Credibility of Al-Jazeera

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-26 07:50pm

Al Jazeera is a serious news agency in that it sends reporters to gather facts in the field, report the story as the reporters see it, etc.

I do not, however, feel that they are a professional news agency in the same way that newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times, and Wallstreet Journal are. They allow their reporters to editorialize almost freely, they allow their reporters to introduce biasing STATEMENTS into their news reports (ie. "clearly," "reprehensible," and "morally wrong"), and they do not move to check their reporters from bringing their own points of view into the stories that they report. Thus, I feel that their reports almost always have a basis in fact, but take issue with their professionalism in the field. I hope that made sense to everyone, because I'm not really sure how else to describe them.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 07:53pm

Stormbringer wrote:
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.

Oh dear, and I guess that all of Tommy Franks, Bush's and the rest of the US governments posturing ISN'T propaganda.

Get off your high horse.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 08:06pm

Fox News is the worst in that regard.

"General Franks said blah blah blah and then he said ..... we will win. Oh David, I think I came when he said that ..."

True story

(well, except the orgasm part)

To be fair, Fox News reports the news with as much objectivity as anyone else- the problem is that thier pundits are all rabid ultra-rightists, and they editorialize like a motherfucker.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 08:13pm

weemadando wrote:Oh dear, and I guess that all of Tommy Franks, Bush's and the rest of the US governments posturing ISN'T propaganda.

It's news. And they give time to reports on the opposition and *gasp* they disagree. They present news, even they do air the comments of US officials. That's journalism.

Al-Jazeera on the other hand runs the calls for the massacre from a terrorist uncut and with little to no comment. They show Iraqi proganda films virutally uncut and with decidedly pro-Saddam spin. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 08:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:
weemadando wrote:Oh dear, and I guess that all of Tommy Franks, Bush's and the rest of the US governments posturing ISN'T propaganda.
It's news. And they give time to reports on the opposition and *gasp* they disagree. They present news, even they do air the comments of US officials. That's journalism.

Al-Jazeera on the other hand runs the calls for the massacre from a terrorist uncut and with little to no comment. They show Iraqi proganda films virutally uncut and with decidedly pro-Saddam spin. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

Bullshit.

Have you actually watched Al Jazeera? Or have you just watched the VERY select samples that the "regular" networks choose to air?

Have you seen some of the anti-Saddam stuff they've done? The talking heads pieces about Bin Laden and his actions?

Shut the fuck up until you know more than what you are told to know.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 08:43pm

weemadando wrote:Bullshit.

Have you actually watched Al Jazeera? Or have you just watched the VERY select samples that the "regular" networks choose to air?

Some of it. It got pulled from the local arabic channel rotation here after Sept 11th.

And I've seen the universal reports of them airing Bin Laden propoganda uncut. I doubt every last news outlet would report something that's bullshit.

weemadando wrote:Have you seen some of the anti-Saddam stuff they've done? The talking heads pieces about Bin Laden and his actions?

Shut the fuck up until you know more than what you are told to know.

I know they air Bin Laden's propoganda uncut. That too me suggests that they're biased as hell.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 08:52pm

Stormbringer wrote:
weemadando wrote:Bullshit.

Have you actually watched Al Jazeera? Or have you just watched the VERY select samples that the "regular" networks choose to air?
Some of it. It got pulled from the local arabic channel rotation here after Sept 11th.

Why?

And I've seen the universal reports of them airing Bin Laden propoganda uncut. I doubt every last news outlet would report something that's bullshit.

Again, why?

I know they air Bin Laden's propoganda uncut. That too me suggests that they're biased as hell.

Why?

Isn't airing it uncut the least biased form of all?

Or are you so used to the soundbite culture that you think that nothing deserves to be heard in full?

May I remind you that Al-Jazeera covers Bush's speeches and Tommy Frank's briefings in full as well.

Pray tell, where is this bias?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-26 08:59pm

I think that Al-Jazeera is like alot of news agencies.

Some of what they say is true, but, there is also alot of bull mixed in. Overall, I believe that there is a definite bias in the reporting of the war against the US and West in general, seeing as how they are notorious for transmitting the propaganda released by the Iraqis.

You just have to double check sources, as you do with any news agency.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:05pm

Why?

Why was it pulled? I'd imagine the fact they're airing the propoganda of someone who wants to slaughter every last westerner?

Again, why?

Why what?

Why?

Isn't airing it uncut the least biased form of all?

Or are you so used to the soundbite culture that you think that nothing deserves to be heard in full?

Hmmm, yes very unbiased of them to air the calls of a terrorist who is responsible for the murder and horrible deaths of three thousand people.

May I remind you that Al-Jazeera covers Bush's speeches and Tommy Frank's briefings in full as well.

Pray tell, where is this bias?

Hmm, the slant they give their coverage?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 09:30pm

Stormbringer, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do.

As for your attack on them on airing Osama's latest threats in full what is wrong with that? Don't you feel that you have a right to listen to the entire threat, rather than the soundbites that you might get to hear on CNN and Fox (that is if you are likely, most of the times they just show file footage and list the newest threats)? Or are you happy in trusting the sources of the information as opposed to somehow seeing it with your own eyes?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 09:35pm

Crown wrote:Stormbringer, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do.

As for your attack on them on airing Osama's latest threats in full what is wrong with that? Don't you feel that you have a right to listen to the entire threat, rather than the soundbites that you might get to hear on CNN and Fox (that is if you are likely, most of the times they just show file footage and list the newest threats)? Or are you happy in trusting the sources of the information as opposed to somehow seeing it with your own eyes?

I will agree with Stormbringer in that Al-Jazeera places a pro-Arab slant on their news, omiting some facts that fit their agenda, and including facts and reports that support their agenda. It is no secret that the majority of the Arab world is anti-American, and so that bias will be reflected in reports by Al-Jazeera. Yes, the same can be said of US news agencies, especially in time of war, though to a lesser degree. Moreover, Al-Jazeera is allowed to freely roam Iraqi-held cities, and Iraqi officials lead them to show things that Iraqi officials want them to see, so their reporting will necessarily be through the Saddamite lens to some degree.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 09:44pm

jegs2, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do.

Why are you making me repeat myself?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-26 09:47pm

Crown wrote:jegs2, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do.

Why are you making me repeat myself?

I think they are just as objective are our side,but i guess if they report event from a non-arab country they probably distort the story

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 09:50pm

Crown wrote:jegs2, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do...

They may obtain credible facts, but that does not mean they don't carefully screen which facts they will present to the Arab population, which can make it subjective at best, or propaganda at worst.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:57pm

Crown wrote:Stormbringer, you are not answering Mikes question. There is no argument as to whether or not Al-Jazeera has a more 'Arab' slanting than say 'US' one (duh). The question is do they present credible facts and news, regardless of their bias. The answer is yes they do.

They do report facts. But the editorial bias is such that they will seize upon questionable stories simply to make the US look bad.

Crown wrote:As for your attack on them on airing Osama's latest threats in full what is wrong with that? Don't you feel that you have a right to listen to the entire threat, rather than the soundbites that you might get to hear on CNN and Fox (that is if you are likely, most of the times they just show file footage and list the newest threats)? Or are you happy in trusting the sources of the information as opposed to somehow seeing it with your own eyes?

I have a problem with them showing the propoganda vidoes of a terrorist directly to the people he's trying to recruit. It only serves to further his ambitions. That to me smacks of aiding and abetting.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 10:00pm

Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote: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?

Answer the man's question.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 10:01pm

Crown wrote:Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote: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?
Answer the man's question.

We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 10:11pm

Crown wrote:Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote: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?
Answer the man's question.

I answered the question on the first page.

Stormbringer wrote: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.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 10:17pm

Stormbringer wrote:I answered the question on the first page.
Stormbringer wrote: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.

I asked for examples of them airing false information.

Not a very tough question, is it? But no one's answering the challenge. All I've seen so far is ranting about their bias, with the logically fallacious conclusion that therefore, anything they say is worthless (if you need a second source before dismissing their claims out of hand, you're basically saying that they're worthless as a news source).

Way to evade that question!

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 10:19pm

jegs2 wrote: We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

The part where you do exactly the same thing that you claim Al Jazeera does without presenting a single shred of evidence to support your case. Not a single link, quote or fact, nothing but subjective unsupported opinions.

Concession Accepted you hypocrite.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 10:24pm

jegs2 wrote:We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

You both did what, exactly? Arm waving, lunatic screaming, miss-direction and unbased acussations. Where did you answer Mike's question;

Darth Wong wrote: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?

You haven't. All you have managed to say is; because it is an Arab station it *probably* places emphasis on the negative affects of this *just* war...

Stormbringer wrote:

I answered the question on the first page.

Stormbringer wrote: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.

Still waiting for the evidence.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 10:34pm

weemadando wrote:Concession Accepted you hypocrite.

Ah, I see you're stretching your verbal skills -- bravo! Keep it up, and you may be mistaken for someone capable of thought, but don't get your hopes up -- you've got a lot of work ahead of you. I know what Mike asked for oh master of the obvious, but I gave my opinion based on what I've seen on various news sources. I should apologize for not jotting down the stories as they aired, so that I could supply them to ill-mannered persons such as yourself upon demand ....... but I won't.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 10:36pm

Crown wrote:You both did what, exactly? Arm waving, lunatic screaming, miss-direction and unbased acussations. Where did you answer Mike's question

I do not have concrete examples. Please see my last post for clarification. My job is not to convince you -- believe what you wish to believe. Trust me -- it makes no difference to me.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 10:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:I asked for examples of them airing false information.

I haven't got any mostly because I can't watch channel even were I so inclined. I've seen plenty of stuff which shows that they air content which stretchs the very edge of credibilty.

Their history of questionable editiorial decisions and blatant bias make any report from them in the same way the people around here ask for confirmation for Fox News stories.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 10:43pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I asked for examples of them airing false information.
I haven't got any mostly because I can't watch channel even were I so inclined. I've seen plenty of stuff which shows that they air content which stretchs the very edge of credibilty.

Such as? Or are you talking about their presentation rather than their facts, which would be irrelevant to any question of factual credibility?

Their history of questionable editiorial decisions and blatant bias make any report from them in the same way the people around here ask for confirmation for Fox News stories.

Actually, the people who do that have posted several examples of Fox News airing false information based on reckless extrapolation from sketchy data, hence their conclusions. I am only asking that the same be done for Al-Jazeera, and all I'm hearing is excuses, followed by "but I'll dismiss them anyway".