3 ms·

Please don't post blogspam, especially from a source such as aljazeera. The actual article is here: https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-y

Please don't post blogspam, especially from a source such as aljazeera. The actual article is here: https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-you-eating https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/how-much-plastic-are-yo...

wyattpeak 6y ago
What's wrong with Al Jazeera as a source? Reuters is a newswire, although you can get their work directly there's nothing untoward about a network republishing it: that's their principal business model.
- StartupTree 6y ago
  Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime. You can read here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
    Wrong link.
    - 1337shadow 6y ago
      It was just extracted on another page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c... You had to click "controversies and criticism" at the bottom of the original link. Probably this section was getting so big it was promoted to having its own page. Anyway, even the aljazeera link ends with [Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters] and is a clearly a copy/paste from reuters.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime So, like CNN is for US interests, BBC for Britain, RT for Russia, and so on. Let's have some variety...
    - 1337shadow 6y ago
      At the price of not posting links of original source ? > Please submit the original source. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html And anyway: > For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5077 https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Ar... And: https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english-deletes-anti-semitic-tweet-on-trump-and-the-paris-climate-agreement/ https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english... I wonder if we can find comparable content in BBC controversies...
    - pi-err 6y ago
      Al Jazeera is 100% owned by the Qatari state (itself lacking democratic institutions), with its 2 last CEOs being from the ruling Qatari family. The current editorial standards are supervised by AJ chair man, who is Qatar's former minister of information. So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC and it's a problem that articles and information from AJ is shared without any caution.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC Yes, in the sense that the US (CNN) and the UK (BBC) have had and have their gruby hands all over the globe, in occupation, colonisation, invansions, interventions, trade wars, national interests, resource grubbing, etc., whereas the Qatari interests are somewhat limited. So, I'd take the AJ editorials on most matter with smaller grains of salt than CNN and BBC.
        CyberDildonics 6y ago
        CNN is not owned by the US government.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  I have no issue with Al Jazeera itself, but if they just republish a story they provide no value. It's not the original article and in this case they don't act like anything more than an (inflexible) aggregator. This made sense in newspaper times (since compiling your news from multiple sources was hard), but in the internet age I don't see why it would. The closer to the actual source the better (HN policy I strongly agree with).
coldtea 6y ago
>especially from a source such as aljazeera As if aljazeera is a bad source?

wyattpeak 6y ago

What's wrong with Al Jazeera as a source? Reuters is a newswire, although you can get their work directly there's nothing untoward about a network republishing it: that's their principal business model.

StartupTree 6y ago
Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime. You can read here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
- rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
  Wrong link.
  - 1337shadow 6y ago
    It was just extracted on another page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c... You had to click "controversies and criticism" at the bottom of the original link. Probably this section was getting so big it was promoted to having its own page. Anyway, even the aljazeera link ends with [Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters] and is a clearly a copy/paste from reuters.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Al Jazeera is a clownish propoganada mouthpiece for the Qatar regime So, like CNN is for US interests, BBC for Britain, RT for Russia, and so on. Let's have some variety...
  - 1337shadow 6y ago
    At the price of not posting links of original source ? > Please submit the original source. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html And anyway: > For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5077 https://web.archive.org/web/20120120215822/http://ajr.org/Ar... And: https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english-deletes-anti-semitic-tweet-on-trump-and-the-paris-climate-agreement/ https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/31/al-jazeera-english... I wonder if we can find comparable content in BBC controversies...
  - pi-err 6y ago
    Al Jazeera is 100% owned by the Qatari state (itself lacking democratic institutions), with its 2 last CEOs being from the ruling Qatari family. The current editorial standards are supervised by AJ chair man, who is Qatar's former minister of information. So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC and it's a problem that articles and information from AJ is shared without any caution.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC Yes, in the sense that the US (CNN) and the UK (BBC) have had and have their gruby hands all over the globe, in occupation, colonisation, invansions, interventions, trade wars, national interests, resource grubbing, etc., whereas the Qatari interests are somewhat limited. So, I'd take the AJ editorials on most matter with smaller grains of salt than CNN and BBC.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        CNN is not owned by the US government.
solarkraft 6y ago
I have no issue with Al Jazeera itself, but if they just republish a story they provide no value. It's not the original article and in this case they don't act like anything more than an (inflexible) aggregator. This made sense in newspaper times (since compiling your news from multiple sources was hard), but in the internet age I don't see why it would. The closer to the actual source the better (HN policy I strongly agree with).

coldtea 6y ago

>especially from a source such as aljazeera As if aljazeera is a bad source?