Tweet
At the risk of biting the hand that feeds, it’s kind of weird to see how a different news organization would report this story. I don’t think it’s correct to portray a Scott Ritter comment on CNN as somehow a factor in prompting the Eikenberry leak. And it’s way, way too simple to portray the Afghanistan debate as unfolding between military officers who want more troops and civilians who don’t. Actually, it’s not just “too simple,” it’s wrong. Clinton and Gates favor additional troops, as best I understand their positions.
But it’s a much more in-depth view of the question of media strategy than you see on cable news typically, and that’s why I like going on al-Jazeera. And not every presentation has to reflect the way I see this stuff. One of the great strengths of al-Jazeera English is how thoroughly they treat international policy questions. There’s a way of doing a story about leaks as pure pageantry, and they avoided that pretty much altogether. I also like the idea of opening up the segment at the end to viewer comments a great deal.
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
I tend to be cautious and try to maintain my skepticism with any given news outlet, but it is absolutely true that part of the way I try to get a real sense of the ground truth on any given issue is to include McClatchy, BBC and Al Jazeera in my daily reading. The balance of viewpoints, and perhaps, as you say, even more importantly, approaches, is crucial in trying to decode who’s saying and doing WHAT…
mikey
I can’t remember the last time I saw a news story on network or cable where I could say to myself that was a solid piece of journalism. The little I have seen of Olbermann and Maddow has the same circus aspects I see on the right, just not so extreme, and usually much better fact-checked. The only time I get the feeling that adults are in the room is when I catch Bill Moyers. Even the Frontlines are variable. They are much better going over old material than they are in breaking new ground.
I agree wih mikeyhemlok that McClatchy still does the occasional good report. BBC is OK but I find them light and their take on American politics is usually off, as in who’s really doing what to whom. I haven’t looked at al Jazeera perhaps I should.
As I attended and blogged on the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, the only news coverage that consistently included the defense point of view was al Jazeera. Unlike the other news media, al Jazeera gave both sides.
Ever since the advent of al Jazeera, I’ve thought it was the best around.
This is way into EPU country, but I want to add to the comments that Al-Jazeera is way ahead of all the others in doing in-depth, interesting international coverage. They seem genuinely fair and balanced- whether doing a story on the US or the Middle East or Venezuela. I learn a lot from these folks- and note that a number of former CNN reporters are turning up here. I can’t watch CNN at all any more and BBC only a little – maybe some PBS News Hour. I wish everyone had the chance to watch this channel- we’d all be better off.