evidence of their coverage.
I love this sentence. Speak truth to power.