The "good guys" usually don't have to suppress free speech and a free press.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32398 readers
617 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
EU banned most Russian government-sponsored media, Ukraine too.
Russian government-sponsored media isn't free press is it?
There are no good guys then
I'll bet they do. Al Jazeera is one of the most authentic and honest news sources on the planet - delivering NEWS - not editorials. The NEWS (actual real news) is not welcome by such right wing despots as Netanyahu because it shines the light of truth on their lies.
I hope for the sake of Israel and Palestine that Israel doesn't blot out Al Jazeera at a time when the truth is far more important than any right wing lies.
AJ has been busting Israeli fake news with facts
Not that Al Jazeera isn't biased, and the organization does receive Qatari government funding...
But they are relatively fair and balanced in terms of coverage and takes. In a conflict like this, they will platform both the Israeli government and Hamas, and have their own or other local reporters provide an accurate as possible picture of the ground situation, where either side in the conflict will try to convince people differently.
People in the Middle East and internationally rely on Al-Jazeera. Removing them means that people will not be as informed of what's really happening, and will cause some to turn to more biased and extremist channels.
Big caveat: AJ ENGLISH is very different from their Arabic organization.
Honestly, I just saw one of the BEST interviewers, ever, on AJ ENGLISH this past week.
The information in the interviews themselves was nothing groundbreaking, but the AJ hosts UNWILLINGNESS to let either the Hamas spokesperson OR the former Israeli defense minister simply evade his questions was breathtaking and SHOULD be the standard for this format.
The AJ host is Marc Lamont Hill, and here is a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgoUq69NZ30
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, this was phenomenal work by Mr. Hill, massive respect.
He was combative, but not aggressive, just extremely assertive, and very skilled at active listening in order to adjust his questions when the subjects tried to stonewall and dodge. Top notch. A+++
Saw the same interview. I was blown away
Though I can't speak a lick of Arabic, I did check both the English and Arabic livestreams of Al Jazeera (Arabic on https://aljazeera.net), they had many of the same videos, a few bilingual reporters talking on the situation that I saw on both casts.
AJ is Qatari state media and a core component of Qatari statecraft, but AJ English and AJ Arabic serve different state policy projects.
Qatar's World Cup fiasco was an unusual stumble in their generally highly sophisticated and very effective western PR apparatus.
I say this to emphasize that Qatar uses AJ English to raise it's own respectability around the world, and is very mindful to NOT be seen abusing AJ English to blatantly and nakedly advancing Qatari state interests, although that can get a bit fuzzy around it's ME coverage at times. But overall, AJ English is supposed to help present Qatar as a moderate and reasonable government in the eyes Westerners.
Which, again, is why the World Cup was such a gigantic clusterfuck in the context of Qatari foreign policy.
Now, AJ's Arabic organization however is much more direct tool for Qatar to use in advancing Qatari interests in the region, and amongst the Arab world. It's not remotely held to the same western notions of "balanced journalistic" standards, as AJ English is.
That doesn't mean it's like OAN, or InfoWars, just that it's reporting and coverage is designed to fill a different niche of Qatari foreign policy.
You're absolutely right, I think Al Jazeera fills a similar niche as Japan's NHK and UK's BBC.
Sort of, but there is a significant difference: democracy vs monarchy.
For all of Japan's and the UK's problems, they're still democratic.
Qatar is a Gulf monarchy so the objective of Al Jazeera English is to give the false impression to it's western audience that Qatar shares any of the values that Western democracies do, or at least profess to.
Without BBC, the UK would still have elections and it's global reach to shape global opinions.
Japan would still be a democracy with gigantic cultural and (high tech) economic soft power.
Without Al Jazeera English, Qatar's global perception would entirely be shaped by oil, slavery, and the world cup.
Al Jazeera English pulls a lot more weight than the other two simply because it has to.
Edit: After bashing Qatar, I should circle back and reiterate that Al Jazeera English is generally high quality and reputable news organization. It should absolutely be ONE of the sources you consume.
Qatar sure fumbled their reputation at the World Cup from start to finish, if nothing else.
I was gonna say, for reporting outside of their biased regions, many ppl ranked them almost on par with Reuters, and that's a lot.
Idk how many ppl will realize that, but closing them will be a big loss of fair reporting world wide.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
JERUSALEM, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Israel's communications minister said on Sunday he was seeking a possible closure of Al Jazeera's local bureau, and accused the Qatari news station of pro-Hamas incitement and of exposing Israeli soldiers to potential attack from Gaza.
The proposal to shut down Al Jazeera had been vetted by Israeli security officials and was being vetted by legal experts, Shloma Karhi said, adding that he would bring it to the cabinet later in the day.
Al Jazeera and the government in Doha had no immediate comment.
"This is a station that incites, this is a station that films troops in assembly areas (outside Gaza) ... that incites against the citizens of Israel - a propaganda mouthpiece," Karhi told Israel's Army Radio.
"It is unconscionable that Hamas spokespeople's message goes through this station," he said, adding: "I hope we will finish with this today."
It was not clear if the latter statement referred to a cabinet discussion or implementation of a closure.
The original article contains 164 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Everyone knows that journalists are all secretly Hamas
PRESS + IDENT - PRESIDENT + HAMA = HAMAS
See! Proof all press are actually Hamas!1!!1!!
I am generally uninformed on this conflict beyond reading a a synopsis or history for the pass century or so this week, the agenda on either side seems pretty blatant from the media outlets. Now I haven't seen Israeli media directly but seeing what us centric media is reporting My god, I watched fox news and they were basically foaming at the mouth and showing the same clips and had a woman that would say the same thing every few hours trying to dehumanize the other side. I watched al Jazeera last night for a few hours and they frame the attack on Saturday as a counter attack (forever recursively correct) overlook what happened as much as possible and frame context to give it a morality pass and generally are trying to downplay how western media is reporting it.. I took a look at who owns al Jazeera, it's state run media from Qatar. We all know foxnews is basically ultra conservatives circle jerk. It's two sides slinging shit. However, al Jazeera seems to point out the lack of Israeli media allowing any western reporting of what's really happening in gaza which I 100% agree with. It's good to get perspective on either sides but to me both western and Arab centric outlets are obviously pushing their agendas.
I acknowledge my ignorance on the complexities on this issue and am only providing my take as someone trying to understand this issue from the woefully biased reporting surrounding this issue.
Al Jazeera has had some excellent in-depth reporting and is not some radical propaganda outlet, any more than the BBC or NPR. Their perspective is different but not incorrect or intentionally misleading and tends to be factually on par with the AP and Reuters.
The Onion article on their position accurately sums up most western media outlets approach to Israel. It’s a weird blind spot for much of the west.