It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al Jazeera Legitiment News Source?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon
I was just wondering if Al Jazeera was considered a reliable news source? I dont see it used very often.

english.aljazeera.net...


It works for me: all news reporting must have some element of "spin" IMO - either through the reporters perspective and personal biases, or because of the editorial policy. So, a source that reports out of "our" western ideology can certainly help redress any such imbalance and,hopefully give a much fairer overview of what is happenig in the world.

That sounded like a sermon, didn't it??!




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I would say Al-Jazeera is as legitimate news source as any other.

But they have a "negative sound" to their name in the western world.

Some of you say, its an islamic version of Fox News, maybe you are right.

But I think there are few other pro-islamic news sites, that have their agenda much much more anti-american as Al-Jazeera.

Most of the news I see there, I find also on Reuters, BBC and other international media.



So, to add a question:

Fox News Legitiment News Source?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So, to add a question:

Fox News Legitiment News Source?


Yes.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
If you want one of the most unbiased news sources, then use the BBC, as (compared to some notable others), there is no detectable slant on their stories, it is just "as is".


That's laughable at best (1):



The BBC's mental assumptions are those of the fairly soft Left. They are that American power is a bad thing, whereas the UN is good, that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel isn't, that the war in Iraq was wrong, that the European Union is a good thing and that people who criticise it are "xenophobic", that racism is the worst of all sins, that abortion is good and capital punishment is bad, that too many people are in prison, that a preference for heterosexual marriage over other arrangements is "judgmental", that environmentalists are public-spirited and "big business" is not, that Gerry Adams is better than Ian Paisley, that government should spend more on social programmes, that the Pope is out of touch except when he criticises the West, that gun control is the answer to gun crime, that... well, you can add hundreds more articles to the creed without my help.


And the CBC is a bastion of truth and light too, I hear.


ALL news sources have some kind of a slant. That's the purpose of websites like this, to pick apart the BS and siphon out the truth.

1. source



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I was just re-reading the source from my previous thread, and I must have missed this part:

In a nutshell, how the world's opinion about America(ns) is formed:


And here is the much-respected BBC world affairs editor, John Simpson, analysing American policy towards Libya last week as moves to end sanctions approached culmination:

John Humphrys: "Has there been a real fear in Libya that the Americans would attack them?"

John Simpson: "Very strong indeed. You see, they really suit the pattern that George W Bush has established - it's a weak country with a bad reputation. Now, most people don't realise it's weak; it's a bit like Iraq in that sense, [an] easy target to hit if you know what's really going on, but it looks big if you just watch the morning television programmes in the United States: built up as something terrible, whereas in fact it's small, weak, and it can't do anything very much to defend itself. That's why President Reagan hit it so hard in 1986, because he knew he could get away with it, and I don't believe that even the Americans thought that it was a major sponsor of state terrorism..."

Note a) the assumption of the stupidity of the American public; b) the assumption of the dishonesty of US Republican administrations; c) the instrusion of an extraneous point about Iraq; d) the condescension of the phrase "even the Americans"; e) the failure to spend time on the behaviour of Libya itself, the country responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. In short, a locus classicus of BBC bias. You can find one virtually every day.


Al Jeezera is much more blatant than that, but still a viable source. American news organizations do the same thing, just in reverse.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   


John Simpson: "Very strong indeed. You see, they really suit the pattern that George W Bush has established - it's a weak country with a bad reputation. Now, most people don't realise it's weak; it's a bit like Iraq in that sense, [an] easy target to hit if you know what's really going on, but it looks big if you just watch the morning television programmes in the United States: built up as something terrible, whereas in fact it's small, weak, and it can't do anything very much to defend itself. That's why President Reagan hit it so hard in 1986, because he knew he could get away with it, and I don't believe that even the Americans thought that it was a major sponsor of state terrorism..."

Note a) the assumption of the stupidity of the American public; b) the assumption of the dishonesty of US Republican administrations; c) the instrusion of an extraneous point about Iraq; d) the condescension of the phrase "even the Americans"; e) the failure to spend time on the behaviour of Libya itself, the country responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. In short, a locus classicus of BBC bias. You can find one virtually every day.


Please, Pistolpete, explain to me, as you obviously have actually looked at the points in this [b[random article where I can find the following:

A) Assumption of stupidity in the American Public? What John Simpson is saying is that the coverage that Libya was receiving would portray them in that light. Not too hard to understand, even with a basic grasp of the english language. If he meant to imply Americans were stupid, he would have said something about them, not the coverage. That is the key word there:



Now, most people don't realise it's weak; it's a bit like Iraq in that sense, [an] easy target to hit if you know what's really going on, but it looks big if you just watch the morning television programmes in the United States


B) Where is the assumption of dishonesty? He states that Reagan hit Libya becasue he knew Libya was weak, henceforth he could get away with it in a military sense. Nowhere does it say he intended to deceive anyone.

Again, comes down to a grasp of the english language and the bias of the writer (whoever it is) himself.

C)He has a point about Iraq. Before the War, all the talking heads and armchair Generals gave the Republican Guard et al a major big up, and everyone believed we where in for a big fight around Baghdad.

As it stands, the Iraqi Army was poorly trained, equipped (even the Republican Guard) and morale was piss-poor.

The Iraqi Army failed to offer anything more than token resistance in a few towns, and on the whole it crumbled. That is not due to the overwhelming superiority of the Coalition, but more down to the Iraqi's having a weak, inneficient, crap army.

Had they decided to fight, and put some backbone into it, the could have stood up and fought for a couple of months, in proper firefights, but failed to do so.

D) The condescension of the phrase "even the Americans", what does that mean? He is refering to the US Admin, not the people, and quite rightly so. It was placed on the list for state sponsored terrorism with little actual evidence it was doing so. There are tenious links to the beirut and lockerbie bombings, and these have never been proven. But to lump it on with the likes of Iran (who support actual, terrorist organisations) is a bit far fetched.


In short, the article you have posted, a critique of the BBC, is in fact bias and clearly anti-BBC from the outset in its own writings and findings.

You also take the quotes out of context, as John Simpson isn't lashing out at America, he is taking part in a debate, and as such, the views are his, not the BBC's (John Humphreys is also BBC, the man asking the question):



John Humphrys: "Has there been a real fear in Libya that the Americans would attack them?"

John Simpson: "Very strong indeed. You see, they really suit the pattern that George W Bush has established - it's a weak country with a bad reputation. Now, most people don't realise it's weak; it's a bit like Iraq in that sense, [an] easy target to hit if you know what's really going on, but it looks big if you just watch the morning television programmes in the United States: built up as something terrible, whereas in fact it's small, weak, and it can't do anything very much to defend itself. That's why President Reagan hit it so hard in 1986, because he knew he could get away with it, and I don't believe that even the Americans thought that it was a major sponsor of state terrorism..."



To claim the BBC as anti-american is laughable on its own. The BBC, whilst it has been known to make the odd mistake, has a WORLD WIDE reputation for honesty, quality reporting, and being the most free from any bias or spin. It also is advertisement free, which is nice


In fact, the article to which you post, is the Telegraph. And they are having an anti BBC drive as a result of the whole Dr Kelly affair! I mean, come on, you take an article from a paper that is favourable to the Blair Gov', and it also has a BEEBWATCH!!!...

That is bias for you!

[edit on 27/3/05 by stumason]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   


Originally posted by Souljah
To add a question:

Fox News Legitiment News Source?


Only to Right-Wing fascist morons that can't look beyond what the government is telling them...

No offense to edsinger and the like...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But seriously, its all relative... It is useful to some and not so to others, it all depends on how deeply one wishes to delve into an issue, and their personal opinions on the worlds situations... Its all a matter of personal opinion...

Some personal opinions just tend to be better informed than others...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join