-- Dan Froomkin @froomkin
Dan Froomkin is launching the Center for Accountability Journalism, at FearlessMedia.org. He has worked as senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post, as White House Watch columnist for the Washington Post; and as editor of the Washington Post website. Email him at froomkin@gmail.com.
EDIT: Arab, not Arabic. I apologize for the confusion.
Some of the confusion might be that we rarely use "English" to describe things that are in English when it might be ambiguous whether we mean the language or the place/people. So we say "English-language newspaper" to mean something different than "a newspaper published in England". But with Arab/Arabic, we have two words, so it's not a problem.
Of course, Al Jazeera is also Arab (in the region sense, not necessarily the ethnic sense-- different ambiguity); I'm just saying that to the extent that it's in Arabic, it can be called Arabic.
I should note that I'm not actually an expert in any of the relevant fields here and I'd love to hear someone take that apart.
Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads.
It later defines deeply interesting as 'stuff that teaches you about the world.' I would by no means consider this a crap, or superficial article. I don't consider your comment necessarily rude or dumb; however, I do consider it misinformed.
The article does not posit the media should be subjective: it is rather objective in stating that the media is failing to state the reality of the situation. Another key example of comparative value is global warming.
The global warming debate taking place in the media is almost universally framed as a democrats vs. republicans, liberal conservative debate. It is not. The politicians getting quoted on mainstream news sources are not the experts qualified to be making statements regarding the human induced global warming debate. They are not actively publishing, and doubtfully reading the scientific literature published in dozens, if not hundreds of journals which nearly unanimously acknowledge that there is a high probability of humans having a noticeable impact on climate change. Yet, the scientists denying human induced global warming nearly all have either direct ties with or strong affiliations of companies and people whose interest is to fight global warming for economic gain.
This article essentially mirrors that same argument except replacing scientists, you may essentially think of the objective viewpoint having to do with constitution and law, not political divides.
No it isn't. US media doesn't own an exclusive right to comment on affairs of other nation states. Given the status of US economy in the world, what happens in US affects other nations more than what happens there affects US. They have every reason to report this. And journalism is more than just dumping facts. Though, a journalist's idealogical bias should affect the correctness of the article, his experienced analysis is usually necessary for most readers to understand the gist of the situation who are most likely to be unaware of the law/politics/technology behind the incident.
Get your facts straight and open your eyes.
>I read AlJazeera from time to time and find it mostly contains Arab propaganda
Do you say this because they disagree with your American imperialist views?
Looks like he's American raised in Washingotn DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Froomkin
And your point is?
Hmmmm, no wonder they have problem with the West.
I agree with you 100%, how dare they criticize the US media, the US is the only true democracy of the world!
[Next time I will skip the first and this paragraph, its becoming too dangerous, I have a growing fear of the US and its brainwashed citizens]