So what did they have to say about Sen Obama ?

Okay going to try to take this one calmly and rationally.

This article clearly has a pro-Clinton bias. Why you felt the need to do this is honestly beyond me.

"For analysis, the anchor in Doha, Qatar, interviewed the network's Washington correspondent, Fady Mansour. "A state for each candidate, is that right?" she asked. Mansour replied that it might seem so from the outside, but in fact winning states was less important than winning delegates, and Barack Obama had bettered his lead over Clinton in that regard.

Al-Jazeera's coverage of the primary focused on the facts and avoided editorializing, and its interpretation of the meaning of last Tuesday's events was squarely within the mainstream of U.S. political reporting."

Okay, addressing Tuesday's results as catastrophic and potentially crippling for Senator Clinton was not editorializing. Why do you feel it was so? Even Joan Walsh admitted it was a very bad, and possibly game-ending, day for Senator Clinton. To state such is not stating an "opinion" or "editorializing." It's stating fact.

Then you went and talked to the Sheikh who gave you tea. Okay great. I like this nugget from him:

"How did Sheikh view Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's remark about the United States being able to "totally obliterate" Iran? "It will not be a picnic for the U.S. to attack Iran. That would push oil to $300 a barrel, with severe consequences. And Iran would find ways of retaliating." Interestingly, he made allowances, observing, "Hillary Clinton is in an election campaign. I would give her the benefit of the doubt."

Yeah I'm not willing to give her or anyone else that benefit of the doubt. I wasn't willing to give it to Geroge W. Bush in the first place. I'm darned sure not willing to give it to her after not only her statements but her actual vote on the Kyl-Lieberman agreement. People act as if she only made statements. No she had a vote on this issue, and when she voted, she clearly voted for paving the way for war. Sorry I'm not goin through that again.

I recall in the days and weeks after 9/11 I increasingly paid more and more attention to al-Jazeera, a network that was not unknown to me previous to the attacks.

As the New York Times drummed up its support for the war, al-Jazeera gradually replaced the NYT as my "canonical" source of Middle-Eastern reporting, eventually replacing the NYT in my bookmark of news sites I kept as tabs in a single browser window.

I would have liked more detail to this story, but I understand that salon is not "Frontline." However I enjoyed reading this and being reminded that Arabs have a stake and an interest in American politics (something we on the intellectual, foreign-policy aware left only acknowledge in hushed tones lest we fuel the echo-chamber of the xenophobic talk radio circuit with accusations of "the left would turn over the rule of America to al-Jazeera and their al-Qaida masters").

I hope to see more coverage like this and less futile re-hashing of the now fete accomplis Obama nomination.

Great piece. Cogent and informative.

I'd urge anyone interested in this topic to check out the documentary "Control Room" about Al-Jazeera. It's really fabulous.

I was especially struck by how much more in common I have with the middle eastern journalists featured than I do with so many from my own country.

It clarifies the point that the common enemy to all of us is ignorance and especially fear. It's hard to see how the United States can reconcile itself to the world community when so many are so, how to say politely, not cosmopolitan.

The sleep of reason produces monsters.

After making a huge deal about going to work for them Dave Marash quit recently citing a disturbing agendized political bent and a sidelining of any and all voices that attempted 'balance'

"Marash explained, "To put it bluntly, the channel that's on now — while excellent, and I plan to be a lifetime viewer — is not the channel that I signed up to do."[2] Specifically, he cited the loss of editorial control and his inability to vouch for content that the network was broadcasting, as reasons for his departure.[3]

-Wikipedia

Also:

NEW YORK - Former “Nightline” reporter Dave Marash has quit Al-Jazeera English, saying Thursday his exit was due in part to an anti-American bias at a network that is little seen in this country.

Marash said he felt that attitude more from British administrators than Arabs at the Qatar-based network.

Marash was the highest-profile American TV personality hired when the English language affiliate to Al-Jazeera was started two years ago in an attempt to compete with CNN and the BBC. He said there was a “reflexive adversarial editorial stance” against Americans at Al-Jazeera English.

“Given the global feelings about the Bush administration, it’s not surprising,” Marash said.

But he found it “became so stereotypical, so reflexive” that he got angry.

So you draw your own conclusions.

Al-Jazeera is important if for no other reason than it is the closest thing to an independent news organization in that part of the world. Regardless of how we feel about what they report, the existence of a free press is worth commending. Heck, you'd think the administration promising freedom and democracy would recognize the importance of a free press. But then again these are the same people who called for democracy and then turned their backs on the winners of the Palestinian election.

While the Bush administration's position on Al-Jazeera is unfortunate, strange not to mention that it's at least enabled and probably encouraged by the Saudis. As was mentioned, they consider Qatar part of their country and the network that used to be the national network of their enemy, their enemy.

As such, the government of Saudi Arabia purchased aljazeera.com to discredit and sow confusion, where they broadcast weekly world news-style radical muslim conspiracy theories - stuff like the jews caused 9/11, etc. Meanwhile the actual network broadcasts from aljazeera.net. There's a whole legal battle about this...

So that leaves the question - back when Rumsfeld, Cheney et al talked about how much they hated what aljazeera was airing, do you think they knew the difference and purposely spread misinformation about the network? I tend to think that's more likely than the idea they're just that ill-informed, but you never know.