Israel is following the Nazi Germany playbook rather closely, isn't it?
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
95 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22056 readers
39 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah and also your comment might be illegal in the US soon
Well its actually the British that trained them to be brutal colonizers
Always the sign of a stable democracy.
@mozz
Thanks Israel! Now I know which news network still deliver unbiased news.
Dude Al Jazeera's fuckin fantastic
It is quite literally the only news I'm aware of which is (1) fairly big and professional, competent (2) not automatically pro-Western on everything (3) not run by some government, and filled with stories about how that government's great and any bad stories about it are evil lies
While not run by the government, the Al Jazeera Media Network is partially funded by the government of Qatar. I don’t think this is a negative, but something people should be aware of.
Yeah fair enough. If you want to know shady things about Jared Kushner (edit: or good things about Israel), they're probably not gonna say a god damned word.
Even aside from potential or actual bias, there's a pretty wide gap between bias and the incitement that the Israeli government is accusing Al Jazeera of. I don't have to fully endorse the entirety of Al Jazeera's coverage to think that shutting them down and criminalizing them is a pretty huge overreach.
For those looking to better understand the biases of any given media outlet, this is a good place to drop a recommendation for Citations Needed podcast with Adam Johnson and Nima Shiraz.
It's a great media analysis and criticism show. Who watches the watchers? These fuckin guys!
They are the remnants of BBC Middle East, hence que quality. They are, however, funded by the government of Qatar, and you won’t see that country being cast in unfavorable light in their articles. But other than that, they’re great.
They are the remnants of BBC Middle East,
Remnants? What happened to them?
A really good article about it. TLDR: BBC decided to close it. But do read the article, it shows why Qatar decided to fund it, and it's really interesting.
(3*) [unless for some weird reason you want news about Qatar]
Uhm... This is a joke, right?
Al Jazeera is the Qatari government. The stateargely responsible for the funding of Hamas, and the believed home of Hamas leadership.
I can't imagine this comment you made was done in good faith. Or are you that ignorant?
Innuendo Studios calls this The Ship of Theseus -- taking individual half-truths and stringing them together into a long line to construct an aggregate statement that bears no resemblance to the truth.
Al Jazeera is the Qatari government.
* partly owned by the Qatari government
The stateargely responsible for the funding of Hamas
* responsible for maybe a third of the funding of Hamas ever since it was given the blessing of the Netanyahu government to do so
the believed home of Hamas leadership.
Not seeing the connection. "Some of Hamas's horrible and corrupt leaders live in Qatar, therefore a news outlet funded partly by the government of Qatar is obviously compromised." I mean, Jared Kushner lives in Florida. Does that mean something about the Miami Herald (or would it, if DeSantis was partially funding it)?
I don't think it's a secret that Al Jazeera has a generally pro-Arab and anti-Israeli viewpoint. I said they were fuckin fantastic and listed some reasons; I didn't say they were totally free from bias / free from having a viewpoint. But even their stories directly on the Gaza war (the most slanted selection of stuff you'll be able to find) are actually pretty factual to me. An example is this story about the Hamas rape claims. It's a little slanted. I don't agree with "while isolated rapes may have taken place, there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that rape had been 'widespread and systematic'." But, it acknowledges sexual violence and human rights violations by Hamas. That puts it absolutely well and clear above the quality of a lot of Israeli media from the mirror-image side, and actually more anti-Hamas than even a lot of the Western press on the same story, which for some reason made the whole focus of the story into the New York Times reporting "false stories," without also making it clear that yes, there was definitely sexual violence, that part is undeniably true even if some specific stories were false.
Do you know of any really severely slanted / dishonest coverage by Al Jazeera? Stories where Israel are involved, and not bothering to report anything about Jared Kushner, are the only examples I'm really aware of. Other than that kind of thing I think of it as generally excellent quality.
That isn't what the ship of Theseus is, and I would also point out that staking money from the funder and shelterers of a terrorist organization, even if just 30%, creates a conflict of interest that can't be ignored or brushed aside.
We are living in mirror world when leftists are getting their news from right wing theocracies.
So, no specific example(s) of dishonest coverage from them?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism
There is an entire Wikipedia page if you are truly interested. I don't believe you are.
Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Iraq: The controversy is that some government attacked Al Jazeera for its reporting and/or took away their press credentials or ability to operate. It's noted that it's banned from operating in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE.
Australia, Bangladesh: Can't completely make head or tail of what happened but it sounds like government people getting mad at Al Jazeera for their reporting, not some disinterested party saying that some reporting Al Jazeera was doing wasn't true
Israel: I found, for the first time, some pretty credible allegations of them doing something wrong, including among other things one story from February 2015 that actually seemed like something they reported wasn't true.
At that point I stopped reading the list. But I had to go 8 countries down before I found something where it actually sounded to me like they definitely did something wrong, and 9 years back before I found one story they reported that was actually completely untrue (as opposed to just a bias you have to keep in mind when reading).
Question. If an Israeli or American paper:
- Celebrated the release of someone who had killed a bunch of Arabs
- Published a story about Arab atrocities that turned out not to be true
- Published only one side of the story about an armed conflict, where really both sides needed to be presented
Would that mean it's a joke and anyone who reads it is ignorant? 'Cause they do that shit all the time. I don't think so; I think they can still be a good paper, you just have to keep in mind the bias that they have.
I would have to know what specific allegations you are making against other media sources before I answer that question.
Sure thing. We can start with:
- Published only one side: This is a pretty good overview
- False story: 40 beheaded babies
Well I notice Fox is a common denominator in both stories, and I do believe people who get their news from that source are generally guillable at best and uneducated at worst.
But I also think all sides are equally capable of getting things wrong, which is why we need independent journalists (such as those aligned with Bellingcat, for instance) to have reporters on the ground.
- It's not Fox; it's MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, NPR, Reuters, the New York Times, and Joe Biden.
- "All sides are equally capable of getting things wrong" was exactly my point here. Your second paragraph, I very much agree with. Does that mean that your whole assertion that Al Jazeera was dangerous evil terrorist garbage is retracted now? I would say that they are roughly speaking a mirror image for the New York Times or similar "Israel is fine, please look away from this dead baby at this story about Hamas instead" minded paper. Or is the New York Times also dangerous and evil? Or does it work in only one direction, or how?
I mean, if your mindset is that Israel is the good guys and Hamas are the bad guys, and so a bias against Israel is an offensive thing and you don't want to stomach it in your news organizations, then fair enough. You can say that if you want. But I think some people will try to present that as the "objective" viewpoint and the mirror image viewpoint as the "terrorist" viewpoint. That's not really a requirement I have for my news (in either direction) -- like just tell me what happened, filter it through whatever lens is how you think it is, and let me sort out from a few multiple sources and make sense of how I think the overall picture is. As long as someone's not outright lying, it doesn't bother me. And I feel like if Al Jazeera were making up facts on any kind of regular basis I'd have heard of it, and the fact that so many authoritarian governments want to ban them kind of makes me like them.
Besides NPR (which itself does not do international on the ground reporting) which of your sources are state funded? Specifically which of them are funded by a right wing theocracy?
None. That is the difference. Fox News might overtly hate gay people, but are they funded by people who have courts which prosecute homosexuality?
We should prevent that sort of stuff at home and disavow it abroad. Especially if we are leftists, no?
You didn't really answer the question.
Does that mean that your whole assertion that Al Jazeera was dangerous evil terrorist garbage is retracted now? I would say that they are roughly speaking a mirror image for the New York Times or similar "Israel is fine, please look away from this dead baby at this story about Hamas instead" minded paper. Or is the New York Times also dangerous and evil? Or does it work in only one direction, or how?
Someone could say that the New York Times is funded by a mindless money-driven machine which seeks only profit, and all its coverage needs to be defined in that light, and so we can safely discard anything it has to say. I wouldn't say that. But it does make arguably an equal amount of sense to discarding Al Jazeera because they're funded in part by a theocratic monarchy. I would say we should judge them primarily on their output and journalistic standards.
I would say in this specific situation, Al Jazeerah is more of a participie in the Israel-Palestine war than the New York times is.
I however don't read the New York times and have no ability to defend them, since I cut out corporate media from my life years ago.
Let me just tell you, you'd have been on the wrong side of history during the Troubles.
Now that aside, if you think there's only one terrorist organization involved in the current war you need to rethink, well, everything about the conflict, because everything Hamas does Israel does times 10 to 100.
You have taken my position against state funded media and extrapolated that to decide my opinions on the Irish?
Wow. Do you take palm readings as well or convene with the dead?
Do I really need to explain the similarity between Hamas and the IRA?
If you want to send me a pro-hamas diatribe, feel free.
I don't agree with "while isolated rapes may have taken place, there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that rape had been 'widespread and systematic'."
I mean it turned that that there was no widespread and systematic rape no?
I read part of the UN report; I would describe what they reported as "widespread." Especially since they lay out a lot of the factors that would prevent them finding out about any given instance where it happened and they still found a bunch of instances.
Yeah fair enough.
I mean they're not gonna say bad shit about Qatar, but other than that they're pretty good.
They won't tell the truth about right wing theocracies, but you trust them otherwise?
You are very lenient on your sources. I'm not that lenient.
Uh... That's not how bias works.
I am willing to listen about how bias works if you are willing to inform me.
There's several others. Even Israeli news outlet 972 is killing it
I hope Yuval Abraham wins a Pulitzer for the report on Lavendar and other AI systems driving the genocide
Since they can't bomb that one, guess they'll stick to the other gestapo tricks
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Israel has ordered the closure of Al Jazeera in the country, a move the Qatar-based news network called a “criminal act.”
Video obtained by CNN showed Israeli police accompanied by agents of the Israel Security Agency entering Al Jazeera’s broadcasting position in Jerusalem on Sunday.
Al Jazeera condemned the Israeli cabinet’s decision as a “criminal act,” which it said infringes on the human right to access information.
It continued: “Israel’s suppression of the free press to cover up its crimes by killing and arresting journalists did not deter us from performing our duty.
The move comes a month after Netanyahu vowed to shut down the television channel in the country following the passage of a sweeping law allowing the government to ban foreign networks perceived as posing a threat to national security.
In response, Al Jazeera – which has been producing on the ground reporting of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza – slammed the decision and vowed to continue its “bold and professional coverage.”
Saved 70% of original text.