4 ms·
Even without that financing, and without the logo, the financing itself is a good reason to not trust them as a source. I'm sure there are other news sources t
by jackreichert 11y ago
Even without that financing, and without the logo, the financing itself is a good reason to not trust them as a source.
I'm sure there are other news sources that should be de-legitimized due to their funding, and it would be nice if they too go away. Due to the current nature of how people consume their news it creates echo-chamber bubbles that only reenforce misinformation or misleading perspectives.
- jonathankoren 11y agoIt's not the funding. It's the editorial independence that matters. Should we have believed NBC prior to 2013 on national security issues, because they were owned by General Electric, a defense contractor that would make handsome profits in the case of war? Good luck in finding any media outlet that doesn't have financial ties to the subjects of their coverage. You shouldn't dismiss Al Jazeera out of hand. The (sad) fact is, that Al Jazeera is pretty much the least biased on most straight forward of all the media outlets in the Middle East. They actually report dissenting views. No, they're not perfect, but are in a completely different league compared to their regional rivals.
- gotchange 11y ago> They actually report dissenting views. But not critical of the ruling family in Qatar and that actually what counts the most and would demonstrate their journalistic integrity and editorial independence but they're hypocrites and their credibility is suffering as a consequence.
- JBReefer 11y agoThe Economist.
- ta0967 11y agoEven without that financing, the financing itself is a good reason to not trust them i suspect you meant to convey something different.