Why do people consider Al Jazeera as a trusted source?
-
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.
-
Yeah going around saying "thank you for your service" to "veterans" you don't know is crazy IMO.
It kind of makes sense in the US, because the US is CONSTANTLY at war with someone / something, so unless people volunteer, there's a good chance the draft would be back and a bunch of people would be forced to go.
-
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.
Yes and that's a damn strong argurment on why it's a bad idea.
-
Yeah, read a couple of sources and take the average.
Always bear in mind who funds it.
Be careful with the taking average mindset. It's a default human one, and it's being abused. A lot of media outlets (particularly American right wing) are mouthpieces for the same few groups or people.
Instead, try and look at their biases. Do they have a reason to mislead you. What akin do they have in a particular game. E.g. the BBC is still fairly unbiased on a lot of world news. They are far less unbiased on middle eastern politics now.
It's an annoyingly complex problem to solve, on the fly.
-
I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?
Imo it's not about saying this or that org is least biased or less biased, it's acknowledging the biases present in all news orgs and comparing the reporting from multiple sources.
-
It kind of makes sense in the US, because the US is CONSTANTLY at war with someone / something, so unless people volunteer, there's a good chance the draft would be back and a bunch of people would be forced to go.
"Thank you for your service. Better you than me amirite.
" -
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 the mouthpiece of a hostile foreign power (to me). Its also sickeningly, cloyingly coated with hate for the US throughout any segment. I will on occasion read something that's been generically reposted, recognize the writing style, and then confirm that it came from AJ. Its so tilted that it reminds me of Fox News. And I don't watch Fox News either.
