For those who believe the American public deserves and needs to know much more about what goes on in the rest of the world, the arrival of a television network determined to focus on hard news, to "make news the star," to quote my old boss Ted Turner, should be cause for celebration. But when that network is Al Jazeera, we all need to take a few steps back before we start watching.
The first fact to keep in mind when watching the just-launched Al Jazeera America is that the new network is, like the other Al Jazeera channels, owned by the royal family of Qatar, which has used Al Jazeera to spread its influence and shape public opinion.
Al Jazeera is an arm of the Qatari government and an instrument of its foreign policy.
Its popularity in the Arab world fell recently as its coverage of uprisings in the Middle East took a strong pro-Muslim Brotherhood tilt. Nearly two dozen staff members resigned to protest Qatar's instructions to continue supporting the Brotherhood in their coverage.
Qatar's foreign policy was to promote the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the main devices to exert Doha's power were Al Jazeera and billions of dollars in Qatari funding to Brotherhood groups in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere.
Al Jazeera America, broadcasting from New York, promises to focus on "fact-based, in-depth stories of U.S. and international news." Sounds great, as long as the network refrains from some of the practices that have tainted its journalism on other Al Jazeera networks.
Al Jazeera employs many friends and former colleagues of mine, whose individual integrity and talent I do not question. And much of what I have seen on Al Jazeera English - a separate network from the new Al Jazeera America - is of excellent quality, with high journalistic standards.
That, however, is not enough to ignore the red flags.
When Al Jazeera first came on the scene, back in 1996, it shook the Arab world, where the news had featured only state-owned, kiss-up-to-the-ruler reporting. Qatar became a force to be reckoned with, sending AJ reporters to expose corruption and injustice. Nobody had seen anything like it. It even interviewed Israeli officials, a startling novelty.
But, as Fouad Ajami reported in 2001, Al Jazeera's coverage was driven by "an aggressive mix of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism." The network specialized in close-ups of dead bodies, crying and wounded children, with sound tracks designed to heighten emotions.
The Arabic and English channels used different approaches. In Arabic, coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as documented by, among others, Mohamed Elmenshawy, of the Middle East Institute in Washington, portrayed Israel as the enemy, "always on the wrong side." Palestinians are often referred to as "resisters" and "martyrs," while Israelis are frequently called the "occupiers." The English channel's wording is much more careful.
When the network first went on the air in 2006, its principal U.S. anchor, David Marash, went on a promotional tour guaranteeing viewers that journalists in the United States would have full editorial independence. He eventually resigned, saying editorial control had gradually but steadily reverted to Qatar. Al Jazeera's top executive in Doha is a member of the ruling family.
The longtime Emir of Qatar recently stepped down, handing power to his son. The emirate's foreign policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood now looks like a disastrous bet, so policy may change.
For Americans watching Al Jazeera America, it's important to watch out for subtle biases in content. And it would be interesting to compare any deviation from objectivity and balance against Qatar's interests.
It's a challenge for American viewers, who urgently need access to strong, unbiased, responsible journalism.
Frida Ghitis writes for The Miami Herald. Email her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Distributed by MCT Information Services