Al Jazeera - Why are they unreliable?

Memnoch

I really would like to lay this topic to rest...

so for those who claim that al jazeera is worthy of the treatment that fox news gets... lets hear why? lets see some evidence to back your claims..

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

so lets hear it...

if you offer no arguement, then pls shut up about this in other topics kthx?

davej

This is the english language version website. This does not necessarily reflect what appears on the arabic website or on the tv station.

The footage on their tv channel is a lot more graphic, some might say inflammatory, than their western counterparts.

Also check this article out for the differences in reporting..

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=3811

davej

DadaKopf

Al Jazeera does attempt to present an unbiased 24-7 news service from an Arab perspective. That doesn't mean Muslim perspective. That also doesn't mean Arab governments have not fallen under the same criticism as the Israeli, Husseini or Western regimes.

Al Jazeera have consistently pissed all sides off in being as, I suppose, brutally honest from an Arab perspective.

And that's the bottom line. By its nature the media is selective in what it portrays and how it portrays it.

The fact that, as the article suggests, Al Jazeera reporters on the ground are more mobile and socially embedded that they present the receiving end of the war, and often that grates with the repugnantly sanitized version the general public gets over here. And this is worrying.

Memnoch

interesting articles...

however all they show is that Al jazeera really is honest in their reporting, yes they are more graphic, and the truth is that they dont' show the clean "sanitized" version of the war the western media display and i think for this they should be praised..

many westerners especially american's are deluded about the realities of this war, and this al jazeera presents in its fullest..

still i see nothing to compare it to fox news which is basically ruport murdoch's republican propaganda machine.

even the article you mentioned compare it with CNN and I would agree, that al jazeera honesty and reliability is at least matching that of CNN.

Fionnan

Enough about their reporting.

What way does Al-Jazeeras' editorial comment sway- from the Arabic language website.

Damn should have learned Arabic instead of German,
With the reunification of Germany it looked like German language speakers would be needed to help combat the inevitable expansion of the new Reich!

Tommy Vercetti

From the BBC link posted above:

"I have no doubt the new competition will be professional and technically sound," al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout said.

Dunno about anyone else but I wouldn't trust a man called Jihad Ballout

Memnoch

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
From the BBC link posted above:



Dunno about anyone else but I wouldn't trust a man called Jihad Ballout

i don't think fox news would be so gracious if an arab backed "propaganda" station was starting up on the states would it?

its just his name,
ppls parents give them all kinds of names, thats hardly a reason to claim the channel is not trusthworthy

Victor

This piece (though far from perfect and not directly relevant) might help people understand part of the psyche involved.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue1/jv4n1a2.html

[edit]Forgot to add link, duh! Damn sleep deprivation[/edit]

Memnoch

so there has yet to be anyone claiming that Al Jazeera are indeed unreliable as a news agency, nor has anyone presented any evidence for this...

So I assume if no one raises any objections in the next 24 hours we can safely conclude that al jazeera IS a reliable news agency and put this matter finally to rest??

edit : Victory btw, what has that article got to do with Al jazeera?

Hobbes

To my knowledge they are given lots of money to stay in business on the condition they are hands off on thier reporting.

This annoys alot of certain portions of the Arab world but on the other hand it makes them quite possibly the most impartial news station in the middle east.

Also during the Iraq war they were getting more *Correct* information then most western papers and refuted a lot of stories that western papers put out.

btw the original poster linked to thier site. Why? Was it to prove a point? If so I don't see it on the page.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
So I assume if no one raises any objections in the next 24 hours we can safely conclude that al jazeera IS a reliable news agency and put this matter finally to rest??

There are very few remaining people who claim that al jazeera is not reliable in terms of honesty. The general complaint is that it is not without bias, and that the bias it has is clearly anti-America.

Al Jazeera, and their ilk, however, say that they are not anti-America, but rather are giving news in an Arabic context. In other words...they are somewhat pro-Arab, in the same way that it would be fair to say that most US-based media (at least) are pro-US, and at a more general level, western-culture media is "pro-western-culture" (yes, I know "western culture" isn't the most accurate of terms...but I'm sure most people know what I'm driving at).

What has happened, however, is that "pro-Arab" has been construed to be almost as dirty a term as - and often synonymous with - "anti-American".

Meanwhile "pro-American" apparently remains a perfectly reasonable stance to hold and to admit to holding and in no way should ever be construed as "anti-Arab".

Thus, it ends up whereby many people of the Western Culture classification end up seeing Al Jazeera and their likes as "anti" whatever these people believe in, which makes it inherently untrustworthy.

I mean...do you (Memnoch) believe the US government when it says something technically true, but which is misleading because of careful omissions, choice of words, etc?

I'd be very surprised, incidentally, if the reverse of this situation did not exsit in the arab world - that there are news stations accepted by most people of "Western Culture" as being relatively trustworthy, which are in turn viewed as being untrustworthy by many Arabs...again, not because of the actual truth of the articles, but rather because of the tone. Because of the bias.

The biggest problem comes from the langauge barrier. Relative few people on groups like this tend to speak or read Arabic. So all we get to see is the "westernised" news from these stations. Thus, we have no direct benchmarks from which to judge the bias or accuracy contained within Arabic articles....all we can do is take opinions of this from other media.

Personally, I believe that Al Jazeera are less biased and more reliable than most, which is about as good as any media can get. Of course there's bias...but bias typically only becomes a problem for Joe Bloggs when he disagrees with it (in my experience). And because enough JB's in enough high placves disagree with the Al Jazeera bias, they want to discredit it lest anyone actually start seeing beyond the bias and into the actual information.

jc

Memnoch

bonkey,
i would broadly agree with most of the points in your post..

however i think its unfair to compare al jazeera to the US administrations statements..

i'd say a more fare comparison is to CNN. CNN too are somewhat biased, and all their stories have a "support our troops" slant to them.

All media is biased to some extent, however, the question of how trusthworthy they are is a more important one..

fox news is really the classic example. They go far beyond this traditional bias, to the point where they are actively engaging in propaganda. They have no interest in reporting the news, but only in spreading "their version" of events.

One can hardly say the same for Al Jazeera, who as I've said I would feel are more parallel to CNN.

I agree that people often try to discredit it simply because they percieve it as being "anti" their views.

Hopefully though after this discussion ppl can stop making baseless claims against al jazeera everytime a quote or article from them is used in an arguement..
i'm sick of ppl dismissing al jazeera, who are as good as CNN imo.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch

Hopefully though after this discussion ppl can stop making baseless claims against al jazeera everytime a quote or article from them is used in an arguement..
i'm sick of ppl dismissing al jazeera, who are as good as CNN imo.

Can I assume then that as you agree with Bonkey and as you state yourself it is less biased or as good as you can get in terms of it's level of bias?
Therefore you will accept the opinions of those that take it's slant with as much a pinch of salt to suit their point of view as you would theirs using a western source, unless of course either is found to be lies?

It's not without it's blotches, I've asked jeeves for ya

And he pulled up an article from keral monitor which gives a few examples of specific Al jazeera bias when comparing it to others.

The article is quite good actually and underlines the notion that a news source can be as good as you want it to be depending on your point of view.

Deeper questions have been asked about Al-Jazeera's alleged anti-American editorial bias, the supposed pro-Taliban leanings of its Kabul correspondent Tayseer Allouni, and its apparent failure to air footage that shows the Taliban in a negative light. Critics have accused the channel of acting as a mouthpiece for Osama bin Laden by broadcasting his taped messages. Western media have even questioned whether Allouni had held on to Bin Laden's first videotaped message after the September 11 attacks until after U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began—something Al-Jazeera and Allouni have denied.
A New York Times editorial recently criticized Al-Jazeera for reporting that Jews had been informed in advance of September 11 not to go to work at the World Trade Center. (An official at the station told CPJ that a talk show host cited the charge, which had previously appeared in a Jordanian newspaper, and asked his guests what they thought about the report.) More recently, the channel has been criticized for using the term "martyr" in newscasts to describe Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed Israeli civilians. But Al-Jazeera contends that they use the term for all Palestinians who die fighting a "cause," not just suicide bombers.
With tensions already high in the Middle East and anti-American sentiment growing, some say such programming only worsens the atmosphere. "This isn't playing with fire, this is using a flamethrower in terms of the potential impact on the governments in the Islamic world," James Morris of the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter in Britain was quoted as saying recently in the Christian Science Monitor. "This is Osama bin Laden's loudspeaker."

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Can I assume then that as you agree with Bonkey and as you state yourself it is less biased or as good as you can get in terms of it's level of bias?
Therefore you will accept the opinions of those that take it's slant with as much a pinch of salt to suit their point of view as you would theirs using a western source, unless of course either is found to be lies?

It's not without it's blotches, I've asked jeeves for ya

And he pulled up an article from keral monitor which gives a few examples of specific Al jazeera bias when comparing it to others.

The article is quite good actually and underlines the notion that a news source can be as good as you want it to be depending on your point of view.

I agree to take it with as much bias as I would take CNN.

One man's terrorist is another mans martyr, its all about point of view,
just because al-jazeera doesn't conform to the prescribed "western" point of view does not make them any less trusthworthy than CNN.

and similarly as western media claim that al jazeera has been a mouth piece for "osama" i would say that western media constantly act as a mouth piece for the bush administration, whom I would certainly consider to be worse if not as bad as the taliban...

For example as far as bias goes, CNN criticised al jazeera for focussing on civilian deaths in iraq rather than the "bigger story". What kind of hypocritical rubbish is that?

Whats a bigger story than the death of civilians in iraq? Oh wait.. the death of US troops as CNN carefully catelogues every single one with a front page headline story on their website....

so you see, bias swings both ways.. me personally..

i check CNN, BBC and Al jazeera equally, and rely on them equally for my source of news......

davej

Originally posted by Memnoch

so for those who claim that al jazeera is worthy of the treatment that fox news gets... lets hear why? lets see some evidence to back your claims..

Just out of interest, can you point me to the thread(s) where people have claimed that al jazeera is no better than fox news?

davej

Hobbes

Nothing wrong with Fox news. It is only second to the Daily show in its comedic value. Although at least the Daily show knows it is satire.

Although you can get a good handle on where people are coming from by reading it.

Superman

Yeah my dad watch al-jazeera and arabic is his mother tongue and now and again i get him to translate stuff for me and fill me in on what their talkin about. It s not really biased as much as news from an arab perspective. It tries to back itself up with facts and seems to manage to get a good fe NGO's talking about trouble spots arround the world.
It can have some biased advertising for shows but their content seems to be good. and they do make an honest effort at reporting stories not on other channels.

I think I will give it the the award for "best of a bad lot".
Libyan TV is pretty funny! some times it won't broadcast in colour as a "protest to the Western powers!"(they said it not me)


BTW did you know that the theme tune for the BBC world service on the radio , is the same song William of orange had played while crossing the Boyne (I know that for a fact) , Biased or what

Memnoch

Originally posted by davej
Just out of interest, can you point me to the thread(s) where people have claimed that al jazeera is no better than fox news?

davej

vorbis has numerous times dismissed al jazeera,
so have others in the past...

its the reason this thread was created due to similar comments being made by vorbis,
a few others have done so in the past as well.

i cba going throguh all the previous posts to find the relevant quotes,
but it was generally on the lines of..

"Al jazeera. hahahaha thanks for the laugh"

Hobbes

Originally posted by Rock Climber

It's not without it's blotches, I've asked jeeves for ya

And he pulled up an article from keral monitor which gives a few examples of specific Al jazeera bias when comparing it to others.

It is a good read. It points out that numerous Arab countries have tried to censor AJ because it doesn't portray them always in a good light, and US too want it censored for the same reason.

Getting the point across
Critics of the administration's policy have advised the United States to respond to Al-Jazeera in the same way it would respond to critics at home—by getting out its own message instead of trying to censor the channel. In fact, Al-Jazeera has complained that U.S. officials have been unavailable to present their side of the story to viewers. Hafez al-Mirazi, Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief, points out that while he secured an interview with Colin Powell shortly after the September 11 attacks, U.S. officials did not show a keen interest afterward in making further appearances.

vorbis

al jazeera has some merits but for me its got as much spin as fox news. For all the dissing Fox News gets, it still reports most news stories. The claims of it being bull**** stem from very biased opinion shows. However Al Jazeera is also known to hold very similar shows which lambaste everything to do with America. In similar way to a paper, its the quotes you highlight which show your opinions.
the link below to a special feature is a clear indicator of bias.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8B6EB4AA-E7C3-49AC-9F3E-A70603635511.htm

Indeed whats the difference between Fox claiming iraqis killed are insurgents and al jazeera saying palestinian suicide bombers are martyrs?

Hobbes

Originally posted by vorbis
For all the dissing Fox News gets, it still reports most news stories. The claims of it being bull**** stem from very biased opinion shows.

Hardly. Fox release crap for the most part, and have done for some time.

If you did a little research you would find that Fox News actually fired two reporters after they told the public that Fox had rewritten a story (translation: lied to the public) about a story they had investigated.

http://foxbghsuit.com/

There is a slight line between bias and out right fiction reporting.

davej

Just check out Bill O'Reilly on the ironically named "No Spin Zone".

Here's just one example (transcript), where he is apparently discussing the tortured Iraqis scandal, but he somehow manages to blame it all on France! He spends 5 seconds on the issue and then generates a smokescreen for his hapless viewers. Talk about dodging the issue.

More Fallout from the Iraqi Torture Scandal

I love this guy!

davej

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
al jazeera has some merits but for me its got as much spin as fox news. For all the dissing Fox News gets, it still reports most news stories. The claims of it being bull**** stem from very biased opinion shows. However Al Jazeera is also known to hold very similar shows which lambaste everything to do with America. In similar way to a paper, its the quotes you highlight which show your opinions.
the link below to a special feature is a clear indicator of bias.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8B6EB4AA-E7C3-49AC-9F3E-A70603635511.htm

Indeed whats the difference between Fox claiming iraqis killed are insurgents and al jazeera saying palestinian suicide bombers are martyrs?

ah vorbis ... you do watch fox news, an avid fan too I see...

actually most of the muslim world would consider palestinian suicide bombers martyrs, and that is their opinion which they are entitled too.

but this has been much discussed already, just as CNN have a pro-US slant, al jazeera has a pro-muslim slant... nothing surprising there, that however does not make them the same as fox news.

but as of yet, i haven't seen a single fabrication by al jazeera, all their news reports are accurate and honest. as much as the news reported by CNN is accurate and honest..

fox news however have no problems twisting the truth and throwing smokescreens to fool their viewers into ignorance...

a good example is how a recent study showed that the majority of fox news viewers were misinformed of 3 basic facts of the iraq war.

as for martyrs, well I don't agree with targetting civilians, but its been said before, war is the terrorism of the rich and terrorism is the war of the poor.

the simple fact that more palestinian civilians have been killed by israeli's than vice versa shows that the israeli's are no better. by the way...

from www.dictionary.com

mar·tyr

One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

so now tell me, how are the palestinians NOT martyrs by these definitions?

i'd say the suicide bombers meet pretty much every single definition there, wouldn't you?

Superman

i agree with you Memnoch, but watch out these up standing citizens on boards. will give you hell if you say suiciode bombings are ok.

vorbis

physically impossible for me to watch fox news memnoch.

fox news however have no problems twisting the truth and throwing smokescreens to fool their viewers into ignorance...

a good example is how a recent study showed that the majority of fox news viewers were misinformed of 3 basic facts of the iraq war.

are you going to tell me that there aren't muslims mis-informed in the muslim world. Still though, fox news is hardly the only thing shaping that opinion.

davej, that article is what I mean by biased opinion articles. By contrast the news on the front page is somewhat objective.

Hobbes, that article is interesting, but Al Jazeera have also been accused to being "lax" on reporting details to do with the Quatari government.

mar·tyr

One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

1. religous principles??? since when has the Palestinian situation been about Palestinians being persecuted for being muslim??

2. possibly true. Quite easy to argue though that they're not furthering their cause. i.e. that of a Palestinian Homeland.

3. great suffering?? for most of them death is pretty much instantaneous. Wheres the great suffering??

4 In most normal people, suicide bombong civilian targets should arouse disgust not sympathy.

Fionnan

Aljazeera saying 850,000 people fled Palestine in 1948, UN says abt 600,00 Israel 400,00. Which figure is the most accurate? I go with the UN figure. No mention of the Palestinian that fled to Kuwait, collaborated with the Iraqis in Gulf War 1 and have been quietely moved from Kuwait. I think abt 100,000 lived their before Gulf War 1.

". It was held by the Egyptians in the face of the seventh Crusade until the 15th century, when it passed in to the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Also 15th century Jerusalem was ruled by the Mameluks(Nth Africa), while the Turks got it peacefully in the next century

"The same year, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour signalled the British Government's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine to wealthy and influential Zionist Lord Rothschild." Rotchsild's settlement(s) stayed seperate from the general Zionist movement. Balfour declaration was signed partially to reward Jewish support during WW1, eg : Jewish legion in British army. It was negotiated with i think Chaim Weizmann the head of the Zionist movement and not with Rotchsild banker.

Al Jazeera can spin too, just like fox, shock horror.

Still agree they should keep going, its always good to get all opinions and arguments and eye -witness accounts before making decisions. They are entitled to pulbish anything the want provided it doesn't directly incite violence or murder.