We shouldn’t take any single news source at face value, every new source has biases, including the political environment it publishes in. The more traditional newer sources like the BBC and Reuters and AP, have the Western bias, and the West is aligned with Israel. So it’s difficult for those organizations to talk about the human toll inside of Gaza.
Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, and funded by the Qatari government. They’ve demonstrated themselves to be excellent reporters, but they have the biases of their environment as well. And some of that bias includes pro Palestinian sentiment.
Net net, the Arab language reporters are more likely to get data directly from Arab sources, Al Jazeera is more likely to have reporters inside of Palestine, and Al Jazeera has the appetite to show the human toll inside of the Gaza strip.
I can’t speak for the non-English version, but the English version of Al Jazeera is biased in what they cover, but when they do speak of things I have not noticed any blatant lies.
To the credit of the Western reporters, they’re not denying that there’s a human tragedy in Gaza, they’re just not talking about it. Are they lying? No. But they are demonstrating a massive bias.
I personally consider Al Jazeera a credible source, but a single source, and I still take my news as the aggregate of AP, the economist, Reuters, the BBC, the guardian, Al Jazeera. We can’t rely on any single organization to provide us objectivity, cuz everybody has biases. We have to synthesize an approximation of truth by what is said and not said by the various reporters
We shouldn’t take any single news source at face value, every new source has biases, including the political environment it publishes in. The more traditional newer sources like the BBC and Reuters and AP, have the Western bias, and the West is aligned with Israel. So it’s difficult for those organizations to talk about the human toll inside of Gaza.
Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, and funded by the Qatari government. They’ve demonstrated themselves to be excellent reporters, but they have the biases of their environment as well. And some of that bias includes pro Palestinian sentiment.
Net net, the Arab language reporters are more likely to get data directly from Arab sources, Al Jazeera is more likely to have reporters inside of Palestine, and Al Jazeera has the appetite to show the human toll inside of the Gaza strip.
I can’t speak for the non-English version, but the English version of Al Jazeera is biased in what they cover, but when they do speak of things I have not noticed any blatant lies.
To the credit of the Western reporters, they’re not denying that there’s a human tragedy in Gaza, they’re just not talking about it. Are they lying? No. But they are demonstrating a massive bias.
I personally consider Al Jazeera a credible source, but a single source, and I still take my news as the aggregate of AP, the economist, Reuters, the BBC, the guardian, Al Jazeera. We can’t rely on any single organization to provide us objectivity, cuz everybody has biases. We have to synthesize an approximation of truth by what is said and not said by the various reporters
Here’s an article that showed up on Lemmy, and it talks about biases as well. The article is very biased, but it doesn’t change the fact the biases they point out are demonstrable and real. So it’s interesting to read https://www.medialens.org/2023/the-absolute-right-to-commit-war-crimes-gaza-israel-and-labour-opposition/ to me it just reinforces we have to get our news from multiple sources, with multiple biases.