Dear o sung wu,

Interesting opinion and one I thought would be good to investigate.

It appears outside of its occasional inflammatory editorials Al Jazeera is regarded as a pretty straight shooter.

In one of the few times when the charge of bias was directed at them they were completely cleared.

“In 2017, Al Jazeera aired an investigative report of Britain’s Israel lobby and following the airing, Ofcom (UK government-approved regulatory and competition authority) received complaints from a number of pro-Israeli British activists, that included one former Israeli embassy employee. They were accused of anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing and infringement of privacy, which was later cleared by Ofcom, who said the piece was not anti-semitic and was in fact investigative journalism. Later, a US version of the documentary called “Lobby” was not aired, due to pressure from US Legislators pushing for Al Jazeera to register as a foreign entity, and therefore labeling its journalists as ‘spies’. Further, Saudi Arabia and three other Arab nations demanded Qatar to shut down Al-Jazeera.”
http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

You will note that at the time three other Arab nations were calling for Al Jazeera to be shut down.

I think the old adage that when you are pissing off both sides you must be doing something right applies. I would certainly put them above Fox News in the trustworthy stakes.

Of course if you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to see it.

I've stated earlier - how credible is any news
channel? To some degree, governments and powerful
lobbies can influence any news source and most
likely do. I've watched AJ, BBC, CNN, FOX News,
et al, extensively and can't really say that AJ
is less credible than any of the others.

AL JAzeera in my view is far more reliable than any of the Murdocks papers
Efforts to take the spotlight away from one nations blunder is just that, an effort in hiding the truth

Belly: Efforts to take the spotlight away from one nations blunder is just that, an effort in hiding the truth.

Let's face it Belly. their discussion was just that, a discussion on where they might raise funds. The Al Jezerra Journalist led them into an ambush with suggestive talk of the NRA just might be supportive & they walked into it.

It took three years of grooming. Setting up an ambush is slow & painstaking work, with lots of practice on how it would go down. Yes they walked into the Ambush. That was the whole idea of the setup.

One Nations discussion of what "Might be" was not illegal. I should imagine your favourite Party has those discussions with the CEMFU all the time. Trying to find ways of disguising where their Funds were obtained. I have no doubt the LNP do exactly the same with Big Business. According to you, & a few others here, no-one else is allowed to do the same lest it lessens your favorite Party's chances in a coming Election.

Any New Laws pertaining to Funds disclosure would be made riddled with Loop Holes & agreed to by the ALP & LNP to protect their own interests. Why is it OK for them but not for any other Party?

Your Party Preference & Hate of any other Party, especially Minor Party's sticks out like a sore thumb.

Socialists are like that. We have some great examples of how Socialists treat people once in Power, don't we. Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela just to name a few. Once in Power should the ALP with say a good Majority take all their dissenters for a plane ride out over the Ditch?

Despite Pauline Hanson's "foreign owned" slur and
"being stitched up" claims, it would be interesting
to know what would be her reaction had one of
Rupert Murdoch's publications done the same exercise
as AJ.

Hi (again) JAYB...

It would appear to me; Al Jazeera doesn't so much report the news; instead, they like to make or manufactory the news!

G'day STEELEREDUX...

There's an often used expression that these news 'hacks' very much like to employ? 'Investigative Journalism.' It's almost a badge of honour, a step closer to a 'Walkley Award' if you like. To wear the exalted mantel of an 'Investigative Journalist,' whatever that may be?

I was a copper for over 32 years as well as a trained Detective. They (the Commissioner & his cohorts) do not confer upon you, the appellation of 'Detective or Investigator' Unless you've successfully passed all the necessary examinations associated with that designation.

Much of the course (from memory) is establishing evidentiary matters & processes, in order, the evidence is acceptable to a Court. So careful must the police be after the Case Officer has assembled the final Brief of Evidence, it goes to the Criminal Brief Adjudication Branch to be carefully examined by an experienced police officer of at least sergeant rank. He ensures all the criminal 'Proof's' have been covered, and all Statements are in order. Thereafter, it goes to the DPP.

We have these so-called, Investigative Journalists, asking us to take their account(s) seriously when often a Court wouldn't allow them even through the front door. Utterly amazing!