Al Jazeera

PDN

This is more of an issue that is related to the Islamic world rather than to Islam itself, so mods please feel free to delete if it's out of order.

My daughter and I were channel surfing the other night and ended up watching Al Jazeera. There was a tremendously moving and sympathetic documentary about an orthodox Jewish kid with Downs Syndrome who was preparing for his bar mitzvah. It included scenes of him answering questions about the Torah and also weeping beside his mother's grave.

It occurred to me that this kind of programming would go a long way to diffusing stereotypes and hatred in the Middle East (without, of course, preventing people from discussing actual issues and airing legitimate grievances). Does anyone know if Al Jazeera airs such stuff in the Middle East, or are these kinds of shows purely produced for western consumption?

No axe to grind here - just a genuine question.

Manic Moran

I've found AJ to be one of those odd ducks. Sortof the Arab version of Fox News.

As a news organisation, it's actually pretty good. It reports quickly, generally accurately, and often with stories that are not picked up by the other mainstream media organisations that we are familiar with. It's certainly not the rabid anti-American pro-Jihad station that a lot of people make it out to be.

On the other hand, I have found it to editorialise or be a little selective about many of the stories it shows. It does have a bias, but only to the extent that it services its primary audience. As long as you bear this in mind, it's quite a legitimate station which should be taken seriously. I believe it does show such programming in the Mid-East.

[ETA: I also believe that it doesn't make much difference. Showing that jews are human too isn't going to affect the rivalry very much. though they're People of the Book, the hotheads that make an issue of the difference of religion aren't going to be swayed very much by TV programming]

NTM

TrishMol

I traveled throughout Thailand last year for 3 months and got hooked on watching Al Jazeera. It is a very good network that gets to the real issues at hand. They also have a YouTube channel with lot's of moving videos, if you wanna check it out just type 'Al Jazeera' into the YT search engine.

Jaafa

I find Al Jazeera's english channel to be the most fair interpretation of the news there is.

Sefirah

Al-Jazeera is without a doubt the most heavily biased and disturbingly twisted sources of news there is

Jaafa

Wow don't think you could have a more opposite pair of posts there.

Sefirah

Well, I'm sure a person would like Al Jazeera if it was telling them a version of the story that they wanted to hear, but they're just fooling themselves if they think it's an accurate portrayal of the events being broadcast

Minstrel27

Sefirah wrote: »

Well, I'm sure a person would like Al Jazeera if it was telling them a version of the story that they wanted to hear, but they're just fooling themselves if they think it's an accurate portrayal of the events being broadcast

Curiosity makes me ask which news channels would you think are the best?

Jaafa

Could you give an example please? The majority of there reporting it seems to me is done by reporters who are on the ground at the very site of events.

And I dont mean a bomb blast occurs in Baghdad and some reporter reports it from 10 blocks away. I mean they are in amongst the blood and body's and often in the middle of the battle.

Sefirah

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Curiosity makes me ask which news channels would you think are the best?

Hell, anything else would be better

Jaafa wrote: »

Could you give an example please? The majority of there reporting it seems to me is done by reporters who are on the ground at the very site of events.

And I dont mean a bomb blast occurs in Baghdad and some reporter reports it from 10 blocks away. I mean they are in amongst the blood and body's and often in the middle of the battle.

It's not a matter of being IN the events, it's a matter of using selective material to further their own cause. If you look through their programmes, they spend the whole time focusing on the 'woes' of the Arabs and Muslims due to the evil Americans and evil Israelis-- in their 'Review Articles', one article, entitled "Latest of US lies: Iraqis killing Iraqis", claimed that the sectarian violence occurring in Iraq is supported by CIA and Mossad agents: "It was the U.S.’s “debaathification” of Iraq that eventually let [sic] to the current death squads, supported by the U.S. and the Mossad agents." ???? wtf like!
On On 15 July 2009, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank closed down Al Jazeera's offices in the territory, in response to claims made on the channel by Farouk Kaddoumi that PA President, Abbas, had been involved in the death of Yassar Arafat. In a statement announcing the decision, the information ministry said the station's coverage was "unbalanced" and accused it of incitement against the PLO and the PA.
On 19 July 2008, Al Jazeera TV broadcast a program from Lebanon that covered the "welcome-home" festivities for Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese militant who had been imprisoned in Israel for murdering several people in a Palestinian Liberation Front raid from Lebanon into Israel. In the program, the head of Al Jazeera's Beirut office, Ghassan bin Jiddo, praised Kuntar as a "pan-Arab hero" and organized a birthday party for him. In response, Israel's Government Press Office (GPO) threatened to boycott the satellite channel unless it apologized. A few days later an official letter was issued by Al Jazeera's director general, Wadah Khanfar, in which he admitted that the program violated the station's Code of Ethics.
Al Jazeera has been criticized for failing to report on many hard hitting news stories that originate from Qater, where Al Jazeera is based. The two most frequently cited stories were the revoking of citizenship from the Al Ghafran clan of the Al Murrah tribe in response to a failed coup that members of the Al Ghafran clan were implicated in, and Qatar's growing relations with and diplomatic visits to Israel.
Al Jazeera has been criticized by numerous Egyptian newspapers and other forms of media for its continuous attacks against Egypt and its government to "destroy Egypt’s image in the region" as they claim.
Reporter Tayseer Allouni was arrested in Spain on 5 September 2003, on a charge of having provided support for members of al-Qaeda. Allouni was sentenced on 26 September 2005 to seven years in prison for being a financial courier for al-Qaeda. Al Jazeera has continuously supported Allouni and maintain that he is innocent.
On July 5, 2008 Al-Jazeera TV caused controversy by dedicating an Arabic-language program to Dalal Mughrabi. In the program, the host allegedly "glorified" the Coastal Road incident in which al-Maghrabi and eleven other fighters allegedly killed a total of 36 Israelis, and declared that "Heroism transcends the gender divide", referring to Dalal al-Maghrabi
Al Jazeera first gained widespread attention in the West following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it broadcast videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith defended and justified the attacks. This led to significant controversy and accusations by the United States government that Al Jazeera was engaging in propaganda on behalf of terrorists.

Minstrel27

Sefirah wrote: »

Hell, anything else would be better

If you aren't going to answer my question properly then please don't bother with an answer like that.

Sefirah

Minstrel27 wrote: »

If you aren't going to answer my question properly then please don't bother with an answer like that.

Unless you want me to list every other news broadcasting company outside of the Muslim world, probably best that you take what you get

Jaafa

Now hang on a second, before I reply to your comment tell me are you referring to the arabic language version or the english one?

Sefirah

I'm talking about both- they're both as screwed as eachother, so feel free to leave your 2 cents on either one

Jaafa

it's a matter of using selective material to further their own cause

So your saying they are biased? What is your definition of biased? Not reporting both sides of the story right? So instead of one piece of propaganda you get two that way yeah?

Every single news channel, newspaper and person has an OPINION and therefore can not be unbiased.

They have no 'agenda' nor any 'cause'.They have a point of view.

It perhaps seems 'shocking' to you because you are used to the relatively safe and sheltered reporting you get here in the west. Where many news agency's report the same thing in the same way and rarely ask the hard questions. Thus not really a displaying a 'point of view'.

If it doesn't suit you then I would ask how you come to know so much about them?

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

So your saying they are biased? What is your definition of biased? Not reporting both sides of the story right? So instead of one piece of propaganda you get two that way yeah?

So you're basically telling me that Al Jazeera is in the right to spew their propaganda because adding a different point of view just worsens the situation? Dear oh dear, what a tragic mindset. The media (actually, lets say, the REPUTABLE media that isn't tainted by such skewed ideologies as Al Jazeera is) has a duty to present the facts as they are, without allowing their own personal feelings on the issue or the background of the reporters (largely Muslim) to impact on the content of what is produced. Al Jazeera has been consistantly accused of being anti-Israel and anti-American, which really raises the question as to whether they are able to cover stories in a way that is impartial at all.

Jaafa wrote: »

Every single news channel, newspaper and person has an OPINION and therefore can not be unbiased.

An opinion is not a bad thing, so long as they present the opinion of the opposing side in a fair manner

Jaafa wrote: »

They have no 'agenda' nor any 'cause'.They have a point of view.

No agenda!? Yeah, the Al Jazeera (largely Arab Muslim) channel consistantly spews out documentaries on the evilness of Israel, America's "war campaigns", always portrays Muslims as the innocent victims and is known to give a voice to terrorists, such as the airing of the terrorists' videos in response to 9/11 trying to justify what they did- how can you say they don't have an agenda?!

Jaafa wrote: »

It perhaps seems 'shocking' to you because you are used to the relatively safe and sheltered reporting you get here in the west.

If safe and sheltered translates as fair and impartial, then thank god for the western media to 'shelter' me from the kind of brainwashing obvious on Al Jazeera

Jaafa wrote: »

Where many news agency's report the same thing in the same way and rarely ask the hard questions. Thus not really a displaying a 'point of view'.

You can bet that if there's a story to be investigated, news stations such as RTE will spare nothing in asking all the hard questions. Al Jazeera don't ask hard questions- they criticise those who disagree with them, give little time to WHY they disagree with them, and hardly ever provide a different perspective

Jaafa wrote: »

If it doesn't suit you then I would ask how you come to know so much about them?

Because I have an interest in Middle Eastern affairs for my own reasons

Gone West

Yes, I´m in the middle east with work at the moment.
I watch AJ most evenings for a while.

Sefirah

When I watch Al Jazeera, it’s like a cross between a fascination with how disturbed these people are to think this is actual ‘news’ and also to see how they twist events or completely bypass ‘unfavourable’ news for their own benefit.

Jaafa

Sefirah wrote: »

So you're basically telling me that Al Jazeera is in the right to spew their propaganda because adding a different point of view just worsens the situation? Dear oh dear, what a tragic mindset.

I didn't say they don't get both sides of the story I'm just saying thats what you generally get when you.

For example they may interview an Israeli spokesperson who says, 'we bomb Gaza because they launch rockets at us'.
Then they may interview a Hamas official and he'll say ' We fire rockets at Israel because they bomb us.'
You've got both sides of the story there but it really doesn't help anyone.

No agenda!? Yeah, the Al Jazeera (largely Arab Muslim) channel consistantly spews out documentaries on the evilness of Israel, America's "war campaigns",]

I take it you mean the documentary's about Isreals war latest war on Gaza? Which killed roughly 800 civilians in about a month?
Or Americas wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Which despite what you may think are indeed 'war campaigns'

and is known to give a voice to terrorists, such as the airing of the terrorists' videos in response to 9/11 trying to justify what they did- how can you say they don't have an agenda?!

Well I thought you were in favor of telling both sides of the story? Yes they did air those videos, but thats all they did. They aired them....they did not condone what was said or done.

Why shouldn't they allow 'terrorists' to ATTEMPT to justify the killing of civilians? Have you never seen American/Israeli commanders attempt to do the same thing?

they criticise those who disagree with them, give little time to WHY they disagree with them, and hardly ever provide a different perspective

I see Americans,British,European,Israeli etc on AJ as much as I see Arabs,South Americans or Africans. They are all given they same amount of time. Just watch an episode of 'Inside Story' and time how much each speaker talks. At most there will be 2 mins difference.

Just to note....I only watch the English version and I do not condone the killing of civilians by any side.

T-Square

Sefirah wrote: »

Al-Jazeera is without a doubt the most heavily biased and disturbingly twisted sources of news there is

Interesting post which would have gotten full marks if supported with an example or three.

Sefirah

T-Square wrote: »

Interesting post which would have gotten full marks if supported with an example or three.

I gave a whole list of examples in my earlier post- well over 3!

Jaafa wrote: »

I didn't say they don't get both sides of the story I'm just saying thats what you generally get when you.

For example they may interview an Israeli spokesperson who says, 'we bomb Gaza because they launch rockets at us'.
Then they may interview a Hamas official and he'll say ' We fire rockets at Israel because they bomb us.'
You've got both sides of the story there but it really doesn't help anyone.

That's completely ridiculous, and to be honest, I'm embarrassed to even have to explain why this is ridiculous to a fully grown adult. Because the fact is, you are trying to tell me that since giving both sides of the story doesn't magically solve the conflict, it's best to give one biased view while completely ignoring the other side's arguement. Imagine going into a court case and saying "Well, I don't think we're going to solve this problem by hearing the accused's statement, therefore screw it, we'll just listen to the victim's statement and condemn the accused anyway". Giving both sides of the story mightn't automatically solve the conflict, but the world isn't that simplistic and black and white- people need to hear both sides for themselves if they're ever to have their own objective view on the situation.

Jaafa wrote: »

I take it you mean the documentary's about Isreals war latest war on Gaza? Which killed roughly 800 civilians in about a month?
Or Americas wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Which despite what you may think are indeed 'war campaigns'

Once again, extreme over simplification of a very complex situation- wow, are you sure you're not working for Al Jazeera? Because you sure do have their tactics down. I love how you leave out key parts here, like the 'war' (ie operation) in Gaza, which was a response to 8 years of incessant rocket fire from Gaza by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians, in which Hamas employed such tactics as using their own people as human shields and building their hideouts under hospitals and among densely populated civilian areas- of course, Al Jazeera never told you that, did they? This is why it's so important to get an UNBIASED source, and not listen to Al Jazeera nonsensical drivel

Jaafa wrote: »

Well I thought you were in favor of telling both sides of the story? Yes they did air those videos, but thats all they did. They aired them....they did not condone what was said or done.

They aired videos of terrorists condoning the 9/11 attacks which murdered thousands of people! What use was that other than to spread extremist hate? It had no educational purpose- we know these people are lunatics, so why afford airtime to them as they try to justify a terrorist attack?

Jaafa wrote: »

Why shouldn't they allow 'terrorists' to ATTEMPT to justify the killing of civilians? Have you never seen American/Israeli commanders attempt to do the same thing? .

Knew you'd say this- the fact is, when a terrorist 'justifies' their terrorist activity, it is something along the lines of 'Allah bla bla bla'- there's no real REASON- and the fact is, terrorists went out there with the sole purpose of murdering thousands of innocent civilians, whereas Israel had a very solid reason for trying to eliminate the terrorist presence in Gaza- it was either that, or allow their own people to sit there are get their ass bombed for the 9th year running. The IDF tried its best to lessen the inevitable casualities in such a densely populated area, but Hamas' tactics of human shields and hiding among their people made this extremely difficult. American and Israeli commanders differ from these terrorists because they do not go out with the motivation to kill as many innocents as possible, it's a matter of stabilising a situation which may prove challenging where loss of life is an inevitable reprocussion, but not a goal, of the operation.

Jaafa wrote: »

I see Americans,British,European,Israeli etc on AJ as much as I see Arabs,South Americans or Africans. They are all given they same amount of time. Just watch an episode of 'Inside Story' and time how much each speaker talks. At most there will be 2 mins difference..

They are all given time to talk, but I ask you next time you watch Al Jazeera to look exactly as WHICH Israelis, British, American etc they selectively choose to interview, the questions asked, and the general motivation of the piece-- it is not fair, and their agenda is clear

Jaafa wrote: »

Just to note....I only watch the English version and I do not condone the killing of civilians by any side.

I'm sure you don't, but Al Jazeera's loyalty to Muslims and Arab despite who exactly is in the wrong means that their moral compass can be very skewed indeed

Jaafa

Sefirah wrote: »

That's completely ridiculous, and to be honest, I'm embarrassed to even have to explain why this is ridiculous to a fully grown adult. Because the fact is, you are trying to tell me that since giving both sides of the story doesn't magically solve the conflict, it's best to give one biased view while completely ignoring the other side's arguement. Imagine going into a court case and saying "Well, I don't think we're going to solve this problem by hearing the accused's statement, therefore screw it, we'll just listen to the victim's statement and condemn the accused anyway". Giving both sides of the story mightn't automatically solve the conflict, but the world isn't that simplistic and black and white- people need to hear both sides for themselves if they're ever to have their own objective view on the situation.

I am only going to clarify this point as I believe the rest of the points we differ on are a matter of opinion and your word against mine and cant be resolved on this forum. Because lets face it neither of us is going the change the others mind on this topic.

Now to your point...I dont think I made my self clear there and perhaps that is my fault.

I do think AJ gives both sides of the story and I do think that is an important thing to do for any news channel .
What I mean is despite that, it does little good unless you delve deeper into the story and find real meaning behind the smoke and mirrors of politics.

That is all I have left to say. Oh and don't assume I am a fully grown adult.

Sefirah

True, this thread's gotta end sometime... that said, I don't think any of my points were addressed, especially given the amount of time it took to write the bleeping things...!

I just find your whole argument mind boggling... you just said that it's a waste to bother getting 2 points of view in one post:

Jaafa wrote: »

You've got both sides of the story there but it really doesn't help anyone.

and in the very next post you stress how important it is to have 2 sides to the story

Jaafa wrote: »

I do think AJ gives both sides of the story and I do think that is an important thing to do for any news channel

It's clear that you mean well, but you're just terribly misinformed

Jaafa

Well in fairness you've taken my first quote out of context. What I said there was meant only in that specific instance.

Minstrel27

Sefirah, you must be a huge fan of the right wing nut jobs on FOX News

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

Well in fairness you've taken my first quote out of context. What I said there was meant only in that specific instance.

No I didn't- you presented it as an example of your overall point that apparently showing 2 sides of the story doesn't 'work'

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Sefirah, you must be a huge fan of the right wing nut jobs on FOX News

No, I'm not extreme in that regard- it isn't a case of Al Jazeera V FOX, so don't try putting words in my mouth

jill_valentine

I'd be interested to hear if there are any other negative opinions about Al Jazeera, regarding bias?

I mean, I don't hear many, beyond the usual gripes about slightly selective reporting or whatver, and it's generally from the usual quarters you hear that.

demonspawn

Sefirah wrote: »

You can bet that if there's a story to be investigated, news stations such as RTE will spare nothing in asking all the hard questions. Al Jazeera don't ask hard questions- they criticise those who disagree with them, give little time to WHY they disagree with them, and hardly ever provide a different perspective

I laughed so hard when I saw this comment I almost messed my trousers. If this is what you honestly think then I can't really take anything you say very seriously.

I watch Al Jazeera, BBC News, Channel 4 News, and sometimes Russia Today on Youtube just to see if they're reporting any different stories, which they usually are. I do my best to avoid watching U.S. news but I'll read a paper if it's around.

Al Jazeera report on most mainstream news stories, the usual stories that pertain the the Middle East in particular, and they also have some very good editorial pieces and interviews. All in all it's not a bad source of info, no worse than any of the other mainstream news agencies.

I've never witnessed any bias in the way in which they report their stories (unlike Faux News), but obviously they report the stories they feel they need to according to what their viewers want to see, just like every other mainstream agency.

8/10

jill_valentine

Do you watch Al Jazeera much Sefira?

Sefirah

Other than for comedic purposes, you mean?

demonspawn wrote: »

Al Jazeera report on most mainstream news stories, the usual stories that pertain the the Middle East in particular, and they also have some very good editorial pieces and interviews. All in all it's not a bad source of info, no worse than any of the other mainstream news agencies.

I've never witnessed any bias in the way in which they report their stories (unlike Faux News), but obviously they report the stories they feel they need to according to what their viewers want to see, just like every other mainstream agency.

8/10

Never witnessed any bias in the way they report?! Gee whiz, you sure we're talking about the same station? Perhaps you might want to refer back to my previous post and see the reems of bias they have been associated with

irishconvert

I think Al Jazeera are fair enough in their reporting. For example when I look at BBC's reporting of certain issues to get one biased side of the spectrum, then Press TV to get the other biased side, I find that Al Jazeera comes middle of the road.

In any case I think it is best to rely on various news sources to try to get all sides and then make up your own mind. Relying on one channel, whatever that is, is not a good idea as there is always going to be some bias.

Minstrel27

Sefirah wrote: »

so don't try putting words in my mouth

As you refused to answer my original question properly, someone has to.

For someone who dislikes Al Jazeera so much you seem to be watching enough of it (English and Arabic versions) to hold such strong opinions. You aren't of course allowing your friends at FOX News to influence your thinking and opinions of Al Jazeera, are you?

Sefirah

Hello- I've never watched Fox a day in my life, so I don't know where exactly that's coming from.

Just watched Al Jazeera for half an hour- and the same old BS as usual- they brought on a Palestinian and an Israeli to talk about the peace talks, most of the time was dedicated to the Palestinian rattling on, and when the Israeli finally got his chance to speak, he was unable to talk over the Palestinian's constant interjections and was cut off after a few moments and before he could fully articulate his point, because of apparent 'time constraints'. Total waste of air time.

demonspawn

Sefirah wrote: »

Other than for comedic purposes, you mean?



Never witnessed any bias in the way they report?! Gee whiz, you sure we're talking about the same station? Perhaps you might want to refer back to my previous post and see the reems of bias they have been associated with

Yes, I read the examples you provided. It seems to me that Al Jazeera report on naughty Muslims just as much as they report on naughty Christians, Jews, or anyone else. Your example of Al Jazeera being threatened by various Muslim groups or countries seems to explain that pretty well, don't you think?

On On 15 July 2009, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank closed down Al Jazeera's offices in the territory, in response to claims made on the channel by Farouk Kaddoumi that PA President, Abbas, had been involved in the death of Yassar Arafat.

The two most frequently cited stories were the revoking of citizenship from the Al Ghafran clan of the Al Murrah tribe in response to a failed coup that members of the Al Ghafran clan were implicated in, and Qatar's growing relations with and diplomatic visits to Israel.

Al Jazeera has been criticized by numerous Egyptian newspapers and other forms of media for its continuous attacks against Egypt and its government to "destroy Egypt’s image in the region" as they claim.

And for the love of all that is good, one font size is sufficient.

Minstrel27

Sefirah wrote: »

Hello- I've never watched Fox a day in my life, so I don't know where exactly that's coming from.

How can you then say that Al Jazeera is the worst news network on the planet.

Out of curiosity, how much of Al Jazeeras English and Arabic output do you watch?

demonspawn

Sefirah wrote: »

Hello- I've never watched Fox a day in my life, so I don't know where exactly that's coming from.

Minstrel27 wrote: »

How can you then say that Al Jazeera is the worst news network on the planet.

+1

If you've never watched F**k's News, then you really are missing out on the worst journalism has to offer. It's truly the most offensive, insulting rubbish I've seen on a television screen....ever.

Sefirah

Minstrel27 wrote: »

How can you then say that Al Jazeera is the worst news network on the planet.

Out of curiosity, how much of Al Jazeeras English and Arabic output do you watch?

demonspawn wrote: »

Yes, I read the examples you provided. It seems to me that Al Jazeera report on naughty Muslims just as much as they report on naughty Christians, Jews, or anyone else. Your example of Al Jazeera being threatened by various Muslim groups or countries seems to explain that pretty well, don't you think?

Al Jazeera is only 'naughty' towards Muslim countries which it feels are 'co-operating too much' with, as they seem to fondly know them, evil Israel and America. Abbas is according to our friendly little IPSC a 'double agent', Egypt is also complying 'too much' with Israel in their eyes- it isn't that they're uncovering all the dark sides of Islamic countries (I have yet to see them cover the horrific treatment of women in such countries as Saudi Arabia for example)- they only use their propagandist tool agains those who aren't fully onboard their extremist boat.

How much do I watch? Enough to understand it. I've had an interest in Middle Eastern politics for quite a while, speak Hebrew and am learning Arabic, and have been to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

jill_valentine

Am I right in saying you've spent time at an IDF base?

Sefirah

Irrelevant to the topic of Al Jazeera, but yes

demonspawn

Sefirah wrote: »

Al Jazeera is only 'naughty' towards Muslim countries which it feels are 'co-operating too much' with, as they seem to fondly know them, evil Israel and America. Abbas is according to our friendly little IPSC a 'double agent', Egypt is also complying 'too much' with Israel in their eyes- it isn't that they're uncovering all the dark sides of Islamic countries (I have yet to see them cover the horrific treatment of women in such countries as Saudi Arabia for example)- they only use their propagandist tool agains those who aren't fully onboard their extremist boat.

How much do I watch? Enough to understand it. I've had an interest in Middle Eastern politics for quite a while, speak Hebrew and am learning Arabic, and have been to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

What what? Al Jazeera reporting on Muslim countries that are cooperating with western countries? Surely they'd keep that kind of thing under wraps, it might make other Muslim countries want to cooperate too.

Maybe Al Jazeera does have some evil secret plan to subvert the moderate Muslim countries of the world, but perhaps you're exaggerating just a tiny little bit, don't you think? Maybe, just maybe, you're biased coming into this discussion. I could be wrong though.

demonspawn

jill_valentine wrote: »

Am I right in saying you've spent time at an IDF base?

Sefirah wrote: »

Irrelevant to the topic of Al Jazeera, but yes

Hmm..seems to be a fairly relevant piece of information in any discussion about Islam. Who woulda thought? :rolleyes:

jill_valentine

Seeing as we're on the topic of selective reporting and bias and all, it does seem to me like it might be a useful bit of background.

Sefirah

demonspawn wrote: »

Hmm..seems to be a fairly relevant piece of information in any discussion about Islam. Who woulda thought? :rolleyes:

It's not relevent to what I'm talking about- there are Muslim Druze in the IDF too, you know. And if what I say it to be disregarded because of that, I could easily argue that any comments made by Muslims should be omitted too, since they have a 'personal interest' in the matter

irishconvert

Sefirah wrote: »

It's not relevent to what I'm talking about- there are Muslim Druze in the IDF too, you know. And if what I say it to be disregarded because of that, I could easily argue that any comments made by Muslims should be omitted too, since they have a 'personal interest' in the matter

Nobody said your opinion should be disregarded. Posters think it is relevant as we then know your backgound and how you are forming your opinion, just as you know we are Muslims and this may play a part in forming our opinion on Al Jazeera.

Muslim

And Sefirah... Druze are nt Muslims...

Duh

Sefirah

Apologies, I meant to say Beduoin

Manic Moran

Isn't that kindof like saying "when I said 'safe', I actually intended to say 'highly dangerous?'"

NTM

Banbh

Not wishing to intrude in an interesting debate, but after 33 years working as a journalist, allow me to assert that there is no such thing as an objective report. In fact the first subjective act is in selecting what stories are 'newsworthy'. Newsworthy usually means those stories favoured by the owners, passed down to their editors and along the line to the working journalists.

For example, if you work for Fox News you know that any story showing Obama, health care, the Democratic Party in a good light is not 'newsworthy' and any story showing 'our troops' in a bad light would possibly result in losing your job. This process exists all the way through our own news media right down to reports of what is said at the smallest town council.

All through the corruption of the Haughey-Ahern era, stories of land deals, bribes and back-handers were not newsworthy and any journalist who suggested a story of dirty doings by the Catholic Church may as well have handed in his resignation with his copy.

I always check Al Jazeera, the BBC and Haartz for middle east news (I know of no reliable sources in the US media) and have found all three to be very similar. Of course, after years of this stuff, I have learned to read between the lines. If you check the BBC (new dumbed-down version) and Al Jazeera today, you'll see the same coverage in the same order in almost the same terms.

Jaafa

Banbh wrote: »

Not wishing to intrude in an interesting debate, but after 33 years working as a journalist, allow me to assert that there is no such thing as an objective report. In fact the first subjective act is in selecting what stories are 'newsworthy'. Newsworthy usually means those stories favoured by the owners, passed down to their editors and along the line to the working journalists.

For example, if you work for Fox News you know that any story showing Obama, health care, the Democratic Party in a good light is not 'newsworthy' and any story showing 'our troops' in a bad light would possibly result in losing your job. This process exists all the way through our own news media right down to reports of what is said at the smallest town council.

All through the corruption of the Haughey-Ahern era, stories of land deals, bribes and back-handers were not newsworthy and any journalist who suggested a story of dirty doings by the Catholic Church may as well have handed in his resignation with his copy.

I always check Al Jazeera, the BBC and Haartz for middle east news (I know of no reliable sources in the US media) and have found all three to be very similar. Of course, after years of this stuff, I have learned to read between the lines. If you check the BBC (new dumbed-down version) and Al Jazeera today, you'll see the same coverage in the same order in almost the same terms.

And there you have it. An insight into my original argument. Thank you.

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

And there you have it. An insight into my original argument. Thank you.

LOL lets face it- you never even came close to making an argument anywhere near as diplomatic as that...

Jaafa

Sefirah wrote: »

LOL lets face it- you never even came close to making an argument anywhere near as diplomatic as that...

Perhaps my words were not as eloquent but I had the same basic argument.

Do not speak of diplomacy in the same sentence in which you insult me.