this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024

95 points (96.1% liked)

World News

45720 readers

2180 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

War of words as Erdogan says Turkey could intervene in Israel’s war on Gaza (www.aljazeera.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

TFW a politician you don’t like says something you agree with.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

A broken clock, yadda yadda yadda

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The thing is he always says it but never does anything

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He said something similar 7-8 months ago, I feel its more just talks than something that would actually happen.

Old video from months ago (with English subtitles); Erdogan: “We may suddenly knock on your door one night”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He says it every year, all words no action.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Talking threatening shit about the US / Israel is a common pastime among leaders of a certain alignment. It’s like US leaders talking about jobs. It’s just sort of what comes out from time to time if you want to win elections.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Al Jazeera Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)

Al Jazeera is rated with Medium Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: Qatar
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Famp%2Fnews%2F2024%2F7%2F29%2Fhitler-vs-saddam-war-of-words-as-turkey-threatens-to-enter-israel

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I predict that the “mixed” will be based on, at most, like 1-2 arguably-false-in-retrospect stories from at least five years ago and an overall claim like “well they say bad things about Israel and that just makes us pretty suspicious, you get it, right?”. Not anything along the lines of that they are ever careless with the truth.

Brb

Edit: Nailed it. They don’t even try to pretend there’s any factual issue with the reporting.

In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.

Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

In 2017, Al Jazeera aired an investigative report of Britain’s Israel lobby. Following the airing, Ofcom (the UK government-approved regulatory and competition authority) received complaints from many pro-Israeli British activists, including one former Israeli embassy employee. They were accused of anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and infringement of privacy, which was later cleared by Ofcom, who said the piece was not anti-semitic and was, in fact, investigative journalism. Later, a US version of the documentary called “Lobby” was not aired due to pressure from US Legislators pushing for Al Jazeera to register as a foreign entity and therefore labeling its journalists as ‘spies.’ Further, Saudi Arabia and three other Arab nations demanded Qatar to shut down Al-Jazeera. Al Jazeera rebuts the accusations here.

I wonder if the New York Times is “mixed” on its factual reporting based on one story I could find, maybe a little more recent one than 2017.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They don’t even try to pretend there’s any factual issue with the reporting.

Well duh MBFC is biased as fuck.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

They are, indeed. I was actually fairly surprised how little they try to disguise their “we will ding you and pretend you are lying if you express anti Israel opinions.”

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I predict that the “mixed” will be based on, at most, like 1-2 arguably-false-in-retrospect stories from at least five years ago and an overall claim like “well they say bad things about Israel and that just makes us pretty suspicious, you get it, right?”. Not anything along the lines of that they are ever careless with the truth.

Try to find any negative coverage about Qatar on AJ.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The last coverage of any description I saw on any outlet about Qatar was during the Trump administration.

Actually, I don’t think it’s fully true that they don’t do negative coverage of Qatar - this story definitely isn’t, like, a positive story. But I’m sure they have some level of slant to their Qatar coverage; my wider point was that, all things considered, they’re actually among the extreme top level of honest and evenhanded journalistic outlets and whatever blind spots they have are dwarfed by the blind spots that exist in a lot of Western sources, that MBFC I am sure rates highly because the blind spots line up with where MBFC likes them to be.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Right, whereas you have no blind spots, and are able to accurately assess the truthiness of a publication. If you'd like to establish the credibility of Al-Jazeera, could you help me find their coverage of these various Qatar-related items? I tried, and can't find a trace of any of them on AJ, which is odd because some people online say they're very trustworthy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68859840

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/us-soccer-journalist-grant-wahl-dies-covering-world-cup-1.6681457

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/27/qatar-deaths-how-many-migrant-workers-died-world-cup-number-toll

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure I have blind spots. I think what I said about their coverage speaks for itself. You can read it, agree with it, disagree with it, whatever you want to do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68859840

This one story about this one man in Qatari custody was not covered on Al Jazeera, no. I'm sure he's not the only gay man in prison in Qatar. Like I say, I'm sure they have blind spots. I am comparing their blind spots against other publications that have other blind spots, not against a theoretical outlet which simply has none.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/us-soccer-journalist-grant-wahl-dies-covering-world-cup-1.6681457

This one is covered pretty much word for word identical (presumably from the same wire service), including the discussion of his rainbow shirt, here.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/27/qatar-deaths-how-many-migrant-workers-died-world-cup-number-toll

Covered here, same facts, albeit with a fairly explicit level of slant.

Can I do the same for the New York Times now? Or an outlet of your choice which you would say is exceeding Al Jazeera's standard?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Covered here, same facts, albeit with a fairly explicit level of slant.

Oh give me a break. Call it what it is: propaganda. You won't hear me defend the NYT but this (edit: the article, not your comment) is pure garbage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No, it's reporting the Qatari government's assertion as "the truth" and the Amnesty International side as the "opposition" while still presenting both sides pretty accurately. It's not great. But it's far better than I would suspect you'll find in pro-Israel outlets that are graded as "mixed."

By contrast, the Washington Post wrote a story about how Trump might be a really great thing for NATO if he gets elected, because he can finally fix all the problems with it. That's pure garbage. Result? "Mostly factual." "High credibility." I would be surprised if you can find even a single article with an equivalent level of bullshit in Al Jazeera, even when the topic is Israel or Qatar or something.

IDK, I feel like you're just picking one individual part of my messages that you can disagree with, and moving the goalposts around, so you can keep the argument going, but I think I have completed and then some what I had to say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

FWIW I also disagree with WaPo being "highly credible". What I take issue with here is the labeling of AJ as highly credible. I would reserve that label for outlets like AP or Reuters, or a few state media like France24 and perhaps the CBC. The BBC would have made the cut a few years ago but has been in sharp decline.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I can more or less agree with that. I didn't say Al Jazeera needed to be highly credible. I said they are factual with a certain clear bias involved. But they're doing serious journalism and the conflation of "is anti Israel" with "is lying" is a pretty common thread in MBFC, so much so that they don't even bother to hide it or pretend that anything other than them being anti-Israel is the issue that keeps them down in the not really factual category.

The reality is, they're not "mixed." They are mostly or almost entirely factual. And then, also, they have a significant notable bias. Trying to pretend that they're "mixed" factually is dishonest.