3 ms·

That's not a solid basis for considering something to be "fake", let alone to be banned. I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to Truth Social, and

That's not a solid basis for considering something to be "fake", let alone to be banned. I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that doesn't mean it's actually true.

quonn 2y ago
I didn‘t ban it and the Israeli government certainly didn‘t ask me for my opinion. They had their own reasons and their own evidence and I only gave you _my_ reason for considering it fake news, which most of it is.
quonn 2y ago
> I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that doesn't mean it's actually true. If you decide that 2+2=5 that indeed doesn‘t make it true. I have merely said that I found that 2+2=4.
- Cheer2171 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - quonn 2y ago
    Nowhere have I mentioned the conflict nor have I mentioned whether reporting on it is easy. Not blatantly lying is pretty easy though and Al Jazeera fails that test. More importantly, Al Jazeera is not merely reporting on the conflict, they have been „reporting“ about many other things for a long time. That’s enough data for me that can be compared to the sum of ALL other outlets. None of that is surprising either - Al Jazeera is a government propaganda tool, run by a dictatorial kingdom that ranks rather low on freedom of the press. The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling.
    - datenyan 2y ago
      > The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling. That indeed was a specific choice - you could also state that it's a state-run "propaganda tool". It's also going to have a western (specifically UK) based view on the media it's reporting on. The same is true of Al Jazeera, or the Australian Broadcasting Company. That, in and of itself, does not mean it is "blatantly lying". No news agency is without bias, and believing so is naive. Does Al Jazeera have areas for improvement that are likely to not materialise due to the context in which the company is based? Sure, but that's also true of Fox News, CNN, the BBC, ABC, or random Reddit commenters.

quonn 2y ago

I didn‘t ban it and the Israeli government certainly didn‘t ask me for my opinion. They had their own reasons and their own evidence and I only gave you _my_ reason for considering it fake news, which most of it is.

quonn 2y ago

> I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that doesn't mean it's actually true. If you decide that 2+2=5 that indeed doesn‘t make it true. I have merely said that I found that 2+2=4.

Cheer2171 2y ago
[flagged]
- quonn 2y ago
  Nowhere have I mentioned the conflict nor have I mentioned whether reporting on it is easy. Not blatantly lying is pretty easy though and Al Jazeera fails that test. More importantly, Al Jazeera is not merely reporting on the conflict, they have been „reporting“ about many other things for a long time. That’s enough data for me that can be compared to the sum of ALL other outlets. None of that is surprising either - Al Jazeera is a government propaganda tool, run by a dictatorial kingdom that ranks rather low on freedom of the press. The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling.
  - datenyan 2y ago
    > The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling. That indeed was a specific choice - you could also state that it's a state-run "propaganda tool". It's also going to have a western (specifically UK) based view on the media it's reporting on. The same is true of Al Jazeera, or the Australian Broadcasting Company. That, in and of itself, does not mean it is "blatantly lying". No news agency is without bias, and believing so is naive. Does Al Jazeera have areas for improvement that are likely to not materialise due to the context in which the company is based? Sure, but that's also true of Fox News, CNN, the BBC, ABC, or random Reddit commenters.