Author Topic: AL JAZEERA  (Read 322 times)

Offline SGOS

AL JAZEERA
« on: June 11, 2020, 06:45:43 AM »
How reliable can any government owned news source be?  I don't go out of my way to read Al Jazeera, but a recent opinion piece I blundered onto reporting on the protests in the US seemed accurate and a reflection of most citizens of the US.  This of course doesn't mean it's not propaganda.  Good propaganda has to be subtle enough to not be recognizable as propaganda.

From that I googled, people's opinions about Al Jazeera, were mostly positive, but Wiki listed whole page of controversies about the news outlet.  They just listed them but did not editorialize on them.  They could have done the same with CNN or FOX, and maybe they do, but I didn't check.

One thing that actually sounded like points defending AJ's credibility is that Wiki noted that many US officials do not approve of it.  Also, Bill O'Reilly did not approve, so it's probably doing something right.  I don't know if the US Government has an official position on Qatar or what relationship it has with that country.

How much of AJs News is propaganda.  As much as ours?  More accurate or less?

« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 06:52:58 AM by SGOS »

Offline Baruch

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2020, 09:01:37 AM »
How reliable can any government owned news source be?  I don't go out of my way to read Al Jazeera, but a recent opinion piece I blundered onto reporting on the protests in the US seemed accurate and a reflection of most citizens of the US.  This of course doesn't mean it's not propaganda.  Good propaganda has to be subtle enough to not be recognizable as propaganda.

From that I googled, people's opinions about Al Jazeera, were mostly positive, but Wiki listed whole page of controversies about the news outlet.  They just listed them but did not editorialize on them.  They could have done the same with CNN or FOX, and maybe they do, but I didn't check.

One thing that actually sounded like points defending AJ's credibility is that Wiki noted that many US officials do not approve of it.  Also, Bill O'Reilly did not approve, so it's probably doing something right.  I don't know if the US Government has an official position on Qatar or what relationship it has with that country.

How much of AJs News is propaganda.  As much as ours?  More accurate or less?

All News is propaganda.  History books too.  They are all government lies!  Anarchism is the only way!! (sarc).

You love all anti-American echo chambers, right?  When will you convert to Islam, or move to China?

I watch RT ... not Al Jazeera ... because I am a loyal Soviet ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Sal1981

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2020, 10:43:41 AM »
I usually try to get several different perspectives, that includes Al Jazeera and RT, but I admit that I lean towards "authoritative" sources such as AP & Reuters for my news consumption.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2020, 11:01:19 AM »
A general health warning for our older folks.  Dementia and anger take over old men.  A friend of mine, has become so paranoid about the Media, that he now believes in the Flat Earth theory.  No joke!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Hydra009

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2020, 01:26:43 PM »
This is a subject that has weighed heavily on me.  I even started my own thread about it.

Generally, I sort news sources in 4 categories:

Trusted (gold standard for reporting) - AP, Reuters, NPR, relevant scientific agencies or publications (NASA, Nature, etc)

Mostly Trusted (generally decent, consider a second source) - Reputable foreign sources (BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, DW), Reputable US sources (ABC/NBC/CBS/USA Today)

Caution (definitely get a second source) - Not reputable foreign sources (Al Jazeera, Chinese state media, Russian state media), HuffPost, Bloomberg, Salon, Vox, Vice, Occupy Democrats, Mother Jones, US 24/7 cable news except for Fox News

Untrusted (Serious factual falsehoods, misleading headlines, tabloid sources, etc) - Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Infowars, Enquirer, Daily Mail, Gawker, New York Post, literally anything Trump says

And it goes without saying that random people on YouTube or social media or someone's blog are generally in the Caution or Untrusted section.  It really helps their credibility when they cite sources and/or have a decent track record, but even so, always take it with a grain of salt and always look up what they're talking about on an actual news site.  I've gotten burned a couple times that way, with misleading articles or doctored photos.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 01:30:34 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Hydra009

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2020, 01:51:22 PM »
Another thing I want to touch on is this idea that news should be "unbiased" or "neutral" in tone.  Generally, I'm skeptical that neutrality is desirable or even possible.

After all, neutrality is how Fox News wormed its way in - the're "Fair and Balanced".  But fair and balanced between what positions?  If I came out with a publication that was neutral in tone between white nationalism and the sort of pluralism long practiced in Western states (neutral between Hitler's views and FDR's views) would that really be honest or trustworthy reporting?  How about neutrality between a living wage and no minimum wage?  Etc.

Generally speaking, most people have an agenda - they have values and policies that they advocate for and ones that they advocate against - journalists are no exception.  As long as they're open and honest about it, I have zero problem with that.

Sometimes, these sorts of articles are dismissed as "propaganda" but propaganda actually just means trying to influence an audience towards one position or another.  It's an attempt to persuade.  It's only when journalists distort the truth - either by outright lying or by using misleading facts that there's a problem.  For example, if I said "the US used to be a major military power - but now it has no battleships" that would be misleading because battleships are no longer a major factor in determining military strength.

Also, accusations of "bias" arise when the publication is saying something that the reader disagrees with, rather than things that aren't true or are at least misleading.  It's an attempt to poison the well - attacking the source rather than the argument.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 01:56:16 PM by Hydra009 »

Offline Hydra009

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2020, 01:51:55 PM »
Relevant video on bias:


Offline Baruch

Re: AL JAZEERA
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2020, 02:48:20 PM »
This is a subject that has weighed heavily on me.  I even started my own thread about it.

Generally, I sort news sources in 4 categories:

Trusted (gold standard for reporting) - AP, Reuters, NPR, relevant scientific agencies or publications (NASA, Nature, etc)

Mostly Trusted (generally decent, consider a second source) - Reputable foreign sources (BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, DW), Reputable US sources (ABC/NBC/CBS/USA Today)

Caution (definitely get a second source) - Not reputable foreign sources (Al Jazeera, Chinese state media, Russian state media), HuffPost, Bloomberg, Salon, Vox, Vice, Occupy Democrats, Mother Jones, US 24/7 cable news except for Fox News

Untrusted (Serious factual falsehoods, misleading headlines, tabloid sources, etc) - Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Infowars, Enquirer, Daily Mail, Gawker, New York Post, literally anything Trump says

And it goes without saying that random people on YouTube or social media or someone's blog are generally in the Caution or Untrusted section.  It really helps their credibility when they cite sources and/or have a decent track record, but even so, always take it with a grain of salt and always look up what they're talking about on an actual news site.  I've gotten burned a couple times that way, with misleading articles or doctored photos.

All of these should be labeled based on the watcher, not the presenter.  The watcher needs one label ... gullible deplorable ;-)

Per the old town newspaper model, there should be Dem-TV and Rep-TV.  Any Dem or Rep watching the wrong news should be shot!

Viewers are biased, why not Media?  I only disagree with false advertising.  CNN = Chine News Network ;-)

As an anti-democrat ... I would ban free speech entirely.  Deplorables need to be told what to think, what to say, what to write.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 02:51:37 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.