Al Gore, Al Jazeera, al-Qaeda … they’re all the same to the folks over at Fox News:

Fox does not report on rumours that its owner Rupert Murdoch and his Saudi partner Prince Walid visited Al Jazeera and reportedly were interested in buying the channel, or that Al Jazeera frequently exposed bogus pro-US military propaganda that Fox carried as news during the Iraq War.
…
But Fox News has a habit of not letting facts get in the way of its coverage, reporting that many Americans “feel” it’s a terrorist network perhaps because Al Jazeera to them, idiotically, sounds like al-Qaeda (and because this “feeling” is always being reinforced by bombastic pundits who are scoring political points, not making factual statements). There is no evidence to support this claim. 
Fox reports:
Al Jazeera has been criticised for having a pro-Islamist bent, and accused of working with members of al-Qaeda. One of its journalists was arrested in Israel in 2011 on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian group Hamas.
(That was Samer Allawi, their Kabul bureau chief, who was later released, a fact Fox ignores when Israeli suspicions proved groundless.) 
Fox’s “report” goes on: 
Dave Marash, a former “Nightline” reporter who worked for Al Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.
As it turns out, I spoke with Marash (who I worked alongside at ABC News) about why he left and he said it had more to do with his wanting to report with his wife from the field and not be stuck in an anchor chair. 
Last year, the media website Newser reported that Marash still respects Al Jazeera, the opposite of what the Fox article insinuates. 
He is quoted as saying:
The product is too good, too significant, to not have a market in the US, given the complete abdication of American networks and cable channels from actually covering international news.
… The current situation is “tragic”, in his view. It plays into the ignorance of American viewers, most of whom are clueless as to what the world thinks and why. It’s very harmful to America’s effectiveness and stature in the world.
So once again, Fox’s smears and aversion to the truth misrepresents the situation. 

Al Gore, Al Jazeera, al-Qaeda … they’re all the same to the folks over at Fox News:

Fox does not report on rumours that its owner Rupert Murdoch and his Saudi partner Prince Walid visited Al Jazeera and reportedly were interested in buying the channel, or that Al Jazeera frequently exposed bogus pro-US military propaganda that Fox carried as news during the Iraq War.

But Fox News has a habit of not letting facts get in the way of its coverage, reporting that many Americans “feel” it’s a terrorist network perhaps because Al Jazeera to them, idiotically, sounds like al-Qaeda (and because this “feeling” is always being reinforced by bombastic pundits who are scoring political points, not making factual statements). There is no evidence to support this claim. 

Fox reports:

Al Jazeera has been criticised for having a pro-Islamist bent, and accused of working with members of al-Qaeda. One of its journalists was arrested in Israel in 2011 on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian group Hamas.

(That was Samer Allawi, their Kabul bureau chief, who was later released, a fact Fox ignores when Israeli suspicions proved groundless.) 

Fox’s “report” goes on: 

Dave Marash, a former “Nightline” reporter who worked for Al Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.

As it turns out, I spoke with Marash (who I worked alongside at ABC News) about why he left and he said it had more to do with his wanting to report with his wife from the field and not be stuck in an anchor chair. 

Last year, the media website Newser reported that Marash still respects Al Jazeera, the opposite of what the Fox article insinuates. 

He is quoted as saying:

The product is too good, too significant, to not have a market in the US, given the complete abdication of American networks and cable channels from actually covering international news.

… The current situation is “tragic”, in his view. It plays into the ignorance of American viewers, most of whom are clueless as to what the world thinks and why. It’s very harmful to America’s effectiveness and stature in the world.

So once again, Fox’s smears and aversion to the truth misrepresents the situation. 

“But shouldn’t Catholic bishops be dealing with child sex abuse? Why do they have any credibility left after covering-up widespread child abuse scandals that continue to this day? … These are the questions I keep asking myself as I see and hear these men speak with such authority on birth control on every major US media outlet. If only these men cared as much about the children whose innocence has been shattered by paedophilia and the adults who are struggling to come to terms with the abuse they endured as children. … Catholic bishops in the US want every single act of sexual intercourse to lead to the conception and birth of a child, but once that child is born, they are on their own, especially if their priest abuses them. ”
Rose Aguilar, “The birth control bishops

If we can forget about who didn’t get the death penalty for a moment …


Fascinating Al Jazeera investigation:

When the Libyan intelligence operative Abdel Baset al-Megrahi eventually dies of the prostate cancer that so controversially won him his freedom from a Scottish prison, his death will trigger headlines around the world.
But few tears will be shed for the only man ever found guilty of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 – until 9/11, the most lethal terrorist attack ever on American civilians.
Certainly not by the American families, who felt shock and revulsion at al-Megrahi’s release. Nor by American politicians, infuriated at the long list of British and Scottish officials who have refused to testify before a Senate committee investigating possible backroom deals involving Scottish and British officials, British commercial interests and the Libyan government.
Yet by the accounts of those who knew him best, the convicted man himself will go to his grave insisting he was innocent of the murder of the 270 passengers, crew and residents, who perished at Lockerbie in Scotland, that December night.
Drawing exclusively on a previously confidential, legal report, The Pan Am Bomber reveals the evidence that would have been presented in al-Megrahi’s stillborn appeal against his conviction.
Our investigation is backed up by 97 gigabytes of official documents, whistleblower testimony and photographic evidence - all of which will explain why and how al-Megrahi’s conviction was fatally flawed. It reveals how the chain of evidence used to convict al-Megrahi was broken and, in at least one crucial instance, tampered with.
It also shows why it was in the interest of all of the parties (except the convicted man himself) to make sure that the appeal was never heard.

Fascinating Al Jazeera investigation:

When the Libyan intelligence operative Abdel Baset al-Megrahi eventually dies of the prostate cancer that so controversially won him his freedom from a Scottish prison, his death will trigger headlines around the world.

But few tears will be shed for the only man ever found guilty of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 – until 9/11, the most lethal terrorist attack ever on American civilians.

Certainly not by the American families, who felt shock and revulsion at al-Megrahi’s release. Nor by American politicians, infuriated at the long list of British and Scottish officials who have refused to testify before a Senate committee investigating possible backroom deals involving Scottish and British officials, British commercial interests and the Libyan government.

Yet by the accounts of those who knew him best, the convicted man himself will go to his grave insisting he was innocent of the murder of the 270 passengers, crew and residents, who perished at Lockerbie in Scotland, that December night.

Drawing exclusively on a previously confidential, legal report, The Pan Am Bomber reveals the evidence that would have been presented in al-Megrahi’s stillborn appeal against his conviction.

Our investigation is backed up by 97 gigabytes of official documents, whistleblower testimony and photographic evidence - all of which will explain why and how al-Megrahi’s conviction was fatally flawed. It reveals how the chain of evidence used to convict al-Megrahi was broken and, in at least one crucial instance, tampered with.

It also shows why it was in the interest of all of the parties (except the convicted man himself) to make sure that the appeal was never heard.