al jazeera?

topic posted Wed, November 16, 2011 - 2:28 PM by  Tandy
do people here read it? its amazing what you read. today i read how the un returned the palestinian application because there was no unified goverment as is stipulated as a condition and i asked this same question a while ago and was mocked for saying it. biased as hell but a good read!
posted by:
New York City
  • Re: al jazeera?

    Wed, November 16, 2011 - 2:46 PM
    their editorials can leave something to be desired, but their regular reporting is topnotch.

    PS can you link to the story? Also, If you're talking about our exchange on the matter, I don't think I mocked you, just pointed out that we negotiate and conclude deals with "fractured" states all the time
    • Re: al jazeera?

      Wed, November 16, 2011 - 9:47 PM
      Actually, I started off pretty anti-Al Jazeera, but the more I read it, I'm finding it more balanced than I thought. It still is obviously the FOX of the Middle East, but there's nothing else in the region that has the scope, for sure. On my phone I also have the apps for Haaretz, Jerusalem Post & MSNBC. I'd spend more time with NYT, but goddamn goddamn if I'm going to pay another monthly fee for something where there's no naked girls or info on whisk(e)y (kidd'n).

      What is never shocking to me is how Al Jazeera will work really hard to make sure that Israel is always represented in just the tiniest bit of bad light. There was a story a few days ago that was not even about Israel but it started and ended...contextually...talking shit about Israel. Didn't have to, but they found a way to put it in there.
      • Re: al jazeera?

        Wed, November 16, 2011 - 10:20 PM
        Yeah, what originally made me a fan was the fact that they report a lot of stuff that usually gets ignored in the western press. But I imagine much of that is due to their anti-colonialism hang-up
        • Re: al jazeera?

          Thu, November 17, 2011 - 2:59 PM
          looks to me like they do have some care for journalism but i like the fox reference because its obviously with a twist.
          • Re: al jazeera?

            Fri, November 18, 2011 - 12:21 PM
            I don't think it's anywhere near FOX news at all.
            • Re: al jazeera?

              Fri, November 18, 2011 - 2:43 PM
              to me they have a very biased reporting and maybe not to the same level as fox but at least in the israel situation they are so biased that they cant be trusted at all. and where theres one bias there are more so maybe not to the degree of fox but ive been reading it for a few months now and i now can know what a story will say before reading it.
              • Re: al jazeera?

                Fri, November 18, 2011 - 3:05 PM
                I really never saw much issue with their reporting, even on the Israel issue. Now their editorials are an entirely different matter

                PS can you post an example of what you are talking about?
                • .
                  offline 8

                  Re: al jazeera?

                  Fri, November 18, 2011 - 11:22 PM
                  I've seen a lot of AJ reporting on Israel, and there's very little op-ed inserted into their reporting. I dont think Tandy understands the difference.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: al jazeera?

                    Sun, November 20, 2011 - 11:30 PM
                    hahaha. yes thats because i am stupid. it must be so easy to you to be such a jerk. i have to work hard to even come close.

                    as for your question of where here is a story where israel seems to be put in for no other reason then to just include them and i have seen many like this one. just pick on negative things about israel. never anything positive that i have seen. but im not getting into any kind of long debate about my opinion.
                    • .
                      offline 8

                      Re: al jazeera?

                      Mon, November 21, 2011 - 12:18 PM
                      Well, that piece gets it wrong from the start - the direct translation of that phrase has nothing to do with flat ground. Ahlan is family, wa is and, and sahlan is ease, while marhaban comes from rahuba, which is wide and spacious. The direct translation of the phrase they cited would be 'be easy, family/people, there is much room'

                      there is a traditional greeting that does reference flat ground, but they didn't include those words in the article.

                      Anyway, the entire article is drawing a parallel between Israel treatment of nomads and British treatment of nomads, and given the close relationship and involvement of the British government in Israeli government development during the Mandate, its not an after thought at all, its a directly relevant part of the entire article.
                      • Re: al jazeera?

                        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 3:10 AM
                        Shockingly - nothing has changed. Salil, do you really STILL have to perform these feats of knowledge gymnastics? The whole subject was about what in my opinion was pretty spot on, which is how there is unquestionably a spin on Al Jazeera against Israel, just as there is on FOX concerning Democrats/Liberalism. I've been reading it for years, and there is no question in my mind, but, Salil, please be sure to respond and let us know why in your estimation, you are far more qualified to make an opinion. In fact, we could probably just come up with codes a this point as it would be a very big time-saver for you. For instance, when you reference your schooling, we can agree that this will be, say... Code 1 - but they are your codes, so please feel free to define them yourself. PM me and we can come up with a formative list and we'll disseminate it through the group. Perhaps we an start a Facebook page. Let's run some ideas back and forth and we'll suss this out.

                        As for the article, if you look at the whole article, there are only a few paragraphs about Israel - only after the other 90% of the story which did not reference them once. I imagine that the conversation went like this:

                        Editor: You know, this was a very interesting story. Very interesting. Good writing, nice direction.

                        Writer: Thanks. I thought it was an interesting perspective. An important story.

                        Editor. Yes! That's exactly what we though. It was...well. There's something missing though...

                        Writer: Really? I'll look through my notes, but I thought that what I wrote was pretty formative.

                        Editor: Well, yes. It is - but...well, you forgot to mention the Jews.

                        Writer: The Jews?

                        Editor: Yes. Jews. As you know, we do try to negatively portray the Jews...well, we say Israel publicly...but...anyway - can you throw in a few comparisons to Israel at the end? Just something? A little connection.

                        Anyway - you get the idea. In all seriousness, it seems odd that after that whole article, does no one think that it's odd that they throw in a paragraph or so about Israel, apropos of nothing at all. Of all the countries in the world where there is this kind of common disenfranchisement of a minority group, they could only find ONE country to illustrate...? Really? bias... Right. no no.

                        But, my Pal, Salil - let me help you save some of your very valuable time and just don't respond. FOX is biased, and that's a reality. Give me a sec...


                        Good goddamn. There are like fifty others. But, surely they are all wrong. They don't have Salil's [Code 1] or his [Code 6], and surely not anywhere near his [Code 4 & 3].

                        OK. I'm going to sleep.
                        • .
                          offline 8

                          Re: al jazeera?

                          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 11:03 AM
                          What is you obsession with having some sort of connection with me? If you're not PM-ing me, you're asking me to PM you. WTF man - its creepy.

                          The whole subject was about anti-Israeli bias, which you and Tandy have alleged, more than once now, is simply tagged on to the end of articles, or "apropos of nothing at all".

                          But once again, as per usual, it seems that you're either a liar, or you can't read.

                          For instance: <As for the article, if you look at the whole article, there are only a few paragraphs about Israel - only after the other 90% of the story which did not reference them once. I imagine that the conversation went like this:>

                          Really? Only after the other 90%? Because when *I* read it, I discover that lo and behold, in the SIXTH SENTENCE the framework for the comparison established Israel's history with nomad cultures:

                          "The isolation of their community, established in the 1970s, has eerie parallels with the experiences of the Bedouin residents of the Negev, who have faced frequent threats from Israeli state officials since that country's founding - with "unrecognised" villages denied infrastructure services and occasionally simply bulldozed."

                          Guess you missed that line - or is 6 sentences in equal to 'after 90%' for you?

                          Israel is also again mentioned about halfway through the article - is 50% equal to 90%? Oh wait, you bemoan: " Of all the countries in the world where there is this kind of common disenfranchisement of a minority group, they could only find ONE country to illustrate...? Really? bias... Right. no no."

                          But before this second discussion of israel at the 50% mark, we find, what, wait for it, you guessed it - A DISCUSSION OF OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE NOMADS WERE DISENFRANCHISED!!! HOLY SHITBALLS!!

                          AND they clearly argue that what happens in those other countries mentioned is equal to, or worse, than in Israel:

                          "[In Italy] Thousands of Roma were driven from their homes in 2007 when mobs attacked, beating residents and burning Roma settlements to the ground, as police reportedly did not intervene in several cases to protect the victims. Some Italian political leaders encouraged a national clamour for Roma to be expelled from cities and deported.

                          Violent incidents have also been reported in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, Serbia, and Slovakia.

                          The same report also noted inflammatory racist official statements made by the prefect of Rome, Carlo Mosca, in declaring his intent to sign expulsion orders without hesitation. "The hard line is necessary," he said, "to deal with these beasts".

                          "Security pacts" were signed by the mayors of Rome and Milan, which "envisaged the forced eviction of up to 10,000 Romani people" from the two cities, disregarding EU migration rules.

                          In the Czech Republic, Liana Janáèková, a member of the country's senate and a town mayor, said that problems of Romani settlement could be resolved with "dynamite", that Roma had too many children, and that they should be "held behind an electric fence"."

                          In fact, it appears that about half the paragraphs in the entire article discuss Israel or Israeli policy. Is that an after thought? Is that what you consider "after 90%".

                          But yes, its absurd to think that a Middle Eastern news source would, gasp, focus on middle eastern countries in its analysis. What a totally ludicrous idea.

                          Oh, and to top off your bullshit sundae, your little straw man at the end, where you imply that I would argue that AJ has no bias, I didn't say that, nor did I suggest it.

                          So, which is it, andy, are you lying, or are you illiterate?
                          • Re: al jazeera?

                            Thu, November 24, 2011 - 5:55 PM
                            goddamn goddamn! I wish that I had read all of that. I bet that it was perhaps even marginally interesting. But, at the word "obsession" I stopped because I just imagined that the rest went in that direction. I could I be obsessed with you since I've not been here in a year or something and not missed you a bit? Something tells me that you may not understand the actual meaning of that word, "obsession". One must care to be obsessed, and I care enough to put a mirror in front of you and that's about it!

                            And, just to point out your dishonesty - I went back to January of 2010 and still there was no private message to you. If I have some kind of "obsession", I am faaaaaaailed at it, for sure.

                            I'll work on it though, Kitten.

                            Happy T'day, Yo.
                            • .
                              offline 8

                              Re: al jazeera?

                              Thu, November 24, 2011 - 6:44 PM
                              Happy Thanksgiving to you too

                              But since you didn't read what's clearly stated, I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

                              Not reading is a forte of yours apparently, since you obviously blathered on about the article without reading it, as well.
                        • Re: al jazeera?

                          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 3:40 PM
                          hahaha. oh my god. that was so fucking funny. i cant wait to read his response. hahaha. wait you must be my namesake! hahaha. everyone keeps calling me your alt! wow you really are alive! hahaha
                    • Re: al jazeera?

                      Mon, December 12, 2011 - 4:57 PM
                      <<yes thats because i am stupid.

                      Much like a teenager dealing with the ups and downs of puberty, everything is "stupid" in the world of Tandy. And now it seems she is including herself in that assessment. She used the word "stupid" 23 times in one thread alone in the Politics tribe. Might I suggest expanding your vocabulary Tandy? :)~
              • Re: al jazeera?

                Sun, December 18, 2011 - 10:10 PM

                I'm actually a fan of Al Jazeera.

                I think their reporting isn't perfect, but it's about on par with CNN in terms of bias.

                There is the occasional horribly biased editorial, but as others have said their reporting is generally very good.

Recent topics in "**MIDEAST POLITICS**"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
WOW أنا Ayah 1 December 5, 2014
REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT EGYPT? Unsubscribed 0 August 13, 2012
Mooslims prove they are pure filth and garbage Unsubscribed 14 August 13, 2012
Israeli woman refuses ultra-Orthodox dictate to move to back o... أنا Ayah 3 January 4, 2012
The Left: Islam & Anti-Semitism Unsubscribed 0 December 14, 2011