Well I notice Fox is a common denominator in both stories, and I do believe people who get their news from that source are generally guillable at best and uneducated at worst.
But I also think all sides are equally capable of getting things wrong, which is why we need independent journalists (such as those aligned with Bellingcat, for instance) to have reporters on the ground.
It’s not Fox; it’s MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, NPR, Reuters, the New York Times, and Joe Biden.
“All sides are equally capable of getting things wrong” was exactly my point here. Your second paragraph, I very much agree with. Does that mean that your whole assertion that Al Jazeera was dangerous evil terrorist garbage is retracted now? I would say that they are roughly speaking a mirror image for the New York Times or similar “Israel is fine, please look away from this dead baby at this story about Hamas instead” minded paper. Or is the New York Times also dangerous and evil? Or does it work in only one direction, or how?
I mean, if your mindset is that Israel is the good guys and Hamas are the bad guys, and so a bias against Israel is an offensive thing and you don’t want to stomach it in your news organizations, then fair enough. You can say that if you want. But I think some people will try to present that as the “objective” viewpoint and the mirror image viewpoint as the “terrorist” viewpoint. That’s not really a requirement I have for my news (in either direction) – like just tell me what happened, filter it through whatever lens is how you think it is, and let me sort out from a few multiple sources and make sense of how I think the overall picture is. As long as someone’s not outright lying, it doesn’t bother me. And I feel like if Al Jazeera were making up facts on any kind of regular basis I’d have heard of it, and the fact that so many authoritarian governments want to ban them kind of makes me like them.
Besides NPR (which itself does not do international on the ground reporting) which of your sources are state funded? Specifically which of them are funded by a right wing theocracy?
None. That is the difference. Fox News might overtly hate gay people, but are they funded by people who have courts which prosecute homosexuality?
We should prevent that sort of stuff at home and disavow it abroad. Especially if we are leftists, no?
Does that mean that your whole assertion that Al Jazeera was dangerous evil terrorist garbage is retracted now? I would say that they are roughly speaking a mirror image for the New York Times or similar “Israel is fine, please look away from this dead baby at this story about Hamas instead” minded paper. Or is the New York Times also dangerous and evil? Or does it work in only one direction, or how?
Someone could say that the New York Times is funded by a mindless money-driven machine which seeks only profit, and all its coverage needs to be defined in that light, and so we can safely discard anything it has to say. I wouldn’t say that. But it does make arguably an equal amount of sense to discarding Al Jazeera because they’re funded in part by a theocratic monarchy. I would say we should judge them primarily on their output and journalistic standards.
Well I notice Fox is a common denominator in both stories, and I do believe people who get their news from that source are generally guillable at best and uneducated at worst.
But I also think all sides are equally capable of getting things wrong, which is why we need independent journalists (such as those aligned with Bellingcat, for instance) to have reporters on the ground.
I mean, if your mindset is that Israel is the good guys and Hamas are the bad guys, and so a bias against Israel is an offensive thing and you don’t want to stomach it in your news organizations, then fair enough. You can say that if you want. But I think some people will try to present that as the “objective” viewpoint and the mirror image viewpoint as the “terrorist” viewpoint. That’s not really a requirement I have for my news (in either direction) – like just tell me what happened, filter it through whatever lens is how you think it is, and let me sort out from a few multiple sources and make sense of how I think the overall picture is. As long as someone’s not outright lying, it doesn’t bother me. And I feel like if Al Jazeera were making up facts on any kind of regular basis I’d have heard of it, and the fact that so many authoritarian governments want to ban them kind of makes me like them.
Besides NPR (which itself does not do international on the ground reporting) which of your sources are state funded? Specifically which of them are funded by a right wing theocracy?
None. That is the difference. Fox News might overtly hate gay people, but are they funded by people who have courts which prosecute homosexuality?
We should prevent that sort of stuff at home and disavow it abroad. Especially if we are leftists, no?
You didn’t really answer the question.
Someone could say that the New York Times is funded by a mindless money-driven machine which seeks only profit, and all its coverage needs to be defined in that light, and so we can safely discard anything it has to say. I wouldn’t say that. But it does make arguably an equal amount of sense to discarding Al Jazeera because they’re funded in part by a theocratic monarchy. I would say we should judge them primarily on their output and journalistic standards.
I would say in this specific situation, Al Jazeerah is more of a participie in the Israel-Palestine war than the New York times is.
I however don’t read the New York times and have no ability to defend them, since I cut out corporate media from my life years ago.