this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
46 points (78.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

32965 readers
1755 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I noticed a good amount of people talking about Al Jazeera in the BBC paywall thread and that make me ask, why!?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 2 points 1 hour ago

You need to receive news from a broad variety of sources, not just those that agree with your viewpoint or have a particular agenda.

Al Jazeera obviously have a pro-Qatari but less so than Fox News for example or any billionaire owned newspaper/TV channel have biases.

Aggregate from all sides and the truth will be somewhere in the middle.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Why wouldn't they?

It's hard not to interpret this comment in a western chauvinistic light.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

A pretty long track record of high-quality journalism. Same as the BBC.

Sure, they're owned by Qatar. As of last I checked it serves as more of a status symbol than a propaganda outlet, though, at least in English.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

There's a saying among BBC journalists that all who work there eventually end up at Al Jazeera.

Watch one of my favorite documentaries of all time, Control Room (2004) about coverage of the Iraq War.

Al Jazeera is far from perfect, and I'd argue has fallen from its peak in terms of quality. But it's still worth viewing to get a more well rounded perspective.

Now do I believe they can cover topics that hit close to Qatari interests? Not necessarily. For those I take with a grain of salt.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 12 hours ago

As we quickly learned during the George W Bush era, no news media agency can be trusted. To counter this, check reporting of the same incident from multiple news agencies and find the consistent facts. Everything else is suspect.

In a hurry, see if Reuters or AP has covered it, but verify when you have the time.

Done this way AJ is perfectly viable as a source for news, in that the bias can be filtered out.

FOX and OANN are known to lie or misrepresent facts entirely, but that gets filtered through cross-checking.

Trust, but verify.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Their original staff was a bunch of pretty serious journalists sourced from the BBC.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago

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.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Becuase it was founded with the same journalistic practices as the BBC.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah going around saying "thank you for your service" to "veterans" you don't know is crazy IMO.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

"Thank you for your service. Better you than me amirite. 👈👈😎"

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I can say both of those things with genuine respect. I thought I was going to get drafted into Desert Storm. I don't like sand.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 5 points 16 hours ago

I agree. Almost as coarse and rough and irritating as getting blown up by an IED.

[–] Paid_in_cheese@lemmings.world 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mienshao@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Eddyzh@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, read a couple of sources and take the average.

Always bear in mind who funds it.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

E.g. the BBC is still fairly unbiased on a lot of world news.

No? Why do you think this?

They are far less unbiased on middle eastern politics now.

Have you considered that you may have only noticed that they're aren't unbiased on the middle east.

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 3 points 16 hours ago

Ya. A nuanced media net is the only real answer. Trying to balance one liar against another rarely results in balance.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Scepticism should always be applied to any state-run media.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Private media is not any more trustworthy than state run.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Please refer to the other comment where I address this.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The second comment of mine you replied to.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 minutes ago
[–] ronanfahy@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Is it better for media to be privately owned by billionaires?

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No, definitely not. I don't think there is any news source I would trust 100%. You need to seek out multiple sources and try to sus it out yourself. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I don't claim to have all the answers but in my experience state media tends to be less than trustworthy. I'd say BBC is okay but they've had some big fuck ups before.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

in my experience state media tends to be less than trustworthy.

How did you determine that?

I’d say BBC is okay

You haven't been watching their year and a half of genocide support?

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'd be happy to consider your argument. First I ask you to pease refer me to some trustworthy state media.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Ok. Seemed odd that you'd leave a comment with no relation to mine in response.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

if you want to argue with me then please reply to the other comment. Or don't, I have better things I could be doing and I doubt either of us have much to gain from it.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

Just go do something else, for your sanity and mine.

[–] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Al Jazeera is funded by the Qatari government. Make of that what you will.

[–] deathtoidiots@lemmings.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The BBC is funded by britain

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] impudentmortal@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Agrajag@scribe.disroot.org 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Every news source has bias, Al Jazeera has over 3000 staff, over 400 journalists and access that comes along with being that massive of a news agency. Obviously they are biased towards reporting that favors the government of Qatar who funds them. Particularly if a lot of stuff is happening in the middle east and Al Jazeera has more journalists in those countries with better connections to those countries they are gonna be first to cover a lot of things in the region. They are also much less likely to use passive voice and other qualification when talking about things like Palestine in their reporting. A lot of people don't want to read "50 Palestinians are shot" instead of "IDF battalion kills 50 Palestinians".

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

How about you give your supported and and reasoned opinions for why it is an untrustworthy source?

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 16 points 1 day ago

Like any media it is legit at certain topics and not at others

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

  1. *Which people think it's trustworthy? You used an ambiguous "many people" - I'd need to see something supporting this assumption.

  2. 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›