4 ms·

As someone who was only familiar with Al Jazeera's English reporting (and thought it was pretty good), it was eye opening to check out their Arabic website tran

As someone who was only familiar with Al Jazeera's English reporting (and thought it was pretty good), it was eye opening to check out their Arabic website translated into a language I speak. Maybe Google Translate was erasing some nuance, but I saw a huge number of controversial, disputed, or downright false claims that were reported uncritically as facts.

crazygringo 2y ago
Can you provide specifics? I'm looking at the Google Translate version of their Arabic site right now: https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_t... It's all looking like pretty standard news stuff to me. And I don't know about you, but I see "controversial, disputed, or downright false claims that were reported uncritically as facts" all the time even in mainstream US publications. So I'd need to see some evidence here that Al Jazeera is particularly worse.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  It’s not worse at all. Actually probably the opposite, I learn some crazy stuff watching Al Jazeera and sometimes don’t believe it and go off researching it … and wow it’s very concerning. It seems almost certain to me there has to be some conspiracy amongst US publications to conceal certain information around Israeli-Palestinian conflict and history. As one example, read up on Ben Gvir, current National Security Minister … it’s totally crazy.
  - naoric 2y ago
    Unfortunately, whenever anything is being posted on this topic, we get to see so many comments such as this. > It seems almost certain to me there has to be some conspiracy amongst US publications to conceal certain information around Israeli-Palestinian conflict and history No evidence was provided, just another unfounded conspiracy theory. What can we take away from this?
    - alchemist1e9 2y ago
      It’s hard to provide proof of such a conspiracy due to the nature of the conspiracy is to omit information. It’s really only an impression I have when watching France 24 and AJ amongst other non-US news sources and then comparing to US sources. For examples of stories or topics that appear to be dramatically underreported in the US: - extremist positions of Israeli cabinet members. Including associations with Zionist terrorists, obviously very anti-Muslim/Arab but also including anti-Christian positions - Israeli settlers expansions and history of aggressive actions - famine conditions in Gaza - and most simply the very high levels of casualties in Gaza, including children and women in huge numbers. I really don’t ever hear any of those items mentioned even in left leaning US media. Now you might say well France and Qatar are biased due to more Arab listeners. Maybe a bit yeah because I think I hear less on Hamas atrocities perhaps than in US media. Every media is biased. Now per my other comment, once you criticize either side then you get automatically labeled as on the other side, our instinct is to use Hero-Villain frameworks, not Villain-Villain. Once you break out of that both leadership and politics on both side look really bad and weighing evil is not a good approach.
- avip 2y ago
  Let me help you. Searching is difficult. Examples are in English, to avoid any "lost in translation" issues. Here's Al-Jazeera echoing completely made up rape accusations. Why were the accusations retracted? https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake-news-harmed-israels-reputation-in-less-than-24-hours/ https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake... Here's the (English) report on the Israeli strike (that wasn't) that (didn't) kill 500 in Al-Ahli hospital - a widely quoted and echoed further lie https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israeli-air-raid-on-al-ahli-arab-hospital-kills-an-estimated-500 https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israe... I can go on but I think it's better you continue the search. [EDIT: fixed typo in hospital name]
  - Qem 2y ago
    The reports Al-Ahli (I think it's what you meant by "Al-Hila") hospital was targeted by Israel, like every other one in Gaza, are credible. See https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi... and https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-analysis-leaves-no-doubt-an-idf-aircraft-is-behind-the-al-ahli-hospital-massacre/ https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-ana...
    - brighteyes 2y ago
      No, there is wide consensus that it was most likely (but not certainly) an errant rocket from Gaza, and not Israel. Wikipedia has a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio... Specifically, that is the position of the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and also the conclusion of investigations by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. That's really the best we know about it.
      - philistine 2y ago
        You're giving a ton of weasel words here: most likely (but not certainly). All that word salad of wishy washy makes it clear that the fog of war is still present regarding those events.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  As far as worse, I'm not conducting a longitudinal study or anything so I can't compare their rate of "fake news" compared to Fox News or MSNBC or whatever your control group is. Anecdotally I've noticed the biggest delta between their English and Arabic reporting in the immediate aftermath of major events. For example after the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, the English version of their reporting was along the lines of "According to a Gaza Ministry of Health spokesperson, 500+ people were killed. A Hamas spokesperson said that the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike, launched via an F-16 or F-35." They made sure to hedge and make clear that their sources might be biased. This[1] seems like the sort of Arabic coverage I remember seeing in the past, a much more definitive statement just saying that the occupiers massacred 500+ martyrs. Unfortunately Google Translate doesn't play nicely with the wayback machine so it's tedious to build up a library of concrete examples. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203426mp_/http://www.aljazeera.net/news/2023/10/17/%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85-11-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%89 https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203426mp_/http://www.alj...
NomDePlum 2y ago
I've done similar in the past, mostly to try to get early sight of news. Never come across anything even close to what you claim. Can you provide citations? If not, I'd suggest you are just making this up.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  “أبرز تطورات اليوم الـ11 من طوفان الأقصى.” Translated by Google Translate, أخبار | الجزيرة نت, الجزيرة نت, 17 Oct. 2023.
  - NomDePlum 2y ago
    Thanks, however I might be missing something but these aren't citations.
    - Rebelgecko 2y ago
      If you ask for citations but won't parse MLA format then I might make some suggestions about YOUR motives too ;)
      - NomDePlum 2y ago
        I was expecting links to comparative articles that showed the discrepancies you suggested were there. Not phrases that whilst I can have translated by Google have no context.
noqc 2y ago
Took the same path recently. Probably the easiest thing to point to if you're looking for something to convince people of Al Jazeera's nature, (besides specific articles), is the incredible amount of time and editorial space devoted to Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the arabic channel (before his death). The man had an audience of 60 million people for a decade and a half, and could reasonably be called the face of Al Jazeera Arabic. He has caused a lot of problems through that platform that hopefuly only the most radicalized westerner won't view as monstrous. Probably no one who needs convincing is willing to read the ADL on him, but you can basically pick your source. https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/Sheik-Yusuf-al-Qaradawi-2013-5-3-v1.pdf https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/Sheik-Yusuf-al-Qarad... Here's a video of him asserting that "Hitler was a god given punishment upon the Jews, (not that the holocaust was as bad as they say)" on Al Jazeera TV. https://www.memri.org/tv/sheik-yousuf-al-qaradhawi-allah-imposed-hitler-upon-jews-punish-them-allah-willing-next-time-will https://www.memri.org/tv/sheik-yousuf-al-qaradhawi-allah-imp... I guess you have to trust Memri's translation?
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  Just to clarify: that clip was broadcast on a separate channel called AJ Live (“Mubasher”). It’s a 24/7 channel that basically broadcasts entire live events and re-runs - think press conferences, speeches, etc. I would compare it to something like C-SPAN in the US. Now, how much editorial input AJ has over this channel, that I don’t know. Edit: Kind of proud that my quick explanation lines up pretty well with the wiki entry haha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Mubasher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Mubasher
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  We are all trained starting from childhood to use a Hero-Villain framework when observing conflicts and it leaves us very confused when the real world is closer to Villain-Villain situation. Anytime I ever bring up say Kissinger and the crazy realpolitik actions he took, or now this lunatic Ben-Gvir in Israel I’ve recently learned about, other people are trained to see me as a communist or anti-semite immediately, because if I object to a US figure, I must be with the other side, same with Israel. I don’t really know how to navigate this problem to be honest. You are 1000% correct al-Qaradhawi is total evil.
lupire 2y ago
When did Israel make controversial, disputed or downright false claims illegal? The current prime minister and the IDF make controversial, disputed and downright false claims as well.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  The oldest example I can find was passed by the Knesset in July of 1986. I'm not very familiar with Israeli laws so it's totally possible I'm missing prior examples from before 1986... That's just what I found after a few minutes of search engine and wikipedia research, limited to English pages. My understanding is that the degree to which "freedom of speech" is protected in the USA (a country I'm more familiar with) is actually pretty rare globally

crazygringo 2y ago

Can you provide specifics? I'm looking at the Google Translate version of their Arabic site right now: https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_t... It's all looking like pretty standard news stuff to me. And I don't know about you, but I see "controversial, disputed, or downright false claims that were reported uncritically as facts" all the time even in mainstream US publications. So I'd need to see some evidence here that Al Jazeera is particularly worse.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
It’s not worse at all. Actually probably the opposite, I learn some crazy stuff watching Al Jazeera and sometimes don’t believe it and go off researching it … and wow it’s very concerning. It seems almost certain to me there has to be some conspiracy amongst US publications to conceal certain information around Israeli-Palestinian conflict and history. As one example, read up on Ben Gvir, current National Security Minister … it’s totally crazy.
- naoric 2y ago
  Unfortunately, whenever anything is being posted on this topic, we get to see so many comments such as this. > It seems almost certain to me there has to be some conspiracy amongst US publications to conceal certain information around Israeli-Palestinian conflict and history No evidence was provided, just another unfounded conspiracy theory. What can we take away from this?
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    It’s hard to provide proof of such a conspiracy due to the nature of the conspiracy is to omit information. It’s really only an impression I have when watching France 24 and AJ amongst other non-US news sources and then comparing to US sources. For examples of stories or topics that appear to be dramatically underreported in the US: - extremist positions of Israeli cabinet members. Including associations with Zionist terrorists, obviously very anti-Muslim/Arab but also including anti-Christian positions - Israeli settlers expansions and history of aggressive actions - famine conditions in Gaza - and most simply the very high levels of casualties in Gaza, including children and women in huge numbers. I really don’t ever hear any of those items mentioned even in left leaning US media. Now you might say well France and Qatar are biased due to more Arab listeners. Maybe a bit yeah because I think I hear less on Hamas atrocities perhaps than in US media. Every media is biased. Now per my other comment, once you criticize either side then you get automatically labeled as on the other side, our instinct is to use Hero-Villain frameworks, not Villain-Villain. Once you break out of that both leadership and politics on both side look really bad and weighing evil is not a good approach.
avip 2y ago
Let me help you. Searching is difficult. Examples are in English, to avoid any "lost in translation" issues. Here's Al-Jazeera echoing completely made up rape accusations. Why were the accusations retracted? https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake-news-harmed-israels-reputation-in-less-than-24-hours/ https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake... Here's the (English) report on the Israeli strike (that wasn't) that (didn't) kill 500 in Al-Ahli hospital - a widely quoted and echoed further lie https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israeli-air-raid-on-al-ahli-arab-hospital-kills-an-estimated-500 https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israe... I can go on but I think it's better you continue the search. [EDIT: fixed typo in hospital name]
- Qem 2y ago
  The reports Al-Ahli (I think it's what you meant by "Al-Hila") hospital was targeted by Israel, like every other one in Gaza, are credible. See https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi... and https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-analysis-leaves-no-doubt-an-idf-aircraft-is-behind-the-al-ahli-hospital-massacre/ https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-ana...
  - brighteyes 2y ago
    No, there is wide consensus that it was most likely (but not certainly) an errant rocket from Gaza, and not Israel. Wikipedia has a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio... Specifically, that is the position of the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and also the conclusion of investigations by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. That's really the best we know about it.
    - philistine 2y ago
      You're giving a ton of weasel words here: most likely (but not certainly). All that word salad of wishy washy makes it clear that the fog of war is still present regarding those events.
Rebelgecko 2y ago
As far as worse, I'm not conducting a longitudinal study or anything so I can't compare their rate of "fake news" compared to Fox News or MSNBC or whatever your control group is. Anecdotally I've noticed the biggest delta between their English and Arabic reporting in the immediate aftermath of major events. For example after the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, the English version of their reporting was along the lines of "According to a Gaza Ministry of Health spokesperson, 500+ people were killed. A Hamas spokesperson said that the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike, launched via an F-16 or F-35." They made sure to hedge and make clear that their sources might be biased. This[1] seems like the sort of Arabic coverage I remember seeing in the past, a much more definitive statement just saying that the occupiers massacred 500+ martyrs. Unfortunately Google Translate doesn't play nicely with the wayback machine so it's tedious to build up a library of concrete examples. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203426mp_/http://www.aljazeera.net/news/2023/10/17/%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85-11-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%89 https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203426mp_/http://www.alj...

NomDePlum 2y ago

I've done similar in the past, mostly to try to get early sight of news. Never come across anything even close to what you claim. Can you provide citations? If not, I'd suggest you are just making this up.

Rebelgecko 2y ago
“أبرز تطورات اليوم الـ11 من طوفان الأقصى.” Translated by Google Translate, أخبار | الجزيرة نت, الجزيرة نت, 17 Oct. 2023.
- NomDePlum 2y ago
  Thanks, however I might be missing something but these aren't citations.
  - Rebelgecko 2y ago
    If you ask for citations but won't parse MLA format then I might make some suggestions about YOUR motives too ;)
    - NomDePlum 2y ago
      I was expecting links to comparative articles that showed the discrepancies you suggested were there. Not phrases that whilst I can have translated by Google have no context.

noqc 2y ago

Took the same path recently. Probably the easiest thing to point to if you're looking for something to convince people of Al Jazeera's nature, (besides specific articles), is the incredible amount of time and editorial space devoted to Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the arabic channel (before his death). The man had an audience of 60 million people for a decade and a half, and could reasonably be called the face of Al Jazeera Arabic. He has caused a lot of problems through that platform that hopefuly only the most radicalized westerner won't view as monstrous. Probably no one who needs convincing is willing to read the ADL on him, but you can basically pick your source. https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/Sheik-Yusuf-al-Qaradawi-2013-5-3-v1.pdf https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/Sheik-Yusuf-al-Qarad... Here's a video of him asserting that "Hitler was a god given punishment upon the Jews, (not that the holocaust was as bad as they say)" on Al Jazeera TV. https://www.memri.org/tv/sheik-yousuf-al-qaradhawi-allah-imposed-hitler-upon-jews-punish-them-allah-willing-next-time-will https://www.memri.org/tv/sheik-yousuf-al-qaradhawi-allah-imp... I guess you have to trust Memri's translation?

Cyph0n 2y ago
Just to clarify: that clip was broadcast on a separate channel called AJ Live (“Mubasher”). It’s a 24/7 channel that basically broadcasts entire live events and re-runs - think press conferences, speeches, etc. I would compare it to something like C-SPAN in the US. Now, how much editorial input AJ has over this channel, that I don’t know. Edit: Kind of proud that my quick explanation lines up pretty well with the wiki entry haha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Mubasher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Mubasher
alchemist1e9 2y ago
We are all trained starting from childhood to use a Hero-Villain framework when observing conflicts and it leaves us very confused when the real world is closer to Villain-Villain situation. Anytime I ever bring up say Kissinger and the crazy realpolitik actions he took, or now this lunatic Ben-Gvir in Israel I’ve recently learned about, other people are trained to see me as a communist or anti-semite immediately, because if I object to a US figure, I must be with the other side, same with Israel. I don’t really know how to navigate this problem to be honest. You are 1000% correct al-Qaradhawi is total evil.

lupire 2y ago

When did Israel make controversial, disputed or downright false claims illegal? The current prime minister and the IDF make controversial, disputed and downright false claims as well.

Rebelgecko 2y ago
The oldest example I can find was passed by the Knesset in July of 1986. I'm not very familiar with Israeli laws so it's totally possible I'm missing prior examples from before 1986... That's just what I found after a few minutes of search engine and wikipedia research, limited to English pages. My understanding is that the degree to which "freedom of speech" is protected in the USA (a country I'm more familiar with) is actually pretty rare globally