Is Al-jazeera Fair?
HBNayr
Join Date: 2002-07-13 Member: 930Members
Join Date: 2002-07-13 Member: 930Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What news outlet is truly objective?</div> Al-Jazeera prides itself on its adherence to their motto, "The opinion and the counter-opinion." Does <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage' target='_blank'>al-Jazeera</a> fairly present both sides of an issue? Who do you trust? <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/' target='_blank'>MSNBC</a>? <a href='http://www.time.com' target='_blank'>Time</a>? <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/' target='_blank'>Newsweek</a>? <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml' target='_blank'>BBC</a>? <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/' target='_blank'>The New York Times</a>? <a href='http://www.nypost.com/' target='_blank'>New York Post</a>? <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/' target='_blank'>The Washington Post</a>? <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/' target='_blank'>Fox News</a>? <a href='http://www.cnn.com/' target='_blank'>CNN</a>? <a href='http://www.onion.com/' target='_blank'>The Onion</a>?
-Ryan!
"So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it, but I couldn't find honest employment."
-- Mark Twain
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.
-- Unknown, Marin County newspaper's TV listing for "The Wizard of Oz"
-Ryan!
"So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it, but I couldn't find honest employment."
-- Mark Twain
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.
-- Unknown, Marin County newspaper's TV listing for "The Wizard of Oz"
Comments
Personally, I read <i>The Guardian</i> and/or <i>The Daily Telegraph</i>. I don't watch the news on TV.
Link please, I'm rather curious.
They are quite neutral in my opinion. They do offer both sides of the story. What do you expect the Terrorist group to do anyway. Mail the video first class to CNN via UPS?
This network just happen to be at the right (uhh wrong?) place at right (bleh, wrong?) time.
but, of course its not unreasonable to think a mistake would be removed when its found out to be incorrect.
can anyone find a link showing the erronious report?
also, what would the network gain by spreading such a lie if it were malicious.
I assume you are somehow implying that al-Jazeera is somehow dishonest. I can only assume your have reams of proof, otherwise you would not libel a world-renowed and widely respected news organization.
So, please, elaborate.
And, EEK, where did you hear that al-Jazeera claimed that Uday and Qusay were still alive? Are you thinking of <a href='http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/010624.html' target='_blank'>El-Kuds el-Arabi</a>? Al-Jazeera is rarely inaccurate in its reporting, especially when drawing a conclusion like Uday and Qusay are not really dead. Unless they had interviewed them that day, and had video footage of it, I can't imagine al-Jazeera reporting anything of the sort.
Don't assume that because the network is actually Arabic, it must somehow be biased against us. I would say, if anything, al-Jazeera is <i>less</i> biased than, say, CNN.
-Ryan!
The US accused al-Jazeera and other Arab channels of anti-American bias in their coverage of the war. But how biased can a picture of dead people be? A picture of a destroyed house doesn't need a reporter to tell its story, and the tears of children and refugees need no interpreter.
-- <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1055779,00.html' target='_blank'>Dima Tareq Tahboub</a>
Not one link on the former Iraqi regime's dictator regarding his awesome domestic policies.
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E01AEE95-E138-4B83-86DC-CDFCC40C7BB0.htm' target='_blank'>Jewish Occupation vs.</a>
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E01AEE95-E138-4B83-86DC-CDFCC40C7BB0.htm' target='_blank'>Arab Occupation.</a>
Jewish occupation refers to isreal (big surprise). Arab occupation refers to Iraq.
Can you smell the bias in the air...? Still need a stronger scent?
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E01AEE95-E138-4B83-86DC-CDFCC40C7BB0.htm' target='_blank'>Bush vs.</a> - Can you count how many articles he has? 461? As well as the fact that I can't find one positive article of Bush. There may 1-2 (or none), but if you'd like to find them be my guest.
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E01AEE95-E138-4B83-86DC-CDFCC40C7BB0.htm' target='_blank'>Saddam</a> - All of the stories refers to how Saddam is defending himself, or how he is caught. Not one on his super cool domestic policies. Saddam also has 236 articles on him.
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E01AEE95-E138-4B83-86DC-CDFCC40C7BB0.htm' target='_blank'>vs. Abdullah.</a> 11 Articles. Abdullah, btw, is the leader of Saudi Arabia.
So tell me, if this is such a great news soruce, that has no bias, why does it do more reporting on American issues, ones that almost always make America look bad, and focus on <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>none</span> of it's own? According to this great news source of Al-Jazeera, America is the only real problem Arabs need worry about.
I'm looking through some searches, but I see no bias whatsoever. Why shouldn't there be several hundred articles on Bush? For better or worse, he is a newsmaker in current events. But instead of just searching randomly, why don't you try <i>reading</i> the articles? Please, I challenge you to show me a negative article on Bush. A positive article on Saddam. Every article I can find from al-Jazeera, no matter what the topic, does not have a positive or negative undertone. It's very objective, only reporting the facts.
I find it telling that originally, you accuse al-Jazeera of being a "network that just outright lies," but now you merely claim that it has an anti-American bias. Your support for such an accusation? Not any quotes, or articles they have written with an anti-American undertone, but a five-second cursory job with their search engine. I'm sure that I could find an "anti-American" bias with any news agency with that kind of conjecture. Just search for Abu Ghraib.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So tell me, if this is such a great news soruce, that has no bias, why does it do more reporting on American issues, ones that almost always make America look bad, and focus on none of it's own?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, for better or worse, America is a newsmaker in the world today. It would make sense for a majority of stories to involve her in one way or another, no matter the reports' country of origin. But you seem to imply that al-Jazeera only runs anti-American stories, even when the focus of the stories are in the Arab world. Let's look at their <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54C8AFC7-8C97-4C4F-B38D-D41E6169C42E.htm' target='_blank'>front page</a> for news from the Arab world. Look at <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA3AE5D2-3448-4459-BD47-E8089E9CCB37.htm' target='_blank'>that</a>. A story on Saudi unemployment, without a single mention of America. And <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7280F8B5-A8F3-403F-8C1B-8D847788B905.htm' target='_blank'>here's</a> an article on the possible surrender of the leader of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. No mention of America whatsoever. Maybe the <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D2812BA2-F293-4E60-8278-84E227C6B12B.htm' target='_blank'>Turkish train wreck</a> mentions the deep-seated hatred for America that no doubt caused the train wreck. No? Well, how about this article about an <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55295255-97A7-456C-88B1-2243884CE925.htm' target='_blank'>American tank driving through a bus and killing nine civilians</a>. Surely that express deep hatred to those evil, imperialistic Americans who did this to the Iraqis. What's that? Just information on the number dead and injured, and information about footage taken at the accident that differed from the official story given by the U.S. military? Why, the very fact that they would print America's side of the story makes me wonder how biased against us they really could really be. I mean, our new agencies didn't have an anti-Iraq bias, did they? They certainly claimed not to. But how often did CNN run press releases from Baghdad? How often did Fox News run interviews with Saddam Hussein?
Being objective means covering both sides of the story. Al-Jazeera runs those press releases America gives to every network. They choose to get the other side of the story, as well, and present that to their viewer. Fair, objective, honest, and accurate for all involved. In fact, they can sometimes be more accurate than some Western networks. During the war, al-Jazeera had reporters embedded with the military, just as every other network did. They also had reporters and cameramen covering the streets of Iraq. One notable example: when the war first began in April of 2003, every Western network, the BBC included, reported that Shi'ite Muslims revolted against Iraqi troops in Basra. On Fox News, anchor Neil Cavuto crowed, "Don't look now, but the Shi'ites have hit the fan!" But al-Jazeera had a correspondent inside Basra, which appeared to be quite orderly - quiet streets and groups chanting pro-Saddam slogans. Every Western network quickly backpedaled. And for four days after U.S. television had said that the allies had taken the port city of Umm Qasr, al-Jazeera correctly reported resistance there. There are several other examples, but need I go on?
Forlorn, lies and hearsay will not sustain your argument. If you choose to insist that al-Jazeera is anything but a necessary media outlet in today's world, back it up with something other than blind, random conjecture. Like maybe a quote and a link.
-Ryan!
"I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."
-- D*ck Cheney, March 16, 2003
Either war is obsolete or men are.
-- R. Buckminster Fuller, New Yorker, Jan. 8, 1966
Edit: The swear filter doesn't like the first name of our Vice-President.
Well when a story spent 4 paragraphs telling how the tank ran into the bus and then in a quick snipit at the end they just mention the other sides point. Seems to be a bias there, or just crappy reporting. If you claim to show both sides of the strory, than why not mention that the minibus was trying to pass another vehicle?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A minibus collided with a U.S. tank Thursday night, killing nine Iraqis and injuring 10 others, according to a U.S. military spokesman.
The minibus tried to pass another vehicle in Baghdad, the spokesman said. No U.S. forces were injured.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/23/iraq.main/index.html' target='_blank'>ARticle</a>
Just because you give both sides of the story, doesnt mean you are not bias. Look at your favorit example Fox News. They often have both a Rep. and Dem. representatives comment on issues, yet they are still bias in your eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A minibus collided with a U.S. tank Thursday night, killing nine Iraqis and injuring 10 others, according to a U.S. military spokesman.
The minibus tried to pass another vehicle in Baghdad, the spokesman said. No U.S. forces were injured.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Al-Jazeera has footage of the accident scene. They have eyewitness testimony. They say what happened, based on the evidence presented to them. Then, to be fair, they also say what U.S. officials say happened. CNN? They give you the story from the military, and be damned how accurate it might be.
Also, two of those "paragraphs" were only one sentence long. The other two "paragraphs" were two sentences long each.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you claim to show both sides of the strory, than why not mention that the minibus was [allegedly] trying to pass another vehicle?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have yet to see al-Jazeera present conjecture in any article they have ever written. Unless there is video footage, or several independent, reliable eyewitness, they will not print it. As the U.S. military hit-and-run from the scene of the accident, the validity of the American claim is in question. Or is skepticism not applicable when you have the word of a U.S. military spokesman? After all, we're so spot on about everything else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because you give both sides of the story, doesnt mean you are not bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps. But al-Jazeera reported <i>only</i> the facts in that story. Show me a single sentence in the article with any opinion or conjecture whatsoever. That is truly unbiased and objective reporting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look at your favorit example Fox News. They often have both a Rep. and Dem. representatives comment on issues, yet they are still bias in your eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, like that wonderful pundit show with Sean Hannity, a self-described "arch-conservative," and Alan Colmes, a self-described...moderate? ("I'm quite moderate," was the exact quote he told a USA Today reporter.) So, please, show me one liberal talking head on Fox News. Not a guest, but a regular. Fox News presents both sides of an issue, if you believe one side to be far-right, and the other side to be the middle. Al-Jazeera does not present one side or another through regular talking heads, only news, and in a fair and objective manner. The network occassionally has guests on punditry shows, but when they do, it truly is balanced and fair.
-Ryan!
"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
-- Joaquin Setanti
"It is never too late to be what you might have been."
-- George Eliot
"This fellow they've nominated claims he's the new Thomas Jefferson. Well let me tell you something; I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine and Governor... You're no Thomas Jefferson!"
-- Ronald Reagan, 1992
Sir, these shows that offered BOTH sides of the arguments to the like of CNN's Crossfire and Fox channels are one of the most misleading feature ever in the US news channel.
They either offer the most extremists arguing senselessly with each other, or an easy prey for their network's agenda. Worse yet, they pass on baseless claims or accusation to try and win arguments. Then people repeated them like a word from God.
Real news show offer nothing but facts, when there is a conflicting eyewitness, they mentioned both and told them in a footnote.
Also, two of those "paragraphs" were only one sentence long. The other two "paragraphs" were two sentences long each.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice where the US's view is at the end, as well as the misproportional reporting, and if it's on video than why couldn't Al-Jazeera point out for itself how the bus was moving before it was hit? I.E.: Passing another vehicle near a tank. Smart move! Tell me where that driver went to driving school, I'll make sure to avoid it.
Not only that, but lets see...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US tank crash kills Iraqis<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the headline. Why not "Bus crashes into American tank?" Or
"Fatal minibus accident in Baghdad" (CNN's headline)
I just presented to you Arab bias, American bias, and an objective title, in that order.
Lets look at how CNN puts the incident:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A minibus collided with a U.S. tank Thursday night, killing nine Iraqis and injuring 10 others, according to a U.S. military spokesman.
The minibus tried to pass another vehicle in Baghdad, the spokesman said. No U.S. forces were injured.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Versus Al-Jazeera
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, the US military gave a different version of the incident.
In a statement on Friday it said a van collided with a US tank and that nine were killed and 10 injured. There were no US casualties.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which states there is a van, and did not even present the US's story:
1. Is a lie, there was no van
2. According to CNN the minibus tried to pass another vehicle and hit the tank.
...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have yet to see al-Jazeera present conjecture in any article they have ever written. Unless there is video footage, or several independent, reliable eyewitness, they will not print it. As the U.S. military hit-and-run from the scene of the accident, the validity of the American claim is in question. Or is skepticism not applicable when you have the word of a U.S. military spokesman? After all, we're so spot on about everything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How facts are presented is also an important factor to consider when judging bais.
How the wording is used, is a good thing to consider. Also, newspapers follow this format:
[TOP]
Most important stuff here
[MIDDLE]
Details
[BOTTEM]
Small stuff in case anyone reads this far, like the losers at ns.org <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So you can tell what a newspaper values as most important and least important in the order it presents it's facts. Putting wrong US oppinions at the bottem of their articles is definately bias.
If you read the article, you see that al-Jazeera reports that they have video footage of the accident scene, not the accident as it was occurring. Whether it was the fault of the driver of the tank or of the minibus is in question. But let's look at the way police handle hit-and-run accidents in the States. Those who run from the scene of the accident are most likely guilty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US tank crash kills Iraqis<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just presented to you Arab bias...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how there is a significant Arab bias in this headline. A US tank crash <i>did</i> kill Iraqis. It is a quite factual statement. It might have been worded differently, but the burden of proof is on those who fled the scene of the accident, not those who died.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Is a lie, there was no van<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A minbus <i>is</i> a van. The words are so close to each other I find this "lie" to be quite funny. Try not to reach so far next time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. According to CNN the minibus tried to pass another vehicle and hit the tank.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CNN said no such thing. If you read the CNN report, it contains the phrase, "according to a U.S. military spokesman." CNN did not verify this independently. Al-Jazeera was on-site.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you can tell what a newspaper values as most important and least important in the order it presents it's facts. Putting wrong US oppinions at the bottem of their articles is definately bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The order in which it presents the facts is correct. As al-Jazeera was on-site, they printed first those things that were directly observable. They did not begin with the U.S. version fo the story because it did not match the facts at the site of the accident, and because it was conjecture, not solid, observable reality. They report the facts. So, again, I ask you to find an untrue or biased statement in their news reports.
-Ryan!
There are many in the world dying for a piece of bread, but there are more dying for a little love.
-- Mother Teresa
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein