Says someone with an obvious bias towards one side of this "war." Al Jazeera is very well respected in media circles and those who actually track journalistic enterprise. They have been for decades. Their biggest problem is they are hyper-critical of Israel, which is actually in line with their audience, so no different than any of the Western media who freely publish pro-Israel propaganda without a second's thought, just the opposite end of the spectrum. The problem YOU have with Al Jazeera is they don't comply with your worldview so you run them down for that rather than actually following the coverage.
Nice constructing of a strawman and a false dichotomy. Any other dishonest rhetorical games you want to play? Al Jazeera is representative of the market they serve and frames things in the cultural context of their consumer (Arab nations), not unlike how all Western media behaves for their audiences. Doesn't change the rules of engagement they follow and adhere to actual journalistic standards.
Have to laugh at the comment about the whole hospital angle after the NY Times blew that issue out of the water showing evidence that contradicts what has become the "accepted" narrative, even though the narrative is wrong. Funny how that article was quickly swept under the rug. The Times and Al Jazeera are a lot closer on that issue than you'd be comfortable admitting to.
Lanny Mcdonald: Al Jazeera has “editorial independence” and present “unvarnished facts”
Also, Lanny Mcdonald: So what if Al Jazeera is biased against Israel? Other people do it and it’s a product of “Arab Nations.” and viewership.
I was responding to your original post and I’m not the one using whataboutisms here. Full disclosure, I am neither Arab or Jew and have lived most my life in Calgary, with a one-year stint in Saudi Arabia. I have no skin in the game.
By definition, good journalism requires accurate reporting of factual information with minimal bias. Your original assertion was that AJ is not a mouthpiece of Qatar because they have “editorial independence”. AJ has been pressured on multiple occasions by the Qatari government in Syria, in Egypt, and in Israel to change stories, and AJ complied despite protests of their own reporters (many of whom quit). AJ was founded by Qatar with the expressed stated purposed of “giving Qatar political influence over the Arab world.”
Does AJ have “editorial independence” then, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Your second assertion was that AJ presents “unvarnished facts”. They have been recorded on multiple occasions selectively framing one side or the other as “martyrs” based on Qatari government pressure.
Does use of the word "martyr" to a specific group constitute the “unvarnished facts” without bias, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Does selective application of the word "martyr" based on Qatari government preference constitute "unvarnished facts" without bias, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
AJ had an entire documentary made full of Holocaust denial/minimalization. They also threw a party for a known Israeli murderer, Samir Kuntar, and celebrated his birthday. Both of these incidents could not have happened without approval.
Was this good oversight on the part of the editorial board to approve either of these incidents, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Again, see my links in my previous post for links to these incidents. There have been many more documented cases.
Last edited by FlameOn; 10-30-2023 at 07:44 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
By definition, good journalism requires accurate reporting of factual information with minimal bias. Your original assertion was that AJ is not a mouthpiece of Qatar because they have “editorial independence”. AJ has been pressured on multiple occasions by the Qatari government in Syria, in Egypt, and in Israel to change stories, and AJ complied despite protests of their own reporters (many of whom quit).
Pressured by the government. What are you missing here? A news bureau can do all the right things and do all the proper reporting and then have the government sensors force changes. It happens in every country around the globe, even in Canada. Censorship happens and it does not impact overall editorial independence. To suggest that censorship is not happening and does not affect the media everywhere is just ignoring the reality we live in. Al Jazeera is no different and does an excellent job of maintaining their editorial and journalistic standards.
Quote:
AJ was founded by Qatar with the expressed stated purposed of “giving Qatar political influence over the Arab world.”
This is not accurate in any shape or form. Al Jazeera was founded out of the ashes of BBC closing its Arab language offering. A loan was secured from the Emir as a seed to keep operations afloat so there would remain an Arab language news agency that was not controlled by the Saudi Royal family. Funding was from grants and loans so they would maintain editorial independence. They have done exceptional work in speaking truth to power, even to powerful Arab governments including Qatar and supporting powerful moments of change like the Arab Spring, which made them enemies across much of the Arab world.
Quote:
Does AJ have “editorial independence” then, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Yes, they are able to report on whatever stories they see fit. They are NOT a propaganda arm of the government by any stretch of the imagination. They continue to put reporters into the middle of the #### and they do everything they can to get the unvarnished facts out. They may not always be successful, but they are way more often than they are not.
Quote:
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Yes, because they report what is happening on the ground. This isn't like some bull#### news organization that doesn't have reporters and only repackages video from other bureaus (I'm pointing a finger at the conservative media grift), Al Jazeera has actual reporters who go into harms way and provide life feeds directly from where news is happening. Many times this has resulted in their reporters being injured or killed while embedded. They follow strict journalistic practices and are acknowledged for doing so by the very industry they work in. The list of awards they have received for their journalism is long and proud.
Quote:
Your second assertion was that AJ presents “unvarnished facts”. They have been recorded on multiple occasions selectively framing one side or the other as “martyrs” based on Qatari government pressure.
Quote:
Does use of the word "martyr" to a specific group constitute the “unvarnished facts” without bias, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Who gives a #### that they used the word martyr? That is as much a cultural thing as anything. It is also probably used for their audience. Jesus, it wouldn't be the first or last time that a more accessible word was selected so as not to piss off the audience. It may also be a little bit of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. God knows we haven't seen that play out here with insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, and hate groups being rebranded as "patriots" to align with the ideals of the audience.
Quote:
Does selective application of the word "martyr" based on Qatari government preference constitute "unvarnished facts" without bias, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
See above.
Quote:
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Yes, because censorship happens. You can do great journalism and get your story buried by the censor. This has happened, including one of the incidents you linked. The reporters and the producers were adamant that the story be presented one way, but the editors aligned with the censors on that particular story. Doesn't mean that a few incidents mean a news agency is the mouthpiece for anyone. The NY Times has been caught in some pretty messy situations as well (Judith Miller and the support for the Iraq War will always be a black eye) but it doesn't mean they don't follow journalistic standards.
Quote:
AJ had an entire documentary made full of Holocaust denial/minimalization. They also threw a party for a known Israeli murderer, Samir Kuntar, and celebrated his birthday. Both of these incidents could not have happened without approval.
For not having a side you sure do seem to focus in on one side of issues. Seems everything is about Israel for you, ignoring the larger body of work. Time Magazine honored Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Kohmeini as man of the year and celebrated Charles Manson at one point. Guess we can throw out the amazing work done by that organization, right? Journalism doesn't happen in a vacuum. Mistakes and bad decisions are made along the way, and yes, interference from outside interests can come into play as well. Does not diminish the work IMO, and others in the industry agree.
Quote:
Was this good oversight on the part of the editorial board to approve either of these incidents, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Can't speak to it specifically, because I did not see either production. Is there value in such productions? I don't know. I've seen some pretty controversial stuff make it to air only to have to come back as a moment of exploration and discussion. Can't say what this was as never saw it.
Quote:
Do these incidents align with “good journalistic standards”, yes, or no? If yes, explain why.
Again, can't speak to them specifically because I didn't see nor watch them. Did you, or are you just going off some sensationalistic report of a repackaged viewing? You make it sound like Al Jazeera is the Arab Fox News, which is as far from the truth as you can get. Al Jazeera has worked hard to maintain the same level of integrity and maintenance of journalistic standards as when they were BBC Arab Language.
Quote:
Again, see my links in my previous post for links to these incidents. There have been many more documented cases.
And there have been many, many, many more quality reports coming out of Al Jazeera, many of them earning award nomination or wins for the reporting and depth of the stories. I'm not going to allow some cherry picking to tarnish what is a good standing with interests like the Columbia Journalism Review, the National Press Club, the Cronkite School of Journalism and so on. They are reporting on stories through their cultural lens and doing so while applying Western practices. They are the leader in their part of the work for good reason. They speak more truth to power than anyone else in their market, even more than some Western bureaus (yes, calling out the conservative noise machine again), even if it bruises your Western sensibilities.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
You know, others have already done the work on fact checking, right?
Quote:
Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left, and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.
No what are you missing here? By definition “editorial independence” is “Editorial independence is the freedom of editors to make decisions without interference from the owners of a publication”. Owners of AJ, Qatar, have done exactly the opposite on multiple occasions. You insinuate broad worldwide censorship but press freedoms in both Canada/US are substantially better than Qatar, which AJ is subject to. NPR and AJ are no the same at all from ownership structure alone, press freedoms per RSF, or “editorial independence” record. https://rsf.org/en/country/qatar
And “unvarnished truth” by definition is “Plain facts without embellishment (making a statement more interesting or entertaining by adding extra details, especially ones that are not true.)” adding the word “martyr” attributes guilt or wrong doing to a particular group AND introduces a perception bias meant to steer sympathy towards one group or another. Denial of the Holocaust, selectively favoring one side of a story or another, is literally not “unvarnished facts”.
Israel dropped pamphlets to tell Palestinians to get out of the way, if they're still there the ugly part of war will happen, always has.
Yes, they told them to move to southern Gaza, and then they've bombed southern Gaza just as much as they've bombed northern Gaza. Literally it's been very close to 50/50, no difference where ever you are in Gaza.
According to the UN, Israel has now killed 3457 children in Gaza since the terrorist attack.
Additional 1050 children are missing, many of them likely dead.
That's about 2.5 killed kids for each civilian Hamas slaughtered in the terror attack. Not counting any Palestinian adults there.
How much retribution is enough?
The attacks on Gaza aren’t retribution. They’re about removing the threat Hamas poses from Gaza.
At what point in WW2 do you think Axis civilians had had enough, and the Allies should have negotiated a ceasefire? By the beginning of 1944, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany, Japan, and Italy had been killed. Far more than the Allied civilian dead. What justice was served by continuing the war into 1944 and beyond?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
What's the hold up on a humanitarian corridor again? I haven't caught up on the news yet. Bombing needs to stop and food aid needs to get in.
Israel wants an unconditional release of all the hostages before any ceasefires. Seems like a reasonable request. Right now, they think they know where some of the hostages are, but as soon as there is a ceasefire, you know Hamas will redistribute them around Gaza.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-31-2023 at 10:09 AM.
You’re assuming Hamas will act in a reasonable manner and respect the rules of a cease fire/corridor….not going to happen.
Yea I get that, Hamas is not going to be a honest partner in any negotiation and it's not like they haven't violated ceasefires before. Just pretty said the suffering for all civilians and hostages involved here.
Other thing is no bordering country wants Palestinian refugees in their borders at all, for a lot of historic reasons, so they literally have nowhere to go. Part of the problem.
How do the Houthis have drones that are capable of flying that far? Or is this possibly coming from Saudi Arabia?
Probably the same Shahed-149 drones Iran provides Russia. Those have a 2000KM-ish range, which would put the southern edge of Israel within range of Yeman's borders.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
You know, others have already done the work on fact checking, right?
.
Well, we now know what the publishers of Buzzfeed have to say on the matter. Media literacy is still such a problem. I’ll stick with Columbia, Annenberg, Cronkite, and such over a website run by Buzzfeed - who gives themselves a high credibility rating. Confirmation bias in action.
Well, we now know what the publishers of Buzzfeed have to say on the matter. Media literacy is still such a problem. I’ll stick with Columbia, Annenberg, Cronkite, and such over a website run by Buzzfeed - who gives themselves a high credibility rating. Confirmation bias in action.
OK, go ahead then, what did you find?
What's with the Buzzfeed stuff? I looked it up and they don't appear to be owned by them. The only reference I found was on Wikipedia that said they generally agreed when compared to Newsguard and Buzzfeed journalists back in 2017. What am I missing? Where is the confirmation bias?
