BF2S Forums Is Al Jazeera to Liberals as Fox News as is to Conservatives?

Not saying they're not making stuff up, but your sources are poor at best rdx-fx.

rdx-fx wrote:

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/08092002001.htm
Jordan Times
"The satellite channel, Muasher noted, is “keen on sensationalism, and goes beyond commercial motives to cheap debates and fabrication of stories.”

jordanembassyus.org wrote:

He stressed that what was broadcast on the channel's talk show programme, "the Opposite Direction," cannot be defended as freedom of expression, but can be termed as “unprecedented and unjustified libel and deliberate twisting of facts and casting doubt on Jordan's history of struggle and its wise Hashemite leadership."

jordanembassyus.org wrote:

They added that Al Jazeera “has been established in collaboration with foreign parties known to every one” to spread false information on the Arab countries and works to damage all chances for Arab unity.

The statement added that the way Al Jazeera constructs its news stories depends on well-designed plans aimed at wrecking the fibers of the Arab civilization and values.

The senators warned Jordanians and all Arabs from the TV station, “whose programmes serve the enemies of the nation.”

Highlights speak for themselves.

rdx-fx wrote:

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article1206
Sudan Tribune
""The Al-Jazeera channel, through its Khartoum office and its correspondent, Islam Salih Belo, took to preparing and transmitting a number of programmes and materials stuffed with false information and poor, biased analyses and with pictures and scenes selected to serve its ends," the National Security Authority statement said Friday.

sudantribune.com wrote:

It cited as evidence reports about tuberculosis, landmine victims in Sudan and events in the western Darfur region.

Sorry if I don't trust what the government(or a paper being published under the same repressive government) that supports militias that commited the Darfur genocide says. Because you see it's quite possible that the governmnet didn't like their reporting on that. As the highlight implies.

rdx-fx wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4949996.stm
BBC News
The interior ministry said Mr Abdel Ghani's arrest concerned the false reporting of an explosion in Sharkia on Wednesda

This is one source that seemed to be unbiased. They presented the statements from both sides, but the evidence is somewhat lacking. So you would have to see the original Al Jazeera story to decide who's telling the truth. Because this is Egypt we're talking about after all(Can women vote now? Weren't there some restrictions? Or was it only running for office?).

rdx-fx wrote:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/574/backlash_against_al_jazeera/
In These Times
"In an interview on NPR, Secretary of State Colin Powell also complained, “Al Jazeera has an editorial line and a way presenting news that appeals to the Arab public. They … magnify the minor successes of the regime. And they tend to portray our efforts in a negative light.”

Who to believe here? Jordanians claiming Al Jezeera works against arabs, or Powell that it works against US and allies? Decisions, decisions.

inthesetimes.com wrote:

Meanwhile, Iraq expelled an Al Jazeera reporter on April 2. The Iraqi government—the same one that supposedly uses Al Jazeera as a propaganda instrument—banished the network reporter for conducting interviews unsupervised by a government monitor.

LOL? Unbiased reporting FTW.

rdx-fx wrote:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503838
The Harvard Crimson
"The place to look to uncover bias will always be off camera. In Al-Jazeera’s case, you’ll find that literally all of the station’s top executives—the people who draw its editorial line, produce its documentary pieces and run its day-to-day operations—have a larger than normal bone to pick with Israel and its closest ally, the United States. That’s at least in part because nearly all of upper management at Al-Jazeera is Palestinian or Jordanian (which is usually code for “Palestinian refugee living in Jordan”)."

What does that have to do with making up stories? Of course there will be some bias. It is well known that often truth depends on the point of view and can you really blame them if sometimes their point of view comes out on the news? After all, in your post you have allowed your bias come out, as you were prepared to quote unreliable or obviously biased sources to prove your point of view correct. But it seems, at least according to your last source, that they are trying to change their ways, especially since they started broadcasting in english. Can we say the same thing for FOX?

In the end, you cannot trust one source alone, no matter how credible. Anyone can make mistakes, whether they are deliberate or not, and you have to use your common sense to decide after you've examined different points of views. But the truth is not somewhere down the middle between two extremes(liberal/conservative for example) like some would have you belive. More often than not, one side is speaking the truth because the truth is in their favor. They tell the truth WHEN it's in their favor(in favor of their agenda, owners etc.).

AL Jazeera for the Arabs

Fox for the Neo Cons.

I don't watch AJ, BBC is the way forward.

JahManRed wrote:

m3thod wrote:

AL Jazeera for the Arabs

Fox for the Neo Cons.

I don't watch AJ, BBC is the way forward.

Its important to watch a bit of AJ and Fox. It gives you somewhat of an insight into the Rabid Right and left wingers mindset.

The BBC is not entirely unbiased though it is as close to centre ground as is possible IMO.

You should watch my local Northern Ireland news for proper unbiased reporting. In the old days a reporter could(and did) get a bullet for putting their own slant on a story and that cloud has hung over them since.

The good old days of UTV news...

'Guns, deaths, bombs, kneecappings ...now here's the weather!"

Blehm98 wrote:

Al Jazeera is a muslim news network that appears to be biased towards the terrorists
Fox news is a "conservative" new station that is much closer to liberal than it should be.  I would consider it to be more of a middle grounds news service, maybe slightly left of middle.  It is for sure not conservative though

If you want to hear conservative media listen to the radio...

No.

Al-Jazeera is a predominantly ARAB news network that is biased towards Middle Eastern sentiment.

Calling FOX liberal or left of middle is one of the most retarded things I have read today (placing first barely in front of the link KMarion has in his sig).

Harmor wrote:

I'm noticing more and more often 'interesting' articles on Al Jazeera.  I find news that I wouldn't normally find on that network that I wouldn't find on other networks.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a conservative and I love Fox News (best news network - God Bless Murdoch), but some of the articles on Al Jazeera are well...interesting from a different point of view.

I don't mean MSNBC kind of different view, but an actual different view point from all the Alphabet news outlets.


My hesitation with Al Jazeera is their willingless to be a mouthpiece to terrorists - need only point out all the Bin Ladin tapes aired on their network.



Someone set me straight.

Yes, because if FOX or NBC or ABC or CNN was given an exclusive "Bin Laden" tape, they wouldn't dare air it...

Why would they want to air something that would 100% certainly improve their ratings?  Oh thats right, they get enough of their ratings with depressing Human Interest stories about the 1 girl (out of many) with blonde hair and the pretty smile that was abducted (these are the liberal stories guys).  Screw Darfur, screw China, screw Latin America, lets keep doing stories about Paris Hilton, child abductions, SARS scares, etc.

There is that evil liberal media influencing public opinion again.

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

The only reason Al Jazeera gets a bad rep is because CNN, FOX and CBS reported that Osama and pals sent their videos to Al Jazeera before AJ began reporting in English.

not to mention the inaccuracy of their articles.

One must go no further than my signature to see how I feel about FOX.

A news station's bias isn't always left/right.  In the case of AJ I'd say it tends to be anti-Israel/west.

*rant*
eg. If you're aware of whats going on in Fiji, AJ have reported the dictator's side of things (anti-NZ/Australia).  They talk about how he doesn't understand why we're getting pissed, and generally present "Australia and NZ should STFU" type articles, yet they havent really covered the detention of anyone who disagrees (taken to military bases and "questioned"), the home invasion/interrogation of a NZ military officer nor the Fijian blogs calling for attacks on tourists (Molotov and plastic explosive recipes are presented).
*/rant*

Spearhead wrote:

FYI to EVERYONE out there :

The radical islamists are right wing.  People too often confuse "supporting the terrorists" with "pulling out of Iraq".  That is why they also confuse right wing and left wing.  Just because too groups of people with very different views (democrats and insurgents) believe in only one thing (US pulling out of Iraq) does NOT mean they are on the same side.

The Emperor and Luke Skywalker both believed in killing Darth Vader.  However, the Emperor wanted to kill Vader so he could be replaced, while Luke wanted to kill Vader so he could defeat the empire.  The fact that the Emperor and Skywalker both wanted the same thing doesn't mean they were on the same side.

Best...Analogy...Ever!

Ive been really surprised at how good AJ have been on some story's that Ive seen

I watched a good debate about Tony Blair becoming the Mid-east envoy, basically saying he was the man for the job
as the leaders could get on with him but the people wouldn't be happy.

I do get the feeling that some people slagging AJ off have never watched the channel 

at least watch it for 15mins first (needs realplayer)

Last edited by elstonieo (2007-06-22 19:57:39)