I am one of those dabchicks. Al Jazeera is biased, certainly, but they at least attempt to show both sides - and complaints have been heaped on them since their first day by governments in the area. Recent;y they came under attack for showing unedited interviews with Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. In the past they have often criticized Arab governments - including their own.

I was with you until "anyone who thinks otherwise is either a stupid anti-American..."

When have you heard a Fox News anchor suggest such a thing? I certainly haven't, and I watch Fox quite a bit. Note that I said anchor and not talk show host. Talk show hosts aren't under the same obligation to be objective as news anchors. If you're watching Bill O'Reilly for NEWS and not for OPINION, maybe you really ARE stupid.

And as for "whipping up a receptive audience into a frenzy without presenting a full slate of facts for each side of an argument." well, Oliver, I know you're not under any obligation to be objective either, but that'd make one hell of a tagline for YOUR WEBSITE.

Strange, but I've always thought "Our Domestic Al-Jazeera " was the New York Times which is busy every day trying to whip up a liberal populace and get them out from behind their dinner parties and out of their second homes into the streets to complain about an unelected president running an un-UN approved war.

Hey, at least Fox and Al-Jazeera don't beat around the bush (I'm avoiding making an obvious pun, here) with there biases. MSNBC, CNN, and all of our other networks are obviously "biased" as well -- they fly the American flag in the top left, they express concern over the death of American soldiers, and they voice solidarity for coalition troops. And they should do so, and I wouldn't watch them if they didn't. It's the right and just cause to support. To fully report the news, every agency needs to interpret the information that comes in, and that interpretation will force them to take one side or the other, and become "biased." It's inevitable, and not entirely bad.

The problem with Al-Jazeera isn't that it's biased -- it's that it's biased towards the wrong side. And that bias not only makes it annoying, it makes it unable to interpret basic news stories. The same can't really be said, on any significant level, about Fox News.

Yeah, Fox and AlJazeera are birds of the same feather. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They are the equivalent of tabloid rags, sensationalistic newspapers. Like the Sun or the Daily Mirror in the UK. Or an old time Hearst newspaper -- "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war".

Other networks are biased as well, but they make some effort to be more than cheerleaders. Sometimes (as in the case of CNN) they're not very good at it.

I'm sure people who watch Fox and AlJazeera know what they're choosing to watch.

When have you heard a Fox News anchor suggest such a thing?
More times than I'd like to admit. Especially Shepherd Smith and David Asman - but all of Fox's crew, their NEWS crew is guilty of this.

As far as your second point goes, I never ran around saying my site was "fair and balanced" and anyone who goes to a personal political weblog expecting fair and balanced is beyond help.

When I get tired of the puffery of FOX News, I counter it with a bit of the defeatism they're peddling over at NPR.

I make fun of FoxNews at every opportunity, but I don't think they lie quite as much as Al-J, and those whose words FoxNews accepts unquestioningly are generally somewhat more deserving of trust than those whom Al-J trusts. Me, I trust W. about as far as I can throw him, but Saddam and a lot of the other guys out there make W. look saintly.

Yeah, right. The next thing you're going to say is that the New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC,ABC,CBS and CNN are completely objective. Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at THAT thought.

Please. To compare Fox News to Al Jazeerha is an absolute joke. Take one look at Al J's homepage: http://www.aljazeerah.info

First of all, they make it difficult to distinguish between news articles and editorials. Red vs. Blue. Second, how about that caption under the picture of Perle which say, "the most influential man in the world". Huh??? Talk about hyperbole. Third, how about those headlines.... talk about totally delussional. To compare Al Jaz with Fox is a total joke. Its far more like the Arab Guardian.

Too, to compare Fox News to Al-Jazeera is to once again to fall into the trap of the unthinking, namely being guilty of moral equivalence. Even assuming without conceding that Fox is biased, not only does it act as a nice counter balance to the "dominant" media such as CNN, CBS and ABC, I see nothing wrong with being a little positive when one considers the stakes. Al-jazeera actually lies in order to inflame the so-called Arab Street.

Why did you waste our time with this? There's a difference between expressing your opinion and writing an op/ed piece. Make your case, or stick to comments.

Fox is pro-America. Al Jezeera is pro-terrorist. If that makes them equal, then Ernie Pyle = Tokyo Rose.

The word frequently used on Al-Jazeerah to describe Iraqi civilian casualties translates to "murder."

Say what you will, Oliver Fisk, The Pentagon is not deliberately targeting those individuals.

Now what was that about biases again? ;)

(I thought Oliver Fisk sounded better than Oliver Twist-The-Facts... now where's the warbabes? All hail O-Dub!)

Compared to most Arab media, Al Jazeera is fair and balanced. Which isn't saying much.

I don't think Fox is as biased as Al Jazeera (though I won't deny their bias). I'd say Fox is the opposite bias of NPR, not Al Jazeera.

Yeah, yeah, Ollie... and chocolate and vanilla are two of a kind also... they're both flavors of ice cream.

Pathetic.

So, they let Olliver Willis on here. Who next? Ted Rall? Robert Fisk? Harold Pinter? Blech. Don't you lefties/idiots/anti-American neo nazis have your own blogs?

Fox does report both sides of issues. For instance, I've seen Ted Rall on it twice (unfortunately). Despite his claims to the contrary, Michael Moore's been on it at least once.

They showed pictures from the marketplace explosions (both of them).

In the latter case, they didn't rush to judgement either way.

Looks like somebody's Kryptonite got its polarity reversed...

For the record, Oliver is here by invitation of Michele and I (even though his opinions often differ from our own). And we're glad to have him contributing to the op/ed page. This is not a right- or left-blog, it's a blog about the war, and we welcome Oliver's contributions to the page.

Thanks, Alan. I was just polishing my jackboots.

I think this whole column must be some sort of joke. Fox actually is pretty well-balanced. They have Geraldo Rivera and Greta Van Sustern for gosh sakes. Why is it only "fair" when a news outlet is predominantly anti-American and anti-Bush? Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason Fox appears to support Bush and the USA is that... gasp... this is the fair and balanced view held by the people of this land? Could this be why... gasp again! Fox is the highest rated--that is, most popular--cable news network?

ChrisT -- The web-site you linked to is not aljazeera, it's aljazeerah. It's like the difference between Hotmail and Hotmale.

The site you lined to is just a news aggregator based out the carpet capital of the USA, Dalton Georgia. The biased captions you describe are just feeds from arabic language websites.

It's not that easy to get (the real) ALJ in the USA (especially with the 'patriot' ahckers bringing down its website), and they don't broadcast in English. Are there many people on this site who have had the opportunity to watch ALJ and understand it (in arabic)? Just curious.

FYI, here's an article in defense of ALJ on MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp

I've never seen anything remotely liberal about Greta Van Sustern's coverage of the war in Iraq, and as far as Geraldo goes - he isn't exactly a bleeding heart when he talks about how much of a Zionist he is, and portrays himself as some sort of loony soldier out there fighting for god and country. Not to mention Senor Milquetoast himself, Alan Colmes. Fox News succeeds because its content is unvarnished boosterism of the right, and during wartime the American people will naturally flock to that. Of course, if you combined the highest rating of Fox/MSNBC/CNN you would get half of what Brokaw/Jennings/Rather receive each day,so the triumph of Fox is surely a relative thing.

Fox equals Al Jazeera isn't even a good troll, but just another example of how desperate some on the left are to establish their moral superiority over the rest of us slobs by insulting our intellegence.

Peter Jenin-ings is Al-J lite.

Fox is certainly over-the-top with patriotism and nationalism, but it's damned refreshing compared to the networks and CNN. CBS cut into the b-ball tonight with a little refreshing "Dan Rather tells us how many infants we killed tonight" break.

Al-Jazeera has aired footage of dead Americans, with no regard for their families. As an American, that ticks me off. I don't feign objectivity in matters like this.

Your column is a joke, right?

Oliver may be here at the invitation of Michele and Alan but his writing is nothing but the imature rant of a spoiled child, intended to outrage, in my opinion. If that's all he's got, he won't go very far.

Hrm, interesting post...total bs but that is ok. Fox is no where near like Al J, not in content, professionalism, sensationalism nor ott content.

You can find a slightly more balanced and thought-out piece on Al Jazeera here.

It is clear this post was written for the sole purpose of provoking and emotional response. There is no one in the US or the UK that uses the same type of rhetoric or content as Al J. I have watched the network in my flat in the UK and its content is far more extreme than anything Fox has ever managed.

For one thing Oliver, Fox never vilifies the Iraqi people, in fact it goes out of its way to villfy only those responsbile for the people's plight ie: Saddam and his cronies.

It is clear you just wrote this to get lots of comments, and you succeeded.

The link that did work is the following: http://www.command-post.org/oped/archives/002533.html

I didn't realise html did not work in the comments. It was suppose to be embeded under "here" above.

To Andrew... If you feel all 'emotional' about someone calling FoxNews biased, then you need to get some perspective. The post makes a valid point. The definition of propaganda is ' the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person'. The definition of news is ' a report of recent events.' When you watch FOX, which one of these are you seeing?

Spelling corrections: intellegence--intelligence; imature--immature. Also, most people actually still get their news from the big three, ABC, NBC, and CBS, or by reading their local newspaper-so who cares what Fox News reports. The people that watch that channel are just looking to come to an informed opinion, not an objective one. If that's what they want to do, fine with me- I do it alot myself (come to an informed opinion, that is.) As for CNN, MSNBC, etc., they're also to the right of center. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And as for Oliver, I don't think anyone here has really checked out his website. He isn't "spoiled" and he doesn't "rant". I think what scares you about Oliver is that he is normal, unlike some liberals.

CNN "to the right of center"? Patently absurd.

Let me know when their reporters start saying "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion." I'll look out my window for the flying pigs.

Um actually I watch the BBC, Fox, CNN, CBS and CNBC for my viewing and read Reuters, Al Jazz, BBC, Fox, Sky and Daily Telegraph. CNN, BBC, CBS, Reuters and CNBC are left of centre, Fox is vaguely right, Sky more centrist and the Daily Telegraph truly right.

Oliver doesn't scare me, he is just wrong and wrote this piece equating Al Jazeera to Fox enrage people. Its sensationalist, pure and simple. It is patently clear Oliver has never watched Al Jazeera.

Fox is not propoganda.

What is the benchmark? If the coverage not overtly anti-allied (like Al J, BBC, ABC (Oz), CBC and ABC US, then they are right-of-centre?

I disagree with the premise, but let's please argue the points, and not the man.

Hey...as soon as Laurie Dhue shows up on A-J in a microminiskirt I'll buy your argument.

To anyone but the most addled loon, The Command Post's biases in favour of American hegemony...

Ahhh - the "American hegemony" - how refreshing, since it has been but a few minutes since I last heard it!

Here's an article on al Jazeera from someone who does watch it regularly and does speak Arabic.
http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_zaydoun_archive.html#200067700 (so there).

When American news channels aired videos of Iraqis surrendering at the beginning of the war, Al Jizz dismissed these as lies and fabrications by the American media, or as training videos that the Americans were using.

That's not a bioased perspective. That's a fucking lie, and it's the kind of thing Al Jizz does all the time. Comparing them and FOX is absolutely idiotic. You should be embarrassed.

Have you ever watched Aljazeera? They're not even in the same ballpark and anyone who says they are is so naive as to be uncredible.

I have checked out his website. He is immature, he does rant and he is spoiled.

CNN and MSNBC right of center? What have you been smoking?

For the person who claimed expressing an opinion and writing an op-ed piece were two different things -- the "op" in op-ed stands for "opinion." It's sort of the whole point.

Faux News may not be Al-Jazeera, but there's plenty of slanted comments in the anchor coverage and plenty of moronic comments from the reporters. Yesterday, I saw Geraldo Rivera -- a bastion of journalistic integrity if there ever was one -- asking some Marines, "Are you ready to kick some butt? Are you? Are you ready to kick some butt?" Surely, those are the questions Ed Murrow would be asking if he were covering the war.

I realize conservatives think CNN is somehow liberal, and on certain issues -- abortion, gay rights, religious conservatism -- I think they've got a good case. But in other areas, it doesn't hold water. (Be honest -- If the Whitewater deal called for years of investigations, then Harken and Halliburton and Enron do too.)

In all, I find it laughable to assume that media conglomerates owned by Fortune 500 companies are somehow staffed with radical Marxists.

Nah, not Marxists...but I think you could fire a shotgun in most newsrooms and rarely hit a pro-lifer, for instance.

Moron Watch, I agree -- that's why I said "I realize conservatives think CNN is somehow liberal, and on certain issues -- abortion, gay rights, religious conservatism -- I think they've got a good case."

But there's no way you can watch Lou Dobbs and in any way think he's an economic liberal.

To this day, al-Jazeera is mostly compared with CNN and at one point struck a deal with them... one should ponder what this says about CNN instead of tossing around hyperbole.

Guys, you are so pathetic.

How could you comment on aljazera when you have never watched it? nor does any of you (I assume) even knows arabic !!
Aljazeera is neither biased, pro terrorist nor anti-American. It is an objective media source. They bring a representative of every side (including US government officials, anti-suicide bombings, jewish peace activists, kuwaities, etc.). They show both victims of Israeli military and victims of suicide bombings, nobody else does that. Just showing the bin Laden tapes does mean they support him !!
Does any of you even watch any non-US media source??

subscribe to this group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_middle_east/

I think all the news services have an angle to push here. The one thing that amazes me is the American outrage at the showing of dead US troops and US prisoners. I agree maybe we don't need to see this stuff (maybe we do)but US news services constantly show us Iraqi prisoners. I also remember from Gulf War 1 footage of a US gun ship hunting down a single Iraqi soldier with a gattling gun, no moral outrage in that case.