NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3101387.stm

Three words:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Bias? How can one tell?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Bias? How can one tell?

i didnt know that existed

its now bookmarked

Hmm, so when Al Jazeera refused to show the video of the islamofascists shooting Mrs. Hassan but played the hell out of the marine shooting the insurgent in the mosque that was fair and balanced?

Three words:

Doofus

Moron

Idiot

i didnt know that existed

its now bookmarked

In that case... http://www.wn.com/ ...just to be sure

Three words:

Doofus

Moron

Idiot

Very persuasive, cockholster, I guess you win.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3101387.stm

Three words:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.
What makes it really funny is that FOX thinks they have a right to call anyone biased, when the are the most biased, and innacurate, news net in this country.

What makes it really funny is that FOX thinks they have a right to call anyone biased, when the are the most biased, and innacurate, news net in this country.
No argument there.

Hmm, so when Al Jazeera refused to show the video of the islamofascists shooting Mrs. Hassan but played the hell out of the marine shooting the insurgent in the mosque that was fair and balanced?

Did all US networks show that marine? How do you know it was an insurgent?

Did all US networks show that marine? How do you know it was an insurgent?
Every network I saw showed the incident. I know it was an insurgent because he and his buddies were wounded while firing at the marines the previous day. They were disarmed, and later on another marine shot him dead. He will be tried in a court martial.

In that case... http://www.wn.com/ ...just to be sure

thats even better, thanks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3101387.stm

Three words:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.
I don't get the joke...

Al Jazeera is a fantastic news source! Yeah it is biased, but they don't just criticize Israel and the US they also criticize the corruption and backwardness of Arab regeimes as well. It is so full of crap that the US criticizes them especially because they are always trying to set up their own blatantly proppagandistic news channels in the Middle East but they always fail miserably. I think they had one in Iraq called "AL-Iraqia" but it was under funded and everyone that worked their was being shot at or threatened.

Americans are just pissed off at AJ because they show things and talk about things that would rather they swept under rug like americans gunning down children and clusterbombing villiages. Most americans would rather just imagine their county is pure and noble and does nothing but great and worthy deeds but Aljazeera shatters that image when it shows the consequences of US actions which ussually amounts to a dead family killed in their homes by an errand bomb or tankshell.

Al Jazeera is a fantastic news source! Yeah it is biased, but they don't just criticize Israel and the US they also criticize the corruption and backwardness of Arab regeimes as well. It is so full of crap that the US criticizes them especially because they are always trying to set up their own blatantly proppagandistic news channels in the Middle East but they always fail miserably. I think they had one in Iraq called "AL-Iraqia" but it was under funded and everyone that worked their was being shot at or threatened.

Americans are just pissed off at AJ because they show things and talk about things that would rather they swept under rug like americans gunning down children and clusterbombing villiages. Most americans would rather just imagine their county is pure and noble and does nothing but great and worthy deeds but Aljazeera shatters that image when it shows the consequences of US actions which ussually amounts to a dead family killed in their homes by an errand bomb or tankshell.
Perhaps we don't like it because it never shows the US in a good light, and never shows Arabs in a bad one. Even when the facts show a more complex situation.

Perhaps we don't like it because it never shows the US in a good light, and never shows Arabs in a bad one. Even when the facts show a more complex situation.

The opposite goes for many western news sources. Have you used AJ much?

Did all US networks show that marine? How do you know it was an insurgent?
No US news sources showed either thing. I think the complaint is that AJ is being hypocritical.
---------
Because he was shooting at the Marines before the incident.

No US news sources showed either thing. I think the complaint is that AJ is being hypocritical.
---------
Because he was shooting at the Marines before the incident.

Being hypocritical? Shame on them then! Free press can really be a nuisance.

Being hypocritical? Shame on them then! Free press can really be a nuisance.

The problem is not calling it like it is.

Al-J is clearly propoganda, not news. Therefore it should not purport to be news.

Fox is clearly propagana on political issues, but the rest of it is news at least. They just shouldn't claim to be "fair and balanced" and then have a set-in-stone policy like "don't say anything critical of the Bush administration."

The problem is not calling it like it is.

Al-J is clearly propoganda, not news. Therefore it should not purport to be news.


Really now? Prove your point by finding some propaganda there and post it. How can you say there are no news?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Really now? Prove your point by finding some propaganda there and post it. How can you say there are no news?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

News requires an unbiased view of events. *Everything* on Al-J is biased in such a way as to be almost comical. Case in point:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2BC0FF0-1A7F-4AA9-826C-FBF3D5BDDF0A.htm

I love the way "terrorist" is in quotation marks about Zarquawi. *Anyone* who kidnaps and beheads innocent people on TV is a terrorist, no quotation marks necessary.

Then there is the fact that the entire story is slanted to make it sound like the "poor innocent fighters" who *choose* to attack the US military are so very good and great while the US is evil.

Show me one place where Al-J has shown American troops giving candy to children and helping rebuild houses, without some idiotic spin like this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0D1C4D3-52D9-4B3D-91D2-8E500C6AEFF0.htm

(in the Falluja clashes section)

And stories with no factual backing other than a bit of hearsay are often reported as actual fact.

Al-J is the very definition of propaganda.

News requires an unbiased view of events. *Everything* on Al-J is biased, and stories with no factual backing other than a bit of hearsay are reported as actual fact.

Speaking of 'factual backing', where is yours?

Speaking of 'factual backing', where is yours?
If you read beyond the first two lines beyond the beginning of the post you might find it.

Being hypocritical? Shame on them then! Free press can really be a nuisance.
the job of the press is to be non-biased, if they want to only present one side of the story, then they should admit it. FoxNews should admit so as well.

It's not humanly possible to be unbiased so why lie about it? A network should have a position just like political parties do, that way a viewer will know what to expect. Fox and other US news stations are no better than al-jazeera, you shouldn't put one down and not the rest.

If you read beyond the first two lines beyond the beginning of the post you might find it.

woops, sorry, my mistake

edit: the rest wasn't there at the time

News requires an unbiased view of events. *Everything* on Al-J is biased in such a way as to be almost comical. Case in point:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2BC0FF0-1A7F-4AA9-826C-FBF3D5BDDF0A.htm

I love the way "terrorist" is in quotation marks about Zarquawi. *Anyone* who kidnaps and beheads innocent people on TV is a terrorist, no quotation marks necessary.

Then there is the fact that the entire story is slanted to make it sound like the "poor innocent fighters" who *choose* to attack the US military are so very good and great while the US is evil.

Show me one place where Al-J has shown American troops giving candy to children and helping rebuild houses, without some idiotic spin like this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0D1C4D3-52D9-4B3D-91D2-8E500C6AEFF0.htm

(in the Falluja clashes section)

And stories with no factual backing other than a bit of hearsay are often reported as actual fact.

Al-J is the very definition of propaganda.

The first article you quoted is OPINION it is clearly labeled as such!

Second you complain about them not showing only happy pictures of US troops giving out candy? Give me a break, you are just criticizing Al-jazeera for not broadcasting american proppaganda. Al jazeera's job isn't to translate Fox news into Arabic.

Third have no basis for saying that Alajazeera has no factual backing either, often aljazeera is the only station that has reporters in war zones like fallajua or Gaza and are the only ones who can present first hand news while American reporters hide behind the green line and report whatever the pentagon tells them to. While they have a more pro insurgent slant than the western press it is not like they are calling them "freedom fighters" like the US called the Contra terrorists.
As for those who suggest Al-Jazeera never critcizes Arab regimes you should look at their section entitled "In pursuit of Arab reform" which is nothing but that.

The sad part is the article from the Uk points out that the US attempts to discredit AJ are flawed themselves; they didn't run the stories the US accused them of running! They ran slightly similar stories, sometimes retracticing the misleading statments that WERE in them, and they get slammed for it anyway!

Then the article points out that the US has detained reporters from the network and killed one AJ journalist in a bombing raid on their headquarters in Iraq. So...This isn't quite pot calling the kettle black...its even more sad. Its the pot, rubbing itself down with charcoal, wearing a black T-shirt with huge, black lettering that reads "I'm calling the kettle black", calling the kettle black.

It's generally not mentioned much due to embarrasment and the fact that it tends to damage smear campaigns against Al Jazeera, but it is largely staffed and run by the former journalists of BBC World Arabic Service. When it was shut down to save money they found a different backer and set up as an independant station. A few years ago they would have been seen as respectable journalists, now they are portrayed as biased extremists. I doubt they have changed that much.

No news is unbiased. Doesn't anyone know that (A few do apparently).
If you want the "facts" look at the stuff yourself, that is all you'll ever be able to consider "facts".
So far I've found BBC World to be the most reliable news source. Although I prefer comparing those from CNN, CBC, and BBC.

No news is unbiased. Doesn't anyone know that (A few do apparently).
If you want the "facts" look at the stuff yourself, that is all you'll ever be able to consider "facts".
So far I've found BBC World to be the most reliable news source. Although I prefer comparing those from CNN, CBC, and BBC.
Absolutely, all information is propaganda particularly if it is being summarised for you by another person.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3101387.stm

Three words:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.
Why yes, America shows video of people in the US killing random Canadian, British, and French Muslims all the time. America says that Commies poisoned Reagan and that's why he died. It all makes sense now.

Really now? Prove your point by finding some propaganda there and post it. How can you say there are no news?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/17B57930-F852-4895-938C-DBF2D66F8D75.htm

It convienently skips over the fact that most of the citizens either fled outright or hunkered their heads down during the fighting. It skips over all the atrocities the fucking assholes under Zarqawi committed while in the city, including the locations of at least one of the beheadings. Shall I continue? :mad:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/17B57930-F852-4895-938C-DBF2D66F8D75.htm

It convienently skips over the fact that most of the citizens either fled outright or hunkered their heads down during the fighting. It skips over all the atrocities the fucking assholes under Zarqawi committed while in the city, including the locations of at least one of the beheadings. Shall I continue? :mad:
I think we are making the point here that no news source is unbiased or totaly trustworthy and that to be properly informed you have to look at sources that report from all sides of an issue.

What makes it really funny is that FOX thinks they have a right to call anyone biased, when the are the most biased, and innacurate, news net in this country.
... Dan Rather, Mark Halperin.

No US news sources showed either thing. I think the complaint is that AJ is being hypocritical.
---------
Because he was shooting at the Marines before the incident.

I saw the marine shooting the insurgent on US news (which is odd because I generally refuse to watch the news, since it is biased toward a two party system).

I think we are making the point here that no news source is unbiased or totaly trustworthy and that to be properly informed you have to look at sources that report from all sides of an issue.
No, the post equates the bias of Al Jazeera with sayy, the bias of fox news. Not nearly equal amounts of bias.

I saw the marine shooting the insurgent on US news (which is odd because I generally refuse to watch the news, since it is biased toward a two party system).
There was gunfire in the building before the journo got there. Until the investigation is over we really won't know the full details.

No, the post equates the bias of Al Jazeera with sayy, the bias of fox news. Not nearly equal amounts of bias.

So, which do you consider to be more biased?

No, the post equates the bias of Al Jazeera with sayy, the bias of fox news. Not nearly equal amounts of bias.
I would say that that is a matter of opinion. I personally find all Murdochs news broadcasts and newspapers extremely biased. Bias is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder and that is why it is good to balance what you take in with things you disagree with so that you don't live in an echo chamber where all you ever hear are ideas you agree with. Then you end up not understanding the world around you or the people that inhabit it nearly as well as you could.

Three words:

Doofus

Moron

Idiot

Flaming

Not

Permitted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3101387.stm

Three words:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Straight to the point.

Reminds me of the Japanese haiku (17 syllable poem). Look it up if unfamiliar.

I reckon I can do this one in two words though.

Embedded

Journalist

Straight to the point.

Reminds me of the Japanese haiku (17 syllable poem). Look it up if unfamiliar.

I reckon I can do this one in two words though.

Embedded

Journalist
LOL

embedded journalist = lots of exciting videogame footage, not alot of news.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/17B57930-F852-4895-938C-DBF2D66F8D75.htm

It convienently skips over the fact that most of the citizens either fled outright or hunkered their heads down during the fighting. It skips over all the atrocities the fucking assholes under Zarqawi committed while in the city, including the locations of at least one of the beheadings. Shall I continue? :mad:

I don't know if you noticed that big word "OPNION" At the top of the article?
That's just a big, outwardly way to say "Biassed". So, you don't realy prove anything.
Try posting from an article not labeled as "OPNION" for your proof.

In all fairness, absolutely unbiased news is impossible. BBC does have a rep for being rather good.

Yes, it is hypocritical to pretend to be unbiased. It is also hypocritical to invade a country to impose democracy and civil rights, while protecting and supporting governments such as those of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait. Accusations of hypocracy in this context seem somewhat awkward.

Anyway, news sources such as Al-J provide an important balance.

Oh... thus far, AJ hasn't made the point yet that the real Axis of Evil consists of 3 names:

Bush
Blair
Berlusconi

*grins*

In all fairness, absolutely unbiased news is impossible. BBC does have a rep for being rather good.

Yes, it is hypocritical to pretend to be unbiased. It is also hypocritical to invade a country to impose democracy and civil rights, while protecting and supporting governments such as those of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait. Accusations of hypocracy in this context seem somewhat awkward.

Anyway, news sources such as Al-J provide an important balance.
Definately, totally agree with this post and I couldn't put it better.

Second you complain about them not showing only happy pictures of US troops giving out candy? Give me a break, you are just criticizing Al-jazeera for not broadcasting american proppaganda. Al jazeera's job isn't to translate Fox news into Arabic.

WRONG! I complain that they never, ever, ever show this, even though it is more common than bad things happening. I never said that they should *only* show that.

I think we are making the point here that no news source is unbiased or totaly trustworthy and that to be properly informed you have to look at sources that report from all sides of an issue.

Which Al-J *never* does.

Which Al-J *never* does.
None of them do, you have to seek out different sources to hear different opinions.

What makes it really funny is that FOX thinks they have a right to call anyone biased, when the are the most biased, and innacurate, news net in this country.

serously

serously
I don't think they have had to make any apologies for statements concerning major peices of news. And yet we have Rathergate and the Halperin memo. How very interesting.

None of them do, you have to seek out different sources to hear different opinions.

There is a difference between not fully presenting both sides, and ignoring one side altogether. Most news stations do the former, Al-J (and sometimes Fox) does the latter.

There is a difference between not fully presenting both sides, and ignoring one side altogether.
Yes true, but often the two sides are a very narrow part of the spectrum and are not presented in a truely objective manner. You are given the impression that anything outside the two points of view is extremist when in fact the views represent such a narrow band of the spectrum that they are more a debate about tactics than a fundamental disagreement about the thing.
Most news stations do the former, Al-J (and sometimes Fox) does the latter.
Couldn't comment, I have not watched either, only seen clips on other stations.