Media Matters covers for Al-Jazeera

Al-Jazeera boasts of its relationship with its latest American partner, Media Matters for America
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The famously left-wing Media Matters for America now turns out to give political cover to Al-Jazeera, the most anti-Semitic and anti-American network in the Middle East. Worse yet, the Media Matters official who writes the worst anti-Semitic copy for Al-Jazeera is a Jew himself.

The Daily Caller exposes Media Matters

The Daily Caller has tracked Media Matters for years. Last month, Professor Alan Dershowitz at Harvard warned the man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, that if he does not shut-out Media Matters from the White House at once, he will lose the election.

I think if swing voters in the pro-Israel community had any idea how extreme Media Matters was on issues of Israel and supporters of Israel, they would regard Media Matters as another [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright.

Dershowitz went on to say that neo-Nazi websites regularly quoted Media Matters for some of their worst anti-Semitic and anti-Israel screeds. Example: Reporters Notebook, whose editor-in-chief has “questioned the narrative” of the Holocaust, often sends out copy that it has from Media Matters.

Last weekend, The Daily Caller revealed something else: Media Matters and Al-Jazeera (“The Peninsula”) have an active working relationship. Mr. M. J. Rosenberg, senior foreign-policy fellow for Media Matters, writes a regular column that Al-Jazeera runs.

Rosenberg also spoke at an Al-Jazeera forum in Doha, Emirate of Qatar, on May 22, 2010. The Daily Caller gave this summary:

Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.

And this excerpt:

When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama. Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different [from] all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.

The poor treatment continued last year. In 2011, it consisted of:

  • Having the White House ushers escort Netanyahu out the back door of the White House while he, Obama, had a private dinner with his family.
  • Striking a tight-lipped pose at the next day’s “photo-op,” and openly sneering at Netanyahu, as if to say, “Jewwwwwww!” Or even “Kiiiikkkke!”

No President in history has ever treated a visiting head-of-state so rudely. To make matters worse, Obama said that Israel must retreat behind the 1949 Armistice Line (also known as “The 1967 Borders“), subject only to “agreed-upon swaps” of land.

Besides defending such rudeness, Rosenberg often peppers his copy with conspiracy theories. His favorite seems to be that the government of Israel is used to playing the United States government as if it were a puppet on strings.

What Al-Jazeera gains

Al-Jazeera boasts of its relationship with its latest American partner, Media Matters for America

The Al-Jazeera logo: the Arabic word Al-Jazeera, meaning "the peninsula," worked into a stylized drawing of a flame.

The Daily Caller quote Joel Mowbray, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, on what Al-Jazeera would hope to gain by running Rosenberg’s copy or any other copy from Media Matters for America:

Here’s what Al-Jazeera probably does like — is if they can get less heat for anti-Semitic comments from having them come from a Jew.

In other words, Media Matters is covering for Al-Jazeera. M. J. Rosenberg says all the things that Al-Jazeera would like to say, but would rather not — because when they do, people dismiss it as coming from Arabs.

This is a prize example of taquiyya, which means: strategic lying. The lie in this case is to suggest that M. J. Rosenberg represents American Jews, when he represents no one but himself and his fellow travelers at Media Matters.

How the media is (not) reacting

Sadly, the American media are mostly silent on this news. Fox News Channel covered it, of course, because M. J. Rosenberg and Media Matters have always singled out Fox for particularly vicious slander. The only other outlets to touch the story are alternative outlets and Israeli outlets.

The second Israeli commentator linked above asks, “Why is American Jewry not listening?” To be fair, maybe American Jewry will start listening, if Alan Dershowitz is at all sincere, and has his way. But if they do not listen, then one possible reason might be that most of those who might be disposed to listen, have already made Aaliyah, that is, “gone up” to Israel and taken their places as citizens of that country. But not all of them have. And last year, an Israeli resident told this correspondent that “there will always be a remnant” of Jews in America.

More importantly, why aren’t even liberal Americans listening? As CNAV frequently asks: where is the outrage? Are such virulent anti-Semitic screeds up to liberal standards of etiquette? Can any American be proud that one holding office as President is as rude to a visiting head-of-state as Obama has consistently been to Benjamin Netanyahu?

CNAV does not expect better of an organization, i.e. Media Matters, that began life with a lie and goes hat in hand to George Soros for its operating budget. But the silence of other media outlets is as shameful to journalists everywhere as it is deafening.

ARVE Error: need id and provider

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

14 Responses to Media Matters covers for Al-Jazeera

  1. egarners says:

    Ya gotta agree with Ron Paul here. The US has been peeing in the backyards of all the countries in the middle east and around the world through the CIA and other secret agencies and corporations. Virtually everything foments tensions leading to wars.

    Doesn’t make more sense to make friends and earn customers, rather than continue this policy?

    If we had followed the Constitution for the last century, we wouldn’t be in this financial mess we are in today and I think the world in general would be better off.

    Lead by example, talk softly, but carry a big stick. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist, is like calling me a hermit because I don’t kick in all my neighbor’s doors and windows.

    http://www.ratifyconstitution.com

  2. yarnoiser says:

    I remember being impressed with a story on Aljazeera regarding the fertilizer bomb incident in Canada. It was quite unbiased and had some harsh words for the people involved in the plot. I’ve been watching Aljazeera English’s headlines for some time now. While they often do take a pro-Arab stance on many issues (such as Gaza strip) I don’t think they can be called particularly anti-Semitic. Indeed, I believe many of the reporters there would look favourably on a peace process between Palestinians and Israel.

    As for fox news, most people here in Canada consider it bad practice in reporting to scream at the person you are interviewing.

    Whatever your stance is on this issue, it is vital to read Aljazeera’s articles and opinions directly before one can express an informed opinion. Furthermore, I haven’t seen any citations to their articles or stories to support allegations of anti-Semitism.

    • Fergus Mason says:

      It’s important to distinguish between the Arabic and English sides of al-Jazeera, because they have somewhat different content and, ahem, editorial policies, but personally I find the English version to be an excellent source of Middle East news. It’s not as fuzzy as the BBC and of course compared with American “news” channels there’s no contest. The Arabic version is indeed mildly anti-Semitic, but the English one isn’t. It probably looks that way to someone who’s used to Fox fawning over Israel all the time, but in the real world it’s pretty objective and goes into a lot of detail.

      • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

        Thank you for reminding everyone that Al-Jazeera English and Arabic are not even parallel. Most people expect the versions of a site, in multiple languages, to be parallel. Al-Jazeera is not.

        This is all of a piece with certain Arab leaders (especially leaders of, ahem, “non-governmental organizations”) delivering one speech in Arabic and another in English, confident that the English listener will hear his message of peace in that language, while he delivers a message of war in Arabic. Yet another example of taquiyya.

        • Fergus Mason says:

          “Yet another example of taquiyya.”

          Well, not really: more an example of a commercial entity tailoring its product to its audiences. Arab audiences want hysterical condemnation of Israel (and even at that, al-Jazeera Arabic is a lot more moderate than any other Middle Eastern news service) while English-speaking audiences want objective reporting. In my experience people who work in the Middle East like al-Jazeera’s English service because it’s the most accurate news outlet concerning the region; for example it’s the most-watched news channel in the ISAF HQs in Afghanistan and was also popular in Coalition HQs in Iraq. The BBC looks at everything through a centre-left lens and most US news agencies are simply hopeless.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Two questions, then:

            1. Why does Al-Jazeera say one thing to an English audience and one thing to an Arabic? Truth is truth, and ought to be valuable to everyone. To follow some of the very chains of logic you have thrown up at me, have Al-Jazeera decided that Arabs as a group can’t handle the truth, whereas English speakers can? That alone is a failure of integrity.
            2. Why print M. E. Roseberg’s anti-Israel screeds in the English version? Why do out of their way to recruit Rosenberg for that purpose?
          • Fergus Mason says:

            Two answers:

            1. Al-Jazeera is a commercial organisation and is trying to attract viewers. The way to do that is to tailor the presentation to the intended audience. They report the same news in both versions but frame it in a different way.

            2. Much of the English-speaking world is opposed to Israeli government policy and does not much like Netanyahu. What you see as “anti-Israel screeds” may well be regarded by most people as legitimate criticism (I can’t really say; I’m not familiar with Rosenberg.)

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You might want to re-read the article and follow some of its links. They’ll tell you all you need to know about Rosenberg. He is not a responsible commentator. He is, quite simply, a hot-head.

            And if your description of the Arabic and English versions is even halfway correct, then you have already admitted that Al-Jazeera do not report “the same news in both versions.” They report pan-Arabist propaganda in the Arabic version and peaceful-sounding commentary in the English version. Where I sit, they don’t match.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “pan-Arabist propaganda”

            No, that would be the Syrian news agency you’re thinking of. You appear to have a fairly weak grasp on what pan-Arabism actually is, having previously confused it with islam. Al-Jazeera is most certainly not pan-Arabist. It’s aligned quite closely with the Qatar government and is highly unpopular in many Arab countries.

        • yarnoiser says:

          The article was correct about one thing. Anyone who rejoices at poor treatment of another can most certainly be called a bigot. However, like any other news station many opinions are expressed in their columns. I don’t think recruiting one jerk makes the entire network Islamo-fascist trash.

          On a related note, some light background research shows that the original Arabic network shocked the middle east with an opinion-counter opinion style of reporting. Airing the opinions of Hebrew speaking Jews sent waves through the middle east. In fact, many middle eastern dictators have accused the network of being a western propaganda mouthpiece.

          The original allegations of anti-Americanism can be traced back to their airing of Bin Laden’s message to the world shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. At this time they were labelled by western media and president Bush as Al-Qa’ida’s mouth piece. The western media themselves then did what they bashed Al-Jazeera for doing, and aired Bin Laden’s message, with a translator speaking over him.

          This information suggests impartial and objective reporting from the Arab speaking side as well.

          I may not have all the details, since I don’t speak Arabic, but given that the present controversy surrounds a partnership with an american left wing media organization, doesn’t that place the English version under fire? Given that this is independently managed from the Arabic version, and is clearly not anti-Semitic, I fail to why the western media, or the american Jewry should express outrage at this.

  3. Fergus Mason says:

    “when they do, people dismiss it as coming from Arabs.”

    Thanks for bringing this little-known example of racism into the light, Terry. It needs to be made clear that most Arabs are normal people with normal concerns, and tehy shouldn’t all be dismissed because of the terrorist nutters in their midst.

  4. tomtom1981 says:

    I mean I always knew Obama was a bigot, but I can’t believe he’d actually have the nerve to call Netanyahu a “kike” to his face. This is disgusting, and I can’t stand for it. It’s one thing to think that, but another thing entirely to actually say it! And this man is supposed to be a role model to our children – not with disgusting words like that coming out of his mouth! I forwarded this story on to my local news affiliate and paper. I figure once they pick up on it, I can try to bring it beyond the regional level (like Fox or theblaze or something). Terry, great reporting – at least someone is trying to expose (N)Obama for the bigot he really is!

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Remember: I said that he “made a face” as if to call him those names. He didn’t say the word out loud, but he did deliver a sneer. And afterward, his aides heard him ranting and raving and screaming at the top of his lungs to the effect that Netanyahu had somehow embarrassed him.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        Of course he could also have been making a face because he finds Netanyahu difficult to deal with and acting against what Obama sees as America’s best interests.

        Merely disliking someone who is jewish does not make you an anti-semite. I dislike plenty of atheists and I doubt you’re going to accuse me of being prejudiced against them. Equally I like plenty of muslims while thinking that islam is a squalid blight on humanity.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.