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.
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.
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".
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.
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.