Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yfujii1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mehdi.okay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

AT&T Lawsuit in 2003

Hello,

There is a claim that Al Jazeera tried to sue AT&T in 2003 but this claim is missing a source. Does anyone know where this claim came from? MSulka (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ownership by state

It appears that QMC is owned by the state. I found one clear journalistic reference to that effect[1]: "Al Jazeera, owned by the state Qatar Media Corporation". However I can't find any official state documents that clarify who owns QMC. For example the MOFA link that's already in the article [2] is a government page which never actually says who owns QMC. There is no explicit statement that it is stated owned or controlled, but equally none to the opposite. I would appreciate it if anyone can provide more information. Sbwoodside (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will we all almost know that State of Qatar owns Aljazeera but there is no official documents from Qatar government that describe what kind of link is between both parties. The MOFA webpage listed Aljazeera as a media station based in Qatar but not as a subsidiary of QMC, which I believe it looks more like a government agency that control media, not owning it. The NY times article contains a segment from a Wikileaks document that can be considered as an opinion, not a fact.

One more thing, I found a website run by Qatar News Agency and it lists all stations administrated by QMC for stream watching, and Aljazeera is not on the list.--A sanny (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper synthesis to claim that Al Jazeera criticizes the Qatar regime

The editor 'Mo2010' has restored extremely poorly sourced text to the lead of this article which claims that Al Jazeera has "published content that has been critical of Qatar or has run counter to Qatari laws and norms." The sources are individual Al Jazeera articles that are cobbled together (which is WP:SYNTH. A close look at the articles also shows that Al Jazeera does not run negative reporting about Qatar, but rather frames the stories as "critics accuse Qatar" (which is not the same as Al Jazeera doing its own investigative reports into the Qatar regime). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

In order to sincerely invite participation from somebody on the TP, it's an undisputed good-practice to ping them by mentioning them or somehow else. I have done your job here, hopefully you shall mind it moving forward. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

All.. Right! I shall risk it (I'll bite). I just wish to point out 3 things that:

A) You seem to be confused over the nuances of an “authoritarian regime” vs a country which openly declares itself as a monarchy. Qatar is already recognised in more than enough of places as an "absolute monarchy" here on English Wikipedia in spite of whatever your like-minded editors' dated citations might be trying to introduce. Ergo, you seem to be confusing a country which openly declares itself a Monarchy and is widely-recognised as such with countries who declare themselves as “Democratic People's Republic..”, “People's Republic..” or at times, even simply “Republic..” with this one.

B) More to the topic, what's even more concerning is that you don't seem to accurately grasp what “negative reporting” is defined as, since you are seemingly confusing it with ‘original reportage’. And quite a lot of scholarly sources would vociferously differ from such an understanding.

C) I see that given the negative connotations of ‘authoritarian’ and moreover, ‘regime’ in the globe dominated by Uncle Sam's pop-culture exports [on an international-scale] — while your edits and entries here on this TP certainly have WP:RGW all over them but that's somewhat besides-the-point.. Only if you weren't so focused on removing virtually every single statement from the lead which is perceived as favourable to the subject, thereby bungling quite some of the wikitext in the process. I tried to fix few and flagged the rest for others. And while you commendably left virtually all of the citations intact, this ended-up creating an even more jumbled cluster of citations than what I recall previously. And needles to spell-out that some of those citations do indicate that your conclusion over AJMN's coverage on Qatar, as an international pubcaster (spelling-out: a news-publisher with globalist cognition), doesn't seem to hold-up. Nevermind my own original-research, including but not limited to some 300+ (at the very least) pages long independently-produced dossier commissioned by them for Facebook covering every verifiable badmouthing of Qatar[is] they shone light on, over the years, including some original output. But since I don't want to engage in those keenly-observed edit-war.. I meant 'Wikicircuses', you are free to edit the lead to suit your worldview as much as you please. Just don't forget that others who don't share it may point-out the problems with it from time-to-time. Thanks for reading. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: No freedom of the press in Qatar

Should the lead state that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar (where the Al Jazeera Media Network is based)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. It's clearly pertinent context to understand the relationship between Al Jazeera and the Qatari government. Qatar is an authoritarian regime that funds the Al Jazeera network. To note, like RS do when they write about Al Jazeera[3], that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar, we would clarify to readers the context in which Al Jazeera covers the politics in Qatar. The lead already notes that "critics say" Al Jazeera doesn't report negatively on the Qatari government. A single sentence noting there is no press freedom in Qatar would put that criticism into clearer context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not quite. The NYT article says: "For a country that brought the world Al Jazeera, it is notoriously secretive, with no real freedom of press at home." Obviously, "no real freedom" is not the same as "no freedom". We should be precise here. Also, since the article only touches on the freedom of the press in passing, it would be better to use different sources which address the subject more directly, e.g. [4] [5] [6] (all three mention Al Jazeera). — Chrisahn (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. On balance, yes its important to note the restrictions of freedom of press in Qatar, and its affect on Al Jazeera. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not fair. Notwithstanding that the discussion-starter never quotes anything directly in spite of failing to note the same, as evident by the fact that they did the very same in immediately-preceding section on this very talk page, lest we forget: AJMN is an international news pubcaster. And as an international news publisher, I reiterate that they've globalist cognition to set their news-agenda every waking-moment. Nevermind that shoehorning it in the lede when it would be absent without any overall context from the rest of the mainspace stringently contravenes WP:LEAD anyways. Only those who are enlightened (in a non-conspiratorial way) enough about international broadcasting of both news and non-news are best equipped to answer this "survey". From instance, even "Chrisahn" here, who at least partly disagreed and admirably did their original-research to cobble citations, missed the mark. My own original-research confirms that while pro-Assange RSF/RWB is a good source, but focusing specifically on Qatar, the one-and-only Qatari news outlet they mention, Doha News, is transparently-obsolete as it has already resumed its operations not long after its blocking not just per my own original-research, but even the vociferously-critical, mostly web-search reliant WaPo zine article which contradicts the RSF's dossier. Apparently all without Chrisahn's recognition hitherto. And the point of Uncle Sam-funded Freedom House's own reliability doesn't even arise, since once again: Chrisahn ends-up misrepresenting that they mention AJMN anymore than in the passing in their Q&A style dossier, at the very least. And this, is why it is grossly unfair. I mean, having witnessed the discussion-starter's editing first hand, I would rather have them trigger an RfC over AJE's reliability as a source (a pre-existing perennial independently-reliable source after multiple RfCs in past several years already) than this needless zeal to shoehorn lame-citations with poor interpretations [to boot] for shoehorning in the lead, with such haste (to go one better). And don't get me started on the systemic bias of RS cited for legitimising this immortal-canard (if not an ‘urban-legend’, given many revel in attacking the subject for myriad of reasons) of conflating the Cabinet of Qatar with the subject. Only I realise how much it took to curb my temptation by citing all of the well-educated, verifiable [to the greater degree] examples on systemic "weak-spots" over the journalistic-integrity of AJMN's English-language peers, few of whom have been used as a citation here, in order to underscore that their “...criticism in clearer context..” can be shoehorned in those articles' lead sections and yes, why leave out even Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation overall? All of this is to drive home the ludricrousness behind this highly-motivated folly. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• No (conditional). The article cited is a passing reference. If you can provide a better reference proving that AlJazeera's work is in any way influenced by the non-existence of freedom of speech in Qatar then add it. Otherwise, Not in the lead, as this is not an article about freedoms in Qatar. The lead should always be short and concise sticking to the article's main topic. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• No (conditional) as per User:CX Zoom ¡Ayvind! (talk)
• No per CX Zoom, there seems a fair amount of weasel-ly semi-criticisms in the lead already (inc this btw, which is not developed in the body and is vague to the point of being almost useless - "According to media scholar Tine Ustad Figenschou, Al Jazeera's independence is "relative and conditional." - this could be said of almost any media outlet anywhere). The proposed insertion seems over simplified, inadequately sourced and off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• No per Pincrete and CX Zoom above. Idealigic (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• No One quote from one article does not mean that something is true. In addition to what has already been said above, in 2011, New York’s Columbia School of Journalism awarded Al Jazeera a top journalism award for its coverage of unrest in the Middle East (see https://www.reuters.com/article/ia-aljazeera-award-idUSN0420599920110504). Jurisdicta (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• No Per CX Zoom. Sea Ane (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• No not proper for lead or body. Such content is not significant in article so should not be in lead per WP:LEAD. It also is a remark about the nation rather than the article subject, so is WP:OFFTOPIC not proper even for the body. Also, my impression is that this view is not that prominent or frequent in coverage about the nation, so perhaps lacks WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• No We'd need more than that one article to support that AlJazeera's work is in any way influenced by the non-existence of freedom of speech in Qatar . BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Possibly, not necessarily in the lede. Reporters without borders say that Al Jazeera ignores the news from Qatar itself "The outspoken Qatari TV broadcaster Al Jazeera has transformed the media landscape in the rest of the Arab world but the Arabic section ignores what happens in this small emirate, including conditions for the foreign workers who make up most of the population. Qatari journalists are left little leeway by the oppressive legislative arsenal – whose victims include the Doha News website, closed in 2016 – and the draconian system of censorship."[7]
• No, not in the lead, not without sources making the connection more directly. Mentioning in the lead inevitably comes across as impugning Al Jazeera's reliability, since it carries the connotation that this is a vital aspect of their history; the sources do not support either point. The New York Times, in particular, says For a country that brought the world Al Jazeera, it is notoriously secretive, with no real freedom of press at home. (Emphasis mine.) The structure of this sentence is unambiguously saying "Al Jazeera is a respected and reliable news source, so isn't it surprising that it came out of a country like this?" Using it in the way that's being suggested here directly reverses that meaning. Moreover, none of the sources provided are actually about Al Jazeera - they only mention it in passing - which does not support the argument that this is a significant enough part of their backstory to put it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose per CX Zoom, though if there are sources that point out Al Jazeera's bias being influenced by being headquartered in Doha (pressure of the Emir leading to biased coverage against other Arab countries, Israel, internal affairs of Qatar, or other areas), it could be mentioned. If there is objectively identifiable bias due to that fact, it should be mentioned in some research papers or multiple RSes - look for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• No, at least in the absence of sources stating that lack of freedom of the press has affected Al Jazeera. (I have no idea whether this is true, but if it is true there are bound to be good quality sources about it.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

About the selectively removed parts of the lede prose by a particular editor

Hey, "Selfstudier". First of all, please accept my sincerest gratitude about aiming to fix the lede of this article before getting anywhere close to resolving the prevalent/widespread "Al Jazeera" tradename confusion, as briefly addressed in our conversation on the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis's TP. While obviously, I couldn't Thank you through some automated-function, being IP and all that. So without going on and on.. Now that you've presumably "refined" the lede: I wish to call your necessary-attention to the fact of tendentious-editing by a particular editor, "Snooganssnoogans" who focused on editing this article to seemingly address the flagged-issues but in fact, ended-up removing altogether, instead of resolving, conspicuously only those parts which reflected positively on the subject. And as if that sounds like casting aspersions instead of my no unreasonably express-intention to antoganise them even if their own genuine-intent was to taint this non-BLP subject of a low-traffic article in as adversarial-light as they possibly could, as they were the one who added the cross-cited dossier by an obscure Norwegian media scholar (trivia: I'm a voracious-researcher) directly in the lede and that was one of their "improvements" which were challenged. Something which you've belatedly refined and in spite of my continued view that an opinionated, adjective-laden quote from an non-notable Norwegian source for factors more than a single doesn't belong in the lede, at the very least°. As if that just wasn't enough, they also shoehorned a much-publicised assessment about the results of widely-applied methodologies to determine press-freedom (OR!) in the organisation's host-country/world-HQs by cramming it randomly in the lede. Ostensibly not realising that they went too far in this, they were ultimately pushed to start an RfC here after a light back-&-forth. The results are still here for any reasonable-person to assess which side the clear-majority of editors leaned towards. I mean..

I can even go through the trouble of citing their previous revs, but lest I end-up saying anything 'extra': In a stereotypical "senior-editor-to-juniors/-newbies" style, I would rather much appreciate that you or somebody as valiant as you in your stead take the initiative to rescue the sources to hopefully balance-out the lede. I don't have much of a reasonable-doubt that unilaterally removing sources and information present in the article for years-&-years without any discussion whatsoever helps to improve the article, and there are 3 key-factors why their removals haven't been a subject of a major editing-dispute: A) As already conveyed, this article is not as high-profile than most, and OR a-gain, partly owing to the very confusion which arises from the rather generic tradename. Al Jazeera Arabic, the most high-traffic of all sister-articles and also listed under relevant categories, thus remains listed in "Controversial articles". B) Given the endless, 24*7 tendentious-editing/vandalism on Living Person articles throughout this site, much of the human and for that matter, bot-resources, goes in patrolling/policing articles flagged under "BLP". Since the subject here doesn't qualify as a "Living Person" (per the current guidelines), this low-traffic article has even less of a privilege. C) Because of the litigation over a single "no press-freedom in Qatar!" assertion and lack of willpower of other editors in other aspects of Snooganssnoogans' edits, mayhaps partly helped by their UAL, those changes remain the status quo unaddressed, doesn't ipso facto mean they are assessed to be taking this article towards the "good article" eligibility stage.

°As I said I'm a voracious-researcher, my long-acquired OR into the institutional-/systemic-bias of Scandinavian press, and particularly Norwegian for this case which is: Explicitly adversarial towards the Qatari subject-matters en masse. Yeah, yeah.. Like everything else in [pop-]Anthropology/History:

I've heard this saying how biased and agenda-driven the European journalism as a whole is, and it was the proclaimed wonder of US journalism which introduced the innovative, supposedly-practicable concepts of "balancing", "impartiality" & "objectivity" that it fanned to the Fourth Estate across the whole globe, firstly to their ancestral Europeans of "Old World".

And while you may ascribe to my own biases and presume that my "grievance[s]" would be the all-too-commonplace trope-y grievance (OR yet a-gain!) of some ambiguous/vague "agenda" of the sources over the output which I "don't like" but, if you allow-me/wish-for, I can concisely lay-out out what those biases are and how they are expressed, alongwith some citations to make your independent-judgement to boot, but given I'm in no mood to litigate the independent-reliability of Nordic press, or for that matter, even just Norwegian press, I also don't wish to expound/pontificate on that. 'Cus not it would inevitably offend somebody, but as was the case on that article's TP, in any case, it would be grossly off-topic. All over the single-citation's placement in the lede, hence my focus on its generic notability part. —103.163.124.70 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 2nd: 02:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I did fix this up prior but you need to help out a bit. Re the Norwegian, that looks a solid source to me. Do you have equally reliable sources denying what I have put there? Same thing with the rest, you have referred to excised material but it would be much easier if you would identify it along with any other sourcing you think is relevant and I will take it from there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: To address my points concerning your confusion over those 2 points, here's myself making the effort to re-iterate them but rephrased concisely as the pro bono extension of my initiative: I'm not litigating the reliability of said Norwegian “media scholar”, since I know better that her professional-opinion is comformist and frankly, I don't have willpower at this stage of my lifespan to fight through the systemic bias of mainstream European-language sources of NATO-FVEY member countries, either. I am, however, arguing that her professional-opinion is not noteworthy enough of a scholarly work that it gets added straight to lede section in the article, and nowhere else. (Like, nobody has even bothered to make an argument that it's [the one-&-only] peer-reviewed, or somesuch.) It couldn't get more ham-fisted than that.

Oh, so you want refs after all? Well, that's a bit underwhelming, given my perceivably suitable-identifiers but what I missed disclosing is that I'm obviously not referring to their edits to this article since the dawn of time (which is, Gregorian year 2001), if any, but the straight 2 significant editing in mid-July 2021. Errrmmm.. What the heck?! As long as you can commit calm-mind with enough time than a stereotypical higher-UAL editor (for good and bad reasons, to varying degrees), check-out here and here. They partly justified their latter edit by inferring the "improper synthesis" flag by removing all of the citations which could be perceived as favourable to AJMN instead of you know, like just shuffling them with different part of the lead prose and worse, going WP:TIAD here on the talk-page to rationalise their editing.

Hope this extension of my (ahem!) samaritanism helps? —103.163.124.70 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Give me a little while and I will take a look.Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well the Salon ref is a bit odd, why not use the actual book? Let me dig it out, The World through Arab Eyes by Shibley Telhami which also seems a decent source and see what's in there.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier Well, hold on! What's the harm in citing through Salon when it's freely-accessible there and yes, per WP:RSP, the website as a whole is not deprecated and there's no consensus towards either side of its favourability. Please refer to ‘#Convenience links’ subsection of WP:CITE before you change it believing most-visitors are gonna pick-up [non-fiction] book[s] or are, even bibliophiles/bookworms. —103.163.124.70 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 17:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)