Why do people consider Al Jazeera as a trusted source?
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Cherry pick a few topics you know incredibly well and look at their published articles on those subjects.
Did they cover your area of expertise correctly with nuance and giving the appropriate context?
If yes, now you have more confidence that the articles in other areas are also well written and researched.
If no, now you have less confidence in them
You can apply the above strategy to any news source. For many people the above protocol gives good results with aj.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Can't speak to anything but Al Jazeera America. Short lived, but they promised unbiased news. And gods was it unbiased, flat as paste. Really woke me up to how I'd come to expect entertainment in my news and not simple facts.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This kind of question is similar to proving a negative in logic.
You're asking why people think it's trustworthy, implying you believe it isn't.
-
*Which people think it's trustworthy? You used an ambiguous "many people" - I'd need to see something supporting this assumption.
-
It would be more useful for you to give examples of why you don't find it trustworthy, as this is what really matters with regard to any source.
I don't trust any one source, and instead try to piece together a likely truth by considering the different sources and how a story is told. I'm surely wrong as much as I'm right, but it's the best any of us can do.
-
-
I'm not sure I consider them a trustworthy source per se. I don't think they're necessarily less trustworthy than the BBC. BBC is propping up a Western colonialist perspective. (Not trying to beat up on the Beeb specifically. Major trusted U.S. news sources tend to more specifically support U.S. nationalism ... even the "liberal" ones.)
I think if a viewer / reader in a Western mindset, the difference in the blind spots between Al Jazeera's perspective and Western media will complement each other in a way that will give readers / viewers a more well-rounded perspective on history. At least as compared to sticking only to Western perspectives.
Very well-put. AJ helps me get the ‘Eastern’ perspective of world events, which can get sanitized by the West. Taking the Gaza War as an example, BBC/any US media outlet is almost always going to take a pro-Israel bias—even inadvertently. I think it’s important to hear from groups who don’t have incentives to portray israel in a good light. Again, tho, that’s one example, and you should always consult multiple news sources.
-
Can't speak to anything but Al Jazeera America. Short lived, but they promised unbiased news. And gods was it unbiased, flat as paste. Really woke me up to how I'd come to expect entertainment in my news and not simple facts.
News shouldn't be entertaining; it should be factual and unbiased.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
You made this a question about Al Jazeera but I think at the same time it should be a question about you. What type of media are you trying to consume about what topics with what goals? Depending on that answer, the utility of Al Jazeera to your life would massively change.
One general approach to understanding national domestic policies is to read one or two papers from your country and then to read one or two papers from a different country, or preferably two different countries, and see how the information stacks up. if you want English language media, maybe you have something like BBC and then ... Gosh it's hard to think of any decent US newspapers ... Seattle Times? ... Maybe something Canadian, and then maybe something Qatari? Why not.
That type of media consumption avoids some common pitfalls, but it's not perfect. Most mainstream media outlets tend to be pro-establishment, whatever that may mean.
-
Cherry pick a few topics you know incredibly well and look at their published articles on those subjects.
Did they cover your area of expertise correctly with nuance and giving the appropriate context?
If yes, now you have more confidence that the articles in other areas are also well written and researched.
If no, now you have less confidence in them
You can apply the above strategy to any news source. For many people the above protocol gives good results with aj.
Cherry pick a few topics you know incredibly well and look at their published articles on those subjects.
If they ever write an article on the In N out secret menu I'll let you know
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Al Jazeera is funded by the Qatari government. Make of that what you will.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Yes, Al Jazeera is biased. But way less than other news sources in the area, and way better than many large American "news" sources.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
There are places (Ground News is a good one IMO) where you can see how biases are broken down by factors like factual accuracy and political alignment.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
It's not about being exactly more reliable than the other big ones. More about being a second perspective, filling in the gaps of the western ones.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
In my life experience the only way to test the reliability of a news source is to actually live some events and see how they are reported by different media.
I have no such experience with al Jazeera, so I couldn't tell you reliably if they are or not reliable. Best advice with media is, unless you are certain they are reliable, treat them as unreliable.
-
It's not about being exactly more reliable than the other big ones. More about being a second perspective, filling in the gaps of the western ones.
Yeah, read a couple of sources and take the average.
Always bear in mind who funds it.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]usa based media as you know leans right wing, all of them, and many of them are owned by right wingers irl. if you look at how they glorify the military and vets, and have copangada type shows. it almost never discredits a right wing president in a very negative light, while same cannot be said if it was Dem in power. certain things you notice you really cant criticise, is israel, CHRISTIANITY in movies, and shows, and military. everything else is ok.
AJ may not be neutral source, but its a source that is not controlled by the west, so you might get a ME perspective. just like how some british media reports some truthful news in the USA that usa would sugar coat or downplay, but not against british based news.
asian sources heavily criticizing usa for involvement in thier region, while usa never ever does that.
-
News shouldn't be entertaining; it should be factual and unbiased.
almost all the current MSM in usa, is entertainment, they are basically fox-lite, so its heavily sensationalized, or basically a tabloids to get click and viewers.
-
Can't speak to anything but Al Jazeera America. Short lived, but they promised unbiased news. And gods was it unbiased, flat as paste. Really woke me up to how I'd come to expect entertainment in my news and not simple facts.
there was an asian source that was very similar, flat and unbiased, but i forgot which one was it.
-
usa based media as you know leans right wing, all of them, and many of them are owned by right wingers irl. if you look at how they glorify the military and vets, and have copangada type shows. it almost never discredits a right wing president in a very negative light, while same cannot be said if it was Dem in power. certain things you notice you really cant criticise, is israel, CHRISTIANITY in movies, and shows, and military. everything else is ok.
AJ may not be neutral source, but its a source that is not controlled by the west, so you might get a ME perspective. just like how some british media reports some truthful news in the USA that usa would sugar coat or downplay, but not against british based news.
asian sources heavily criticizing usa for involvement in thier region, while usa never ever does that.
Yeah going around saying "thank you for your service" to "veterans" you don't know is crazy IMO.
-
In my life experience the only way to test the reliability of a news source is to actually live some events and see how they are reported by different media.
I have no such experience with al Jazeera, so I couldn't tell you reliably if they are or not reliable. Best advice with media is, unless you are certain they are reliable, treat them as unreliable.
reporting from "outside looking in" perspective, rather the us/bbc which only does it in the inside looking in.
-
reporting from "outside looking in" perspective, rather the us/bbc which only does it in the inside looking in.
I'm not American. bbc is also a external news source for me.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Scepticism should always be applied to any state-run media.
