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.
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 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: 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Add comment