No, it’s reporting the Qatari government’s assertion as “the truth” and the Amnesty International side as the “opposition” while still presenting both sides pretty accurately. It’s not great. But it’s far better than I would suspect you’ll find in pro-Israel outlets that are graded as “mixed.”
By contrast, the Washington Post wrote a story about how Trump might be a really great thing for NATO if he gets elected, because he can finally fix all the problems with it. That’s pure garbage. Result? “Mostly factual.” “High credibility.” I would be surprised if you can find even a single article with an equivalent level of bullshit in Al Jazeera, even when the topic is Israel or Qatar or something.
IDK, I feel like you’re just picking one individual part of my messages that you can disagree with, and moving the goalposts around, so you can keep the argument going, but I think I have completed and then some what I had to say.
FWIW I also disagree with WaPo being “highly credible”. What I take issue with here is the labeling of AJ as highly credible. I would reserve that label for outlets like AP or Reuters, or a few state media like France24 and perhaps the CBC. The BBC would have made the cut a few years ago but has been in sharp decline.
Yeah, I can more or less agree with that. I didn’t say Al Jazeera needed to be highly credible. I said they are factual with a certain clear bias involved. But they’re doing serious journalism and the conflation of “is anti Israel” with “is lying” is a pretty common thread in MBFC, so much so that they don’t even bother to hide it or pretend that anything other than them being anti-Israel is the issue that keeps them down in the not really factual category.
The reality is, they’re not “mixed.” They are mostly or almost entirely factual. And then, also, they have a significant notable bias. Trying to pretend that they’re “mixed” factually is dishonest.
Oh give me a break. Call it what it is: propaganda. You won’t hear me defend the NYT but this (edit: the article, not your comment) is pure garbage.
No, it’s reporting the Qatari government’s assertion as “the truth” and the Amnesty International side as the “opposition” while still presenting both sides pretty accurately. It’s not great. But it’s far better than I would suspect you’ll find in pro-Israel outlets that are graded as “mixed.”
By contrast, the Washington Post wrote a story about how Trump might be a really great thing for NATO if he gets elected, because he can finally fix all the problems with it. That’s pure garbage. Result? “Mostly factual.” “High credibility.” I would be surprised if you can find even a single article with an equivalent level of bullshit in Al Jazeera, even when the topic is Israel or Qatar or something.
IDK, I feel like you’re just picking one individual part of my messages that you can disagree with, and moving the goalposts around, so you can keep the argument going, but I think I have completed and then some what I had to say.
FWIW I also disagree with WaPo being “highly credible”. What I take issue with here is the labeling of AJ as highly credible. I would reserve that label for outlets like AP or Reuters, or a few state media like France24 and perhaps the CBC. The BBC would have made the cut a few years ago but has been in sharp decline.
Yeah, I can more or less agree with that. I didn’t say Al Jazeera needed to be highly credible. I said they are factual with a certain clear bias involved. But they’re doing serious journalism and the conflation of “is anti Israel” with “is lying” is a pretty common thread in MBFC, so much so that they don’t even bother to hide it or pretend that anything other than them being anti-Israel is the issue that keeps them down in the not really factual category.
The reality is, they’re not “mixed.” They are mostly or almost entirely factual. And then, also, they have a significant notable bias. Trying to pretend that they’re “mixed” factually is dishonest.