Credibility of Al-Jazeera

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:05pm

OK, I've got a question: whenever Al-Jazeera is mentioned, everything they say is automatically discredited because they are said to be a biased source. However, "bias" is a pretty cheesy way to dismiss facts out of hand. The real question is: does Al-Jazeera report the facts truthfully?

It would appear that everyone thinks they don't, since any information coming from Al-Jazeera is automatically ignored. So could anyone please present the evidence showing that Al-Jazeera habitually fabricates information?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-26 04:11pm

From what I've heard they do often have accurate reporting, but they also will show must anything from radical groups and reports there wild claims. I dont think they generate there own bullshit, they just dont screen for it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:13pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:From what I've heard they do often have accurate reporting, but they also will show must anything from radical groups and reports there wild claims. I dont think they generate there own bullshit, they just dont screen for it.

OK, so how does that make them different from any other major news outlet?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-26 04:15pm

In a demonstration in Kuwait by Kuwaitis in support of the war yesterday, organizers told CNN and Fox reporters that they were deliberately seeking out Al-Jizeera camera crews because they felt that the network had a definate bias when reporting news about the war. That's a man on the street view in Kuwait, granted not fact but this perception is not just limited to American or Western views concerning the network. If you ever listen to their reporters in news confrences their questions are of this ilk: "Is it true that this war in Iraq has turned into a sort of Vietnam for American forces?"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:27pm

Stravo wrote:In a demonstration in Kuwait by Kuwaitis in support of the war yesterday, organizers told CNN and Fox reporters that they were deliberately seeking out Al-Jizeera camera crews because they felt that the network had a definate bias when reporting news about the war.

Did you not bother to read the part where I clearly stated that a bias is no excuse to dismiss facts as fabrication, and that in order to do so (as people have routinely done), you must actually show that they habitually present false information?

That's a man on the street view in Kuwait, granted not fact but this perception is not just limited to American or Western views concerning the network. If you ever listen to their reporters in news confrences their questions are of this ilk: "Is it true that this war in Iraq has turned into a sort of Vietnam for American forces?"

Rhetorical flourish != lying.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-26 04:29pm

english.Al-Jazeera.net

judge for yorself. they are having trouble with denal of service hack attacks lately, so keep trying and you will eventually get through.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:31pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:english.Al-Jazeera.net

judge for yorself. they are having trouble with denal of service hack attacks lately, so keep trying and you will eventually get through.

I made a simple request: could those who dismiss every fact coming from Al-Jazeera please present evidence showing that Al-Jazeera habitually presents false information.

So far, Sea Skimmer's response is the only one which indicates that the person had even bothered to read the question.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-26 04:35pm

Al-Jazzera.net Search Description wrote:The global leader in providing Arabic news and information, Al Jazzera.net has an enormous amount of original and rich content that is made available to its web users in an easily accessible, continuously updated and enjoyable form.

Well, they do sound like Microsoft in that line...

If it ever comes back up, maybe I'll look and see.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-26 04:43pm

my issue with Al-Jazzera is not so much one of credibility, but of its methods, it's awfully inflamatory.

On Al Jazeera (which means "the Peninsula"), the Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an abandon that would make the Fox News Channel blush. The channel's promos are particularly shameless. One clip juxtaposes a scowling George Bush with a poised, almost dreamy bin Laden; between them is an image of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames. Another promo opens with a glittering shot of the Dome of the Rock. What follows is a feverish montage: a crowd of Israeli settlers dance with unfurled flags; an Israeli soldier fires his rifle; a group of Palestinians display Israeli bullet shells; a Palestinian woman wails; a wounded Arab child lies on a bed. In the climactic image, Palestinian boys carry a banner decrying the shame of the Arab world's silence.

Consider how Al Jazeera covered the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000. The story was a godsend for the station; masked Palestinian boys aiming slingshots and stones at Israeli soldiers made for constantly compelling television. The station's coverage of the crisis barely feigned neutrality. The men and women who reported from Israel and Gaza kept careful count of the "martyrs." The channel's policy was firm: Palestinians who fell to Israeli gunfire were martyrs; Israelis killed by Palestinians were Israelis killed by Palestinians. Al Jazeera's reporters exalted the "children of the stones," giving them the same amount of coverage that MSNBC gave to Monica Lewinsky. The station played and replayed the heart-rending footage of 12-year-old Muhammed al-Durra, who was shot in Gaza and died in his father's arms. The images' ceaseless repetition signaled the arrival of a new, sensational breed of Arab journalism. Even some Palestinians questioned the opportunistic way Al Jazeera handled the tragic incident. But the channel savored the publicity and the controversy all the same

.

http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/ ... aview.html

Also in my previous post, i was merely providing a link to the english al jazzera site just to provide the debate about al-jazzera information directly from al-jazzera...did that really warrant the obvious Condescension?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 04:50pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:my issue with Al-Jazzera is not so much one of credibility, but of its methods, it's awfully inflamatory.

Irrelevant. Claims based on facts presented by Al-Jazeera are invariably dismissed out of hand. In order to do that, you must show more than inflammatory rhetoric; you must show deception. I am still waiting.

On Al Jazeera (which means "the Peninsula"), the Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an abandon that would make the Fox News Channel blush. The channel's promos are particularly shameless. One clip juxtaposes a scowling George Bush with a poised, almost dreamy bin Laden; between them is an image of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames. Another promo opens with a glittering shot of the Dome of the Rock. What follows is a feverish montage: a crowd of Israeli settlers dance with unfurled flags; an Israeli soldier fires his rifle; a group of Palestinians display Israeli bullet shells; a Palestinian woman wails; a wounded Arab child lies on a bed. In the climactic image, Palestinian boys carry a banner decrying the shame of the Arab world's silence.

Explain how this is any different from CNN or FOX, except that it reverses the roles.

Consider how Al Jazeera covered the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000. The story was a godsend for the station; masked Palestinian boys aiming slingshots and stones at Israeli soldiers made for constantly compelling television. The station's coverage of the crisis barely feigned neutrality. The men and women who reported from Israel and Gaza kept careful count of the "martyrs." The channel's policy was firm: Palestinians who fell to Israeli gunfire were martyrs; Israelis killed by Palestinians were Israelis killed by Palestinians. Al Jazeera's reporters exalted the "children of the stones," giving them the same amount of coverage that MSNBC gave to Monica Lewinsky. The station played and replayed the heart-rending footage of 12-year-old Muhammed al-Durra, who was shot in Gaza and died in his father's arms. The images' ceaseless repetition signaled the arrival of a new, sensational breed of Arab journalism. Even some Palestinians questioned the opportunistic way Al Jazeera handled the tragic incident. But the channel savored the publicity and the controversy all the same

.
Again, explain how this is any different from the way CNN or FOX handles these things, except to reverse the bias. Why do we not automatically dismiss all information coming from CNN or FOX if we do so for Al-Jazeera?

http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/ ... aview.html

Also in my previous post, i was merely providing a link to the english al jazzera site just to provide the debate about al-jazzera information directly from al-jazzera...did that really warrant the obvious Condescension?

Yes. Because you did not answer the question, and you STILL have not answered the question even after having your non-answer pointed out as such.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-26 05:07pm

Would there be any point in me stating that I really don't trust ANY news agencies to be completely truthfull and un-biased?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-26 05:10pm

Al-Jazeera,CNN or whatever news agency it is since they control the information they can say whatever they want.
We just need to read between the line.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 05:16pm

They tend to take whatever spoon fed propoganda from the Arab governments. Information that they damn well ought to know if phoney and they tend to take shaky facts as truth and treat it as fact and never investigate. They also tend to never correct anything when they are proven blatantly wrong.

They aren't completely dishonest but the bias might as well make them a proganda channel rather than a serious news outlet. It's safe to say that without a second source I would dismiss their claims.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-26 05:18pm

Al Jazeera is one of the few networks in the world that does not have government input into how and what it reports.

Because they show everything, and are critical of all parties, the US Military tried to get the Qatar government to shut it down for the duration of the war.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-26 05:23pm

Ted wrote:Al Jazeera is one of the few networks in the world that does not have government input into how and what it reports.

Because they show everything, and are critical of all parties, the US Military tried to get the Qatar government to shut it down for the duration of the war.

They may not have government telling them how to report the news,but there is definitely religious control.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-26 05:25pm

Montcalm wrote:They may not have government telling them how to report the news,but there is definitely religious control.

Religious control?

How?

I don't think former BBC reporters would be religious fundies and be controlled by religion.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 06:25pm

Al-Jazeera is constantly identified as a mouthpiece for the Palestinian liberation movement. There is also concern that they fail to properly screen images, thus contributing to hysteria among viewers.

CMN and FOX news are nowhere near as biased as al-Jazeera when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll acknowledge sympathy for the Jewish state on American media's part, but al-Jazeera's bias is far greater.

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2003-03-26 06:34pm

Axis Kast wrote:CMN and FOX news are nowhere near as biased as al-Jazeera when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll acknowledge sympathy for the Jewish state on American media's part, but al-Jazeera's bias is far greater.

What exactly have they said about this conflict?

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-03-26 06:35pm

I don't think that al-Jazeera should be instantly discredited, it just has shown that in the past it will run on very shaky leads and has an almost undeniable pro-Islamic bias, almost to the point of programs like the 700 club. It isn't a completely unusable source but neither is it unbiased. I would not make that claim that U.S. news is unbiased either, it is just that past occurances have shown that Al-Jazeera should be placed under much more careful scrutiny than BBC or CNN. Even though I live in the U.S. I tend to enjoy BBC more. They tend to give a diffent less sensationalized view on American story's. I don't know about there normal broadcasting however because I usually only watch the news when something big happens. Otherwise I just rely on you guys.

Sorry bout the sort of jumbled post.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-26 06:36pm

Axis Kast wrote:Al-Jazeera is constantly identified as a mouthpiece for the Palestinian liberation movement. There is also concern that they fail to properly screen images, thus contributing to hysteria among viewers.

CMN and FOX news are nowhere near as biased as al-Jazeera when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll acknowledge sympathy for the Jewish state on American media's part, but al-Jazeera's bias is far greater.

Al Jazeera is the most critical of the Palestinians of all news reports.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 06:50pm

What exactly have they said about this conflict?

FOX offers "on and off" criticism of Israel. While Bill O'Reiley from time to time alludes to a common enemy, most regular FOX news tends to put the Israeli soldiers in a poor light.

CNN tows a similar line. Israeli troops are always the ones who seem to come out on the short end of the value-laden phrase. "Israeli troops shot and killed" rather than, "responded to," or something similar. There's never any discussion of whether a brick can do as much or more damage than a bullet.

Now that's not to say they don't hold back from criticizing Israel. But al-Jazeera is far worse.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 07:15pm

Ted wrote:Al Jazeera is one of the few networks in the world that does not have government input into how and what it reports.

They're theoretically free of government control but they're effectively a mouthpiece for Islamic fundamentalists and Pro-Arab/Anti-Western propoganda.

Ted wrote:Because they show everything, and are critical of all parties, the US Military tried to get the Qatar government to shut it down for the duration of the war.

They're hardly critical of people like Bin Laden and they're not particularly objective when it comes to Saddam Hussien either.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 07:28pm

OK, Al Jazeera are an excellent news service for several reasons:

1 - they have access to things that other networks don't.

2 - they aren't afraid to offend by showing things that other groups don't want them to (this isn't just the west, at one time or another every nation in the arab world has wanted Al Jazeera's collective heads on a platter).

3 - they show the other side. Not just a couple of embedded reporters with censored releases, but the images from the iraqi and arab side of things.

4 - they dont have the pro-western bias prevalent in CNN and Faux.

Why Al Jazeera aren't an excellent news service:

1 - they can be a bit extreme in their views (and who isn't?).

2 - the west doesn't agree with them (surprise).

3 - they show things that others don't want them to.

For me Al Jazeera is an excellent counter-point to the American News Services, but if I want good fair coverage I'll watch BBC World.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 07:30pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ted wrote:Al Jazeera is one of the few networks in the world that does not have government input into how and what it reports.
They're theoretically free of government control but they're effectively a mouthpiece for Islamic fundamentalists and Pro-Arab/Anti-Western propoganda.

Ted wrote:Because they show everything, and are critical of all parties, the US Military tried to get the Qatar government to shut it down for the duration of the war.
They're hardly critical of people like Bin Laden and they're not particularly objective when it comes to Saddam Hussien either.

And may I ask, when was the last time CNN or Fox asked hard questions about Bush and his government?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 07:30pm

weemadando wrote:3 - they show things that others don't want them to.

Like whole uncut segments of Bin Laden's and Iraq's propoganda.