>>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility.
AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
Then, the tv program is on the memri web site. There should be at least a million people in your Britain which understands it. Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...?
And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources.
>>You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :)
Disclosure:
I almost trust NY Times, as long as none of their big advertisers etc are involved. They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations. I read my local (Swedish) media carefully too, but mainly for the laughs in comparing content to NYT/BBC.
> AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
Umm, yes, my using English AJ as a news source. I think I would have noticed if they regularly advocated (note - a distinction from broadcasting) extremist views. :)
You, on the other hand, have noted that you have no first hand knowledge of AJ or their reporting. But have taken content from a website that exists to track down examples of anti-Semitic material to inform your view of them...
> Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...?
No, more bad rhetoric. You know I am not claiming that. I am explaining that they hunt down these clips, often presenting them out of context, with the agenda of exposing news agencies as anti-Semitic.
Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ.
> They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations
I'm mildly unconvinced that airing scandal is a good marker for neutrality & credibility :)
The BBC are pretty good - probably the best "simple" news source, although it has its biases (most notably it is often anti EU). NYT I am always divided over, but generally pretty good. They make up my four "preferred & relatively trustworthy" news sources along with AJ and the Financial Times. There is probably a slight liberal bias in my choice of news consumption, but I have yet to find a conservative media source that I am comfortable with.
BUT; you could pick up lots of examples of problems.. the BBC, for example, tends to be very "white middle class Christian" centric (and sometimes, ultra-politically-correct). They also, recently, broadcast some BNP interviews which had pretty nasty/racist comments in them - basically the same sort of lines as the first incident you pointed to with AJ.
We picks our source and then take them with a grain of salt. The point is not to find you a "source" to prove Al Jazeera's credibility to you, the point is I am giving you my opinion as a cynic and AJ watcher that I find them to be a relatively neutral and balanced news source. If you have respect for my opinions you might take that as an endorsement, or otherwise you might not :) I don't mind.
The points you have raised do concern me; enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source, at least in the near future. I'm afraid it is not enough to convince me they are anti-Semitic and completely non-neutral/compromised.
> AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
To recap that thread in the discussion:
a. You claim AJ is a good news site.
b. I point out that they have racist content in non-English editions; suspect agenda.
c. You make claims about the racist content.
d. I ask multiple times for references to that claim.
e. Finally, you base that upon the English content?!?!
It seems you just made up a fantasy about that original sermon?
After that you claim I do bad rhetoric?!?! WTF?!
Either you're drunk or trolling.
>>Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ.
WTF?!
I made that point in what you commented on, against you...
I wrote: "And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources."
The rest of the comment looked like a total change of subject, I'm not going to read it. But I saw this ending:
>>enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source
Again: (a) There might be be double messages to different languages/audiences and (b) Even if not, no one has a clue to the agenda/spin of Al J.
I don't know if the web site is the same company? Try reading it with translate.google.com, then.
These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.)
I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still:
I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.)
How the Hell can that be voted up like that?
I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
Sorry for the meta-discussion, I only want to help berntb understand.
> I argue against someone that made claims
No you don't, because ErrantX only stated his opinion.
In this thread, ErrantX has shown that he has watched, and is watching, several different news channels. From that experience he has formed the opinion that English Al-Jazeera is one of the best news channels around.
You on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera, and you are dismissing them outright. That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity, and that is why you are being downvoted.
> I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, and since a majority of HN readers disagree with you, that they also are stupid. Really?
Go back up, here is his first comment to the racist sermon asking for genocide:
>>See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it
That was a claim of facts.
But he obviously has never seen any explanation for it. And had no idea if it was one or more incidents (it took me seconds to find another -- I have no idea how common it really is for Al J in Arabic).
>>on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera
I know enough that no one really knows their agenda. (Well, except that they don't criticize the country they are sited in.)
Edit: I might also add that ErrantX acknowledged that point.
>>Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid
How do you get that from "intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected"? (Edit: If you really don't get it, I'm writing the opposite.)
I have been voted -30 or -40 here. That doesn't happen on HN if you are just wrong, which happens to everyone.
In case it is not clear, that was my opinion. I appreciate that using "definitely" might have confused the issue - but I was only trying to imply the strength of my opinion (rather than as fact).
And also; as I keep saying - I have no opinion on the Arabic version, it is my understanding the two are very separate channels.
All my comments refer to English AJ, period.
I think you really have no experience of AJ - either English or AJ, and possibly (though I hate to suggest this, and apologise if it is not the case) little knowledge of the region. And you've come to this conversation assuming a) I am the same and b) I am misguided. It would have been nice to have a proper discussion (indeed you have raised points I will be looking into for myself)
Bottom line is; the middle east is a passion of mine (hence, rusty Arabic :)). And AJ, I find them a great general news source; their agenda is the same as any news agency (or, rather, they have slight agenda's and bias like all news agencies). But on comparison it is my opinion that AJ are better than most.
I think that clears up the points I wanted to get straight..
> Either you're drunk or trolling.
This was just uncalled for and, in light of it, I'm not interested in continuing our discussion, sorry.
I have followed it a bit, mostly on the net since I try to avoid tv. The net variant might be different from the tv.
I stopped when I realized why a news story was weirdly handled. It was done so it could be taken as not contradicting that some US military started shooting into a crowd without provocation. Which I really doubt would happen any western army. (Didn't save a reference, years ago.)
>>the middle east is a passion of mine
Frankly, I follow the ME news because the Middle East is a passion of my local (Swedish) media. :-)
I have lots of fun comparing e.g. Reuters translations and checking in NY Times what is censored locally.
I grew up trusting my local media -- it really shocked me, when I started to fact check them a decade ago. That is probably why I react to media which covers areas, but you have no idea of the spin and the political correctness.
And my real interest in the Mid East isn't about the politics. It is the food and the music -- klezmer, Arabic music and their mixes (typically Balkan, which also has Turkish influences).
I should also note that you contradicted that also, above:
>>The reason is because you have cherry picked incidents, one from a particularly partisan source, from which to base your claim of a lack of credibility.
If you base everything off the English content, then how do you know I "cherry picked" conecerning the Arabic content??
(I have also no clue about the Arabic content of Al J. I just found a few examples in seconds.)
I've been down voted around 50 times for pointing out inconsistencies like this... I claim that depends on idealists. Sad, but not unusual for political extremists.
AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim?
Then, the tv program is on the memri web site. There should be at least a million people in your Britain which understands it. Are you really claiming that they completely lied about something so easily checked...?
And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources.
>>You could name your preferred news source and I could probably do exactly the same :)
Disclosure:
I almost trust NY Times, as long as none of their big advertisers etc are involved. They have aired lots of scandals in lots of president administrations. I read my local (Swedish) media carefully too, but mainly for the laughs in comparing content to NYT/BBC.