Snippet:

In the six-odd hours of watching Al Jazeera English, this viewer might have squirmed or rolled his eyes several times but did not see anything that verged on incitement.

That assessment is shared by Steven Stalinsky, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington, D.C. "There is no incendiary material that we could find," he said.

His group has found plenty of programming on the Arabic channel to criticize, such as an instalment this week, which featured a Kuwaiti professor advocating a biological attack on the White House and sneaking anthrax through Mexico, or the sheikh who late last month told viewers that Adolf Hitler "put Jews in their place"– even though they "exaggerated the issue."

Mr. Stalinsky believes Al Jazeera English is an elaborate Western front operation. "One of the main goals of Qatar is to use English as a PR vehicle for Al Jazeera Arabic, so that the Westerners think that the English channel is not so bad, so the Arabic can't be bad, either."
...

Both channels saw dramatic exits in the past two years, in which leading correspondents have complained of ideological influence. Last March, the English channel's Washington bureau chief Dave Marash said there was a "reflexive adversarial editorial stance" against the U.S. which in part explained why he quit. Six months earlier, his Arabic-channel counterpart, Hafez alMirazi, also quit, complaining that Mr. Burman's boss, Wadah Kanfar, was hiring hard-line Islamists as his assistants.


http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1312669

I watch Al Jazeera English and it has never been incendiary at all. However, a friend of mine has pointed out articles on the Arabic site which were extremely so.

It's available on the web, as is Al Arabiya.

Another example of the differences between a station and it's international version? BBC and BBC America and BBC World, CNN and CNN International, etc...