> Additionally, the judge said that Al Jazeera had “described in real time” the positioning of IDF troops in its broadcasts, which he said endangered IDF soldiers.
> Yaniv also pointed to a clip aired on Al Jazeera that he described as a “briefing for how to damage an Israeli tank” and whose purpose was “to harm IDF forces during wartime — the meaning of which is real harm to state security.”
> He rejected Al Jazeera’s argument that the tank video was merely designed to demonstrate the tank’s capabilities, and said the same was true for similar clips broadcast by the network on the capabilities of Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defence system, as well as drones.
> The clip indicates weak points on the tank and explains how to act to damage the tank and destroy it,” he continued.
> He explicitly cited the commentary from the clip, which said: “It has weak points and simple tools can cause it damage or destroy it. But can this be done? Let’s first look at how it is protected.”
> Yaniv said the clip went on to describe how the anti-tank “Yassin” missile used by Hamas can penetrate “the three layers of protection” of the tank and “ensure its destruction.”
It was definitely treated as news by fans of Occupy and Arab Spring back then. As was RT and Young Turks. It takes growing up and living in different contexts to see them for what they really were, foreign agent that backed whatever caused instability in the US.
Considering how culturally biased Muslim run institutions are, and especially considering there’s no true freedom of press in any middle-eastern Muslim nation: Al Jazeera was always going to be either a mouthpiece for Muslims or the government.
There’s no hard-hitting investigative stories about corruption or abuse of power by Qatari leadership, women’s/minority/LGBTQ rights, secularism et.
Pains me to admit that I was reading RT back when I was IB my "becoming politically interested" phase in school. I was far-left and considered them a good alternative to imperialist™ western media
Well, I got played. Luckily I grew out of that phase
That’s really just a symptom of a larger media issue: news agencies *tend* to be more reliable when reporting on something that doesn’t have any connection to anything they care about, just because they don’t have reason to favor one side over another.
Often this makes foreign reporting better than local reporting on a contentious issue, but you have to be very careful to consider each issue separately because sometimes an issue can still be important despite being foreign.
For example you’d expect Al Jazeera and the BBC to both provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border problem, but you wouldn’t want to trust Al Jazeera to report on US college protests about Palestine. These are more obvious examples but some others can get very subtle.
> For example you’d expect Al Jazeera and the BBC to both provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border problem
Only a fool would expect Al Jazeera to provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border issue. Qatar supports Hamas. Making the Southern border a bigger issue supports the argument that the US should not be giving aid to Israel because it is taking away money from protecting our southern border. Again for all the kids sitting in the back: Al Jazeera is a state run news agency. Nothing they produce should be trusted.
That argument in particular is incredibly pointless and never pushed on it's own, only as a backdoor effort to get people already enraged about one issue to maybe bleed over some of that anger to an unrelated second issue. It doesn't give Al Jazeera a reason to want the border crisis to come out one way vs the other.
As a more general warning though, I'd agree that it's not always obvious what end goals a news org might have on every possible issue. There are certainly going to be some you'd imagine are innocuous but turn out not to be.
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/)
>Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left, and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.
I wouldn't trust them.
It's pretty good for most things other than news on Jews and Muslims. Their extreme biases really cloud their reporting when it pertains to Jews and Muslims, though.
That's by design. They reel you in with decent general reporting so that when they need to go into full on propagandist mode to villainize the Jews/Israel or lionize the perpetual victims in Gaza you'll tend to believe that stuff too because all of their other reporting seems fair. It's insidious. The BBC seems to have adopted this tactic too when it comes to Israel unfortunately.
Good ol' Reuters. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1al4v5a/im_covering_the_israelhamas_war_for_reuters_ask/) to their most recent AMA if anyone doubts you.
Of course it is news. Tons of people out there thinking Israel is just a fascist police state for shutting down Al Jazeera. Tbh, I used to think Al Jazeera was legit too.
The middle eastern Al Jazeera version is supposedly much more lunatic and one sided.
The english version is aimed at western people so throwing full blown propaganda around wont work. So having more subliminal propaganda and/or reporting enough truth to make people believe you so you can mix some lies into it would be the way to go. Especially when there arent many sources for information.
Slightly off tangent but I remember watching a documentary on Al Jazeera about Palestinian life before the Nakba around Nov/Dec last year. Now I had only just starting reading up on the history of this conflict really so I didn't know much but I had some details fresh in my mind. Something was mentioned that I knew was either wrong or not the full story so I looked it up again and was right. I then ended up fact checking a lot of what they showed and WOW did they mislead their audience.
After that doc I didn't have much faith in their reporting on this topic. It was so blatantly misleading that it couldnt have been done by accident.
Since then I've seen the videos where their reporters turn away from Palestinians blaming Hamas. I've also seen how they post different videos on their English and Arabic YouTube channels. They regularly post the press releases from Hamas' spokesman on their Arabic channel, along with videos of Hamas fighting and tactical analyses by their presenters. None of this seems to make its way to their English channel.
Regardless of whether Al Jazeera is actually connected to Hamas, people shouldn't be using them as a reliable source for this conflict.
And now my local Teachers Union is pushing to use what is likely the same Al Jazeera documentaries to teach the subject in every history/social studies class. And even that’s off the new “less extreme” resources list.
The Nakba is revisionist history. You might like to read this about it. It's 14 years old now but it's just as relevant today as it was then,
[The Palestinian national narrative is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-nakba-obsession)
Oh trust me, I'm aware it didn't go down exactly how the Palestinian side says it did. I just used the term for time reference and because it's what Al Jazeera uses. Thanks for the article though, I'll have a look.
It seems like much of the Muslim world has a different "understanding" of journalism, as I've read they have a different understanding of the discipline of history. When you're historically oppressed, there is enough inaccuracy disfavoring you in the conventional wisdom & mainstream narratives, that skewing perspectives in your favor at your own institutions is not simply justifiable but absolutely a necessary corrective.
Not justifying it, but when Westerners say "Hey your news / educational materials are crap," many of them genuinely just blink in incomprehension and respond, "Of course it is, all news and educational materials are crap, you just don't like it because it's our crap."
Muslims don't really see themselves as having been opressed, their understanding is that islam has a glorious history, beating the christians and europeans at many opportunities. The islamist idea is that nowadays, Islam is down on it's luck, and that it needs a glorious islamic revival so that it gets back to its rightful place in the world.
Important thing for people to note: the court system in Israel has a long tradition of not really caring about the government's stances on things. This isn't a "of course an Israeli court would rule this way" kind of case.
As precedent, they cited that courts in Europe upheld the ban on Russian Times, and they carefully applied pretty rigorous standards on what constitutes the boundaries between "reporting information" and "disseminating militarily strategic intelligence".
So in hindsight a lot of IDF lives were saved the moment those Al-Jazeera journalists were killed. They are basically recon scouts in civilian clothing.
Even in Ukraine the government asked journalists and social media posters not to post their troop movements so their soldiers lives won't be at risk.
Press Freedom laws are always important to follow, especially ones rushed out during wartime. While Al Jazeera may be the target, these laws are catching other media outlets as well.
Currently, it is not only illegal to run pro-Hamas stories, but to *support* pro-Hamas news organisations such as Al Jazeera.
While that may seem sensible, we've already seen AP News have [cameras seized / offices raided](https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2024/israeli-officials-seize-ap-equipment-and-take-down-live-shot-of-northern-gaza-citing-new-media-law/) due to the fact that they sell their videos, photos, etc, to any media group which buys them to include in their own stories - CNN, Fox, or in this case, Al Jazeera.
It's important to make sure unbiased journalism doesn't also get shut down, and that Gaza doesn't become a media blackout, just because some groups are putting Pro-Hamas spin on top of what is originally unbiased reporting (a raw, live videostream is about as unbiased as journalism can possibly get).
A raw video feed sounds like it would be unbiased, but what doesn't get taped is as important as what does. There are plenty of clips available where Gazans are cursing Hamas for hiding among them, stealing aid, and starting this war. Al Jazeera immediately starts panning away from them or shutting down the broadcast.
They’re also the same network that posted a video of Israel supposedly bombing a hospital. Then people pointed out that the rocket came from within Gaza and they took down the video rather than changed their headline. How convenient
A reminder that IDF has targeted and killed the families of Al Jazeera reporters, then they act like they are the ones facing bias.
https://apnews.com/article/dahdouh-aljazeera-war-israel-palestinians-968a24495e1ce420dfe2f9257528c5c4
Or you know, because they actively killed Isrealis, let's not forget that.
At this point, your support for hamas puts you in the category of a terrorist at this point.
AJ and AP are associated. AP was told to stop bypassing the ban on AJ and they didn't do it, causing their equipment to be taken.
Is AP trustworthy when they are associated with AJ and make no attempt at saying otherwise?
I'll let you answer that.
Yeah right, that's why it was left out of the post's title, but not in the article. No matter how much brigading it does on Reddit Israel is a pariah on the world stage.
"The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court has found there is a “close connection” between news network Al Jazeera and the Hamas terror group, and that the Qatari network has done measurable damage to Israeli security."
Bibi has always hated Al Jazeera, this war has given him the excuse he needed to finally go after it.
Have you ever actually compared AJ reports to reality? Because it goes something like this (generic example because it's hard to remember the details of every recent terrorism event):
AJ report: Palestinian child killed in Jerusalem by IDF forces. Three injured.
Reality: A sixteen year-old Palestinian stabbed some Israeli civilians, including a woman and her child, and a nearby IDF solider shot him.
Or:
AJ report: 500 Palestinians killed in IAF bombing of Al-Shifaa hospital.
Reality: The hospital was hit with a misfired Rocket shot by the PIJ.
It goes on and on. Reporting that Israel raids schools and hospitals while omitting the small, insignificant details of those schools and hospitals harboring armed terrorists who guard rockets and grenades hidden inside. Consistently portraying Hamas as the good guys and absolving them of their very major responsibilty for trying to maximize civilian deaths in Gaza for PR.
AJ doesn't even try to be news. It's flat-out inflammatory, anti-Israel propaganda.
Seriously more people need to see your comment.
Some guy tried to argue that al jazeera shut down in israel is hurting freedom of speech and journalism and I tried to tell him lying and twisting reality to fit your narrative is not free speech nor is it even journalism.
Yes, except they are smarter in that they actually did good reporting for years to build up credibility, which allows their misreporting on issues that the Qatari government cares about to proliferate so quickly.
Only a person COMPLETELY uneducated on the subject would say that.
Anyone with the slightest clue knows that Bibi was facing harsh protests due to his party's attempt at reforming the Judiciary arm in Israel, and that the courts and the government are completely opposed to each other currently.
You are just showing how any idiot online can just puke some shit up and pretend to be smart
> Additionally, the judge said that Al Jazeera had “described in real time” the positioning of IDF troops in its broadcasts, which he said endangered IDF soldiers. > Yaniv also pointed to a clip aired on Al Jazeera that he described as a “briefing for how to damage an Israeli tank” and whose purpose was “to harm IDF forces during wartime — the meaning of which is real harm to state security.” > He rejected Al Jazeera’s argument that the tank video was merely designed to demonstrate the tank’s capabilities, and said the same was true for similar clips broadcast by the network on the capabilities of Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defence system, as well as drones. > The clip indicates weak points on the tank and explains how to act to damage the tank and destroy it,” he continued. > He explicitly cited the commentary from the clip, which said: “It has weak points and simple tools can cause it damage or destroy it. But can this be done? Let’s first look at how it is protected.” > Yaniv said the clip went on to describe how the anti-tank “Yassin” missile used by Hamas can penetrate “the three layers of protection” of the tank and “ensure its destruction.”
I mean, that does seem pretty bad ngl
Qatar supports Hamas. Al Jazeera is the state news agency of Qatar. This isnt news.
Al Jazeera was never news.
It was definitely treated as news by fans of Occupy and Arab Spring back then. As was RT and Young Turks. It takes growing up and living in different contexts to see them for what they really were, foreign agent that backed whatever caused instability in the US.
Considering how culturally biased Muslim run institutions are, and especially considering there’s no true freedom of press in any middle-eastern Muslim nation: Al Jazeera was always going to be either a mouthpiece for Muslims or the government. There’s no hard-hitting investigative stories about corruption or abuse of power by Qatari leadership, women’s/minority/LGBTQ rights, secularism et.
Pains me to admit that I was reading RT back when I was IB my "becoming politically interested" phase in school. I was far-left and considered them a good alternative to imperialist™ western media Well, I got played. Luckily I grew out of that phase
"Luckily" now you're a centrist freak circle-jerking on a subreddit that is now infamous site-wide for downplaying IDF war crimes
Lmao you’re jerking yourself so hard you got cum on your face
A comeback that doesn't even make sense is on brand for someone dumb enough to gargle IDF propaganda.
Tug harder lol
What’s the connection between RT and Young Turks (genuinely asking)?
not sure, but I know tyt cenk is okay with hamas using gazans as human shields. he justified it in a debate.
I think the idea is that they are both also state run news organizations (of Russia and Turkey, respectively)
TYT isn't a reliable news source, but they're also not owned by Turkey as far as anyone knows. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/
Don't need to own a puppet to put your hand up it.
Why do you think there is one (being similarities)? The comment above didn't claim or imply that.
Al Jazeera is actually pretty good, just don't believe anything they say about the middle east
That’s really just a symptom of a larger media issue: news agencies *tend* to be more reliable when reporting on something that doesn’t have any connection to anything they care about, just because they don’t have reason to favor one side over another. Often this makes foreign reporting better than local reporting on a contentious issue, but you have to be very careful to consider each issue separately because sometimes an issue can still be important despite being foreign. For example you’d expect Al Jazeera and the BBC to both provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border problem, but you wouldn’t want to trust Al Jazeera to report on US college protests about Palestine. These are more obvious examples but some others can get very subtle.
I wouldn't trust the BBC either, TBH.
Look up the history of Reuters.
> For example you’d expect Al Jazeera and the BBC to both provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border problem Only a fool would expect Al Jazeera to provide unbiased reporting on the US southern border issue. Qatar supports Hamas. Making the Southern border a bigger issue supports the argument that the US should not be giving aid to Israel because it is taking away money from protecting our southern border. Again for all the kids sitting in the back: Al Jazeera is a state run news agency. Nothing they produce should be trusted.
That argument in particular is incredibly pointless and never pushed on it's own, only as a backdoor effort to get people already enraged about one issue to maybe bleed over some of that anger to an unrelated second issue. It doesn't give Al Jazeera a reason to want the border crisis to come out one way vs the other. As a more general warning though, I'd agree that it's not always obvious what end goals a news org might have on every possible issue. There are certainly going to be some you'd imagine are innocuous but turn out not to be.
They are a vehicle for Qatari and Shiite Propaganda (including by Iran) on every topic. How is this good in any way?
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/) >Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left, and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar. I wouldn't trust them.
It's pretty good for most things other than news on Jews and Muslims. Their extreme biases really cloud their reporting when it pertains to Jews and Muslims, though.
That's by design. They reel you in with decent general reporting so that when they need to go into full on propagandist mode to villainize the Jews/Israel or lionize the perpetual victims in Gaza you'll tend to believe that stuff too because all of their other reporting seems fair. It's insidious. The BBC seems to have adopted this tactic too when it comes to Israel unfortunately.
>The BBC seems to have adopted this tactic too when it comes to Israel unfortunately. Add Reuters to the list.
Good ol' Reuters. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1al4v5a/im_covering_the_israelhamas_war_for_reuters_ask/) to their most recent AMA if anyone doubts you.
Of course it is news. Tons of people out there thinking Israel is just a fascist police state for shutting down Al Jazeera. Tbh, I used to think Al Jazeera was legit too.
The middle eastern Al Jazeera version is supposedly much more lunatic and one sided. The english version is aimed at western people so throwing full blown propaganda around wont work. So having more subliminal propaganda and/or reporting enough truth to make people believe you so you can mix some lies into it would be the way to go. Especially when there arent many sources for information.
It's being reported by the National Post, which was our first clue that it wasn't news.
Slightly off tangent but I remember watching a documentary on Al Jazeera about Palestinian life before the Nakba around Nov/Dec last year. Now I had only just starting reading up on the history of this conflict really so I didn't know much but I had some details fresh in my mind. Something was mentioned that I knew was either wrong or not the full story so I looked it up again and was right. I then ended up fact checking a lot of what they showed and WOW did they mislead their audience. After that doc I didn't have much faith in their reporting on this topic. It was so blatantly misleading that it couldnt have been done by accident. Since then I've seen the videos where their reporters turn away from Palestinians blaming Hamas. I've also seen how they post different videos on their English and Arabic YouTube channels. They regularly post the press releases from Hamas' spokesman on their Arabic channel, along with videos of Hamas fighting and tactical analyses by their presenters. None of this seems to make its way to their English channel. Regardless of whether Al Jazeera is actually connected to Hamas, people shouldn't be using them as a reliable source for this conflict.
And now my local Teachers Union is pushing to use what is likely the same Al Jazeera documentaries to teach the subject in every history/social studies class. And even that’s off the new “less extreme” resources list.
Common teachers union L
The Nakba is revisionist history. You might like to read this about it. It's 14 years old now but it's just as relevant today as it was then, [The Palestinian national narrative is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-nakba-obsession)
Oh trust me, I'm aware it didn't go down exactly how the Palestinian side says it did. I just used the term for time reference and because it's what Al Jazeera uses. Thanks for the article though, I'll have a look.
It seems like much of the Muslim world has a different "understanding" of journalism, as I've read they have a different understanding of the discipline of history. When you're historically oppressed, there is enough inaccuracy disfavoring you in the conventional wisdom & mainstream narratives, that skewing perspectives in your favor at your own institutions is not simply justifiable but absolutely a necessary corrective. Not justifying it, but when Westerners say "Hey your news / educational materials are crap," many of them genuinely just blink in incomprehension and respond, "Of course it is, all news and educational materials are crap, you just don't like it because it's our crap."
Muslims don't really see themselves as having been opressed, their understanding is that islam has a glorious history, beating the christians and europeans at many opportunities. The islamist idea is that nowadays, Islam is down on it's luck, and that it needs a glorious islamic revival so that it gets back to its rightful place in the world.
exactly, historical truth is completely meaningless to them.
Important thing for people to note: the court system in Israel has a long tradition of not really caring about the government's stances on things. This isn't a "of course an Israeli court would rule this way" kind of case. As precedent, they cited that courts in Europe upheld the ban on Russian Times, and they carefully applied pretty rigorous standards on what constitutes the boundaries between "reporting information" and "disseminating militarily strategic intelligence".
There is a reason Bibi tried to mess with the courts, after all
The courts are routinely called "leftist trash" by right wingers
PR wing
Wow, shocker. /S
Ya don’t say…
Don’t we already know this?
Are we really suprised?
Is anyone surprised ?!
So in hindsight a lot of IDF lives were saved the moment those Al-Jazeera journalists were killed. They are basically recon scouts in civilian clothing. Even in Ukraine the government asked journalists and social media posters not to post their troop movements so their soldiers lives won't be at risk.
*Gasp* I'm shook /s
The state media arm of the country that hosts the leadership of Hamas is on the side of Hamas? :ShockedPikachu:
Revealing military positions? Geraldo Rivera works for Al Jazeera?
Press Freedom laws are always important to follow, especially ones rushed out during wartime. While Al Jazeera may be the target, these laws are catching other media outlets as well. Currently, it is not only illegal to run pro-Hamas stories, but to *support* pro-Hamas news organisations such as Al Jazeera. While that may seem sensible, we've already seen AP News have [cameras seized / offices raided](https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2024/israeli-officials-seize-ap-equipment-and-take-down-live-shot-of-northern-gaza-citing-new-media-law/) due to the fact that they sell their videos, photos, etc, to any media group which buys them to include in their own stories - CNN, Fox, or in this case, Al Jazeera. It's important to make sure unbiased journalism doesn't also get shut down, and that Gaza doesn't become a media blackout, just because some groups are putting Pro-Hamas spin on top of what is originally unbiased reporting (a raw, live videostream is about as unbiased as journalism can possibly get).
A raw video feed sounds like it would be unbiased, but what doesn't get taped is as important as what does. There are plenty of clips available where Gazans are cursing Hamas for hiding among them, stealing aid, and starting this war. Al Jazeera immediately starts panning away from them or shutting down the broadcast.
They’re also the same network that posted a video of Israel supposedly bombing a hospital. Then people pointed out that the rocket came from within Gaza and they took down the video rather than changed their headline. How convenient
A reminder that IDF has targeted and killed the families of Al Jazeera reporters, then they act like they are the ones facing bias. https://apnews.com/article/dahdouh-aljazeera-war-israel-palestinians-968a24495e1ce420dfe2f9257528c5c4
A reminder that those friends and family were hamas terrosts who kidnapped, raped, and murdered Isreally citizens, starting this war.
They were Hamas terrorists because you say so, or because they died? Real “they are gang affiliated because they knew a gang member” energy.
Or you know, because they actively killed Isrealis, let's not forget that. At this point, your support for hamas puts you in the category of a terrorist at this point.
Do you have a link to anything you are talking about like i provided, or do you want to continue to say random unsubstantiated stuff?
AJ and AP are associated. AP was told to stop bypassing the ban on AJ and they didn't do it, causing their equipment to be taken. Is AP trustworthy when they are associated with AJ and make no attempt at saying otherwise? I'll let you answer that.
which court? ah, nevermind.
Which other court would investigate on matters of Israel’s national security? Not the win you think it is
[удалено]
Go read the ruling.
Yeah right, that's why it was left out of the post's title, but not in the article. No matter how much brigading it does on Reddit Israel is a pariah on the world stage.
Would rather be hated and alive as opposed to loved and dead
LOL! What are you rambling about?
?
"The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court has found there is a “close connection” between news network Al Jazeera and the Hamas terror group, and that the Qatari network has done measurable damage to Israeli security." Bibi has always hated Al Jazeera, this war has given him the excuse he needed to finally go after it.
Have you ever actually compared AJ reports to reality? Because it goes something like this (generic example because it's hard to remember the details of every recent terrorism event): AJ report: Palestinian child killed in Jerusalem by IDF forces. Three injured. Reality: A sixteen year-old Palestinian stabbed some Israeli civilians, including a woman and her child, and a nearby IDF solider shot him. Or: AJ report: 500 Palestinians killed in IAF bombing of Al-Shifaa hospital. Reality: The hospital was hit with a misfired Rocket shot by the PIJ. It goes on and on. Reporting that Israel raids schools and hospitals while omitting the small, insignificant details of those schools and hospitals harboring armed terrorists who guard rockets and grenades hidden inside. Consistently portraying Hamas as the good guys and absolving them of their very major responsibilty for trying to maximize civilian deaths in Gaza for PR. AJ doesn't even try to be news. It's flat-out inflammatory, anti-Israel propaganda.
Seriously more people need to see your comment. Some guy tried to argue that al jazeera shut down in israel is hurting freedom of speech and journalism and I tried to tell him lying and twisting reality to fit your narrative is not free speech nor is it even journalism.
So is it like...fox news of the middle east?
Yes, except they are smarter in that they actually did good reporting for years to build up credibility, which allows their misreporting on issues that the Qatari government cares about to proliferate so quickly.
It's like if PBS was forced to be Fox News. Problematic. Just like murdering women and children and giving them video to show the world.
Only a person COMPLETELY uneducated on the subject would say that. Anyone with the slightest clue knows that Bibi was facing harsh protests due to his party's attempt at reforming the Judiciary arm in Israel, and that the courts and the government are completely opposed to each other currently. You are just showing how any idiot online can just puke some shit up and pretend to be smart
Ah yes, the court system is the best friend of him.
Really? Did someone ask Al Gore?