First off.. Saddam hated Al J. They were some of the first and the most vocal opponents to his regime. That is one of the reasons the Bush administrations loved Al J in the start.Of course, the idea that Saddam and AlJ might not be legit has never crossed your mind?
Second off.. Al J has a code of ethics that it follows quite strictly and it certainly does not like meddling by outsiders or even by the owners in its news coverage. Rumsfeldt and Bush put a lot of pressure on the Al J owners and when the owners told Al J to tone down .. the journalists basically threatened to strike.
That is utter bull**** and you know it. Al J has never encouraged terrorists.. in fact they have been highly vocal against Al Q and been extremely critical (even more than Fox News) of their actions. But what they dont do, unlike Fox News, is to coat the news in bias for one or another side.. they do both sides and for the most part allow the viewer to make up their own mind.This, of course, is aside from the basic nature of such "journalism", as the obvious purpose is not to report the news but to emotionally sway the public and encourage terrorists.
That is why, on Al Jazeera I see Israeli representative's far more than on the BBC, CNN, NBC and what not..almost combined. They do both sides of the story and often go after the big guy for abusing the small guy. Their English station has a lot of investigative journalism where they go after major companies, Putin, Chavez, Castro, Obama, and pretty much every major power on the planet for their abuses and wrong doings. That is what real journalism is about.
You mean like the images of a US attack helicopter butchering Iraq citizens? Yes they are very important! Exposing such acts is just as important as exposing a terrorist cell or showing the aftermath of a terrorist attack. But I guess you have no problem that US troops butcher an Iraqi family in a car... they are only ragheads right?You thought those images of the "truth" were very important, didn't you?