Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: Qatar MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM Media Type: TV Station Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Everyone is throwing propaganda at each other in these times, there is a lot of false information floating around. This website tries to structure the chaos a bit. It won’t be always right and can’t deliver truth, but it does a very important job - assessing the credibility of media sources.
You might not be satisfied with their assessment, and that’s okay. A look into your profile let it seem you might be subject to your own bias too. Maybe you could consider consuming some news sources additionally to Al Jazeera, just to get a more complete picture of reality - and no, it doesn’t have to be the times of israel.
They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
I did not know the times of israel before you mentioned it. Neither did I compare it to Aljazeera, you did.
I’m sticking to my opinion that fact checking is important, especially with topics like the israel-palastine-conflict. And people should know Aljazeera is a Qatari news agency with strong own agenda. This fact does not imply the article content you posted is wrong, neither did I say this.
No idea if you called me israeli or if you think israeli is an insult. But it is alarming to me and it seems to me you are more part of the propaganda battle than bringing anything constructive to the table.
In Elkhoury’s view, hostility to Israel often comes from a very deep-seated dehumanizing attitude. “A lot of people don’t see Israelis as human beings. That’s why they go and rip off flyers of kidnapped babies.”
I’m not going to disagree that Aljazeera will only show news that is beneficial to the Palestinian cause. However they are NOT randomly making stuff up like we’ve seen many western news outlets (or even the White House for that matter) do.
If they make a mistake then it is because live-reporting means not all the facts are fully known at the time of filming and/or israel will not allow an independant investigation. Such as the case of the first hospital bombing where all the initial claims (and israel themselves literally saying they were gonna bomb the hospital) pointed towards israel.
My question to you: Do you believe that this Aljazeera article about israel arresting almost as many people as they released is false?
If you read the comment chain again, you will see OP mentioned times of israel first, it is the first time I hear of that news agency.
I also never said that Aljazeera is randomly making stuff up. All I wanted to do is adding something constructive to the discussion. It is impressive how strong the emotions towards a simple bias fact check are, but that just reflects how sensitive the topic in the israel-palestinian war is.
The world is complex and everybody tries to construct a picture of reality that is as complete and objective as possible, and for that we rely on the media. But media is biased and the society you are living in is too.
Reuters is probably less biased then Aljazeera and aljazeera is probably less biased than Fox News. That’s how media works.
So what can you do? Consider as many sources as possible, use your ratio, knowledge and experience. And to help you getting an overview of all the thousands of news agencies, you may use a little tool like the one I posted. OP has a profile with posts only from one website, and I say that’s sus.
Regarding your last question: I haven’t read the article yet tbh.
What is even the goal of your original comment if not to discredit Aljazeera? If their article is false then debunk it. If not there is no point to linking some random bias site that is biased themselves.
I’d never seen the page before. The few sources I checked seemed to match up with my expectation (except one or two I would have seen as more left were marked centre left). They have a page that explains how they calculate left vs right. That page seems to concentrate on American issues a lot more than international, which is a problem considering they are rating international sources too and might explain why I (not coming from the US) saw some sources as differently positioned.
I could not immediately see their method for ranking factuality. They have notes on each source with information on why they chose the score they did, though.
All in all, it doesn’t seem to me like they’re trying to push a certain message with their ratings. I saw plenty of left and right based media sources with mixed factuality scores.
I could not immediately see their method for ranking factuality.
They claim on their website that they don’t do most of their own fact checking:
“Media Bias/Fact Check rarely conducts original fact checks as many other sources are faster and do a better job. We primarily rely on fact-checkers affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network ( IFCN).”
According to Media Bias/Fact Check’s Wikipedia page, writers at the Poynter Institute, developer of the IFCN, have made the following statement: “Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
It is interesting that one of Media Bias/Fact Check’s criteria is biased wording and then they made the following assessment about Times of Israel: “The Times of Israel covers Israeli and regional news with minimally loaded language…” Meanwhile, the caption for the top headline on the Times of Israel at this time is: “PM’s office says families of those slated to be freed have been notified * G7 foreign ministers urge further extension of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza-ruling terror group” Terror group does not sound like minimally loaded language. Now if the people who created the criteria to measure biased language are not concious of the fact that terror or terrorist in place of militant or rebel is biased language, then that will skew results through algorithmic bias.
Have you? Seems to be founded by a
guy called Dave Van Zandt. There is a pretty extensive wikipedia article about the site. It does not seem to be the mighty tool for everything, but there are even scientific studies using that tool.
What credentials does this “Dave Van Zandt” have. What evidence is there that support his credibility?
Scientific studies use it because it’s a dataset. Do you want me to point you to the hundreds of shitty datasets that people have used in the past for machine learning work?
Everything about the author is what’s posted on the website. There’s no evidence to back it up: no record of graduation, no evidence of a degree. Dude could say anything and there would be no way to validate it.
That’s not true for institutions or news agencies, where the journalists have very public records.
aljazeera.com - Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Qatar
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/
Ah yes, there is nothing more credible than mediabiasfactcheck.com, the be-all end-all judge of what is and isn’t trustworthy.
Times of Israel - Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
You’re kidding, right?
I am not kidding. Answering to your comment a bit lower as well:
There is no need to explain the methodology as it is very well explained on their website https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Everyone is throwing propaganda at each other in these times, there is a lot of false information floating around. This website tries to structure the chaos a bit. It won’t be always right and can’t deliver truth, but it does a very important job - assessing the credibility of media sources.
You might not be satisfied with their assessment, and that’s okay. A look into your profile let it seem you might be subject to your own bias too. Maybe you could consider consuming some news sources additionally to Al Jazeera, just to get a more complete picture of reality - and no, it doesn’t have to be the times of israel.
Times of israel is straight up IDF propaganda. Get out of here with your “fact check” bullshit. israelis truly have no limit to their shamelessness.
Straight up IDF propaganda, eh. Seriously read that article and claim that again I’ll know if you didn’t.
They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-investigating-cruel-hamas-claim-that-bibas-children-mother-killed-in-gaza/
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
I did not know the times of israel before you mentioned it. Neither did I compare it to Aljazeera, you did.
I’m sticking to my opinion that fact checking is important, especially with topics like the israel-palastine-conflict. And people should know Aljazeera is a Qatari news agency with strong own agenda. This fact does not imply the article content you posted is wrong, neither did I say this.
No idea if you called me israeli or if you think israeli is an insult. But it is alarming to me and it seems to me you are more part of the propaganda battle than bringing anything constructive to the table.
What an amazing unbiased left-wing news site. https://www.timesofisrael.com/lebanese-israeli-advocate-on-us-colleges-post-oct-7-many-dont-see-israelis-as-humans/
I’m not going to disagree that Aljazeera will only show news that is beneficial to the Palestinian cause. However they are NOT randomly making stuff up like we’ve seen many western news outlets (or even the White House for that matter) do.
If they make a mistake then it is because live-reporting means not all the facts are fully known at the time of filming and/or israel will not allow an independant investigation. Such as the case of the first hospital bombing where all the initial claims (and israel themselves literally saying they were gonna bomb the hospital) pointed towards israel.
My question to you: Do you believe that this Aljazeera article about israel arresting almost as many people as they released is false?
If you read the comment chain again, you will see OP mentioned times of israel first, it is the first time I hear of that news agency.
I also never said that Aljazeera is randomly making stuff up. All I wanted to do is adding something constructive to the discussion. It is impressive how strong the emotions towards a simple bias fact check are, but that just reflects how sensitive the topic in the israel-palestinian war is.
The world is complex and everybody tries to construct a picture of reality that is as complete and objective as possible, and for that we rely on the media. But media is biased and the society you are living in is too.
Reuters is probably less biased then Aljazeera and aljazeera is probably less biased than Fox News. That’s how media works.
So what can you do? Consider as many sources as possible, use your ratio, knowledge and experience. And to help you getting an overview of all the thousands of news agencies, you may use a little tool like the one I posted. OP has a profile with posts only from one website, and I say that’s sus.
Regarding your last question: I haven’t read the article yet tbh.
What is even the goal of your original comment if not to discredit Aljazeera? If their article is false then debunk it. If not there is no point to linking some random bias site that is biased themselves.
deleted by creator
In this case I think they’re not wrong. Israel does fucked up things wrt arrests and Palestinians.
Exhibit A: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ahed-tamimi-latest-palestinian-girl-14-years-prison-kicking-spitting-israeli-soldiers-protest-family-a8149411.html
I did not want to say they are wrong, just give an objective estimate about bias and origin of Al Jazeera.
Objective to whom? How is it objective? Can you explain me their methodology or are you just putting in your blind faith?
I’d never seen the page before. The few sources I checked seemed to match up with my expectation (except one or two I would have seen as more left were marked centre left). They have a page that explains how they calculate left vs right. That page seems to concentrate on American issues a lot more than international, which is a problem considering they are rating international sources too and might explain why I (not coming from the US) saw some sources as differently positioned.
I could not immediately see their method for ranking factuality. They have notes on each source with information on why they chose the score they did, though.
All in all, it doesn’t seem to me like they’re trying to push a certain message with their ratings. I saw plenty of left and right based media sources with mixed factuality scores.
They claim on their website that they don’t do most of their own fact checking:
“Media Bias/Fact Check rarely conducts original fact checks as many other sources are faster and do a better job. We primarily rely on fact-checkers affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network ( IFCN).”
According to Media Bias/Fact Check’s Wikipedia page, writers at the Poynter Institute, developer of the IFCN, have made the following statement: “Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
It is interesting that one of Media Bias/Fact Check’s criteria is biased wording and then they made the following assessment about Times of Israel: “The Times of Israel covers Israeli and regional news with minimally loaded language…” Meanwhile, the caption for the top headline on the Times of Israel at this time is: “PM’s office says families of those slated to be freed have been notified * G7 foreign ministers urge further extension of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza-ruling terror group” Terror group does not sound like minimally loaded language. Now if the people who created the criteria to measure biased language are not concious of the fact that terror or terrorist in place of militant or rebel is biased language, then that will skew results through algorithmic bias.
You really gotta learn what the word bias means.
feddit de having a normal one.
Media Bias Fact Check is less reputable than pretty much every site they report on.
They have no credentials to establish their credibility. Seriously, try to find any anything about the people running the site.
Have you? Seems to be founded by a guy called Dave Van Zandt. There is a pretty extensive wikipedia article about the site. It does not seem to be the mighty tool for everything, but there are even scientific studies using that tool.
I mean seriously, why are you doing this?
What credentials does this “Dave Van Zandt” have. What evidence is there that support his credibility?
Scientific studies use it because it’s a dataset. Do you want me to point you to the hundreds of shitty datasets that people have used in the past for machine learning work?
You claimed that you can’t find anything about the person behind that website, I obviously proved you wrong.
If you want an honest debate I’d suggest to add something constructive instead of only asking questions.
You can ask the same for any other person, institution or news agency.
Everything about the author is what’s posted on the website. There’s no evidence to back it up: no record of graduation, no evidence of a degree. Dude could say anything and there would be no way to validate it.
That’s not true for institutions or news agencies, where the journalists have very public records.
imagine posting media bias links completely unironically 😂