As Gary Wasserman in the Washington Post noted about the Al Jazeera brouhaha

The announcement that al-Jazeera is buying Al Gore’s Current TV network can be expected to run into what pundits call “a serious image problem.” Allowing the Qatar-based, Arab-owned network to be seen in 40 million U.S. households may be more than our fragile citizenry can bear.

With its alleged positions against U.S. foreign policies and wars, al-Jazeera is just too “left” to be allowed access to our fearful public. Has anyone noticed that much of the world is “left” of the United States?

Because of my occasional appearances on al-Jazeera news shows, and having written opinion pieces for its Web site, I can be accused of knowing on which side my pita is being buttered. Fair enough. And my experiences with al-Jazeera will only confirm the obvious. In its selection of stories and editorial slants, it is to the left of mainstream American media.  So what?

Al-Jazeera is also an outlet of professional journalists, generally well-informed and seeking to at least appear balanced. No one has ever suggested to me what to say or write. The network may present Arab voices, but its coverage includes more of the world than this parochial image allows. From oppressed native tribes in Peru to Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa, al-Jazeera reports undercovered news. Its reporters may be pro-Palestinian, but the network provides a rare platform in a region where Israeli officials and dissenters can both appear.

Looking for objective journalism in an era of 400 channels plus the Internet is looking backward to the bygone ideals of three national networks and Uncle Walter. Seeking the widest, most diverse sources for views of the world seems a more realistic goal for American media.

My own opinions may be shaped by experiences with al-Jazeera’s English-language channel. The Arabic part of the network has a separate staff, housed in more modest quarters across the street in Doha from the English channel. And in my few appearances on the Arabic channel, the editorial slant seemed a bit different.

Whether I was invited to comment on congressional elections, global warming or race relations, the questions inevitably veered toward the pro-Israel lobby. As in, after a few questions on the scheduled topic, something like: “Interesting point about liberalizing relations with Cuba, and how does that affect the Israel lobby?”

Obsessed? A bit. But perhaps we should wait for Chuck Hagel to actually be nominated as secretary of defense before we write off this view of the power of the pro-Israel lobby as completely delusional.

al-Jazeera will be running its American operation under a separate U.S.-based news channel with its own staff, which shows recognition of the issue of bias. Much of the paranoia about al-Jazeera rests on a somewhat antiquated notion of media ownership. While any of us writing about media will occasionally fall back on the vision of the willful reactionary owner (read: Rupert Murdoch) controlling the direction of his empire, the reality is more complicated. Reporters, editors, advertisers, sources, competitors, corporate strategists and even the audience shape the content of modern media. Bringing al-Jazeera to more of America may also mean bringing more of America to al-Jazeera.

There may be winners on both sides. We Americans do brag about our marketplace of ideas. The U.S. audience may gain access to the perspectives of a respected international network covering stories from regions of the world — sub-Saharan Africa, the various -stans and South Asia — that our national media has largely ignored. Al-Jazeera may gain insights into people that are far more diverse, engaged and welcoming than many of the images it broadcasts abroad.

Those still stridently opposing this alien investment in our homeland might remember the words of the great media strategist Lyndon Johnson. When asked why he had brought a longtime political antagonist into his camp, he replied: “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”

UPDATE 5/5/2015
More of Geller’s hateful ads were to appear on NYC subways ‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on NYC subways and buses.  After all the controversy and legal battles over this and other hateful ads produced by Geller and Spencer’s AFDI, MTA votes to ban all political ads. ”…  New York follows in the footsteps of cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, which already have banned political ads on public transit…”  (See: How New York City Buses Are Becoming Vehicles for Hateful Speech http://gawker.com/how-new-york-city-buses-are-becoming-vehicles-for-hate-1700075181?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow )

It is ironic that Geller who hides hate speech under the claim of “defending freedom of speech” is personally responsible for reducing the amount of free speech in the public square.  This sort of confusion about the meaning of free speech is not surprising since previously Pamela Geller Defended Free Speech By Calling for Censorship (of Al Jazeera), clearly Pamela Geller Does Not Understand Freedom of Speech.

Perhaps Pamela Geller should read my article Freedom of speech does not include freedom from condemnation of that speech to gain a better understanding of this Constitutional freedom that we all share as citizens of this great country.

As I said in that article:

… What all of these folks don’t seem to understand is that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from condemnation of that speech, and condemnation of hate speech does not equal an attempt to take away the freedom of speech from those making such hateful speech.  Condemnation is NOT implementing “a de facto blasphemy law dealing with Islam in the United States.”

It is perfectly reasonable to both disagree with, or even condemn the speech of another, and at the same time defend their right to engage in such speech.  It is perfectly reasonable to ask an individual to consider the possible implications of hate speech.  It is perfectly reasonable to defend freedom of speech, and yet make a judgement that some speech is not socially acceptable, even though it is legal.  It is also perfectly reasonable to carry out peaceful protests against hateful speech.  Any intimidation or violence carried out in response to speech is immoral, and illegal and also deserves condemnation and prosecution. …

Pamela Geller’s AFDI sponsored a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas on Sunday, May 3rd.  Tragically a couple of extremists showed up and began shooting.  Thank God they only injured one individual before being shot and killed by a policeman.  What will be the fallout from this event remains to be seen, but Geller insists that she did this to defend freedom of speech.  In the past few days, this is already sparking a debate on the line between free speech and hate speech, and it is very possible that Geller’s hate speech will once again reduce the amount of free speech in the public square.