Credibility of Al-Jazeera

[weemadando]

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.

Awwww, poor boy.

Look, you are given a simple request, for evidence. Evidence of this bias that you claim is so clearly evident in their work.

If it is so blatantly evident and obvious why can you not find it? Can you not be bothered, or do you think that your opinions count as evidence?

We ask for something simple which you constantly avoid giving. There is a reason that I called you a hypocrite and its nice to see that you continue to prove that such a title is well deserved.

[Stormbringer]

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

I'm talking about actual facts. The fact that they air people people talking about how the US has been sending missles into civilian neighborhoods for no reason, implying that this was deliberate. This was their own footage replayed.

[Crown]

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.

*yawn*

Yeah, sure. If it makes you sleep better at night. Word to the wise, next time unless you are willing and prepared to justify your opinions, make sure that you point out to everyone that it is just that. An opinion, and nothing more.

[jegs2]

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.

Awwww, poor boy.

Look, you are given a simple request, for evidence. Evidence of this bias that you claim is so clearly evident in their work.

If it is so blatantly evident and obvious why can you not find it? Can you not be bothered, or do you think that your opinions count as evidence?

We ask for something simple which you constantly avoid giving. There is a reason that I called you a hypocrite and its nice to see that you continue to prove that such a title is well deserved.

Were you born a simpleton, or did you have to go to class to learn how to become one? I told you up front that what I gave was my opinion, based on what I've seen. Quit attempting to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a fool -- you're belittling only yourself with your shallow comments. Now, try saying something intelligent -- you can do it if you really try....

[Darth Wong]

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

I'm talking about actual facts. The fact that they air people people talking about how the US has been sending missles into civilian neighborhoods for no reason, implying that this was deliberate. This was their own footage replayed.

Ah, so if they air "man on the street" interviews, that represents their attempt at factual reporting? Going by that standard, the "man on the street" interviews of all American news networks demolish their credibility too

If they present something as a FACT and it is wrong, then you have the evidence I'm asking for. If this is such an easy challenge to meet, why am I hearing so many evasions?

[jegs2]

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.

*yawn*

Yeah, sure. If it makes you sleep better at night. Word to the wise, next time unless you are willing and prepared to justify your opinions, make sure that you point out to everyone that it is just that. An opinion, and nothing more.

...and when have I said that it was anything but my opinion?

*yawn*

[jegs2]

Okay, I think only Mike understood this, but I'll say for the last time to those who apparently don't get it, in big letters, so you can understand: I gave my opinion, based on my own analysis of what I've seen on the news.

[Crown]

...and when have I said that it was anything but my opinion?

*yawn*

When you tried to pass off your opinion as fact....

Strombringer and jegs2

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?

I have no problem in holding your own opinion, but when engaging in a thread that asks for evidence, you are obliged to provide proof. And while you can just post your opinion, it is very unwise to pass off your opinion as fact when called on it, and underhand to then double back. Get it?

[weemadando]

Okay, I think only Mike understood this, but I'll say for the last time to those who apparently don't get it, in big letters, so you can understand: I gave my opinion, based on my own analysis of what I've seen on the news.

What news? CNN, Fox? Ever question what content of Al Jazeera they actually show?

[jegs2]

When you tried to pass off your opinion as fact....

An assumption on your part...

I have no problem in holding your own opinion, but when engaging in a thread that asks for evidence, you are obliged to provide proof. And while you can just post your opinion, it is very unwise to pass off your opinion as fact when called on it, and underhand to then double back. Get it?

And if I had evidence, I would give you that evidence, but my argument was never that they don't report the facts. It was that they skew the facts that they report.

[jegs2]

Okay, I think only Mike understood this, but I'll say for the last time to those who apparently don't get it, in big letters, so you can understand: I gave my opinion, based on my own analysis of what I've seen on the news.

What news? CNN, Fox? Ever question what content of Al Jazeera they actually show?

I am more prone to believe my own nation's news sources than a news source from a people who hate Americans -- call me crazy.

[Darth Wong]

If Al-Jazeera skews their facts instead of simply fabricating them, they are still usable as a news source, provided you read between the lines (which you should always do anyway). Therefore, we can't dismiss their facts out of hand. They show information the American news networks won't, and vice versa.

So, unless someone comes up with this evidence we're lacking, I think we can conclude that if we want the whole picture, we should not categorically exclude information from Al-Jazeera.

[Stormbringer]

Ah, so if they air "man on the street" interviews, that represents their attempt at factual reporting? Going by that standard, the "man on the street" interviews of all American news networks demolish their credibility too

The specific incident I'm referrin to is in regards to a missle of unknown origin (though the US denies firing any missles in the area) hitting a market place. They presented interviews with the victims saying it was an American missle and they portrayed it as a deliberate attack.

If they present something as a FACT and it is wrong, then you have the evidence I'm asking for. If this is such an easy challenge to meet, why am I hearing so many evasions?

That enough for you?

[jegs2]

If Al-Jazeera skews their facts instead of simply fabricating them, they are still usable as a news source, provided you read between the lines (which you should always do anyway). Therefore, we can't dismiss their facts out of hand. They show information the American news networks won't, and vice versa.

I don't disagree with that.

So, unless someone comes up with this evidence we're lacking, I think we can conclude that if we want the whole picture, we should not categorically exclude information from Al-Jazeera.

I don't exclude their reports, but I do take them with a healthy dose of salt.

[weemadando]

Were you born a simpleton, or did you have to go to class to learn how to become one? I told you up front that what I gave was my opinion, based on what I've seen. Quit attempting to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a fool -- you're belittling only yourself with your shallow comments. Now, try saying something intelligent -- you can do it if you really try....

No, no, no. Not born a simpleton, just a cynic.

I suppose that Crown, Wong and others are all simpletons and fools for making the same requests as I? Or are you just trying to target me because you think I'd be an easy "kill"?

And actually, I believe that I'm belittling YOU with my admittedly shallow comments, but at least I don't try and hide it.

Say something intelligent? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that anything that I say that even remotely resembles intelligent thought will be brushed off by you as liberal-pinko-commie-faggot rhetoric.

Just look around, I have said intelligent things, stop trying to turn the crowds, who by the looks the debate have already turned their rabid maws upon someones bleeding flesh. And let me give you a hint. It ain't mine.

[Darth Wong]

The specific incident I'm referrin to is in regards to a missle of unknown origin (though the US denies firing any missles in the area) hitting a market place. They presented interviews with the victims saying it was an American missle and they portrayed it as a deliberate attack.

Precisely. "Man on the street" interviews, which are obviously an individual's opinion. What part of my last post did you not understand?

If they present something as a FACT and it is wrong, then you have the evidence I'm asking for. If this is such an easy challenge to meet, why am I hearing so many evasions?

That enough for you?

No. Do you understand the difference between an anchor stating something as a fact and interviewing the victim of an explosion screaming that he thinks the Americans did it?

[jegs2]

A news source may well exclude reports or facts that don't bolster their agenda, while it may enhance reports or facts that do support their agenda. All news sources do that to some extent or another, since there is no such animal as a purely objective group of human beings, in my opinion[/i].

[jegs2]

Just look around, I have said intelligent things, stop trying to turn the crowds, who by the looks the debate have already turned their rabid maws upon someones bleeding flesh. And let me give you a hint. It ain't mine.

Well, I did offer you an opportunity to speak intelligently, without purposefully making enemies, but your decision is your own.

[Darth Wong]

A news source may well exclude reports or facts that don't bolster their agenda, while it may enhance reports or facts that do support their agenda. All news sources do that to some extent or another, since there is no such animal as a purely objective group of human beings, in my opinion.

Agreed. That's why we need to cull information from a diverse group of sources, rather than dismissing those whose editorial bias offends us. The only reason to exclude a source is a consistent history of serious factual error particularly if it appears to be deliberate. This does not appear to be the case with Al-Jazeera.

Let us not do the same thing that people in Jordan are doing, and categorically ignore every single thing from the other side as mere propaganda and bullshit.

[Montcalm]

OK the news network like CNN,Fox,MSNBC don`t completly show every report made by Al-Jazeera,but does Al-Jazeera show some of the reports from non arab news network

[Stormbringer]

[Precisely. "Man on the street" interviews, which are obviously an individual's opinion. What part of my last post did you not understand?

Mike, they (Al-Jezeera) portrayed the attack something done by the US deliberately.

No. Do you understand the difference between an anchor stating something as a fact and interviewing the victim of an explosion screaming that he thinks the Americans did it?

Did you misunderstand what I'm saying?


Al-Jezeera isn't making things up totally but their editiorial slant is such that they can't be treated as a wholy relieable source either.

[Crown]

When you tried to pass off your opinion as fact....

An assumption on your part...

Don't be an ass jegs, you did post an opinion, I called you on it asking you to provide proof. And then you tried to pass off your opinion as that proof. Now you are claiming you did no such thing.

I have no problem in holding your own opinion, but when engaging in a thread that asks for evidence, you are obliged to provide proof. And while you can just post your opinion, it is very unwise to pass off your opinion as fact when called on it, and underhand to then double back. Get it?

And if I had evidence, I would give you that evidence, but my argument was never that they don't report the facts. It was that they skew the facts that they report.

The more participation you have in this thread without admitting your mistakes, the more of an idiot you will seem to be. Admit the fact that you tried to pass of your opinion's and facts and let it go.

[Wicked Pilot]

In the United States and the countries of others on this board, we have freedom of the press. This is a freedom not to be taken lightly! You have all sorts of TV news available. You have all sorts of newspapers and magazines available. You have access to the net, where you can access the news agencies of other nations. In most countries, this is unheard of. If you limit yourself to one source, then you are being a fucking dolt.

Personally, I get my TV news from mostly CNN, ABC's Nightline, and some from FOX. I get my internet news from Reuters and the BBC. I get my news off the radio from NPR. Six sources are far better than one.

[jegs2]

Don't be an ass jegs, you did post an opinion, I called you on it asking you to provide proof. And then you tried to pass off your opinion as that proof. Now you are claiming you did no such thing.

Eh, what? Okay, you seem to be talking yourself in circles. Let me expain... ah nevermind. Sure, you win. You're right. Go pat yourself on the back and give yourself a cookie.

[Darth Wong]

[Precisely. "Man on the street" interviews, which are obviously an individual's opinion. What part of my last post did you not understand?

Mike, they (Al-Jezeera) portrayed the attack something done by the US deliberately.

By interviewing a victim of the attack and letting him air his opinion? You're working pretty hard to justify your claim of factually inaccurate reporting.

Al-Jezeera isn't making things up totally but their editiorial slant is such that they can't be treated as a wholy relieable source either.

No one was asking if they can be blindly trusted, and I'll kindly ask you to refrain from strawman distortions and black/white fallacies in future.