15 ms·

Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and one which is presented to Mid

• exe34 2y ago
  I didn't realise they had two versions, but it makes sense. Is the anti-infidel version only available in Arabic then?
  • cjk2 2y ago
    Yes it is. They have low to no journalistic standards in that edition and it's heavily propagandized depending on their agenda. Their entire reputation is based on the Western version as "look we use those standards everywhere" which is definitely not true.
    • jay-barronville 2y ago
      Where’s the proof to back your statement? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    • exe34 2y ago
      I believe you, but I too would like a citation that I can share with others - even a blog post with some examples would be helpful.
  • erichocean 2y ago
    CNN has two versions too, one for US audiences and one for the world.
    • vundercind 2y ago
      I’m pretty sure that’s more normal than not for news orgs that have a home country or region but also compete on the global market. Some have several versions, not just two.
      • lazyasciiart 2y ago
        The Guardian is known for having such different takes on transgender rights in their US and British editions that the US employees complained.
  • angra_mainyu 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • gregoryl 2y ago
      Which Arab countries?
      • exe34 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism#:~:text=Saudi%20Arabia%20banned%20Al%2DJazeera,Trump%27s%20policy%20toward%20Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c.... There's quite a few countries on there, I didn't realise it was so widely mistrusted in the Arab world.
    • NomDePlum 2y ago
      I can't find any indication that what you claim is true. Can you provide citations?
      • angra_mainyu 2y ago
        That sounds like a comment made in bad faith. What did you Google?
  • ashconnor 2y ago
    "anti-infidel version" - Godwin's Law but descending to Islamophobia.
    • exe34 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • ashconnor 2y ago
        They don't wish harm on you because you are not Muslim.
        • exe34 2y ago
          [flagged]
        • exe34 2y ago
          What is the punishment for apostay in Islam?
          • ashconnor 2y ago
            Same as Judaism and Christianity. Death.
            • exe34 2y ago
              And which followers of these three faiths still regularly carry out murder for this reason?
              • ashconnor 2y ago
                A minority of the Muslim world and regularly isn't the word I'd use.
                • exe34 2y ago
• Ahmd72 2y ago
  Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is doing what you're accusing?
  • cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Arabic#Controversies_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Arabic#Controversie...
    • Ahmd72 2y ago
      I'm not really sure pulling out a controversies tab from wikipedia is making the point that OP is trying to make. It's like citing BBC for their controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies
      • cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        And? Not a great counter point though. BBC is known to have issues with factuality. https://deadline.com/2023/10/bbc-wrong-to-speculate-on-gaza-hospital-blast-1235577943/ https://deadline.com/2023/10/bbc-wrong-to-speculate-on-gaza-... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/bbc-reporter-nigel-farage-coutts-account-closed-no-apology/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/bbc-reporter-nig... But to address your point: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/5/3/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9 https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/5/3/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D... "Russia is ready to discuss serious peace proposals, and Zelensky is rushing British weapons "
        • samuria 2y ago
          >the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas I am failing to see how an article about Russia's war correlates to OP's claim about Al Jazeera showing Hamas videos calling for an uprising. Can we get a direct link to the article that the OP mentioned?
• cma 2y ago
  > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk. Saudi Arabia is not exactly a bastion of free speech and murdered US journalist Jamal Khashoggi using the cover of an embassy. Not exactly a great endorsement of what Israel is doing here.
• keefle 2y ago
  > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk. If I recall Egypt partially did that after the military coup, and some Gulf countries. None of which are known for being kind to criticism. So this point is more validating of Aljazeera's position as relatively honest journalism in the a region full of dictatorships and corrupt governments.
  • mupuff1234 2y ago
    I wouldn't say it's validating, just not necessarily invalidating. Regardless, a news organizing funded by a monarchy not exactly known for its human and civilian rights mostly like has an agenda beyond "honest journalism".
    • neves 2y ago
      Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC exactly fits your definition :-) BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism. I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.
      • dralley 2y ago
        >BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism. With respect to everything except the middle east. I won't deny that they have generally good coverage on many subjects, but the nuance is that they leverage / launder that credibility towards advancing the state aims of Qatar whenever needed. And as OP mentioned, if you look up how AJ covers a topic in English and how they cover it in Arabic, it's wildly different.
        • erie 2y ago
          As an Arabic speaker I notice higher standards in the English version of Al Jazeera, I remember a Qatari cameraman was killed in a shooting attack in Benghazi-March 12, 2011, Ali Hassan Al-Jaber, unlike the English Al Jazeera team, was not wearing any protective gear nor had he undergone any media training for covering war zones. Some interesting take on this goes like this: 'Qatar is not only a historical part of the American security and energy system, as is the case with many other countries. The issue is that, thirty years ago, Qatar went through a difficult period - a crisis of legitimacy, a coup, and a real external threat - that shaped Qatari foreign policy and made the regime understand that, in order to become useful and necessary for Washington, it needed to do “more,” to excel. From the rest of the allies in the region, and for it to have a special role that no one else can play.All Qatari policies since then, from the Al-Udeid base to relations with Israel to hosting Hamas and rapprochement with Syria, then waging war against it, all come within this framework. If you do not interpret Qatari policies within their actual historical and functional context, then you are be misled on the real purpose of Al Jazeera channel. What is interesting here is that the Qatari officials themselves do not hide these matters at all, and they publicize them at every turn and external criticism that comes their way, the latest of which is an official statement from the Qatari embassy in Washington: “We do not act on our heads. We did not host the leadership of Hamas except in response to an American request, and not only with their approval, and the same goes for relations with the Taliban, the Syrian war, and the transfer of money to Gaza was taking place with Israeli approval and under their eyes - we perform the tasks for you.” They say this to the American and Western public exclusively, and as an Arab, when you question Qatari policy and its role, you may not find a single Qatari citizen in the discussion before you. Why do you think, and within any theory of the world, might America ask Qatar to host Hamas or establish relations with Hezbollah?'
• emadabdulrahim 2y ago
  Provide any evidence of the accusations you’re hurling, please.
• TacticalCoder 2y ago
  > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. > > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk. > > Why would you allow that to continue in your country? Especially when you have, in your country, about 20% of muslim arabs, most of which being israelo-palestinians (i.e. palestinians with an israeli passport). The last thing they'd want, in addition to fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would be an uprising of the israelo-palestinians who live in Israel. It's of note that while there about 20% muslims in Israel, there's about zero jewish person in Gaza (there are some israelo-palestinian though) and zero jewish person in Iran. Or close to that. The number of publication and jewish newspaper offices in both Gaza and Iran should also be food for thought.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > last thing they'd want, in addition to fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would be an uprising of the israelo-palestinians who live in Israel You're talking about Israeli citizens. The way you keep them from uprising is by giving them political power. (I also see no evidence any uprising is imminent.)
    • xenospn 2y ago
      They have a lot of potential political power. They refuse to use it.
      • IX-103 2y ago
        "Refuse to use it" like African Americans in the Jim Crow south? Or is there some other context driving their non-participation?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > is there some other context driving their non-participation? Muslim Israelis have representation in the Knesset. Their community simply hasn’t aligned itself with the American pro-Palestinian movement. (There are absolutely racism issues in Israel. But it’s not Jim Crow.)
• eganist 2y ago
  This is a loaded argument that requires citations. Since you're making the claim, can you please link specific articles from the Arabic site that make your point? As well as linking which Arab countries banned it and when? It's easy to just claim something, but it's crucial to back your point up front when it's particularly sensitive so as to not inadvertently spread misinformation. You may be correct, but that's why the citations are needed.
  • jdietrich 2y ago
    >which Arab countries banned it and when? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1980191.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1980191.stm https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2017/05/24/Websites-of-Al-Jazeera-Qatari-newspapers-blocked-in-Saudi-Arabia https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2017/05/24/Websi... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/28/al-jazeera-banned-iraq-sectarian https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/28/al-jazeera-ban... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-censorship-idUSKBN18K307/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-censorship-idUSKBN1...
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      The first link… > According to a news bulletin on the Qatar-based channel, Mr al-Hamr said the ban was being imposed because the station was biased towards Israel and against Bahrain. > Mr al-Hamr is said to have accused the station of being infiltrated by Zionists. "We believe (Al Jazeera) is suspect and represents the Zionist side in the region. We will not deal with this channel because we object to its coverage of current affairs. It is a channel penetrated by Zionists," he was quoted as saying. This is perhaps making the opposite point I think you intended to.
    • eganist 2y ago
      Yeah, that's why I asked for when as well. Ceejayoz addressed the first point; I'll link this to address two and four: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/media-blocked-threatened-dispute-qatar https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/media-blocked-threatened... Although VoA is the USA's state sponsored news outlet, they have reasonably good analysis on what led up to the 2013 ban. https://www.voanews.com/a/al-jazeera-iraq/3306460.html https://www.voanews.com/a/al-jazeera-iraq/3306460.html
• TacticalCoder 2y ago
  > Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence... FWIW it's what Qatar does. They've also been caught the hand in the cookie jar bribing EU officials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili She's a MEP and yet went on to defend Qatar as a bastion of democracy (!). Close to a million EUR was found in cash at her apartment: which probably helped defend a country where the official law is the Sharia law as a bastion of democracy. War is ugly but religious extremism is ugly too, especially when it's financed by a shitload of oil. People would do well to wonder who's financing all these "grassroots" movements in the EU and the US defending people who voted in power a terrorist organization who swore by the death of Israel.
• whatshisface 2y ago
  >Why would you allow that to continue in your country? We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them a right to make up our minds on the basis of an uncensored discourse. That's the other, implicit half of the first amendment: the right to listen to what others want to tell you.
  • avip 2y ago
    Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?
    • DEADMINCE 2y ago
      If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.
      • bilbo0s 2y ago
        Um. Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in. Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives. I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
        • 2y ago
• neves 2y ago
  Would you please link to examples the same news to Western audiences and to Middle Eastern ones? We can use Google translates by our selves. Sorry, but I can't just take your words for it. It looks more like propaganda. The more I read Al Jazeera, the more I respect their high journalism standards. I'm from a third world country and really envy the quality of the news.
• scyzoryk_xyz 2y ago
  The first half of your comment is fascinating and sounds entirely plausible. At first glance. The second half contains emotion which makes clear where your heart is on this. So, that casts a shadow of doubt. Could it be that there is credibility to your point but not to such an extreme extent where it’s like this deliberate conspiracy? I mean, as soon as everyone finds out, then this would actually be kind of a dumb plan on their part. The Arabic audience can inform the English audience of the discrepancy and vice versa. What if it’s not a conspiracy but a consequence of a large organization containing a blend of biased opinionated departments? Some more focused on journalism, and some on catering to local audiences’ tastes. That would make more sense to me, along with the typical biases of all news-media orgs everywhere in the world..
• feedforward 2y ago
  The reader should take note that when those celebrating "the only democracy in the Middle East" shutting down a news organization, and blocking Israelis from accessing their web site - when they talk about Hamas and the political influence of Qatar - remember that Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad to Qatar weeks before October 7 to encourage them to send money to Hamas ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). He did this because the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank was making peaceful, political headway in getting Palestine internationally recognized.
• ipqk 2y ago
  [flagged]
• einpoklum 2y ago
  > were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. If you mean that they were covering such demands and showing clips in which they are made etc. - what's the problem with that? > for being a security risk. goes to show they were doing some decent journalistic work then. Not that Al-Jazeera is saintly, or unbiased, or treats all subjects fairly etc. (they are under the indirect control of the Qatari government after all) - but they certainly offer critically important coverage of what's happening in Palestine in general, and Gaza in particular, which is very hard to get elsewhere. > Why would you allow that to continue in your country? If by "you", you mean a semi-totalitarian state which wants to silence coverage of its crimes and hide the horrors of its actions from the world and from its residents, then - you're right, you definitely wouldn't want it to continue operating.
• moneywoes 2y ago
  > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas Have any citations?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• omegaworks 2y ago
  > the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. This is the entire point of all mass media. There is no such thing as unbiased news.
• nashashmi 2y ago
  Either the media was in English or in Arabic. If it was English, then it was the same stuff being shown to everyone else in the west. If it was Arabic, then I don’t think Israelis would understand any of it.
  • edanm 2y ago
    Many Israelis speak Arabic. Some Israeli Jews, and probably ~all Palestinian-Israelis (20% of the Israeli citizenry).
• austin-cheney 2y ago
  > Why would you allow that to continue in your country? If you value liberty or democracy the only valid question is: why wouldn’t you?
  • aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Israel is a country which values demography over democracy, so, like other Arab countries which don't value democracy, press repression is going to be a foregone conclusion
• jmprspret 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 2y ago
    Please make your substantive points without breaking the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• bamboozled 2y ago
  I started watching it to try get a different take on events in Israel. It took me about 10 minutes to realise it’s a Hamas mouthpiece. I think they have two audiences to try establish a sense of credibility and then use it to spew lies.
  • aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Any citations? Reporting what Hamas says doesn't make it a Hamas mouthpiece, btw.
• janalsncm 2y ago
  In 1919 in the United States we put people in prison for handing out anti war pamphlets. They equated it to “yelling fire in a crowded theater” thus dangerous and illegal. Then in the 60s we revised our “understanding” of the 1st amendment. Today it would be pretty extraordinary to have antiwar proponents thrown in prison. The point is, in the US we forget that our speech didn’t used to be so unrestricted. What some countries call a security risk, in America we would call essential political speech. Of course there remains the question of the extent to which we should support countries which do not share our values.
• emodendroket 2y ago
  Providing political influence is the point of any state news agency, including "unobjectionable" ones like the BBC, among others. In a democratic country worthy of the name they're allowed to operate regardless. I'd like to see some citation for the claim that Al Jazeera was serving as some sort of pro-violence propaganda stream; CNN showed some speeches from bin Laden after 9/11 but that doesn't make them al Qaeda propaganda.
• nextaccountic 2y ago
  > Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. Isn't this the point of any news organization whatsoever?
• caf 2y ago
  It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk. This is a fact best appreciated in the context of the Sunni-Shi'a sectarian divide.
• megous 2y ago
  Israel blocked English version, too. So clearly they don't aggree with that content either. :) Anyway, you know which news outlets also have local and international versions with different content? BBC, CNN, ... Also western democracies allowed "Letter to the American People" to be published in full. Also a messaging from an active terror group with significant impact at the time, more significant than Oct 7. So yeah, countries allow that stuff.