Islamification of the International Media

Are they really Charlie?

If the attacks on the offices of Charlie Hedbo and the Hyper Cacher kosher market in Paris were a wake-up call – as many in the mainstream media are

calling it – then it is a wake-up call that is twenty years late.

The Wake-up Call

• When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait in 1991, Saudi Arabia kept its population in the dark for three days before grasping the fact that most Saudis had tuned into CNN to learn about what was going on with their Gulf neighbor.

Marwan M. Kraidy, “Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Changing Arab Information Order,” International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), 139-156, p. 141.

• This abrupt intrusion of reality caused the House of Saud to change dramatically its media strategy. However, it wasn't just Saudi Arabia that suddenly realized that telecommunications – particularly the news media – was global; all the Gulf petro-kingdoms came to this conclusion.

The Wake-up Call

What follows is an exposé of Islamic ownership of, andinfluence over, the global news media. It is based on publicsources that will be cited throughout.

In Western thinking, the news media (and media in general) isstill thought of as providing an essential service. It keepscitizens informed, serves as a platform for debate and newideas, and is a rein on government.

Or so we in the West are taught to believe.

In fact, this vital role of the news has taken a back-seat tocorporate and government interests that seldom have anythingin common with truth, facts or freedom of the press.

The Wake-up CallHow did this happen?

The international reach of news media, and the abilityto influence people on a global scale, is a problem thatsome countries only recently began to grapple with.

Yet, CNN and other cable news networks – along withestablished broadcasters and print media – wereinternational in their reach long before the first GulfWar.

But accomplishing this requires access, resources,investors . . .

Saudi Arabia & Your News• As a result of the 1991 Gulf War,

individuals close to the royal family decided to internationalize the kingdom’s media presence, launching the Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) in London, backed by the then Saudi king’s in-law, Walid Ibrahim.

• The Arab Radio and Television Network (ART) came hot on the heels of MBC, with a lineup of entertainment, music and sports.

• ART bought 49% of the Lebanese Satellite Channel, the pan-Arab version of the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation.

• But these were just moves on a local and regional level.

Saudi Arabia & Your News

• In 2000, Saudi prince Al-Walid Bin Talal bought a major stake in MBC for $100 million.

• Bin Talal is the Rupert Murdoch of media ownership in the Middle East.

– He owns the region’s largest music label, six music TV channels, and a stake in Lebanese newspapers An Nahar and Ad Diyar.

– He owns outright the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat.

– He is the third largest shareholder in Murdoch’s News Corp., with 5.46% of the voting shares.

Saudi Arabia & Your News

• In 2001, ART – now owned by Prince Bin Talal – produced a multi-part television miniseries entitled "Horseman Without a Horse", a dramatization of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

• Due to Bin Talal’s position as Assistant Minister of Defense for Military Affairs, bin Sultan’s role as a shareholder is significant, as he can be considered a state actor and consequently able to exert certain pressure over all his media interests to pander to the Saudi establishment.

So What?• So what? A Saudi princes own some radio stations, some newspapers, some

satellite news stations and 5% of Fox News.

• If this doesn't concern you, stop here.

• On the other hand, consider what an investigation by the Committee toProtect Journalists in Saudi Arabia said:“Government officials routinely dismissed editors, suspended or blacklisted dissidentwriters, ordered news blackouts on controversial topics, and rebuked independentcolumnists over their writings to deter undesirable criticism or to appease religiousconstituencies.”

“The country’s Wahhabi religious establishment acts as a powerful lobbying force againstcreative coverage of social, cultural, and religious matters. Compliant government-approved editors routinely suppress controversial news, acquiesce to official pressures totone down coverage, and silence critical voices.”

– http://cpj.org/Briefings/2006/saudI_06/saudi_06_printer.html

• Could Saudi Arabia's media control and censorship become a part ofglobal media practices? If so, what would that mean for keeping citizensinformed, serving as a platform for debate and for keeping an eye ongovernment?

• Consider the following excerpts from a Wikileaks source, dated 2010.

• The Saudi regulatory system offers the al-Saud regime a means tomanipulate the nation's print media to promote its own agenda withoutexercising day-to-day oversight over journalists, and Saudi journalists arefree to write what they wish provided they do not criticize the rulingfamily or expose government corruption. In addition, most media in SaudiArabia--print and electronic--are owned by royal family members, andaccordingly self-censorship is the order of the day.

• In interviews with Embassy and Consulate Jeddah officers before the earlyDecember Eid holiday, seven senior editors and satellite TV managersoutlined key elements of these trends and explained how the long hand ofthe al-Saud--motivated by profit and politics--retains a strong hold overmedia in this sophisticated new environment, through means rangingfrom refined Interior Ministry procedures for recalcitrant journalists, todirectives by King Abdallah himself.

https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09RIYADH651

Consider the following excerpts from a Wikileaks source, dated 2010.

• According to Khalid Al-Matrafi, the regional director of the MBC's "AlArabiya" news channel, the second most popular news channel in SaudiArabia after al-Jazeera . . . that while MBC is owned by King Fahd'sbrother-in-law (the non-royal Waleed bin Ibrahim al-Ibrahim), fiftypercent of the profits of the MBC empire go to King Fahd's youngest son(and al-Ibrahim's maternal nephew) Abdulaziz bin Fahd. He also said thathe speaks daily with Abdulaziz on issues relating to al-Arabiya and otherMBC channels. When asked if the thirty-something prince was interestedonly in the profits of the station, or if he also took an active role in theideological direction of al-Arabiya, the elderly al-Matrafi, an old-styleSaudi editor in his mid-seventies who is said to have close connections tothe SAG, whispered with a grimace, "Both."

https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09RIYADH651

Saudi Arabia – the future of the West?• Saudi Arabia has been condemned by Amnesty International &

Human Rights Watch– There are no jury trials in Saudi Arabia, and the accused are not provided with

legal counsel, not permitted to cross-examine witnesses and not permitted tomount a legal defense.

– Capital punishments is a regular feature of Saudi “justice,” particularly forhomosexuals. In August 2014 alone, Saudi Arabia executed at least 19 people .

– A UN report on domestic abuse in 2008 noted the absence of laws criminalizingviolence against women. The World Economic Forum 2010 Global Gender GapReport ranked Saudi Arabia 129th out of 134 countries for gender parity.

• Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, homosexuals and persons accused ofcrimes fails every litmus test of human rights, as does its respect for freedomof the press.

– This barely rates a mention from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NPR or the BBC.

– This barely rates a mention from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times orWashington Post.

WHY NOT?

Urgent: Please Help! Raif Badawi To "Be Lashed Severely" Tomorrow

by Gatestone Staff and Valentina ColomboJanuary 8, 2015

Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, has beensentenced to 1000 lashes, ten years in jail anda fine of $270,000 for a blog regarded bySaudi Arabia's regime as insulting Islam.

"My commitment is…to reject any repression inthe name of religion…a goal that we will reachin a peaceful and law-abiding way." — RaifBadawi.

Badawi was condemned, according to AmnestyInternational, for having co-founded a website,"Saudi Arabian Liberals," and for having writtenand publishing on it his blog and other writings,as well as on Facebook and Twitter, -- as well asfor other "offenses to Islamic precepts.

He criticized and made fun of Saudi institutionssuch as the Commission for the Promotion ofGoodness and the Prohibition of Vice (alsoknown as "the religious police"), the SaudiGrand Mufti, other Saudi ulema [religiousscholars].

In an interview published in August 2007 by theliberal website Afaaq, Badawi stated that "liberals inSaudi Arabia live between the anvil of State and thehammer of the religious police." On that occasion,he described himself thusly: "Raif Badawi is nothingmore than a Saudi citizen. My commitment is to theadvancement of civil society in my country, to rejectany repression in the name of religion, to promoteliberal enlightened Saudis whose primary objective isbeing active in civil society, a goal that we will reachin a peaceful and law-abiding way."

Qatar & Al Jazeera

• On January 1st, 1999 Al Jazeera started broadcasting 24-hours a day, seven days a week. This satellite-based newschannel was founded by the House of Thani, the rulingfamily of Qatar.

• On 15 November 2006 Al Jazeera launched a new English-language satellite service called Al Jazeera International. Ithas broadcast centers in Doha in Qatar, London, KualaLumpur and Washington D.C.

• The channel operates 24/7, with 12 hours broadcast fromDoha, and four hours each from London, Kuala Lumpur, andWashington D.C.

Qatar & Al Jazeera• The original Al Jazeera Satellite Channel was launched on 1 November

1996 following the closure of the first BBC Arabic language televisionstation, then a joint venture with Orbit Communications Company, ownedby Saudi King Fahd's cousin, Khalid bin Faisal Al Saud.

• The BBC channel had closed after a year and a half when the Saudigovernment attempted to thwart a documentary pertaining to executionsunder sharia law. http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html

• The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, provided a loan of QAR 500million ($137 million) to sustain Al Jazeera through its first five years.

Hugh Miles, Al Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That IsChallenging the West

• The network's news operation currently has a total of 82 bureaus aroundthe world that are shared between the network's channels and operations,the second largest amount of bureaus of any media company in the worldafter the BBC.

Qatar & Al Jazeera• After Saudi Arabia, Qatar is the most conservative society in

the Gulf, as most Qataris adhere to the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Isla.

• Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's Constitution.

• In February 2014, an appeal court reduced to 15 years the life imprisonment sentence imposed on poet Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami in November 2012, by a court in Doha. The court convicted him of incitement to overthrow the regime after he recited poems critical of Qatar’s then-emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.

The Permanent Constitution of the State of Qatarhttp://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=25754&LawId=2284&language=en

Qatar & Al Jazeera• In May 2014, Qatar’s cabinet approved a draft cyber-crimes

law, but it remained unclear when it would be enacted. According to state media, it “punishes anyone who infringes on the social principles or values or otherwise publishes news, photos, audio or visual recordings related to the sanctity of the private and familial life of persons, even if they were true; or infringes on others by libel or slander via the Internet or other information technology means.”

• Provisions of Qatar’s penal code are inconsistent with international free speech standards. Article 134, for example, prescribes a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment for anyone who is convicted of criticizing the emir or vice-emir.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar?page=3

Hamas limitations on local and foreign journalists during Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)

A correspondent from the Finnish TV channel HS-TV reports on rocket fire from close proximity to the Al-Shifa'aHospital

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-e5qWXx-k)

Hamas' media policies restrict local and foreign correspondents covering the fighting in

their reports on military-combat activity or military-related information (especially

regarding rocket fire and the use of civilians as human shields). During the operation

foreign and local correspondents followed Hamas' policy guidelines, for the

most part, and mainly reported on the suffering of the local population and other

civilian aspects of the fighting.

However there were occasional instances of foreign correspondents who did not follow

Hamas guidelines, especially towards the end of July when media personnel began

leaving the Gaza Strip. During the last two weeks reports crept into the media about

rockets fired into Israeli territory from populated areas, particularly from around

sensitive institutions (the Al-Shifa'a Hospital, a hotel where many of the foreign

correspondents stayed, a UN facility, and a church).

The instructionquoted above

Instruction number five from the Hamas-controlled ministry of the interior in the Gaza Strip, "Do not publicize [information about] and do not share pictures or video clips showing rocket

launching sites of the movement of resistance [operatives] in Gaza"

The

quoted

During the first days of Operation Protective Edge Hamas forged a policy for media

reports to be implemented by local and foreign correspondents covering the fighting.

Its objective was to prevent reports that would prove Israel's claims of Hamas

use of Gazan civilians as human shields, and to reinforce the propaganda theme

that Israel deliberately attacked civilians and committed "war crimes." As a result,

during the first days of the fighting the information bureau of the Hamas-controlled

ministry of the interior in Gaza issued instructions under the heading "Be aware of the

following." The instructions dealt with how the social networks in the Gaza Strip were

to relate to Israeli activity (YouTube, July 2014)

Instruction number 5 read, “Do not publicize and do not share pictures or video clips

showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [operatives] in Gaza,

Hamas limitations on local and foreign journalists during Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)

The Freedom Index for Media and Arab Countries

• Reporters without Borders (RWB) is an international NGO that monitors press freedom. Annually, it sends out a questionnaire that considers six general criteria:– Pluralism– Media Independence– Environment and self-censorship– Legislative Framework– Transparency, and– Infrastructure.

• Then, RWB calculates a score of between 0 and 100 reflecting the level of violence against journalists during the period considered.

• The overall score, the one that determines a country’s ranking, is calculated on the basis of these seven scores in a three-step process. The higher the score is, the lower the freedom of the press.

http://www.wiaproject.org/index.php/68/ownership-diveristy-in-muslim-media-systems

Here is what the situation has looked like over the past 3 years. For sake of comparison, the table includes America, Finland & the Russian Federation.

Country 2014 2013 2012

Finland 1 1 1

United States 46 32 47

Kuwait 91 77 78

Lebanon 106 101 93

Qatar 113 110 114

United Arab Emirates 118 114 112

Algeria 121 125 122

Tunisia 133 138 134

Oman 134 141 117

Morocco 136 136 138

Libya 137 131 154

Palestinian Authority / Gaza 138 146 153

Jordan 141 134 128

Russian Federation 148 148 142

Iraq 153 150 152

Egypt 159 158 166

Bahrain 163 165 173

Saudi Arabia 164 163 158

Yemen 167 169 171

Sudan 172 170 170

Islamic Republic of Iran 173 174 175

Somalia 176 175 164

Syrian Arab Republic 177 176 176

Eritrea 180 179 179

Remember: the higher the score is, the lower the freedom of the press!Country 2014 2013 2012

Finland 1 1 1

United States 46 32 47

Kuwait 91 77 78

Lebanon 106 101 93

Qatar 113 110 114

United Arab Emirates 118 114 112

Algeria 121 125 122

Tunisia 133 138 134

Oman 134 141 117

Morocco 136 136 138

Libya 137 131 154

Palestinian Authority / Gaza 138 146 153

Jordan 141 134 128

Russian Federation 148 148 142

Iraq 153 150 152

Egypt 159 158 166

Bahrain 163 165 173

Saudi Arabia 164 163 158

Yemen 167 169 171

Sudan 172 170 170

Islamic Republic of Iran 173 174 175

Somalia 176 175 164

Syrian Arab Republic 177 176 176

Eritrea 180 179 179

The Freedom Index for Media and Arab Countries

So where does that leave us?

• More people in the Middle East watch Qatar’s (113th of 180 in the Index) Al Jazeera than any other news channel.

• Senior political figures in Saudi Arabia (164th of 180 in the Index) own a variety of media channels, as well as over 5% of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

• Yet, twenty of the worst countries for freedom of the press are located in the Muslim world.

Again, So What?• If every Arab country (and many Muslim countries like Iran and Turkey)

censor and control mass media, intimidate and jail journalists, whyshould we care?

• It’s not like those practices exist in the American, British or Frenchjournalism, right?

• However, many major Western media outlets quote Al Arabiya (ownedby Saudi Arabia) and Al Jazeera (owned by Qatar) without mentioningtheir state ownership.

• What does this imply for the veracity of the information beingreported?

• Why would Western media quote sources that regularly usecensorship, intimidation, imprisonment and corporal punishmentagainst journalists?

• Have western journalists and news agencies already adopted a policyof “soft censorship,” watering down reporting and casting doubts onthe right to a free press?

Enabling Islamic Terrorismhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/how-western-media-enable-islamic-terrorism/

“How Western Media Enable Islamic Terrorism” by Raymond Ibrahim was published on 19 Dec. 2014 in the on-line publication FRONTPAGE MAG.

Ibrahim identifies two trends.

First, mainstream media in the West routinely ignore, downplay or bury outright Muslim provocations and violence.

Second, that this hiding of the truth is not isolated, and has been going on for years.

Enabling Islamic Terrorismhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/how-western-media-enable-islamic-terrorism/

• If the West is experiencing a rise in the sort of terror attacks that are endemic to the Islamic world—church attacks, sex-slavery and beheadings—it was only natural that the same mainstream media that habitually conceals such atrocities, especially against Christians and other minorities under Islam, would also conceal the reality of jihadi aspirations on Western soil.

• The level of the media groveling after the tragic and deadly saga in Sydney Australia over the last 24 hours has been astounding. At the time of writing, the lead story on the BBC website is of course about that very tragedy, in which an Islamist fanatic took a random group hostage in a cafe, ultimately killing two of them.

• He did this in the name of Islam. But you wouldn’t get that impression if you started to read the BBC’s lead story, which astoundingly managed to avoid mentioning the words Islam, Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, or any derivations thereof for a full 16 paragraphs. The New York Times, which led by calling the terrorist, Man Haron Monis an “armed man”, waited until paragraph 11.

• In the Guardian’s main story – whose lead paragraph simply referred to a “gunman” —you had to wait until paragraph 24 to discover the gunman’s Islamic agenda.

Enabling Islamic Terrorismhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/how-western-media-enable-islamic-terrorism/

• As with the Sydney attack, media headlines say it all. The 2011 New Year’s Eve Copticchurch attack that left 28 dead appeared under vague headlines: “Clashes grow asEgyptians remain angry after attack,” was the New York Times’ headline; and “Christiansclash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21” was the WashingtonPost’s—as if frustrated and harried Christians lashing out against their oppressors is the“big news,” not the unprovoked atrocity itself; as if their angry reaction “evens”everything up.

• Similarly, the Los Angeles Times partially told the story of an Egyptian off-duty policeofficer who, after identifying Copts by their crosses on a train, opened fire on them,killing one, while screaming “Allahu Akbar”—but to exonerate the persecution, as caughtby the report’s headline: “Eyewitness claims train attacker did not target Copts, statemedia say.”

• A February 2012 NPR report titled “In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise,”while meant to familiarize readers with the situation of Egypt’s Christians, prompts morequestions than answers them: “In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims andChristians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame theinterreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak securityforces. Others believe it’s because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and theminority Christian community [what are the sources of this “mistrust”?].”

• A New York Times report that appeared on December 25, 2011—the dayafter Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services,leaving some 40 dead—said that such church bombings threaten “toexploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly splitpopulations of Christians and Muslims…” Such an assertion suggests thatboth Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religioushostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations thatbomb mosques in Nigeria to screams of “Christ is Great!”

• Indeed, Boko Haram has torched 185 churches—to say nothing of thecountless Christians beheaded—in just the last few months alone.

• Continuing to grasp for straws, the same NYT report suggests that theNigerian government’s “heavy-handed” response to Boko Haram isresponsible for its terror, and even manages to invoke anothermainstream media favorite: the poverty-causes-terrorism myth.

Enabling Islamic Terrorismhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/how-western-media-enable-islamic-terrorism/

On the Slippery Slope

When the Obama Administration blamed the Benghazi jihadattack on a video about Muhammad (a bald-faced lie neverproperly investigated by Congress), there were calls in themainstream media for restrictions on the freedom of speech.

– Eric Posner in Slate derided the First Amendment’s “sacred status”.

– Sarah Chayes in the Los Angeles Times argued that speech that mightmake people who oppose it behave violently, should be banned.

– Nathan Lean of the Washington Post declared, “The voices of hatethat hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have noplace in our public discourse.”

• Who decides which “voices of hate” should be silenced? EricPosner, Sarah Chayes and Nathan Lean, obviously. And theterrorist mobs in Benghazi will also sit on that board ofcensorship.

The World Doesn’t Love the First AmendmentThe vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.By Eric Posnerhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/09/the_vile_anti_muslim_video_and_the_first_amendment_does_the_u_s_overvalue_free_speech_.single.html

“The universal response in the United States to the uproar over the anti-Muslim video is that the Muslim world will just have to get used to freedom of expression. President Obama said so himself in a speech at the United Nations today, which included both a strong defense of the First Amendment and . . . and a plea that the United States is helpless anyway when it comes to controlling information.”

“But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.”

On the Slippery Slope

Does 'Innocence of Muslims' meet the free-speech test?September 18, 2012|By Sarah Chayeshttp://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/18/opinion/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918

“. . . the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.”

On the Slippery Slope

Charlie Hedbo• In the wake of the massacre perpetrated by Muslim terrorists at

the French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo, you would be tempted to believe that mainstream media – both broadcast and publishing – would immediately stop pandering to Islam and start telling the truth.

• After all, Hedbo had been publishing satirical cartoons targeting Judaism and Christianity for years without prompting a murderous rampage from either Jews or Christians.

• Indeed, over the 48 hours spanning the attack on Hedbo’s office to the terrorists elimination by French police, there was much hand-wringing over this “attack on freedom of the press.”

• However, it didn’t take long for some in the mainstream media to suggest that maybe it was the victim’s fault.

Blaming the Victims• Of course, Wolf Blitzer & CNN weren’t the

only ones busy blaming the victims of Islamist terrorism.

• The BBC weighed in on the matter, too.

• So did, by the way, the US Government!

http://www.israellycool.com/2015/01/12/bbc-tim-wilcox-has-to-find-a-way-to-

blame-jews-for-being-attacked/

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The White House criticized French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2012 for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.Then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney questioned the magazine’s judgment after publishing images of Muhammad naked.“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” Carney told reporters in September 2012.- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/white-house-criticized-french-magazine-for-publishing-muhammad-cartoon.html/#sthash.zZcJlZ7d.dpuf

Meanwhile at Al-Jazeera . . .• There seems to be a bit of a cultural/ideological/religious divide over at Al-Jazeera

regarding how to cover the Charlie Hedbo and Hyper Cacher terrorist massacres.http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Leaked-Al-Jazeera-emails-expose-anger-over-global-support-for-Charlie-Hebdo-387388?fb_action_ids=904956396190864&fb_action_types=og.shares

• Western journalists are condemning the attacks and the attackers, while Al-Jazeera’s Muslim staff and management seem to think they had it coming to them.

Leaked Al Jazeera emails expose anger over global support for Charlie Hebdo

Leaked internal e-mails from the Qatari-based Al Jazeera news to the New York-based National Review magazine revealed a split in the network's employees that ran across lines of the global campaigns "I am Charlie" and "I am not Charlie" in the wake of multiple terror attacks in France.

Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail last Thursday, reminding his staffers that "We are Al Jazeera!!!"

Khadr made suggestions for Al Jazeera employees on how to cover the Charlie Hebdo massacre, including, asking if it "really was an attack on free speech," whether "I am Charlie" is an alienating slogan and whether this was really an attack against free speech and, or "European values" or really "a clash of extremist fringes."

Ask these Questions

• When you read a story in a newspaper or listen to a report on television, ask yourself the following questions:– Does the story clearly identify the person or group acting, and why

they are acting?

– Does they story attempt to justify the attackers reasons?

– If there are victims, does the story minimize or attempt to minimize their fate?

– Does it blame the victims?

– Does the story “put the horse before the cart” by highlighting the victim’s response (particularly if it is violent), while downplaying the original violence?

– What are the sources?

– What history does the reporting agency have with similar incidents?