4 ms·

You have a point; but that is more editorial (well, live "opinion") than the news side. I don't think such an incident is representative of a general trend at A

by ErrantX 16y ago

You have a point; but that is more editorial (well, live "opinion") than the news side. I don't think such an incident is representative of a general trend at Al Jazeera. But the media all over the world has problems with anti-Semitism; just because they don't advocate death does not make it any better :)

berntb 16y ago
AGAIN: So you really trust people that (at an absolute minimum) have no moral problems with accepting/showing racist hatred and calls for genocide! That was almost as sad and fun, as the fact that I'm getting down voted fast for posting quotes about Al Jazeera and showing what they go for. Edit: I should also note that you lack references for your claim?
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Ah, you've made a snap judgement there. See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it (which appears to be; they were airing a sermon from a slightly more hard line cleric, and he made extreme comments. Turning that into not having moral problems accepting... etc. is something of a leap. And I don't think you could prove/show this is systemic problem at the channel. (We occasionally have racist/nasty comments made on UK media, and lots of fuss about it, that doesn't make the channel racist!) You should always generally distrust your media source as a matter of course. I'm not going to argue this with you because it looks like you have an axe to grind, and this really isn't the place. But put AJ next to a lot of US media and I find them more neutral and informative :) Anti-Semitism is a huge problem in a wide portion of media (as I mentioned), it is one of the problems that means we have to take what they say with caution in some matters, but from my observation (and barring a few slips) AJ has a better track record than, says, FOX. > I should also note that you lack references for your claim? In case it is not obvious... this is my opinion... sheesh. :)
  - berntb 16y ago
    >>you have one incident ... And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it First, do you have a reference to that claim, then? Second, it took me five seconds to find this: "Former Inmate: Guantanamo Jews Used Witchcraft on Prisoners, Made Me Feel a Cat Was Trying to Penetrate Me" http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/64/2730.htm http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/64/2730.htm That was a second incident. Or is that just normal Al Jazeera news -- which you claim is one of the best...? Or was that also sent directly without the standard five seconds safety to be able to cut off? :-) Edit: It is problematic with tv, since you can't just check the original language versions by translate.google.com. It do seem to be easy to find lots of weird stuff covered by non-English Al J. Which I think I'll base an opinion on. I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Ahem, If we are talking about bias then MEMRI is possibly the worst source you could have used :) > I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility. This is unfair, and bad rhetoric. The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility. So we are entirely on the same page. You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :) (also; as noted above - I have no opinion on the Arabic channel, never watched/read it and my Arabic is pretty rusty. They could be different)
      - berntb 16y ago
        >>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility. AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? Then, the tv program is on the memri web site. There should be at least a million people in your Britain which understands it. Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...? And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources. >>You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :) Disclosure: I almost trust NY Times, as long as none of their big advertisers etc are involved. They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations. I read my local (Swedish) media carefully too, but mainly for the laughs in comparing content to NYT/BBC.

by ErrantX 16y ago

berntb 16y ago

AGAIN: So you really trust people that (at an absolute minimum) have no moral problems with accepting/showing racist hatred and calls for genocide! That was almost as sad and fun, as the fact that I'm getting down voted fast for posting quotes about Al Jazeera and showing what they go for. Edit: I should also note that you lack references for your claim?

ErrantX 16y ago
Ah, you've made a snap judgement there. See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it (which appears to be; they were airing a sermon from a slightly more hard line cleric, and he made extreme comments. Turning that into not having moral problems accepting... etc. is something of a leap. And I don't think you could prove/show this is systemic problem at the channel. (We occasionally have racist/nasty comments made on UK media, and lots of fuss about it, that doesn't make the channel racist!) You should always generally distrust your media source as a matter of course. I'm not going to argue this with you because it looks like you have an axe to grind, and this really isn't the place. But put AJ next to a lot of US media and I find them more neutral and informative :) Anti-Semitism is a huge problem in a wide portion of media (as I mentioned), it is one of the problems that means we have to take what they say with caution in some matters, but from my observation (and barring a few slips) AJ has a better track record than, says, FOX. > I should also note that you lack references for your claim? In case it is not obvious... this is my opinion... sheesh. :)
- berntb 16y ago
  >>you have one incident ... And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it First, do you have a reference to that claim, then? Second, it took me five seconds to find this: "Former Inmate: Guantanamo Jews Used Witchcraft on Prisoners, Made Me Feel a Cat Was Trying to Penetrate Me" http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/64/2730.htm http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/64/2730.htm That was a second incident. Or is that just normal Al Jazeera news -- which you claim is one of the best...? Or was that also sent directly without the standard five seconds safety to be able to cut off? :-) Edit: It is problematic with tv, since you can't just check the original language versions by translate.google.com. It do seem to be easy to find lots of weird stuff covered by non-English Al J. Which I think I'll base an opinion on. I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Ahem, If we are talking about bias then MEMRI is possibly the worst source you could have used :) > I'll just note the general lack of references for the claims of credibility. This is unfair, and bad rhetoric. The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility. So we are entirely on the same page. You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :) (also; as noted above - I have no opinion on the Arabic channel, never watched/read it and my Arabic is pretty rusty. They could be different)
    - berntb 16y ago
      >>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility. AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? Then, the tv program is on the memri web site. There should be at least a million people in your Britain which understands it. Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...? And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources. >>You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :) Disclosure: I almost trust NY Times, as long as none of their big advertisers etc are involved. They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations. I read my local (Swedish) media carefully too, but mainly for the laughs in comparing content to NYT/BBC.