Meanwhile back in Israel

rr165892 said:

But are they blatantly biased in opposition of Israel?

Are you not then saying ANY reporting critical of Israeli governmental action biased against?

rr165892 said:

No,just al-Jazeera.

Hmm. Ok then as I asked, point to some more neutrl sources that will tell both sides of the issue.

Am curious though, what leads you to that conclusion of bias in this source.

rgambs said:

show previous quotes

mickeyrat said:

rr165892 said:

No,just al-Jazeera.

Hmm. Ok then as I asked, point to some more neutrl sources that will tell both sides of the issue.

Am curious though, what leads you to that conclusion of bias in this source.

I know plenty of people who would automatically assume they support terrorists based off the name alone, I mean, why would they have an Arabic name unless they are jihadists???

No name alone is not an issue.But they are more sympathetic I would think.Much like the NYT would be in reverse.Im acknowledging the bias both ways.
I soured on them years ago when they were the exclusive dumping ground for all jihadist head lopping videos.And protected sources.So that's my stance.
I only commented about Mickeys links because his last few have all been from the same source.

rr165892 said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

mickeyrat said:

rr165892 said:

No,just al-Jazeera.

Hmm. Ok then as I asked, point to some more neutrl sources that will tell both sides of the issue.

Am curious though, what leads you to that conclusion of bias in this source.

I know plenty of people who would automatically assume they support terrorists based off the name alone, I mean, why would they have an Arabic name unless they are jihadists???

No name alone is not an issue.But they are more sympathetic I would think.Much like the NYT would be in reverse.Im acknowledging the bias both ways.
I soured on them years ago when they were the exclusive dumping ground for all jihadist head lopping videos.And protected sources.So that's my stance.
I only commented about Mickeys links because his last few have all been from the same source.

Isnt source protection a standard journalistic duty here? Why should it be considered differently elsewhere?

Well, there's certainly bias in Al Jazeera's reporting, just as there's bias in just about any news organization. The trick with any source is to consider its editorial point of view. There's a difference in bias between the Washington Post and Washington Times. There's a difference in bias between Fox News and MSNBC. That doesn't mean that the stories/articles should be dismissed or discounted out of hand, but it always helps to understand what you're reading.

Anyway, rather than posting a bunch of links, here's a quick one highlighting some of Al Jazeera's biases. Again, that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid source of news, or that anything it prints is incorrect, I certainly read Al Jazeera from time to time and appreciate getting a different perspective.

Hey RR heres a snippet of the Wikipedia article linked by jeffbr


Contrary to some allegations, including the oft-reported comments of Donald Rumsfeld on 4 June 2005, Al Jazeera has never shown beheadings. (Beheadings have appeared on numerous non-Al Jazeera websites and have sometimes been misattributed to Al Jazeera.)[57]

This again, rr? I'm not going to call you out for another ad hominem fallacy (discrediting the source), because lets face it....I do it all the time when people try to convince me of something by quoting Fox or whatever...but as we went thru a few months back in the 'new face of terrorism' thread - it really isn't possible to find an unbiased source. The source, the reporter, the editor, the board of directors, the government liaison to the outlet, the person sharing the info....there are too many fingers in the cookie jar to trust any one source as impartial (indy media generally has less 'fingers', but is more likely to contain op-ed articles).

I saw a poll that studied political leanings in relation to which news sources were most (and least) trusted....people who identified as strictly conservative only trusted Fox news, Brietbart, Dredge, Rush, Hannity, and Beck. Strictly liberal leaning people trusted most mainstream sources, and distrusted all of the conservative ones listed above. I don't know what's worse - listening to those Con media personalities, or listening to the mainstream....But the only sources that both groups trusted were the Economist and the BBC. Personally, I don't trust any source, period. Every article needs scrutiny.

If you read something regarding the occupation on AJ that you find biased - search for the other side of the story yourself and share that info with us! The person sharing the info should def fact check and ensure they're not spreading disinformation, but it is unrealistic to expect everyone to provide both sides of every story they share. Esp as it pertains to the occupation, Israel ALWAYS has their side readily available for anyone who wants to look....check nearly any mainstream Israeli media outlet not named Haaretz and you will find the Israeli government (or some whacko extremist) position.

There are a number of sites I follow that are blatantly pro-Palestinian: electronic intifada - i sometimes find myself disillusioned by their prose and lack of context. Same goes for 972mag - they are heavier on 'shock' content, tho....so I rarely cite either despite the fact they are two of the few Pro-Palestinian sites that cover day-to-day events on the ground in Palestine - tons of stories you won't find elsewhere. Mondoweiss I find to be a great site - with an obvious bias - Phillip Weiss is an avowed (jewish) anti-zionist...but I have seen him write critically about the Palestinian position and he and his writers avoid sensationalism for the most part. I honestly feel the intent of that site is equality and human rights for all. Hyperbole and sensationalism is what takes a source from bias to borderline dishonest, imo.

If AJ has a pro-Palestinian bias, it is much less pronounced than other Pro-Palestinian sources....and nowhere near as biased as most mainstream sources (pretty much all of them) are toward the Israeli side. AJ is the only 'mainstream' outlet that has even a slightly pro-Palestinian angle, tho you will find the occasional honest article on BBC, CBC, and the Guardian. Soooo....to me, when it comes to the occupation, AJ is as close to unbiased coverage as you will find, especially in the mainstream. CNN, MSNBC, Fox et al are government mouthpieces, and we know which way the government leans in regards to the occupation.

So Canada just voted to condemn the BDS movement. When I first heard about this (which was via fb messenger, didnt' see any mention in the lamestream), I thought it was a legless, symbolic measure. After reading up a bit more, I found that the bill gave the government the ability to cut funding to groups or individuals that promote BDS. Sooooo...our government is protesting a non-violent boycott with a boycott of non-violent protestors. Free speech?
Here is a petition, I hope any Canadians reading will sign it, regardless of your stance on BDS...this is a direct attack on free speech, an attempt to stifle dissent:
http://cjpme.nationbuilder.com/condemn_me
Spineless libs voting with the Cons on this....and the NDP only had the balls to call this out on the free speech angle. Mulcair is another israeli stooge. In other words; when it comes to human rights for Palestinians, Canadians have no political options. Virtually our entire government is (as always) pandering to the Israel lobby / zionist voters. This is unacceptable.

the same day this was passed, students at McGill University voted (by a 2-1 margin) to align with BDS. Yet our politicians are busy trying to make criminals out of activists. Bullshit.