I did not know the times of israel before you mentioned it. Neither did I compare it to Aljazeera, you did.
I’m sticking to my opinion that fact checking is important, especially with topics like the israel-palastine-conflict. And people should know Aljazeera is a Qatari news agency with strong own agenda. This fact does not imply the article content you posted is wrong, neither did I say this.
No idea if you called me israeli or if you think israeli is an insult. But it is alarming to me and it seems to me you are more part of the propaganda battle than bringing anything constructive to the table.
In Elkhoury’s view, hostility to Israel often comes from a very deep-seated dehumanizing attitude. “A lot of people don’t see Israelis as human beings. That’s why they go and rip off flyers of kidnapped babies.”
I’m not going to disagree that Aljazeera will only show news that is beneficial to the Palestinian cause. However they are NOT randomly making stuff up like we’ve seen many western news outlets (or even the White House for that matter) do.
If they make a mistake then it is because live-reporting means not all the facts are fully known at the time of filming and/or israel will not allow an independant investigation. Such as the case of the first hospital bombing where all the initial claims (and israel themselves literally saying they were gonna bomb the hospital) pointed towards israel.
My question to you: Do you believe that this Aljazeera article about israel arresting almost as many people as they released is false?
If you read the comment chain again, you will see OP mentioned times of israel first, it is the first time I hear of that news agency.
I also never said that Aljazeera is randomly making stuff up. All I wanted to do is adding something constructive to the discussion. It is impressive how strong the emotions towards a simple bias fact check are, but that just reflects how sensitive the topic in the israel-palestinian war is.
The world is complex and everybody tries to construct a picture of reality that is as complete and objective as possible, and for that we rely on the media. But media is biased and the society you are living in is too.
Reuters is probably less biased then Aljazeera and aljazeera is probably less biased than Fox News. That’s how media works.
So what can you do? Consider as many sources as possible, use your ratio, knowledge and experience. And to help you getting an overview of all the thousands of news agencies, you may use a little tool like the one I posted. OP has a profile with posts only from one website, and I say that’s sus.
Regarding your last question: I haven’t read the article yet tbh.
What is even the goal of your original comment if not to discredit Aljazeera? If their article is false then debunk it. If not there is no point to linking some random bias site that is biased themselves.
They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
You’ve seriously never came across those “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display” headlines? Read more newspapers then I’d say. It’s standard practice at least in British and British-influenced journalism, that’s not up to debate it’s a fact.
Times of israel is straight up IDF propaganda. Get out of here with your “fact check” bullshit. israelis truly have no limit to their shamelessness.
I did not know the times of israel before you mentioned it. Neither did I compare it to Aljazeera, you did.
I’m sticking to my opinion that fact checking is important, especially with topics like the israel-palastine-conflict. And people should know Aljazeera is a Qatari news agency with strong own agenda. This fact does not imply the article content you posted is wrong, neither did I say this.
No idea if you called me israeli or if you think israeli is an insult. But it is alarming to me and it seems to me you are more part of the propaganda battle than bringing anything constructive to the table.
What an amazing unbiased left-wing news site. https://www.timesofisrael.com/lebanese-israeli-advocate-on-us-colleges-post-oct-7-many-dont-see-israelis-as-humans/
I’m not going to disagree that Aljazeera will only show news that is beneficial to the Palestinian cause. However they are NOT randomly making stuff up like we’ve seen many western news outlets (or even the White House for that matter) do.
If they make a mistake then it is because live-reporting means not all the facts are fully known at the time of filming and/or israel will not allow an independant investigation. Such as the case of the first hospital bombing where all the initial claims (and israel themselves literally saying they were gonna bomb the hospital) pointed towards israel.
My question to you: Do you believe that this Aljazeera article about israel arresting almost as many people as they released is false?
If you read the comment chain again, you will see OP mentioned times of israel first, it is the first time I hear of that news agency.
I also never said that Aljazeera is randomly making stuff up. All I wanted to do is adding something constructive to the discussion. It is impressive how strong the emotions towards a simple bias fact check are, but that just reflects how sensitive the topic in the israel-palestinian war is.
The world is complex and everybody tries to construct a picture of reality that is as complete and objective as possible, and for that we rely on the media. But media is biased and the society you are living in is too.
Reuters is probably less biased then Aljazeera and aljazeera is probably less biased than Fox News. That’s how media works.
So what can you do? Consider as many sources as possible, use your ratio, knowledge and experience. And to help you getting an overview of all the thousands of news agencies, you may use a little tool like the one I posted. OP has a profile with posts only from one website, and I say that’s sus.
Regarding your last question: I haven’t read the article yet tbh.
What is even the goal of your original comment if not to discredit Aljazeera? If their article is false then debunk it. If not there is no point to linking some random bias site that is biased themselves.
deleted by creator
Straight up IDF propaganda, eh. Seriously read that article and claim that again I’ll know if you didn’t.
They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-investigating-cruel-hamas-claim-that-bibas-children-mother-killed-in-gaza/
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
Half a quote is not a quote. A single word from a quote is not a quote. Either you quote a whole sentence or you don’t. Learn what quoting is.
You’ve seriously never came across those “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display” headlines? Read more newspapers then I’d say. It’s standard practice at least in British and British-influenced journalism, that’s not up to debate it’s a fact.