3 ms·

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 claim

by 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.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? Umm, yes, my using English AJ as a news source. I think I would have noticed if they regularly advocated (note - a distinction from broadcasting) extremist views. :) You, on the other hand, have noted that you have no first hand knowledge of AJ or their reporting. But have taken content from a website that exists to track down examples of anti-Semitic material to inform your view of them... > Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...? No, more bad rhetoric. You know I am not claiming that. I am explaining that they hunt down these clips, often presenting them out of context, with the agenda of exposing news agencies as anti-Semitic. Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ. > They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations I'm mildly unconvinced that airing scandal is a good marker for neutrality & credibility :) The BBC are pretty good - probably the best "simple" news source, although it has its biases (most notably it is often anti EU). NYT I am always divided over, but generally pretty good. They make up my four "preferred & relatively trustworthy" news sources along with AJ and the Financial Times. There is probably a slight liberal bias in my choice of news consumption, but I have yet to find a conservative media source that I am comfortable with. BUT; you could pick up lots of examples of problems.. the BBC, for example, tends to be very "white middle class Christian" centric (and sometimes, ultra-politically-correct). They also, recently, broadcast some BNP interviews which had pretty nasty/racist comments in them - basically the same sort of lines as the first incident you pointed to with AJ. We picks our source and then take them with a grain of salt. The point is not to find you a "source" to prove Al Jazeera's credibility to you, the point is I am giving you my opinion as a cynic and AJ watcher that I find them to be a relatively neutral and balanced news source. If you have respect for my opinions you might take that as an endorsement, or otherwise you might not :) I don't mind. The points you have raised do concern me; enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source, at least in the near future. I'm afraid it is not enough to convince me they are anti-Semitic and completely non-neutral/compromised.
  - berntb 16y ago
    I wrote: > AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? To recap that thread in the discussion: a. You claim AJ is a good news site. b. I point out that they have racist content in non-English editions; suspect agenda. c. You make claims about the racist content. d. I ask multiple times for references to that claim. e. Finally, you base that upon the English content?!?! It seems you just made up a fantasy about that original sermon? After that you claim I do bad rhetoric?!?! WTF?! Either you're drunk or trolling. >>Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ. WTF?! I made that point in what you commented on, against you... I wrote: "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." The rest of the comment looked like a total change of subject, I'm not going to read it. But I saw this ending: >>enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source Again: (a) There might be be double messages to different languages/audiences and (b) Even if not, no one has a clue to the agenda/spin of Al J. I don't know if the web site is the same company? Try reading it with translate.google.com, then.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - berntb 16y ago
      Oh my... These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.) I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still: I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.) How the Hell can that be voted up like that? I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
      - henrikschroder 16y ago

by ErrantX 16y ago

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.

ErrantX 16y ago
> AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? Umm, yes, my using English AJ as a news source. I think I would have noticed if they regularly advocated (note - a distinction from broadcasting) extremist views. :) You, on the other hand, have noted that you have no first hand knowledge of AJ or their reporting. But have taken content from a website that exists to track down examples of anti-Semitic material to inform your view of them... > Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...? No, more bad rhetoric. You know I am not claiming that. I am explaining that they hunt down these clips, often presenting them out of context, with the agenda of exposing news agencies as anti-Semitic. Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ. > They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations I'm mildly unconvinced that airing scandal is a good marker for neutrality & credibility :) The BBC are pretty good - probably the best "simple" news source, although it has its biases (most notably it is often anti EU). NYT I am always divided over, but generally pretty good. They make up my four "preferred & relatively trustworthy" news sources along with AJ and the Financial Times. There is probably a slight liberal bias in my choice of news consumption, but I have yet to find a conservative media source that I am comfortable with. BUT; you could pick up lots of examples of problems.. the BBC, for example, tends to be very "white middle class Christian" centric (and sometimes, ultra-politically-correct). They also, recently, broadcast some BNP interviews which had pretty nasty/racist comments in them - basically the same sort of lines as the first incident you pointed to with AJ. We picks our source and then take them with a grain of salt. The point is not to find you a "source" to prove Al Jazeera's credibility to you, the point is I am giving you my opinion as a cynic and AJ watcher that I find them to be a relatively neutral and balanced news source. If you have respect for my opinions you might take that as an endorsement, or otherwise you might not :) I don't mind. The points you have raised do concern me; enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source, at least in the near future. I'm afraid it is not enough to convince me they are anti-Semitic and completely non-neutral/compromised.
- berntb 16y ago
  I wrote: > AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? To recap that thread in the discussion: a. You claim AJ is a good news site. b. I point out that they have racist content in non-English editions; suspect agenda. c. You make claims about the racist content. d. I ask multiple times for references to that claim. e. Finally, you base that upon the English content?!?! It seems you just made up a fantasy about that original sermon? After that you claim I do bad rhetoric?!?! WTF?! Either you're drunk or trolling. >>Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ. WTF?! I made that point in what you commented on, against you... I wrote: "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." The rest of the comment looked like a total change of subject, I'm not going to read it. But I saw this ending: >>enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source Again: (a) There might be be double messages to different languages/audiences and (b) Even if not, no one has a clue to the agenda/spin of Al J. I don't know if the web site is the same company? Try reading it with translate.google.com, then.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - berntb 16y ago
    Oh my... These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.) I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still: I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.) How the Hell can that be voted up like that? I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
    - henrikschroder 16y ago