Al Jazeera

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

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.

Uh, no, your argument was nowhere near the same...
Being honest is a much more important trait for me- I'm not going to treat you like a baby and pat you on the head when you say something stupid for the sake of diplomacy

Jaafa

Banbh: allow me to assert that there is no such thing as an objective report.

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

I don't know about you but that seems pretty similar to me. I don't like speaking on an others behalf but Id like to think Banbh would agree with me here.

Sefirah

Ahhh, but you are indeed leaving out the jewels of your argument for the sake of one line. Many of the ideas you have posed have been simply embarrassing, and while I cannot speak for other people, if they were associated with me, I’d be very quick to distance myself from such rubbish. For example, you decided that if a journalist reports 2 sides of the story, they’re spreading propaganda and not actually getting a balanced view:

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?

You also argued that we should allow terrorists to try to justify their murder of innocent civilians:

Jaafa wrote: »

Why shouldn't they allow 'terrorists' to ATTEMPT to justify the killing of civilians?

I agree with Banbh’s assertion that every news channel has a choice in regards to what issues they choose to air; however you are not arguing about what topics are being discussed, but HOW they are being discussed. You seem to be of the opinion that they Al Jazeera has a free pass to propagate their views without giving the other side of the story- this is going much farther beyond cherry picking topics for discussion and it simply tarnishes their own reputation for the sake of pushing their point of view on others

Jaafa

Ahhh, but you are indeed leaving out the jewels of your argument for the sake of one line]

And yet you leave out my next line. Hypocrisy at its best.

You'll remember I said:

Have you never seen American/Israeli commanders attempt to do the same thing?

I firmly believe that both sides of the story should be given no matter how delusional they may seem.

For example, you decided that if a journalist reports 2 sides of the story, they’re spreading propaganda and not actually getting a balanced view:

Again I'm for giving both sides but I said that in cases where all you are getting is propaganda then it doesn't do much good. You should still get both sides...but again it doesn't help tell the story.

You'll note that I explained this before:

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.

You memory deceives you my friend.

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

I firmly believe that both sides of the story should be given no matter how delusional they may seem.

Not my problem if you constantly contradict yourself- you also say that you don't feel it solves anything to give both sides- aka why bother? And specifically to Al Jazeera, they have a distinct way of 'giving 2 sides' by showing, for example as I saw in an earlier programme about Israel, an extremist as the representative for the 'zionist side' and a calm and collected young Arab girl supporting the 'Palestinian side'-- it's blinkered vision. And I still believe that you originally meant that earlier statement to mean 'giving 2 sides doesn't work- so why bother' and are just changing it now to suit your own needs. And you still reinforce this idea in your statement:

Jaafa wrote: »

Again I'm for giving both sides but I said that in cases where all you are getting is propaganda then it doesn't do much good. You should still get both sides...but again it doesn't help tell the story.

Just because it's the view of both people doesn't make it 'propaganda'

Jaafa

Sefirah wrote: »

And I still believe that you originally meant that earlier statement to mean 'giving 2 sides doesn't work- so why bother' and are just changing it now to suit your own needs.

And I am telling you that is NOT what I meant. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. For the last time I will say this.

In CERTAIN situations getting both sides of the story does not work but it still MUST be done. Such as the example I gave.

Sometimes it does work.

But what I am saying is in specific situations it wont get you to the bottom of the story. Surely you can see that?

Sefirah

Jaafa wrote: »

But what I am saying is in specific situations it wont get you to the bottom of the story.

It isn't about 'solving' something, it's about showing the viewpoints of 2 sides fairly

Sefirah

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

??
That's about one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot.

Beduoins and Druze are both Arab populations living in Israel, and have many shared characteristics both culturally and religiously. The Druze religion itself is said to have begun as an offshoot of Islam and includes philosophies similar to those of followers of Ismaili Shia Islam.

Theologically, Druze consider themselves "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect" ((see Swayd, Samy (1998). The Druzes: An Annotated Bibliography. Kirkland, WA, USA: ISES Publications. ISBN 0966293207 or israwi, Najib (in Arabic). Al-Maðhab at-Tawḥīdī ad-Durzī. Brazil. pp. 66.))

Johro

PDN wrote: »

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.

I watch Al Jazeera (English) regularly on our freeview box, I think more people should watch it, they might get some idea of what really goes on in the world, so much goes unreported these days. I found it especially enlightening comparing their coverage of the war on Gaza to the coverage of say, the BBC. Great website too.

Sefirah

Johro wrote: »

I found it especially enlightening comparing their coverage of the war on Gaza to the coverage of say, the BBC.

Yeah, a lot of pro-Palestinians were pretty pissed after BBC showed the truth of what happened on the flotillas.

Banbh

From reading the blogs, and replies on the BBC website, I think it fair to say that a lot of pro-objective reporting people were also pissed at that BBC account.

Johro

Sefirah wrote: »

Yeah, a lot of pro-Palestinians were pretty pissed after BBC showed the truth of what happened on the flotillas.

You are so wrong. Too many assumptions. Also, when you say 'pro-Palestinians' I get the feeling you think they support Palestinians, right or wrong. I don't.
As far as I've seen, Al Jazeera don't.
I think most people with an ounce of sense can watch news coverage and draw their own conclusions. They can't if there's no coverage, and on many fronts the BBC has been lacking.
By the way, in the case of the war on Gaza I'd say the BBC were pretty pissed off themselves as their reporters weren't allowed anywhere near and were reduced to reading out pamphlets handed out by the Israeli's.
Where was the outrage then?

Johro

Sefirah wrote: »

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.

You should watch Fox or NBC for half an hour. Right up your street.

Johro

Sefirah wrote: »

??
That's about one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot.

Beduoins and Druze are both Arab populations living in Israel...

That's 'Bedouins' by the way.

sponsoredwalk

I knew it was blatantly obvious this would come up, I thought you guys
would have recognised it beforehand as well

Sefirah wrote: »

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.

http://www.muslimco.com/aljazeeraenglish.html

Judge for yourself, an unsourced capitalized rant is hardly evidence of
Al Jazeera's bias. Furthermore, if we take Sefirah's argument on the logic
(s)he is using I would guess (s)he either watches no news or all the news
in order to escape bias. Apparently the latter isn't true seeing as (s)he
has never, ever, watched FOX news...
The BBC is totally biased, as is RTE, as is FOX, etc... etc...
The point is that you're focusing on Al Jazeera who have
come under the wrath of the US for giving people in the East a face &
voice and, 5 pages in, given nothing of substance to show why they
are biased, why this is bad, and how everyone else is not biased :rolleyes:

Nobody said you had to like it but 5 pages in it's pretty obvious you're
hiding your dislike behind a strawman argument about bias.
I like Amira Haas comments about journalism, nobody ever said it was
unbiased it is simply about monitoring power. Go watch the Harry Kreisler
interview with her here to get the context.

Bottle_of_Smoke

One of the most reasonable people I've seen interview Richard Dawkins was Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera.

Also seen a few shows relating to northern Ireland and they seen to have a far superiour grasp of the situation than any American(and many British) shows I've seen

Banbh

That Riz Khan interview was excellent. Compare it to the treatment of Dawkins on the Late Late Show when Tubridy asked for a show of hands on who belives in god and then turned to Dawkins and said 'so there'.
Quality programming!

sligometalhead

Sefirah wrote: »

Yeah, a lot of pro-Palestinians were pretty pissed after BBC showed the truth of what happened on the flotillas.

Actually the bbc show was shown up for its lack of truth by the recent UN human rights investigation into the slaughter of humanitarian and human rights activists in international waters.

The report documented the illegality of the unprovoked attack by Israeli terrorists, the litany of war crimes they carried out including summary executions, their hi-jackibg of the boats and their kidnapping of activists and crew who were forcibly brought to Israel against their will, where many of them were brutalised and assaulted.

It also highlighted that continuing inhumane and barbaric siege of Gaza was illegal and a war crime

sligometalhead

sefirah

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

So what unbiased evidence do you rely on to back up what you are saying above?

You also ignored the continual raids, bombing attacks and murders carried out by Israeli terrorists on the people of Gaza, as well as their collective punishment of the civilian population through their illegal siege which is a war crime.

sefirah

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?

And they have also regularly aired interviews with Israeli military and political leaders justifying war crimes on a regular basis. The likes of propaganists and war criminal suspects such as tippi livni and Mark Regev.

They also regularly showed Bush and Blair and other terrorist apologists justifying the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan by NATO troops.

siferah

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?

So why do you not say the same when Al jazeera air Israeli 'lunatics' trying to justify a terrorist attack, as they regularly do.


Sefirah

The IDF tried its best to lessen the inevitable casualities in such a densely populated area

Absolute rubbish. They deliberately bombed homes, schools, hospitals, medical personnel and other civilian targets such as mosques and tv stations, water and electricity plants

Sefirah

but Hamas' tactics of human shields and hiding among their people made this extremely difficult.

Actually the Israeli terrorist army used Palestinain children and families as human shields, forcing them to handle suspicious objects, enter premises before troops where they believed the building may be booby trapped, taking over family homes and using as bases while refusing the families to leave


sefirah

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.

Thats the most pathetic attempt at trying to justify unjustifiable war crimes and barbaric slaughter. More than 1400 people were killed in Israels murderous attack on Gaza. When you deliberately bomb someones home, a school, a mosque, a hospital, you know you are going to murder civilians.

Hobbes

This isn't the forum for your discussion.

ISAW

Sefirah wrote: »

Al Jazeera is only 'naughty' towards Muslim countries which it feels are 'co-operating too much' with,

How do you know? You said you don't watch it!

and How do you know Fox News is so much better if as you already admitted you don't watch Fox?
Do you know what the logical fallacy "argument from ignorance" is?
Have you ever watched a movie called Outfoxxed?
Try looking here:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Ill look at the examples you gave in the other post and reply to them

maxxie

Sefirah wrote: »

Hell, anything else would be better

So you mean Rupert Murdoch news? The pro jewish media mogul!

NAH!

ISAW

Sefirah wrote: »

Hell, anything else would be better[/COLOR]

Argument from ignorance.

It's not a matter of being IN the events, it's a matter of using selective material to further their own cause.

You would have to identify AJ wioth an Arabic or islamic cause to justify this statement.

If you look through their programmes, they spend the whole time focusing on the 'woes' of the Arabs and Muslims

This is AJ and not Fox you are discussing?


News for Nov 3 2010 :
http://english.aljazeera.net/

Main News:
Republicans take control over House of Representatives, while Democrats hold on to Senate majority.

due to the evil Americans and evil Israelis--

No mention of evil above> How about the other lead articles?

Democrats retain US Senate - nope
Israel suspends 'dialogue' with UK - Tel Aviv postpones strategic dialogue over law that allows British courts to prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes. well it is news you cant really call that anti Isreali.
Here is the BBC version how is it different? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11681989

Bush 'sickened' by Iraq war reasons -Former US president expresses regret over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nope no mention of "evil americans"

Scores killed in Baghdad blasts
Says: "It's all being blamed on the failure of Iraqi politicians to agree on the formation of a government." - no mention of Evil americans!

in their 'Review Articles', one article, entitled "Latest of US lies: Iraqis killing Iraqis", claimed that

Have you a source for this?

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![/COLOR]

Supply source please?

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.

So your source for this claim that AL Jazeera is biased pro Arab pro Islam and anti Western is a Islamic Arab who says AJ is anti Arab?

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.

Source? If supported this is evidence AJ IS ethical and not evidence it isn't!

Al Jazeera has been criticized for failing to report on many hard hitting news stories that originate from Qater, where Al Jazeera is based.

By whom?

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.

So your "Al Jazeera is pro arab pro muslim biased against Israel and the West" now becomes "Al Jazeera twice failed to report on incidents in Qatar"?

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.

How is this evidence of al Jazeera being biased for Islam and pro arab? Isnt Egypt Arabic and Islamic?

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.

Allouni isn't mentioned at all in that wikipedia article! what is your source?

By the way people are entitled to a defence whay do you object to that? and innocent people are sometimes convicted.

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

Source? And note "allegedly"?

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.

So what? how is that evidence of media bias? this was the same government who said they know about WMD in Iraq and links to Al Qaeda and now admit they were wrong but had buckets of propaganda on it then! LOL! And you use them as evidence of p[ropaganda and bias by AJ?

ROTFLMOL

hivizman

Please remember Rule 1 of the Forum Charter:

1. The forum is for the discussion of the islamic religion only. All topics off this should be in their respective forums (eg. Humanities/Politics/Languages). You are allowed questions which may be deemed off topic but only in relation to the religion.

The way this thread is going, it may be more appropriately located in the News and Media forum.

Hobbes

Also it is attack the post, not the poster. This thread has run it's course. If you want to continue please use the appropriate forum.