this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
33 points (66.7% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2848 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This source seems extremely biased.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

FWIW:

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

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ynetnews/

Not sure how to rate a left-center Israeli source in this situation, but 'high credibility' does suggest that they do a decent job overall.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Take that with a massive grain of salt, a lot of Israeli media is high factuality except when it comes to Palestine, where they turn into dehumanizing propaganda mills. MBFC has no mechanism to account for selective factfulness

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Okay, so how do we judge this story's validity? I do know Al Jazeera is denying it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mediabias check itself is very biased. It literally said "this outlet has never been known / shown to have reported fake news, but we still give it an untrustworthy label". It's done by one guy with a huge pro-Israel bias.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I really do not know how else to check this site's credibility. "They're Israeli" is not enough of an argument for me to say this is not a credible source. How can its credibility be rated?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just read their wiki article and the sources there. It allows for subjective errors and is no way based in science.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Their Wikipedia article doesn't really appear to say anything different from what I can tell...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ynet

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

No, what I meant is checking media bias. Not the news site itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Literally read the article. Pay attention to the words they use when talking the people and groups.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a mind reader. What words do you want me to pay attention to in specific?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The article included baseless claims such as capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, which the IDF categorically denied.

This is a sentence from the article. If they were neutral towards the subject, they might have written it like this:

controversy surrounded the article, which described the IDF capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, something the Israeli government has denied.

If they were active supporters, it might have sounded like this:

his insightful journalistic work exposed the IDF’s capture of soldiers in Jabaliya, which they continue to deny.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sorry... you're saying because they say IDF instead of Israeli Government, this article is ridiculously biased and can't be trusted?

Because I see people here using IDF and Israel interchangeably all the time when discussing this war.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No, it’s the word choice in the sentence as a whole. “Baseless claims” and “categorically denied” make it seem like the article was nonsense. “Controversy” acknowledges that there are different accounts of what happened, but doesn’t pick a side and “denied” feels like the most neutral choice to me, but I’m a layperson and there are entire classes in journalism programs dedicated to neutral phrasing. Calling the article “insightful journalism” is obviously biased and saying “continues to deny” sounds even more supportive of the journalist’s claims, because it implies that people are continuously asking Israel about it, which further implies that multiple people are unsatisfied with Israel’s account of the events.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't mean this in any sort of insulting way, but I think you've put far more analysis into this than the person who was writing on a deadline did into writing it.

Did the author have a bias? Quite possibly. But I think your implication that these were conscious choices is going a bit too far.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea if they decided to write the article in a biased way, but I don’t know if that matters. The people reading it still associate the article with “baseless claims,” which colors their view.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Fair enough. I guess up to now, it seemed to me like people were implying that this was a conscious bias.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

And the Atlantic is run by an IDF soldier, who held Palestinians captive during the first antifada. Don’t seem to see the same accusations of bias.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

From what i have read, it was a freelancer dude who wrote 1 article for Al Jazeera, 5+ years ago. I dont know why there is this need to make everything so biased/black and white.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

AbdullahAl Jamal worked for Al Jazeera and published almost daily articles in English in the "Palestine Chronicle" since the beginning of the war. From the linked article.

Meanwhile Al Jazeera says that the guy only contributed on a single op-ed in 2019 and that's the extent of it. Here is an archive link to their response https://archive.is/EDOCN. Not only that, but ynet seems to have cut out the part where Al Jazeera says that the guy contributed only on an op-ed in 2019.

Checking an archive from the 9th of June of Al Jazeera's website seems to confirm this information: https://archive.is/RypQP

So, even if this guy had kidnapped/held a hostage, I don't see the connection to Al Jazeera. Certainly not the connection that this article is trying to paint here. And don't forget that the IDF hasn't even confirmed if this guy even held any hostages.

I personally call bullshit. Either that or ynet are too incompetent to prove their claims that this guy wrote for Al Jazeera every day.

Or the title has been written like that on purpose to confuse people and conflate Al Jazeera with whatever this guy was writing god knows where else.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Comma horror

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

The Islamist propaganda tool actually has members holding hostages...yeesh. Al Jazeera really has fallen all the way.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Whether true or not, I don't know.

I DO know, however, that humans are not institution-puppets without any internal-motivations.

IF they did do so, THEN that doesn't mean Al Jazeera was in any way complicit.


Apparently there's some problem at The Washington Post, now, with the guy in charge of the news-room having participated in a crime, & now is ejecting people who have journalistic-standards..

Does that mean they all are guilty of what he did?

How could it?

We're in an age where considered-reasoning is being displaced by dogwhistle ideology/prejudice, & it's required for humankind's survival, that we get competent in journalism's methodical & careful discernment.

All of us.

Our kind's life IS at stake, this century.

_ /\ _

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Did you downvote yourself?