No Media Bias in Canada

Certainly none in the Globe & Mail, that vast bastion of journalistic integrity and intestinal fortitude. Ray at Raging Kraut has given the Brigade a heads-up (via email) on this stomach-churning article written by John Miller. He reviews the book "Al Jazeera: How Arab TV News Challenged the World" by Hugh Miles.

The entire article, like much of what is printed in the G&M, deserves a sound rebuking. I suspect a number of Brigade members will take up this challenge, and fisk this piece of journalistic shunt back into the depths where it belongs. For my part, I'll going to comment on one slice of the article. I'd like to take apart the whole thing, but there is one small section that especially beckons a riposte:

Miles makes many unflattering comparisons between the principled journalistic decisions made by Al-Jazeera and the uncritical jingoism of the U.S. networks.

Would that include anti-semitic proclamations and blatantly anti-american screeds? Of course, everyone knows that US soldiers have nothing better to do than destroy hospitals.

No Al-Jazeera anchor would do what Fox network anchors did and wear Old Glory lapel pins on air.

Well no, I guess not, seeing as how Al-Jazeera reporters hate the US.
When did wearing a flag lapel pin become an unprincipled journalistic decision? Pushing forged documents as authentic- yes; wearing a pin on your shirt- no.

No Al-Jazeera executive would censor content at the request of a government (but they would censor pro-Israel content, ed.), as Fox owner Rupert Murdoch did when he said, "We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty."

That censored content included strategic reports, soldier movements, and military plans. To openly broadcast such information would be like the BBC broadcasting the date and location of the Normandy landings in 1944. Witholding that kind of information is absolutely vital for the success of the mission. We don't call that censorship, we call it discernment.