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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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

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

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

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

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 19 points 4 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.

[-] NIB@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Comma horror

[-] blahsay@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

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.

_ /\ _

[-] hash0772@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Did you downvote yourself?

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024

33 points (66.7% liked)

World News

38837 readers

1786 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.