It certainly was an issue in the past https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cabl...
Now Al Jazeera Arabic though, that is one steaming hot pile of bullshit, that is still so popular in the Arab World that they call it the "people's news". Saudis and Emiratis alike used to watch it, likely because of their strongly biased reporting against their respective governments, as well as their pro-Muslim position on all matters. And interestingly, they were mostly allowed to broadcast in those countries up until recently.
AJE does a lot of reporting on the daily lives of people in the middle east, and for that its a very welcome source for me. Also if you know Qatar's particular political stance you can sort of de-slant a lot of reporting. Criticism of the west, especially of western militaries are something you literally cannot hear within US news.
"region known for its religious conflicts" - I would sort of state that you're not being very objective there yourself. Islam is a religion but its also a really ingrained part of the culture in ways that christianity is not. It just means they're reflective of the culture thats produced it.
Would it be better if i said ethno-religious conflicts? Regardless, one of the biggest conflicts in the middle east is probably Israel-Palestine, and its been that way for a long time. I'm not sure i would look to AJE for neutral coverage of that (I definitely wouldn't look towards western media either though)
At the very least its nice to put human faces and see real communities in what is often a more rhetorical exercise.
> Would it be better if i said ethno-religious conflicts
Perhaps, I would just say a reading of the situation shows its less a religious conflict and more a political apartheid state. The borders and political rights are the true conflict here, with the religious element sometimes there to inflame and balkanize the factions. Having been raised in the US to think that its this mighty crusade-like undertaking of the jewish/christian world vs the heathen muslims, a real examination of the factors causing protest, violence and conflict has a lot more to do with secular power structures - thats why I think its pretty safe to say its much more akin to South African apartheid the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. It also helps that the solution must be political.
I'm not saying that sort of thing isn't valuable or important, just that showing the suffering of one side in a conflict is not neutral reporting.
And to be clear, not everything should be neutral reporting. Understanding the struggles that the Palestinian people face is very valuable. Its just a different sort of thing than a neutral report on the situation in the area.
Re characterization of the conflict:
I'm not sure i agree with your characterization, although i do agree that most of the time religion is an excuse for secular geopolitical ends. Regardless i'm not sure it matters for the main point of this argument.
I’m not trying to claim its neutral, but that it is a perspective you don’t often get, and is helpful for building empathy for the people living there as humans rather than pieces on a chess board of geopolitics.
I don’t call my characterization the unfallable truth, just for me it’s a lot closer to reality than what a lot of lenses I’ve had to view the conflict in the past :)
Because of their ownership I do tend to take a more critical view of their Middle East coverage. Need to view it (and everything really) through the "What does Qatar want?" lens. Although sometimes even that helps give a good "both sides" style comparison. For coverage on Israeli/Palestinian tensions I can use both that and the more standard US options and get a more well rounded view.
One test I came up with recently is that if a source doesn't run stories that I disagree with, if they only have stories which I nod along to and agree with, then that source is horribly biased. It isn't that they're "right", that they only run "right" stories, it's that they're horribly biased.
If you're finding that context setting is consistent in its narrative, that's not a reason to recoil.
As an example, put yourself in a highly contentious context of a historical situation - say the apartheid in South Africa. If you found a newspaper that always took a position counter to the white south African government, you would have found a good newspaper.
That doesn't always work, but neither does a simple test like you've deviced.
Their reality, or the one of their editor. As it as always been.
It just looks more obvious now, with all cross sources we can get.
Much of the world is a part of the USs economic imperialism, and hence isn't as far from the mothership as you'd imagine. All sources have biases. At least TI does fully independent reporting.
They also don't mix news and entertainment - the portion of the org that does TI is a non-profit.
Founders' influence often lingers long after the founders themselves. You think Greenwald didn't hire/collaborate with others who shared a similar world view?
Of course there is no such thing as objective news, but that's because reality isn't that simple either. CNN and most mainstream news are indeed trash (more like entertainment), but there is very good news out there. You have to find the right news source for the right topic.
For American foreign policy, read The Intercept; for American domestic issues - Propublica, for middle eastern news - Al Jazeera English, and so on and so forth.
News is never "objective facts" and neither should it be. Good journalists put news in the context of reality.