4 ms·

I wonder if this is going to be biased or completely neutral like the way it should be.

moxiemk1 16y ago
In my experience, Al-Jazeera is remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources. They do tend to adopt a pro-Palestinian stance, but they're very professional about it.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  In my experience, the opposite. THe reason you "experience" it that way is that you are interpreting according to your political biases. People who have different political views than you read the same article and find in it a lack of neutrality. You think it's neutral b/c you agree with it, not b/c it is actually neutral. I don't want to argue about who is right, I just want to point out you should be more careful not to make statements basically along the lines of mistaking your biases for neutrality. You call it experience but it is actually your political judgment.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news source at all meaningfully. Perhaps a different term would be better, but when I say I think they're more neutral, it's because they use fewer "weasel words"/phrases, very clearly delineate between their core factual stories and their opinion/analysis pieces, and feature fewer sensationalist pieces without significant hard-fact backing. Again, what you say is reasonable, but doesn't apply in the context I was replying to the parent's statement in.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the conflict in Israel accuse the BBC of bias, for example, so I feel happy to trust their reporting.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?
      - semanticist 16y ago
        I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. Also, Godwin's law - you lose.
        16y ago
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Go and reread his original point: > remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources Then go and watch Fox and CNN.
  - foljs 16y ago
    The western media are notoriously NON neutral on the Palestinian issue. I'm on the periphery of the West and can get a quite good impartial access to both sides, but for an American it's almost impossible if he does not venture outside of mainstream media outlets.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
The subtitle of AlJazeera's current feature story: "PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return." East Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian Authority to give away, it was never their property [1]. This shows AlJazeera's bias in the matter. Also, when Tzipi Livni is quoted in the article, the reporter follows it with "That is the Israeli framing." -- quotes from PA spokesmen aren't followed by such comments. [1] East Jerusalem used to be part of the British Mandate, until 1948, when the UN proposed it would become a Corpus Separatum, administered by them. The Arab League turned down the offer, Jordan invaded it instead. In 1967, Israel took control of the area. At no point in time has East Jerusalem been under rule of the Palestinian Authority.

In my experience, Al-Jazeera is remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources. They do tend to adopt a pro-Palestinian stance, but they're very professional about it.

xenophanes 16y ago
In my experience, the opposite. THe reason you "experience" it that way is that you are interpreting according to your political biases. People who have different political views than you read the same article and find in it a lack of neutrality. You think it's neutral b/c you agree with it, not b/c it is actually neutral. I don't want to argue about who is right, I just want to point out you should be more careful not to make statements basically along the lines of mistaking your biases for neutrality. You call it experience but it is actually your political judgment.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news source at all meaningfully. Perhaps a different term would be better, but when I say I think they're more neutral, it's because they use fewer "weasel words"/phrases, very clearly delineate between their core factual stories and their opinion/analysis pieces, and feature fewer sensationalist pieces without significant hard-fact backing. Again, what you say is reasonable, but doesn't apply in the context I was replying to the parent's statement in.
- semanticist 16y ago
  The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the conflict in Israel accuse the BBC of bias, for example, so I feel happy to trust their reporting.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?
    - semanticist 16y ago
      I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. Also, Godwin's law - you lose.
        16y ago
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Go and reread his original point: > remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources Then go and watch Fox and CNN.
- foljs 16y ago
  The western media are notoriously NON neutral on the Palestinian issue. I'm on the periphery of the West and can get a quite good impartial access to both sides, but for an American it's almost impossible if he does not venture outside of mainstream media outlets.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Samuel_Michon 16y ago

The subtitle of AlJazeera's current feature story: "PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return." East Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian Authority to give away, it was never their property [1]. This shows AlJazeera's bias in the matter. Also, when Tzipi Livni is quoted in the article, the reporter follows it with "That is the Israeli framing." -- quotes from PA spokesmen aren't followed by such comments. [1] East Jerusalem used to be part of the British Mandate, until 1948, when the UN proposed it would become a Corpus Separatum, administered by them. The Arab League turned down the offer, Jordan invaded it instead. In 1967, Israel took control of the area. At no point in time has East Jerusalem been under rule of the Palestinian Authority.