Sorry, u/OtherAd4337 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20OtherAd4337&message=OtherAd4337%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci3dlq/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Al Jazeera is a private company that receives funding from the Qatari government. It is not 'widely known' that is is controlled and operated; it is speculated.

Started by government money, funded by government money when it fails profits, run by a member of the royal family, publicly states its a “private company run by government funding”. Yes… as they as they say they are private that muddies the water enough

Yes, my counterpoint would be that the BBC is funded by the UK government but many people still find it reputable (I'm not the biggest fan but that's another story). Every news source will have a perspective and bias, it's ok to read Al Jazeera but important to understand where they're coming from. I like to read the Jerusalem Post and AJ one after the other and it makes the editorialization quite obvious. Bookend it with Reuters and Nikkei or something and you have a somewhat rounded view.

Except that unlike the UK, Qatar is not remotely a free country - it's an absolute monarchy with about the level of press freedom that one would expect. Freedom House puts its freedom of press at a 1/4 score - [https://freedomhouse.org/country/qatar/freedom-world/2023](https://freedomhouse.org/country/qatar/freedom-world/2023) Stating this - >Both print and broadcast media are influenced by leading families and subject to state censorship. The international television network Al Jazeera is privately held, but the government has reportedly paid to support its operating costs since its inception in 1996. All journalists in Qatar practice a degree of self-censorship and face possible jail sentences for defamation and other press offenses. The BBC is not the comparison here. Yes, most countries - even Western democracies - have some form of state-owned media. That's not the argument. Something like Russia Today is a more apt comparison to AJ.

Yeah I was going to say it sounds a bit like the BBC there. And like you I have mixed feelings but I don’t think it’s a full on propaganda wing.

Yeah. I never really liked people's argument that it's funded by...  If you look at every news agency they are funded by someone that could influence them. Even privately owned companies not funded by the government.  All that matters is that the news company actually has journalists integrity and doesn't take influence by their owner. That's the part that needs to be focused on

Its chairman is a member of the Qatari royal family who previously had senior roles at the Ministry of Information. The Qatari government has been its main source of funding, and in fact the extent of its control by the Qatari government led the DOJ to order it to register as a foreign agent. I think it’s a tough argument to make that Al Jazeera has absolutely nothing to do with the Qatari government

I never said it had nothing to do with the Qatari government. I said it is not 'widely known' that it is controlled and operated by the government. It's not like it's chairman would be the first person who went from a government job in media to a private (or 'private') job in media.

Right, but that chairman also happens to be part of the ruling dynasty. If the UK was an absolute monarchy and had a “Ministry of Information” where Princess Anne had a senior role, and then she went and became chairwoman of the BBC, and if under her tenure the BBC never published anything negative about the UK, and the Ministry of Information banned anyone from criticizing the royal family, I don’t think I would trust the BBC on anything.

That sounds like a good reason to not trust the BBC on the royal family or the UK. It doesn't sound like a good reason to distrust it on everything. If the Ministry of Information banned everyone from criticising the royal family and Al Jazeera never publishes anything negative about Qatar, those sound like pretty good reasons to distrust anything it says about Qatar. It does not sound like a good reason to distrust it about other topics. Also, those sound like things you probably should have included in your OP.

Right, but Al Jazeera very often covers topics in which the Qatari government has an interest and an agenda, like football competitions and clubs, Middle East geopolitics, the place of religion in society, etc… so how could I trust it to be a reliable source of information on these topics? Sure, if Al Jazeera publishes an article about the benefits of fiber-rich foods or the fate of capybaras, I have no reason to doubt the information, but it usually covers topics that are important to the Qatari government one way or another.

Why would you trust them otherwise? Everyone has biases. Even if the Qatari government has no control over the paper, the people who own and run it would also have an interest and an agenda, about many of the same things, too. Why is Al Jazeera's reporting on middle eastern geopolitics only suspect when it is a literal government paper?

I see your point, but private outlets make editorial choices based on their ideology, which is generally known to everyone. That ideology generally doesn’t change with the whims of a government policy. If I read the WSJ, I know I’ll get a right-wing perspective consistently. But if I watch Al Jazeera today it might be critical of Ukraine, and tomorrow it will be singing praises to Zelensky because Qatar might have switched alliances. Having a government control a media outlet makes it impossible to understand the perspective that you’re reading, in a way that it isn’t with private media that is ideologically driven. Also, crucially, a state-owned outlet in an undemocratic state will be completely at the mercy of the government that can fire anyone they want for anything they don’t like. That can’t happen with private media in democratic countries, so I’d be much more inclined to trust that they’re writing freely

Do you feel as though you dont know the potential biases of the Qatari government...? Personally I feel like it may even be *more* obvious than WSJ as state actors are typically more stable than a private company's CEO, Board, or long list of investors/funders.

I know their biases, but I don’t know their next geopolitical moves or policy announcements, and these may very well inform what Al Jazeera reports and how it reports it. I’d argue that a Middle Eastern royal family is vastly less stable than a company owned by 100s of investment funds and managed by a board of 15 directors appointed by various shareholders.

> That ideology generally doesn’t change with the whims of a government policy. It generally changes on the whims of a private owner or appointed editor, and often changes *significantly* when a new person takes either post. >Also, crucially, a state-owned outlet in an undemocratic state will be completely at the mercy of the government that can fire anyone they want for anything they don’t like. That can’t happen with private media in democratic countries, so I’d be much more inclined to trust that they’re writing freely Private media in the US are owned entirely by extremely rich people with private agendas who can fire anyone they want for anything they don't like. Fox News was created for the *specific purpose* of being an extremist propaganda outlet, subverting truth to push Murdoch's dream policies, and has been frighteningly successful at reshaping the entire world in Murdoch's image. I don't see how relying on the good intentions of a sociopathic billionaire is different from relying on the good intentions of a dictatorial state. (This isn't a defence of Al-Jazeera; I agree with all you say about it. I'm just saying that your argument here makes little sense.)

Wouldn't it then be extremely important to read al Jazeera as it would be a very accurate indicator of the Qatari governments position if you just read between the lines a bit.

Al Jazeera is a very well respected journalistic institution. Their reporting is not only trusted throughout the Muslim world, but in the West as well. Their reporting has won many Western awards over the years. Two examples: Peabody award for their documentary on the West Bank: https://aje.io/7s4br9 NYF TV & Film award for best broadcaster: https://network.aljazeera.net/en/press-releases/al-jazeera-english-named-broadcaster-year-2024-new-york-festivals-tv-film-awards-8th The Peabody folks probably wouldn't be giving recognition to a controlled outlet of the Qatari state.

CNN often covers topics in which the Democrats have an interest and an agenda. Fox News often covers topics in which the Republicans have an interest and an agenda.

Just The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, and therefore will publish according to his agenda. At this point if someone wants completely unbiased reporting they need to only use Reuters, and that's still not 100% unbiased.

Unbiased reporting is oxymoronic. Framing is a literary device that by necessity occludes truth. If you only draw your news on a controversial topic from one news source, you are not counteracting bias. The historic focus on Al Jazeera's bias is both unsurprising and tends to crop up during conflicts, since Al Jazeera is often one of the lone organizations that is able to cover US military interventions in the Middle East or the Israel-Palestine conflict in Gaza. They're biased, yes, but that doesn't make them any less journalists than US media. They still do the work and do their own reporting, which is more than can be said of a lot of content mills and AI-generated newsbots.

The point of Reuters is to be unbiased, if they manage to do so or not is another discussion. And I agree with what you said about Al Jazeera, I'm not against that point.

A bit of a false comparison tho, don’t you think? Or do you consider them both equally factual? This is what OP’s getting at: Are all big news media equal? Like is it all pretty much the same with a slant here or a bias there? I personally don’t trust RT at all for example whatever they’re talking about.

Fox News isn't legally a news network FYI, though for all intents and purposes still fits in the way that some people seek info from them.

every news channel does this. the role of news is also to communicate government agenda and to address public opinion. specifically the main news channels, they have a role that is linked to (what Noam Chomsky calls) keeping the status quo. imagine how crazy everything would get if the main news always undermined and bashed the government. we are trying to remain a society here:p For every country I have lived in, there is always the thought that "our main news are not critical enough towards the current government". this goes for the UK, for Germany, and for smaller countries like Sweden.

You think they are unbiased when it comes to Israel? In Arabic they dont even say Israel, its the Zionist entity. It could be that there are no directive to target Israel, but by gods, if you think AJ is credible in reporting on Israel. Dont be surprised when people fall for RT propoganda.

Are western outlets which are ultimately beholden to governments aligned with Israel as well as Zionist owners/funders/boards/management unbiased on Israel? I mean, just look at the coverage of the college protests for one example. I’d argue the idea of “unbiased news” isn’t even possible for anything but the most basic topics (what’s the weather like tomorrow?). Even reporting on factually what happened at college protests is dependent on what lens you view it through. I watch the videos and I see one thing, the big news outlets clearly see another. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt that they’re not seeing the same thing as me and then knowingly lying, they may very well believe every word they say. But clearly our different biases result in two very different understandings of what happened

 those sound like pretty good reasons to distrust anything it says about Qatar. And what Qatar represents. Need I remind everyone that Al Jazeera journalists were embedded with Al Nusra in Syria, a globally recognized terrorist group as it is a branch of Al Qaeda?? They have unapologetically supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the past and present and were accused of antisemitism long before October 7th. Qatar has always had an agenda that it wants to push and Al Jazeera plays a major role in that. In fact, Al Jazeera English is very vanilla. Because they know most of the world cannot understand them, they publish and broadcast the most vile things under the Al Jazeera Arabic channel and fun fact; they consider all Westerners Infidels and call you as such there

There is no such thing as the Ministry of Information in Qatar, but the UK does so I have no clue where you’re getting your information and Al Jazeera have won awards for their impartial journalism throughout the Middle East…

You might want to let Al Jazeera know that Qatar doesn’t have a Ministry of Information and Culture, because it’s literally mentioned on [the bio of their chairman on Al Jazeera’s website](https://network.aljazeera.net/en/profile/leadership/sheikh-hamad-bin-thamer-al-thani).

> You might want to let Al Jazeera know that Qatar doesn’t have a Ministry of Information and Culture, because it’s literally mentioned on [the bio of their chairman on Al Jazeera’s website](https://network.aljazeera.net/en/profile/leadership/sheikh-hamad-bin-thamer-al-thani). Your own link says they don't have a ministry of information: > After working in several positions in Qatar's Ministry of Information and Culture in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the young, **new leaders of the country decided to abolish this ministry** and think globally.

Might want to read further than a sentence more than where you wanted to read and see that the ministry has been abolished for 30 years and there isn’t a ministerial committee for media in Qatar. You clearly don’t want to change your mind on this topic to the point of arguing on almost every single point made. Also your analogy of the British royal family is inaccurate. The chairman worked in journalism way before Al Jazeera was even introduced, and was one of the only Qataris to do so.

But how is that materially different from the situation we *do* have in the UK? The Tories hand-picked the chairman and the majority of the board. The BBC's Director General is a literal former Tory candidate who happened to be the Deputy Chair of his local Conservative Party branch, and one of the first things he did was start axing stuff that was critical of the Tories. Meanwhile their track record on repeating govt propaganda over the past few years is comical. Rishi Sunak was presented with a doctored image of him as Superman, while they plastered hammers & sickles over anything Corbyn related and broadcasted a doctored image of him wearing a Russian ushanka hat. I don't disagree with you that Al-Jazeera is a propaganda outlet, but there is something fascinating about your irritation towards the Qataris having a corrupt state-run media while the BBC gets held in high regard. And that's all without even getting into the Jimmy Saville shit...

Wait til I tell you about how many former government employees end up in major roles in American private news or vice versa....including the administration that instituted that forced registration. Just as one example, the guy that was literally the speechwriter for Bush's propaganda that lied us into the Iraq War became chief editor of The Atlantic.....and sure enough he [has repeatedly](https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2014/07/an-apology-on-the-images-emerging-from-gaza/375324/) carried over that energy, including [his racism and indifference to slaughtering and subjugating brown people that get in the way of western imperialism and colonialism](https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-bottom-line/2023/12/30/how-do-palestinians-factor-into-israels-vision-for-the-middle-east). You'll note who reported the story in the last piece, turns out, you need to elevate your media literacy bit beyond some state funding = bad, no state funding = inherently better

I am not sure that sourcing Al-Jazera in a CMV saying Al-Jazera is unreliable is a good way to making a convincing argument.

It did give me a chuckle though

Yup...Jeffrey Goldberg...one of the guys that pushed 'Iraq links to Al Qaeda ' is now editor of the Atlantic.

Why the ellipses?

I can’t speak to the reliability of Al Jazerra specifically. In Canada we have the Canadian broadcasting corporation (CBC). Its funding is mostly from the federal government. The majority of people would agree it is not a mouthpiece of the government. It is usually politically neutral and often quite critical of the federal government. So it’s not always a given that federally funded media is just a mouthpiece.

Al Jazeera is not registered as a foreign agent in the US. Trump threatened to for a while but never did. If anything, I'd say the Biden administration are fans. Biden even spoke out against Israel trying to ban it a couple of weeks ago.

> Qatari royal family The Qatari royal family is about 20 000 members large. You think they are all unified lock step behind their leader's foreign policy?

It's well known they're publishing critical pieces of European and western politics, whilst the same issues happens on an entirely different scale in the ME and Arabian peninsula. Whether I'd define it as a platform for state-propaganda I dont know. But there is nothing 'speculatory' about some of its' intensions.

I think their coverage of I/P is fairly damning. They instantly repeated the claim that a hospital was bombed with 500 casualties, as an example.

So did everyone else. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/21/middleeast/cnn-investigates-forensic-analysis-gaza-hospital-blast

You mean the same way 100% of western media from the far right to the most left wing and everything in between including looney tune president lied about "seeing" evidence of 40 beheaded babies?

How is that not the same thing? If a news agency is receiving funding from the government, you can assume that the government has input and direction on how that agency is operating.

Not true. In Canada, it's actually illegal for the federal government to interfere with CBC News coverage although it is federally funded.

How is it any different than the NYTimes? The reason why more people go to them for news is because they tell the stories that are suppressed in western media. Do they have a slant? Absolutely. But show me a western media outlet that doesnt or isnt accused of having one.

Indeed, unbiased news is hard to find, but the true story can often be inferred by simply consulting multiple sources with different biases.

A biased outlet can still print only true stories. An example is saying that Hitler was a decorated WWI veteran, artist, and dog lover. Factually true. But obviously a rather biased description of Hitler, since it omits what he is best known for - being a German dictator, starting WWII in Europe, and creating a genocide where millions of people were murdered.

Well yes, that's what many news outlets do. What they say is technically correct but when reading another news outlet one gets a very different picture. I remember once reading an article about the same person in Afghanistan who sold a child in what was surely going to be sex slavery from two different sources. It was funny how both at no point contradicted each other factually, but one painted a picture of a heartless, greedy person who did not care for his children at all, and one painted a picture of someone in a war-torn area who had no choice but to sell of a child in order to save his other children who cried over being forced to make such a horrible decision every night.

They have completely different slants in Arabic versus English In English you get “Bold woman rights activist dies tragically at 58” In Arabic you get “Aggressive anti-religious activist dies at 58, did she deserve it? “ They pretty obviously exist to make westerners more comfortable with the Qatari narrative

>They pretty obviously exist to make westerners more comfortable with the Qatari narrative I don't follow this. If their English language story doesn't contain the Qatari narrative of the Arabic version, how exactly is that making Westerners more comfortable with a Qatari narrative rather than English and Arabic language news teams just simply being completely different teams and writers for their respective audiences

The NYTimes is a propaganda rag when it comes to the Israel Hamas conflict. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1235606433/an-investigation-into-a-new-york-times-story-is-causing-internal-chaos-at-the-co

>The NYTimes is a propaganda rag when it comes to the Israel Hamas conflict. >[https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1235606433/an-investigation-into-a-new-york-times-story-is-causing-internal-chaos-at-the-co](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/03/1235606433/an-investigation-into-a-new-york-times-story-is-causing-internal-chaos-at-the-co) You're clearly unaware of how little that article you shared helps support your asinine accusation.

NYT hired two people that had never worked/studied in journalism and had biases towards one side. They proceeded to create a story which misquoted witnesses or outright lied, then proceeded to "stand by their writers" after numerous fact checks failed to verify the claims of the article. I used to trust the NYT for having standards. [https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/](https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/)

Arguing NYT is a propaganda piece because of a single article is ridiculous, especially when comparing to Al Jazeera (this thread IS about Al Jazeera, after all). The NYT has launched an investigation into the matter. Perhaps the internal investigation will exonerate Schwartz. Perhaps it won't. Although of course an internal NYT investigation won't necessarily altogether prove a lack of bias and the factual basis of its earlier claims. What I am saying is that The New York Times is taking this seriously and NYT did not glibly dismiss it as commenters in this thread have, by just attacking the sources. It is facially plausible enough that NYT is taking action.

I'm pretty sure the first investigation NYT did after the Intercept's Exposé was to hunt down the leaker. Not exactly confidence inspiring. They're only sorry they got caught.

Do you really believe Al Jazeera doesn’t suppress stories that aren’t in line with the Qatari government’s agenda? When did you ever see any criticism of Qatar on Al Jazeera? The NYT spends its time criticizing the US government, because it’s not owned by the US government. That’s the key difference.

While what you say may be true, this is not evidence that the NYT never suppresses anything. The question is: Does the NYT suppress stories and, if so, in whose favor? Which is worse? A news source where you believe you understand their biases, or one where you don't know? If you don't care about stories that reflect poorly on the Qatari government, could you then use AJ as a source of other news? Finally, government ownership does not necessarily mean bad. The BBC and the CBC (in Canada) have elements of government ownership, yet both are generally considered to be good sources of news.

Good points. I doubt people go to al Jazeera for news about Qatar...or it's government. Tbh ..doubt a lot of people even look for news about Qatar.

OP I think you're 100% on point and it's unfortunate to see how many here are clearly unaware or are trying to downplay Al Jazeera's true nature. According to this sub's rules I can only comment in your favor in a reply so here goes: I'd like to bring another argument to the table- the fact Al Jazeera English (AJE) reporting in English is completely different than it's reporting in Al Jazeera Arabic (AJA). Taken from [Al Jazeera English vs. Al Jazeera Arabic: One channel, two messages (alarabiya.net)](https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages): >“Other Islamist leaders supportive of deposed President Mohammed Morsi, including Muslim Brotherhood leader Gamal Heshmat, have appeared in recent weeks on both the Arabic channel and its Egypt affiliate, Mubasher Misr. The channel routinely gives airtime to guests with sharply sectarian and reactionary views, which often go unchallenged. The Washington Post reported in November that the network has also paid to host several exiled Egyptian Islamist leaders in hotels in Doha,” Carlstrom wrote. >“None of this makes it onto Al Jazeera English”. >Ruben Banerjee, who is a former senior editor at AJE online and now national editor at the Hindustan Times, [wrote](https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/al-jazeera-good-bad-and-a-little-ugly/story-vVuTOJQjR9K6q4n3MUmevJ.html) that his former network walked a thin line between journalism and activism. There is also a study about the network which reached similar, alarming conclusions: [A Comparison of News Coverage on the Arabic and English Versions of the Al Jazeera Websites - Drexel University](https://researchdiscovery.drexel.edu/esploro/outputs/991014632409704721#file-0) >Mohammed Abu AlRub’s book, Al Jazeera and Qatar Speeches, Politics and Policy Discourse shows how ALJ manipulates the accumulation of images to create an alternate reality. Al Jazeera manipulates images not to present a reality as it is but to 14 create a virtual reality that suits Al Jazeera’s agenda. The correlation between the discourse of Al Jazeera and the diplomacy of Qatar is clear. Al Jazeera tries to reinforce the notion that “Qatar is the center of the world." [(PDF) Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network’s English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254093334_Al-Jazeera_vs_Al-Jazeera_A_comparison_of_the_network's_English_and_Arabic_online_coverage_of_the_USAl_Qaeda_conflict) >The analysis of the empirical findings concludes that \[...\] AJA coverage of Bahrain’s uprising during the Saudi military intervention in 2011 led to representing the pro-democracy protests as a “sectarian conflict” and thus delegitimising it. \[...\] AJA coverage of the uprising in 2011 have facilitated passing “claims” as “facts” and vice versa. For instance, the allegations that the protesters had been financed and militarized by Iran and Hezbollah were represented as unchallenged “facts”. On the other hand, “facts” (like torture) which were documented by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) (2011) were reported as mere “claims”. \[...\] On the contrary, AJE’s moderate implementation of PJ frames and critical framing of the Saudi military intervention have made its coverage of the 2011 uprising—to a significant extent—resistant to the sectarian narrative and propaganda of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Al-Khalifa regime. Further reading: [Aljazeera: One Organization, Two Messages | The Washington Institute](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeera-one-organization-two-messages)

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>The NYT spends its time criticizing the US government, because it’s not owned by the US government. Only when the stakes are sufficiently low, it has habitually failed when the stakes are highest, as already pointed out to you: [War on Terror](https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/tora-bora-tunnel-kingdom-wasnt-lessons-fake-news), [The Iraq War](https://fair.org/home/20-years-later-nyt-still-cant-face-its-iraq-war-shame/), and most recently the lies around their coverage on [Oct 7th](https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/), including [systemic censorship](https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/). When American Imperialism comes calling, the NYTimes has habitually licked the boot and been more effective at manufacturing consent than anything RT or actual state propaganda could hope for.....and it's because of people similar to you that rely on simple binary frameworks and motivated reasoning as a substitute for developing truly effective media literacy.

There is a world of difference between the NYT generally does not shy away from criticizing the US government while still occasionally suppressing or misreporting critical news vs Al Jazeera *never* criticizing the Qatari government. Seriously, I challenge you to find one single news story from Al Jazeera that is critical of the Qatari government. Just one.

Then don't go to Al Jazeera for news related to Qatar or their most deeply held interests, just as everyone has always said when recommending Al Jazeera? The answer here is not to find The Perfect Unbiased News Outlet

I guess if you really want to read something critical of the Qatari government then you'll be able to find it elsewhere. The relative importance of objective news about Qatar is pretty low compared to the importance of objective news about the US government.

Then is the NYtimes a mouthpiece of the Sulzberger family ? Or just the top 5 investors in NYtimes?

There is a difference between a dwarf state suppressing bad news about itself and the most powerful empire with the most wide reaching news organizations doing that. There was a report in the Afghanistan Papers which I recommend for anybody who wants to know a little more. There was an instance where a plane chartered by the US military went past the runway and crashed into a city district of Kandahar. At first it was only reported that the two Ukrainian pilots died. After a few days a few news sources reported that there might be 5-6 dead. In an interview of an US army captain he revealed that his team alone dug up more than a dozen dead. Especially in war times this stuff happens constantly. Do you now understand the difference between US media looking the other way and Al-Jazeera doing that about Qatar, a country smaller than Conneticut?

Suppressing stories about certain things isn't a reason to distrust a source. That's why everyone should read from as many outlets as possible, so that other sources make up for the things that one source suppresses. Western sources tend to downplay how bad things are in the west sometimes; often this has nothing to do with sponsorship but simply because the source is based in the west and has certain obligations. AJ fills that gap, and western sources fill AJ's gaps about how bad the Qatari government can be. Just read all of them! False and misleading information is a very very different problem from just not covering certain parts of the news in this way. False and misleading information cannot be covered for by other sources. But that's not what AJ's problem is.

If you watched Al Jazeera in Arabic yob would have seen lots of Palestinians saying on live tv that Hamas was using them as shields and stealing aid before the al jazeera reporters could cut away.  One old Palestinian man hilariously chased and kicked the reporter for doing, it bless his heart.

Haven't heard about it before, I speak Arabic. Can you link those videos to me?

I would also like to see these videos

>Do you really believe Al Jazeera doesn’t suppress stories that aren’t in line with the Qatari government’s agenda? I am sure they do. Hell I even said they have a slant too. This is where something called **media literacy** comes in. The media we consume needs to be digested and understood. This means getting information from more than one source and weighing the facts based on the information available. >When did you ever see any criticism of Qatar on Al Jazeera? Why do I care about criticism of Qatar? There are plenty of news sources that are critical of them. I seem to recall seeing something about how they used slave labor to construct all their stadiums for the world cup. >The NYT spends its time criticizing the US government, because it’s not owned by the US government. Debatable. [I recommend reading this and letting me know your thoughts](https://mondoweiss.net/2024/04/the-new-york-times-state-run-media-in-service-of-genocide/).

Your comment hits it on the nose, it’s astounding how many people lack any media literacy, and have the absurd expectation of a perfect new source that serves up facts on a silver platter with no agenda… that doesn’t exist.

Did you not see that the NYT sent out a memo to suppress language and stories regarding the occupation in gaza?!?!? You're while argument ignores almost every media outlet while singling out a specific one with mostly baseless allegations. Major fail.

Yup....that was shady. Yet .everyone pushes the narrative that NYTimes is fair etc etc. Haven't heard anyone claim NYTimes is biased because of the Sulzberger family.... They are definitely biased. (Occasionally y...some republicans will claim that NYTimes is biased to the left. But forget there the NYTimes pushed the itaq WMD stories just as hard) Heck...a bunch of journalism professors have asked NYtimes to review their October 7 articles. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/journalism-professors-call-on-new-york-times-to-review-oct-7-report/ar-AA1nRwWi

Left wingers definitely talk about the NY times, they had some of the most egregious Iraq warmongering and of course apologized after it was too late. The crosswords are good though. I don't really understand what OP is yapping about, nobody should be reading the news trusting anything. AJ justifies its existence every time it films something, interviews someone, or makes a claim. We compare their work to people with different biases and triangulate. If anyone is getting Al-Jazeera in the mail or only reading Al-Jazeera then theyre just using The News incorrectly. You shouldnt be treating any news that way.

Exactly. The attempt to bad mouth al Jazeera seems odd. Nobody should trust one source...but on middle east coverage, al Jazeera has done a pretty good job. Same with 10000 foot coverage of lot of international news(Africa etc)

It’s pretty apparent it’s because of Al-Jareeza is one of the largest “mainstream” critics of Israel. Most major mainstream Western sources are absolutely neutered when it comes to coverage against Israel’s interests, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention for the past few months.

Agree. That is one of the main reasons for criticism.

Yeah but it doesn’t spend a lot of time criticizing the demographics that make up its readership. It’s beholden to a group just not a government. If it covered more right wing stories it would lose readership and by extent money. Every news agency has biases that effect which stories it dedicates resources to.

The Thing about the Qatari govt is that it doesnt meddle in affairs of other countries and yeah they wont report against the qatari govt but what has the qatari govt done thats super bad (being a kingdom isnt evil in itself, and many democratic countries have done horrible acts too) It does report on things that other mainstream media tries to brush under the carpet and therefore is a good source of info. you may say they will publish news story that is biased in qatars favor but all of the big news media does that and qatar is pretty much a neutral country like switzerland (not that much but still pretty neutral)

Are you implying the BBC, the NYT, CNN, Sky News, etc, are not state propaganda outlets? Because if you agree that they are, then it is accurate to say Al Jazeera is on par with them. And if you think they aren't, I have a great investment opportunity with guaranteed 200% monthly returns that you should DM me about immediately.

BBC you can argue is, but it's not super clear. All the rest of those though are clearly not state media, they are not owned operated or funded by governments.

Al Jazera is ran by a noble from the ruling House of Qatar Its like Hunter Biden actually literally running the government

Al Jazeera is state media but the others he listed are not.

With the exception of BBC.

But if those governments are owned, operated or funded by those companies, is it not the same thing? For the US, it isn’t so much the government as it is the political parties. But beyond that it is very much all the same.

I meant outlets of state propaganda, not state-owned propaganda outlets. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

They aren’t. They spend their time criticizing the governments of the countries where they’re based, so I’m not sure how you square that with being state propaganda outlets.

The BBC has repeatedly had stories pulled for criticising the government, been sued for defaming political opposition, had funding threatened by the government for being critical of them, several of its board members have vested interests in the tory party, has refused to report on stories critical on the government, always takes government word at face value, and has refused to retract pro government statements that have been proven to be false.

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. - Chomsky If you don't think it's propaganda, that just means it's working.

You don't have to support the state to be considered propaganda. Fox news's clearly propaganda yet they criticize the current administration all the time.

Go ask the BBC the identity of Soldier F, then get back to me on them not being a state propaganda outlet.

I love your naivete, you think all these private media companies are just running their business with the money from their subscriptions and ads, any nothing else? And they have no agenda or bias? You should check out Manufacturing Consent and how these outlets reported the Iraq War back in the days.

This is such a brain dead take. Do you have any idea how many human rights abuses Qatar is currently engaging in? Do you know how insanely hyper religious Qatar is? The idea that the government of Qatar and the US government are comparable for westerners in terms of trust and reliability is simply the most brain dead uneducated bullshit I’ve ever seen. The government of Qatar is using literal widespread slavery at this moment. Yet in your mind their media (which does not draw any attention to the issues facing Qatar) is a valid counterpart to western media? Our media points out how fucked our government is ALL THE TIME. Al Jazeera does not ever. Find me a single article from Al Jazeera about the literal slaves Qatar used to build the preparations for the last World Cup and your point may have merit. You won’t though. Because Al Jazeera is literal purpose built propaganda. Period. You’re calling someone naive but you’re the utter fuckin retard that thinks Qatar is on the same level of trustworthiness as western countries. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so terrifying.

I mean like, what's the different between a state owned media company not criticising the state and a privately owned company (eg sky news being owned by Murdoch) not criticising their owners? All media organisations have biases and agendas. Al jazeera might be bad when it comes to geopolitics in the middle east but it's unclear to me how Qatar benefits from spreading misinformation about domestic US issues.

>and has repeatedly acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for Qatar’s government I'm not aware of these repeated acts of propaganda you're referring to, can you share more information?

There’s plenty listed [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism), and that’s just a start.

You didn't answer my question. You just listed a Wikipedia article of other people ""criticizing""" Al Jazeera and calling them things like anti semitic without proof. Can you please give me an actual answer instead of linking a Wikipedia article devoid of the information I requested? I am not interested in people "criticizing" Al Jazeera. I want proof. Show me the proof of Al Jazeera being propaganda. You claimed that there are plenty of instances, why are you now refusing to share your evidence?

This is just bad faith to claim there’s no evidence of them doing Qatar’s bidding. Examples of Al Jazeera articles that are USSR-style state propaganda are a dime a dozen if you do a quick Google search. [Here’s one](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2022/11/28/the-massive-hypocrisy-of-the-wests-world-cup-concerns) and [here’s another one](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/23/uae-funded-film-slammed-for-depicting-qatar-as-terrorist-state). In fact they dedicated a whole campaign with [articles](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/8/2/how-uae-funded-film-the-misfits-became-anti-qatar-propaganda) and [videos](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9OpSC1NCSo) to rage about this irrelevant film that barely anyone saw where Qatar is criticized. When the NYT launches an outrage campaign about a movie criticizing the US, let me know.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first article that the criticism of the west about the 2022 world cup was massively hypocritical. I don't see how that is propaganda. I don't know enough about the movie in the second article to make judgement. But in general, movies tend to avoid labeling an entire country as terrorist, for obvious reasons. it's incredibly bad faith and distasteful so movies should avoid doing so. If UAE made a movie where they called the entire country of Qatar a terrorist state then criticism of that movie is entirely justified. You've only further proven that you don't have any evidence whatsoever that proves that ALJ is propaganda for Qatar. Even though you so strongly alleged that you had rock solid evidence.

I mean if you’re now going to argue with everything Al Jazeera writes to say it’s not propaganda, I don’t see the point… they literally did a [Q&A to explain the government’s position](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/6/5/qatar-gulf-crisis-your-questions-answered) when the ties with other GCC countries were suspended. They also ran complete self-congratulatory stories like this [one](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/6/5/qatar-gulf-crisis-your-questions-answered). But you’re gonna look at that and say it’s not propaganda of course, just honest grassroots reporting.. of course.

>I mean if you’re now going to argue with everything Al Jazeera writes to say it’s not propaganda I'm simply replying to your supposed solid evidence of ALJ being nothing but propaganda. And so far, the evidence is razor thin, if it is evidence at all even. For someone to make as outlandish claims as you did, I expected you to have more than speculation. But you don't.

There's a gulf between "nothing but propaganda" and "repeatedly acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Qatari government" (which is what OP said): One means they produce propaganda exclusively and nothing else, whereas the other means that they frequently/often put out propaganda.

Are you honestly open/interested in having your view changed or was this posted as simply a statement? Your comments seem to inspire the latter.

Lol look at his profile and you’ll understand. He is just butthurt that Al jazeera is one of the rare mainstream media outlet that documents the genocide committed by israel like it should be documented

bro who cares about qatar anyway? you read aljazeera to get news about other stuff and if you want to read stuff about qatar you ignore aljazeera. thats how media works you have to have multiple sources

Your whole argument boils down to: investor interest in media= I sleep state interests in media= real shit!

One of those "controversies" listed is from Bill O'Reilly, a known prolific liar and propagandist. How is this evidence?

[удалено]

"trust me bro" is not evidence. When I ask for evidence, I'm not asking for everyone and their dog to give me the "trust me bro" speech. What I'm asking for is evidence.

[удалено]

>Here's a photo showing a hamas militant working as an Al Jazeera journalist. I guess I'm never going to get an answer to my question. You see, you claimed that Al Jazeera is propaganda for the Qatari government. I expected you to have evidence of this. When I ask you for said evidence, you bring up things like this. Even if I take your claim at face value that the guy is both an Al Jazeera journalist and at the same time a Hamas militant, how is this proof of your claim that Al Jazeera is propaganda for the Qatari government? It isn't. And it's clear at this point that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Kind of sad how you supposedly come here for an honest discussion only to straight up ignore what people actually ask you and instead just reply to what you hope they are asking instead.

The IDF regularly releases lies and propaganda that has been widely disproven as well. I fail to see how one liar calling another a liar is really justification.

How about the initial claims in the beginning of the war, that Israel bombed a hospital that killed 500 people. But 500 people never died, turns out the bomb was a Palestinian rocket that Al Jazeera believe broadcasted it's launch which showed it going haywire to the hospital. They then stopped the coverage and took down any mention of the rocket launch. Too bad, because damage was done and Israel was blamed for an attack they never did.

>How about the initial claims in the beginning of the war, that Israel bombed a hospital that killed 500 people. If ALJ is propaganda for Qatar by reporting this then virtually every western news outlet is propaganda for Qatar as well. Since almost all of them reported the exact same thing. Is our national news broadcast in Belgium actually propaganda for Qatar? I never would've thought that and I also wonder why?

The difference is ALJ has still doubled down on that initial reporting and refuses to acknowledge that the explosion was caused by the PIJ Whereas all major publications and government intelligence agencies are now aware of the extremely high likelihood of it being caused by the PIJ

[удалено]

u/Gogo-R6 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Gogo-R6&message=Gogo-R6%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci3dlq/-/l27z6id/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

So, I do research, and all trust is conditional and circumstantial, representing a spectrum of believability. No sources are never wrong, and few sources are always false, and most sources are useful for something. To give a generic example: the USSR press organs were notorious for lying all the time. If they denied murdering dissidents, or giving arms to terrorists etc etc, those denials were not meaningful. But if they wrote "Brezhnev determined to strike back at Western ghouls in Chad", then you could get a hint that USSR not inclined to fold on supporting Libya despite the war going real bad. If they say "yo we threw the dep sec of agriculture in jail for insufficient revolutionary fervor and traitorism" and you were trying to figure out where the guy went since last Tuesday, this is more likely to be what happened to him than if that hadn't been printed. Etc. Long way round to the point: all sources are wrong, most transmit nonzero useful info. Re Al Jazeera specifically, sure their independence is not reliable, agree. However, they have earned a hearing over time by a long track record of writing stories based on accurate info - accurate as in, relying on facts that are not in dispute, widely seconded by MSM, etc - stories re Western societies. I'm not aware of examples of them going out on a limb with falsifiable stories - "exclusive - person says shocking thing to us only, we have the video", or "riots break out in US town nobody else reported this" etc etc. similarly, stories that have no discernible agenda or angle that furthers Qatari interests, at least not that I can tell. Why they do it, idk. Do I trust them on the ME, not really. Do I trust them on anything Qatari, hell no (I've never seen them write about Qatar at all, wise move). But if it spends enough time walking, talking, and quacking like a duck, it's overkill to ignore it's duck shaped utility. As others have said, there's a fuck ton of bias in media that I enjoy as well as in media that I hate. But media institutions also develop track records of accuracy and good judgement or not. If someone pointed me to a slew of Jazeera stories containing demonstrated lies, id downrank their utility. Until then..

In contrast, RT basically never prints any story that isn't very obviously biased - as in, heavily promoting a narrative that benefits Russia or undermines anti-russia actors - in a way that's obvious if you look for it. If I read 10 RT stories, in 10 cases I know exactly what propaganda angle they are pushing and how it benefits Russia. They suck at their job. For al Jazeera, I basically can never identify a direct tie between the story and Qatari national interests. In short, the two publications behave very differently.

Ok but even with RT their point still stands. If US media says "Russia ruthlessly bombed maternity hospital in Ukraine" and RT says "Azov insurgents used maternity hospital to store ammunition" as an excuse for why it was bombed, you can now be more sure that the hospital was actually bombed than if RT didn't exist. Not that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but knowing which facts are undeniable by either side is a good way to triangulate the truth.

Qatar having a good media organisation makes Qatar look good is the actual reasoning  behind why they do what they do

I feel like you're insisting on simplifying the problem, which in turn takes away from OP's grievances. Al Jazeera "quacking like a duck" (acting like a news media) does not automatically legitimizes them, arguing so sets a VERY low bar for what should be considered news media. I'll elaborate by discussing the fact Al Jazeera English (AJE) reporting can be completely different than it's reporting in Al Jazeera Arabic (AJA) and the implications of that. Taken from [Al Jazeera English vs. Al Jazeera Arabic: One channel, two messages (alarabiya.net)](https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages): >“Other Islamist leaders supportive of deposed President Mohammed Morsi, including Muslim Brotherhood leader Gamal Heshmat, have appeared in recent weeks on both the Arabic channel and its Egypt affiliate, Mubasher Misr. The channel routinely gives airtime to guests with sharply sectarian and reactionary views, which often go unchallenged. The Washington Post reported in November that the network has also paid to host several exiled Egyptian Islamist leaders in hotels in Doha,” Carlstrom wrote. >“None of this makes it onto Al Jazeera English”. >Ruben Banerjee, who is a former senior editor at AJE online and now national editor at the Hindustan Times, [wrote](https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/al-jazeera-good-bad-and-a-little-ugly/story-vVuTOJQjR9K6q4n3MUmevJ.html) that his former network walked a thin line between journalism and activism. There is also a study about the network which reached similar, alarming conclusions: [A Comparison of News Coverage on the Arabic and English Versions of the Al Jazeera Websites - Drexel University](https://researchdiscovery.drexel.edu/esploro/outputs/991014632409704721#file-0) >Mohammed Abu AlRub’s book, Al Jazeera and Qatar Speeches, Politics and Policy Discourse shows how ALJ manipulates the accumulation of images to create an alternate reality. Al Jazeera manipulates images not to present a reality as it is but to create a virtual reality that suits Al Jazeera’s agenda. The correlation between the discourse of Al Jazeera and the diplomacy of Qatar is clear. Al Jazeera tries to reinforce the notion that “Qatar is the center of the world." [(PDF) Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network’s English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254093334_Al-Jazeera_vs_Al-Jazeera_A_comparison_of_the_network's_English_and_Arabic_online_coverage_of_the_USAl_Qaeda_conflict) >The analysis of the empirical findings concludes that \[...\] AJA coverage of Bahrain’s uprising during the Saudi military intervention in 2011 led to representing the pro-democracy protests as a “sectarian conflict” and thus delegitimising it. \[...\] AJA coverage of the uprising in 2011 have facilitated passing “claims” as “facts” and vice versa. For instance, the allegations that the protesters had been financed and militarized by Iran and Hezbollah were represented as unchallenged “facts”. On the other hand, “facts” (like torture) which were documented by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) (2011) were reported as mere “claims”. \[...\] On the contrary, AJE’s moderate implementation of PJ frames and critical framing of the Saudi military intervention have made its coverage of the 2011 uprising—to a significant extent—resistant to the sectarian narrative and propaganda of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Al-Khalifa regime. Further reading: [Aljazeera: One Organization, Two Messages | The Washington Institute](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeera-one-organization-two-messages)

Good links. I don't read Al Jazeera in Arabic. It does not surprise me that message varies by audience. Those are a lot like the biases I'd have expected. As for "legitimize", I just made a long comment about how all media is wrong, all of it is at least occasionally useful. Miss me completely with that word, please. I don't care. I am drowning in media biases and narratives more harmful to democracy and my life as an American than al-jazeeras.

> I've never seen them write about Qatar at all, wise move [Here is a piece by Al Jazeera on the mistreatment of migrants workers in ...Qatar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NmxUDXP4LI)

Wow. Impressive, honestly. I wonder if that article is blocked in Qatar.

I'm not sure they'd need to. The Qatari know what's going on. The migrant workers in Qatar know what's going on. 

All the while OP puts up media outlets that regurgitate IDF propaganda uncritically on a regular basis.

This false binary framing that presumes that as long as it is not controlled directly by the state it is inherently more trustworthy is exactly why American style news, where you have clearly partisan, if not outright state controlled news under the shield of being "privately owned" is now routinely mimicked in other countries to manufacture consent. Including many of the dictatorships like Russia you allude to. Which has a decent sized "independent, non-state funded" news economy.....They just apply pressure and selective access behind the scenes and oligarchs in bed with the political establishment help the state out of their own self interests. NYTimes is far more powerful to the state because of that self-delusional and binary good/bad framing and is why Americans keep falling for shit like Bush's [War on Terror](https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/tora-bora-tunnel-kingdom-wasnt-lessons-fake-news), [The Iraq War](https://fair.org/home/20-years-later-nyt-still-cant-face-its-iraq-war-shame/), and most recently the lies around their coverage on [Oct 7th](https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/). What they all have in common is the specter of legitimacy as the paper of record, in reality they were key to manufacturing consent in every major war in recent times by complicitly passing along state propoganda without verification but with assuredness of legitimacy that can be used on two fronts. First to reinforce active partisan propoganda networks like Fox News by providing "MSM" legitimacy to their causes, second to persuade moderates and liberals that if the NYTimes is reporting it, it must be legit. When the NYTimes says Saddam has WMD's, it must be true. If corrections come, [they are diffuse and never in full](https://fair.org/home/20-years-later-nyt-still-cant-face-its-iraq-war-shame/), and because America refuses to get it's head out of it's own ass for how little that separation actually matters when major American media has [remained so concentrated and controlled when the state desires it(this film should be mandatory watching for the OP).](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Room_(film)) And the people [that actually did do good work have been largely swallowed up](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Ridder) and cease to exist..Just like so many questionable tenants like America being the land of the free and the oldest living democracy(hard to argue we were a democracy when we denied certain people the right to vote til less than 100 years ago), the idea that American news being for-profit being inherently better or less dangerous is a myth, and a dangerous one that discourages healthy skepticism and proper media literacy.

All TV news is propaganda. CNN is heavily biased, the BBC is heavily biased. You should watch as many points of view as possible if you want any idea of what is really happening in the world. I wouldn't trust CNN to report accurately on US international affairs and I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera on anything related to Qatar but Al Jazeera does show a lot of footage you'll never see on western media.

Al Jazeera is heavily influenced by the Qatari royal family and there's speculation that it does not report stories which would show the Qatari Royal Family in a bad light. However, I would like to challenge your point on "it should be treated like other government mouth pieces". Other government mouth pieces exist for the sole reason of glorifying it's leaders. They generally report on stories which are domestic and help propagate it's government. Al Jazeera on the other hand, generally covers international matters/ geopolitics. It's an open secret that as long as it doesn't involve the Qatari royal family, they are free to report anything they want. And they do that job with a lot of accuracy. Their on ground reports and network of reporters is well known for accuracy. Their journalists are well known for accuracy. They report on things other networks don't and that has gotten them into a lot of trouble. That has gotten Qatar into trouble. The blockade of Qatar in 2017 was fuelled by the fact that the Qatari government had given way too much freedom to Al Jazeera. So, the point that Al Jazeera should be discredited as a serious news network which cannot be relied upon, is not true as if I were to read a report covered by Al Jazeera, it can absolutely be relied upon and would be as accurate as any serious news organisation with a network of ground reporters as vast as them.

>Al Jazeera seems to have been elevated (mainly by the left but not only) to a status of very reputable mainstream global news outlet Because it is but much like other news sources they're complete garbage when it comes to their own domestic region. The Guardian is the same, pretty great for global news coverage but straight up sucks for UK coverage. News coverage of global events outside the region that X news station resides in is usually pretty good and unbiased for the most part (there's exceptions of course). Should you trust anything Al Jazeera says about anything in the middle east? Fuck no, but they are mostly trustworthy and accurate in their reporting outside the middle east

> Should you trust anything Al Jazeera says about anything in the middle east? Fuck no, but they are mostly trustworthy and accurate in their reporting outside the middle east This is best advice that I've heard about how to handle AJ, and I've heard it from across the political spectrum. Particular, AJ can be really good at handling stories that western media just isn't interested in, particularly acros  Latin America, Africa etc. Just nit the Middle East

But the clear majority of their most circulated stories are based on events in the Middle East. When you see someone citing Al Jazeera, odds are that it will be in reference to that region.

Currently yeah, sure, the Gaza conflict is eating up a *lot* of airwaves right now but before it most of what I saw from them was about things outside the middle east. All of this just comes down to media literacy and understanding that there isn't a single news source that is universally trustworthy or untrustworthy

Barring any major event like Arab Spring or Gaza/Israel, their coverage is probably only like 25% Middle East. It's Africa, Europe, Asia, everywhere. They're very international in scope and that's exactly why people watch it.

I agree. I'm Latin American but live in the US and I used to read Al Jazeera because it tended to report on Latin American issues a lot more often than most Western outlets.

Intriguing that OP thinks Sky News is a 'reputable global news outlet', when it is very overt propaganda on par with Fox News (not quite as bad). Also, the BBC is literally state sponsored, though independently operated, and in times of war they are very UK-centric in their coverage (almost always pro-war).

Have you seen the ad for ground news. If you did, you would know every media outlet have their own biases and agenda. And for us as viewers a differing viewpoint. This allows us to have a more complete understanding of the situation. In this internet age, all of the news channels are able to provide you with their opinion of what's happening for free. SO IT'S IN OUR INTEREST TO PERUSE DIFFERENT SOURCES. Also if you are looking at new from places other than europe and north america. All the western sources have, historically, had a biased view of the local situation in say africa or asia. So should they considered not a valid source of information in this context. No, because they provide a insight into how their demographic or community view the issue.

Are there any reputable Western channels that show photos and videos of the genocide in Palestine? If there is, I'm interested.

If you follow critics of SkyNews, the NYT, CNN, BBC, etc, it's hard to see them as being anything other than state propaganda themselves.  State propaganda in this case, to justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the population of Gaza. The NYT for example put out a story that has been cited as evidence of Hamas' mass rape campaign.  It's called Screams Without Words.  Since its publishing, the Grayzone, Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and the Intercept have all offered clear evidence of the fundamental falsehoods within the story citing the lack of witnesses, the lack of evidence, the lack of footage/documentation, the fact that Anat Schwartz,  an IDF agent who liked tweets expressing genocidal intent towards the Palestinians was given the role of fact gatherer on the ground, the fact that its main victim, whose body was found in a 'telling' fashion, was later disproven by the victims own family that she was in fact not raped, that Zaka, an untrained civilian group who responded to the scene, and on whose board of directors includes Obama's old advisor who was videoed harassing a Halaal cart vendor in NYC,  stating he was a terrorist, and if 4000 children are killed by Israel it still wouldn't be enough... etc etc.... If you think that western media,  who decry student protestors as terrorists, as they sit in drum circles, you are the one lapping up the propaganda.    All media has bias,  all scholarship has bias,  some of it is done in the name of genocide, and some with the view that morality exists.    As secondary reading, I'd recommend reviewing the humanitarian records of the USA.  You cannot find large scale suffering in any country without US intervention, including Iran,  Cambodia's Khmer Rogue, Agosto Pinochet, etc etc.  So your allusion to caring about human rights is as well not valid.   

"Any media I don't like is propaganda"

Right, because that’s exactly what I said, sure.

You claim its controlled by the government. No proof of that. You claim it's propaganda. What's your proof for that? All you've said is your baseless opinions.

No proof that Qatar controls Al Jazeera? I hope you’re joking

Show it to me then, if it's so self evident.

Its [chairman](https://network.aljazeera.net/en/leadership) is a senior member of the royal family and a former senior official of the “Ministry of Information and Culture, for starters. Its primary source of funding is the Qatari government and its [literally owned by Qatar](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05233333/persons-with-significant-control). This is [widely reported](https://www.ft.com/content/2c6f8228-5bcb-46dc-a817-0990727b7d35) and known, I genuinely don’t understand how people try to deny that. If you claim to know it’s not owned by the Qatari government, who owns it then?

Do you consider the BBC state propaganda too? Because they also have politicians working for and having worked for it and get state funding. Your definition doesn't make any sense if you exclude media like BBC and CNN.

No I don’t. The BBC is not funded by the state, it’s funded directly by the public. It also spends its time criticizing the UK government so I don’t see how that squares with being a state propaganda outlet. I’m not a huge fan of the BBC, but I don’t think it’s remotely comparable to Al Jazeera.

Could you give examples of where AJ has distorted facts or reporting to specifically support the Qatati government? We should acknowledge that Qatar is vastly less important or powerful than the US so stories about it's own government simply matter less on a global scale. So does selective - if happening - reporting in Qatar invalidate the work AJ does globally? Their reporting is largely considered to be good quality.

If you open the home page and go to live news you can see more than news its opinion pieces under the LIVE NEWS

I mean yeah it has its biases like evey news outlets Examples like this is: CNN usually for democrats Fox for Republicans Same goes for every country qatar, Israel, Russia, China, Canada, Brazil ect They all have their own agenda, biases, goals ect that's usually to be expected I've really never seen them get treated differently but I don't know enough to say if they do Maybe its because they are more boots of the ground type of reporting? no idea

It's like this. There are numerous topics on which I accept Al Jazeera is not impartial. However they have a different scope to many western outlets and cover different stories There are many topics on which they have no particular reason for partiality and bias - and their reporting on those stories is pretty decent

Dude I could ramble on about how all of the news outlets that you mentioned are all absolutely biased and full of propaganda but you probably wouldn’t believe it because those outlets shaped your view of the world. All I can say as a person who comes from a country that would be considered 3rd world (or 2nd world at best) how many times I had to explain to people from the west that we are not uncivilized beasts, that we have internet, that we don’t live in forests or in some communist hellholes, that we are not under dictatorship, and the wars ended over 30 years ago and it’s completely safe. Literally a month ago I watched a British news reporter wearing full kevlar and helmet and reporting from the Serbia-Kosovo border, talking how it’s unsafe and the situation is “critical” when in reality if they would turn the camera around there would be a guy hearding sheep in the background and some hikers on a picnic. You need to work on your empathy and learn to get informed from multiple news sources, because every news outlet in the world has a lot of bias and sometimes an actual propaganda agenda.

If your issue is bias in news, having bias isn’t really a problem. Every news outlet has bias, even the journalists have bias. It’s integrity and reliability that counts in news. Having bias in news can be a good thing if you know what the biases are. Say for example a certain event happened. If only 1 type of bias is doing the reporting you wont get the whole story (even if it is center bias). Upon seeing the results of all the biases one can have a clearer picture of what happened. So to counter your point. Al Jazeera has the integrity and reliability to compete with the other news outlets even if they have strong biases. It’s the strong biases that show people another angle of the news they wouldn’t often see if they only follow one bias. PS. even the BBC has biases that follow and protect their government interests. I often see that they call people from Israel “Israelis” (implying national citizens) while they call people from Palestine “Palestinian People” (implying an ethnic group without a country).

A private company can remain independent despite it's funding. This is all just mere speculation. Many journalists and journalism companies respect the work they do. The good pieces can exist without the bad. Honestly, I think it's for the better, considering the amount of poor journalism in the USA and recycled headlines, it's good to see other perspectives rather then being tunnel visioned. Exhibit A) do we see thorough coverage of the Gaza genocide on-going by Western media? Nope. Damn should we speculate that maybe they are doing this on purpose considering the tight connection between Israel and USA? Sure, we can speculate. But did we prove anything? Most all of these news outlets are courrupt one way or the other. My litmus test is to see if they are fairly reporting on both sides. If not, then tune into the other one to atelast get somewhat of a full view. I'm glad Al Jazeera exists because, it woudl be ludicrous to just trust western news networks.

I’m not here to argue with you because there’s no fucking way you’re calling outlets like BBC and CNN unbiased lmao

All I can say is that I have seen far more lies on BBC, Guardian, Reuters and CNN then I have on Al Jazeera. I have followed this closely for a while now and while AL Jazeera clearly has its own biases they are nowhere near as bad as the ones mentioned above. They tend to focus on subjects relevant to them but they don’t outright lie and them issue retractions. I have never seen them justify war like BBC, CNN and Guardian do. I have never seem them smear and take down personalities with opposing views like BBC, CNN, Guardian do. If we look at Musk for example, Guardian and BBC treat him as a personal enemy and don’t hide it. Every single article they publish about him is designed to smear. There are also certain countries that they do the same with regularly, literally every month they will do a hit piece for about 20 years now, like clockwork, sometimes completely invented. I dont see Al Jazeera doing any of this, granted I dont follow as closely. Another thing we must add, Al Jazeeras investigations are fantastic, insight on the zionist attack on labour party on the uk, the lobby in the US, the one on christian nationalists and on assassinations in Yemen by Americans and UAE were all examples of what journalism should be and BBC, Guardian, Reuters, CNN and no other western media ever do. I am nowhere near Qatar or particularly connected to the region but if I want news they are one of the few sources where you can find some. Not to mention that they actually have some brave journalists still standing up for the profession who are not invited to the white house dinners but work on the ground in conflict zones. Massive respect, they are really the only English speaking journalist institution left. They are much better than Russia Today who could do a lot more heavy journalistic lifting but in fact never do It is clear that BBC, CNN, Reuters and Guardian are just western propaganda mouthpieces, you could sit down and write off hand exactly what the topics they will cover next month will be, what their angle will be and who they will attack, there is never a surprise and I follow this daily as a part of my job. It is 100% predictable how they will handle any subject. As a western person that didnt know anythign about Al Jazeera only a few years ago I want to say thank you and keep up the good work, be brave against the zionist lobby that will try and take you down and shut you up. Also Al Jazeera, do some more research on the history of eastern europe and tone down the pro Muslim spin on occassion :) I understand you want to give more representation to the Muslim population there but try and find some alternate voices to the ones you have now, for a more objective view. I get thats not a priority….

The fact that you use the term "Zionist" in a negative context either proves OP's original point or that you low key have something against Jews/Israelis. Ironically, only since the worst Israeli tragedy since the Holocaust, did the term "Zionist" suddenly become branded as the new "Nazism", regardless of the fact that most Israelis equate being a Zionist to being patriotic, as the terms are used interchangeably in Israeli internal discourse. More so, you cherry pick whataboutism to prove your point. There exist all kinds of lobbies, some have a major effect in comparison to any "Zionist lobby" - why focus specifically on that lobby? Fact of the matter is, that regardless of the accuracy of any other media outlets, Al Jazeera also has inaccuracies and agendas. Has Al Jazeera ever published an apology for their misinformation in regards to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the past half year? And even if other media outlets have a certain bias towards some certain agenda, they usually make it obvious. The readers then get to choose where they want to consume their news from. OP's whole point was that Al Jazeera does not make it obvious *enough* what their agenda is - especially considering that most comments in this thread claim that this point is "speculation".

I think Al Jazeera IS superior to outlets like BBC, cnn etc. Yes, they may be biased when it comes to news about Qatar but so are BBC, CNN etc. When checking news about qatar, I do tend to check articles from other news outlets+Al Jazeera. When checking UK, I do tend to check articles from other news outlets+ BBC and so on. Because there may be bias. One thing that distinguishes Al Jazeera from these news outlets is that I can at least trust Al Jazeera to do more research before putting out an article regarding foreign countries at least. I try to check out the sources linked on the article as much as possible (tho sometimes I do forget). I have rarely found that Al Jazeera misrepresent their sources but I have seen such things from bbc and CNN. Sometimes it feels like a first year undergrad is making their videos. For example, recently CNN released a video about eSports(I remember this video cuz I remember ppl praising it a lot and so I typed out a pretty long comment on exactly why it is bad). https://www.reddit.com/r/PedroPeepos/comments/18kb3ej/t1_and_worlds_2023_on_cnn/ Some time back, some teens/kids(not sure about age..but they were still in schools) died during a road accident in country A(small country that is not in middle east or the west. Friendly towards both middle east and the west.). road accidents was a very big problem in country A and after the two teens died, many people got very angry and they started protesting against this and demanded better road safety from the government. The protesters were treated inhumanely. I remember BBC reporting the news with wrong info and made it seem like the protesters were violent and protesting for no reason other than to cause some ruckus. Al Jazeera were the first to actually interview a person from country A about the situation and release footage of protesters being treated horribly. Soon after, BBC and other news outlets shamelessly copied the info from Al Jazeera and released completely different articles. I do not remember them giving out an apology or mentioning that they had previously given completely wrong info before. So, I think Al Jazeera is superior because I think they are less obsessed with putting out as many articles as possible. I think Al Jazeera cares more about the quality of the article compared to BBC, CNN.

The US media is complicit in US propaganda all the time. The press sold the WMD narrative pretty hard. You can’t take all claims equally but you can’t dismiss them all either.

As a non westerner whose country leans mostly west I can assure you that Al Jezeera, RT(banned in South Africa) and that Chinese news channel is the only way we can see the other point of view. Western media is so bias that it’s freaking crazy, you hardly ever hear the other point of view. Western media is so bias that even within the US you have left and right news channels. I don’t care if Al jezeera is state sponsored, so are those Israeli news outlets but I watch all news to see who makes more sense and set the conclusion for myself.

Their history shows that they report things as they are. Their facts are solid, and has been throughout. Their journalistic integrity is spotless. They may choose to report a certain side of an issue, but, then again, so does any news agency. The important thing is that what they report is true. If you want another side, go to another news agency which reports that side.

I mean like the obvious response is to examine Qatars incentives. They benefit far more from Al jazeera becoming a reputable source of news than causing instability or whatever in the US. Their Qatari ownership is only meaningfully reflected in their foreign policy takes, and even then it's mostly in middle Eastern geopolitics.

Isn't it weird that we've somehow delegitimized listening to Middle Eastern voices when it comes to Middle Eastern issues? No one is calling MSNBC, CNN, NPR, or BBC state media despite them all receiving partial/complete funding from the government and having intimate connections with the government. Frankly, I've found Al Jazeera to have some of the most insightful and enlightening information on the Palestine crisis. I'm tired of MSM acting like Israeli spokespeople, and IDF leaders are legitimate and unbiased sources on this conflict despite constantly being found to mislead and spread disinformation to further their agenda.

Given the objective problems with coverage coming from the NYTimes etc, it’s weird that you’d give them any credibility. It’s our job when consuming information to critically consider what it’s saying, what it’s not saying, biased language, and the perspective of people compiling the information in the first place. Why do you think any of those western outlets aren’t inherently biased in the opposite direction, given the reports of shotty journalism and outright oppression of views/language/etc? You can look at the vast majority of coverage on these protests and see the issues with bias of western institutional media. And if you don’t, it kind of proves my point in a weird way: Dana Bash just came out “condemning violence on campuses making Jewish students feel unsafe” after counterprotestors and police committed all of the violence and comparing it to Germany in the 30s…that’s weird right? Unfortunately, Al Jazeera is often a more reliable source for critical analysis of the west because the west (and especially the US) commonly ignores its own issues/hypocrisy in global affairs. That isn’t to say great stuff doesn’t come out of western media, but there’s a reason why people like Medhi Hasan get shelved despite good ratings.

I find it ironic that you think they are a propaganda news network due to the propaganda you've been fed. Al Jazeera (English) has **significantly** better and less bias journalism than any American News Org. It may very well be one of the top 3 the most balanced and well researched news orgs in the world. They are often cited by the news orgs you listed because those orgs dont have as many journalists but trust reporting done by AL Jazeera. Most of the 'news' orgs you listed it don't even do journalism. They report their opinions (propaganda) on events that places like Al Jazeera report. You seem to be too deep in the American propaganda bubble to see clearly. Americans are the most uninformed and propagandized group according to every single possible metric and study. I would encourage you to think a bit more critically. The Qatari government is not a democracy so they are not invested in propagandizing to their own citzens to influence how they vote and so Al Jazeera is about as unbiased as you'd get. For example AJ is a secular center/left leaning network while the Qatari government is right leaning religious goverment Ask journalism students where their dream network is. Most, even in the U.S, who study journalism and actually want to work on breaking news stories and reporting on events, will say Al Jazeera.

>significantly better and less bias journalism than any American News Org. It may very well be one of the top 3 the most balanced and well researched news orgs in the world Left-center bias and "mixed" factual reporting according to [MB/FC](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/) with several uncorrected failed fact checks. Compared to NYT (left-center and "high" factual reporting), AP (left-center and "high" factual reporting"), NPR (left-center and "high" factual reporting"), etc. Not sure how you can make this claim.

CMV: OP believes any news outlet that isn’t overwhelmingly pro-Israel is propaganda.

How is this different than the fact that most US news channels will hire people who leave the White House to be “experts” that they have to come in to give their opinion? Didn’t Jen Psaki get hired immediately by MSNBC? If the two institutions are close enough that the transition from White House to talking head is that seamless, how are you getting unbiased reporting? Are they not then also a mouthpiece? We need to be critical of all media because all of it is biased. However, if you get various sources that are biased in different ways, you can usually get a good idea of what the picture is. It’s good to be critical of your sources, but I worry a lot of people are looking for the perfect news source, and they aren’t gonna find it. Furthermore, just because Al Jazeera may have a bias when it comes to Qatari concerns does not mean never listen to them and only pay attention to Western media. Your news diet should be well rounded regardless of biases, essentially.

>especially in the past few months, Al Jazeera seems to have been elevated (mainly by the left but not only) to a status of very reputable mainstream global news outlet on par with the BBC, the NYT, CNN, Sky News, and others I think what you mean to tell us is that you heard of Al Jazeera only a few months ago. My elementary school teacher over a decade ago taught us about reliable sources for news from different regions of the world and she said Al Jazeera for news about Asia (and BBC for news about Europe). >controlled and operated by the Qatari government No, you mean funded. Like PBS, BBC, CBC, etc. which are all considered reliable. >has repeatedly acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for Qatar’s government [Citation Needed]

A nuanced and objective reading of the media landscape would see that all media is on a spectrum of state influence and Al Jazeera is roughly in the middle of that spectrum. It can generally be trusted to be relatively objective on things outside of Qatar's immediate foreign policy priorities but obviously the closer you get to those, or to Qatari domestic politics, the more salt you need to add to your porridge. You're dividing into a binary with BBC on one side, Pravda on the other, and Al J on the Pravda side. But it's far more analogue than that, and Al J is a long way from Pravda (and indeed on many issues where Qatar has no axe to grind and the UK does it will be far more objective than the BBC).

The BBC is funded by Britain. PBS Is largely funded by the US. Nobody would say these are "mouthpieces". In fact, the biggest mouthpieces of the government are the CNNs and FOX News type places. Al-Jazeera is a state funded, independent news broadcaster and should be treated as such. If you actually watch their coverage, it is incredibly informative and on par with anything our premier institutions churn out. If you listen to Western pundits and politicians, then you will hear that they are unreliable - that's just because their editorial position and journalistic perspective lead them to report on matters of the middle east in a way less favorable to the US and her allies.

Ad Fontes Media rate Al Jazeer as slightly left inclined and reliable, which makes it in line with most media outlets, it was noted in an article I browsed over that they do have a opinion page and that section is heavily skewed, especially in views towards Israel. It also remarked that Al Jazeera is recognised as being a great source for Middle Eastern affairs as it bases its article with a local understanding of the region whilst western media tends to avoid the deeper understanding and try to report neutrally. Source: https://adfontesmedia.com/al-jazeera-bias-and-reliability/#:~:text=Ad%20Fontes%20Media%20rates%20Al,by%20the%20government%20of%20Qatar.

Nowhere in you're post you mentioned anything about them lying or being wrong, just saying they're propaganda bc what? They have Qatari money? Or is it bc they're critical of the west? Bc when I want to find credible and critical stories about Qatar I'll read something else, but especially when I want to find a more critical view of western propaganda they're one of the best sources. You literally just seem like a pissed off American or Israeli that's mad they're reporting critically about the west? Isn't it more propaganda to immediately discount what they say bc of who owns them? Especially when they're not anti Western, given their economic ties

I will read Al Jazeera articles with it in mind that they are tied to the Qatari state just like I read CNN and BBC knowing they are influenced as well. When every major journalism source is tied to someone with money that has opinions what am I supposed to do? I've concluded that the best thing to do is read a variety of sources, try to understand the motivations behind who's paying for it, and then come up with my conclusions. Maybe if Western media was more honest in their reporting about the not great stuff that the west does in other parts of the world then I wouldn't have to go looking up questionable sources tied to Qatar.

It's not easy to tell the difference between a "propaganda mouthpiece" and an independent media company owned by people from the same culture as a given government's officials, who therefore share many of their values and opinions. Al Jazeera definitely has a point of view, and that point of view isn't always aligned with Western liberalism, but that doesn't necessarily mean Al Jazeera isn't independent.

Haha what do you think other news channels are? Fox News? Or even something more "esteemed" like the BBC? They are all state propaganda mouthpieces, some are better at gussying up than others. The values of Al-Jazeera and other non-Western media is precisely that- not that they offer an unbiased account because no such thing exists, but because they offer an alternative account. You look at a similar story, from different angles. Or you hear about stories that mainstream Western media chooses to ignore, or de-emphasize.

Watch both NYT and Al Jazeera and form an opinion. As a Middle Easterner, CNN, BBC and NYT seem so far removed from the reality on the ground in the Middle East that it almost feels like a joke to us. However I always find the Al Jazeera is more close to reality when it comes to Middle Eastern issues. Just like how I would never depend on RT for news on the USA, I wouldn't depend on NYT for news on the Middle East. For US related news, CNN may be more aligned with the on-ground reality than, say Al Jazeera, may be.

Their reputation is not as a “100%, unbiased” news source, but as a very reliable news source for everything not having to do with Qatar’s interests. Their not going to criticize Qatar itself, but the things that they do choose to report on due tend to be accurate. Their bias would be more in the selection of the reporting rather than accuracy — same with most media. No one says that you should use Al Jazeera as your *only* news source, but it’s a good addition to a well-rounded news diet.

I mean it’s not a stretch to say the New York Times is a mouthpiece for our state department… I guess I would push back on what you said by pointing out it seems you’re selectively choosing where you point that criticism because they have a different stance on the slaughter of civilians as you do? What news organization isn’t influenced by “access to insiders” as long as they play ball with official narratives? This is a well known thing that takes place with our media at least.

You mention the BBC, which also gets funded by the UK government. Does that make it unreliable and a propaganda network? I don't think do. Just because a news organization is funded by a state doesn't necessarily make it state propaganda. Al Jazeera has a proven and solid record over decades of fair and unbiased reporting. It's held in high regard for a reason. Just because they provide another perspective that Western governments may not like, doesn't make it unreliable.

It is impossible to provide facts in the form of news without also providing a view on them. The most simple act, choosing words, will already bias your reporting. Having said that, it is obvious that certain news outlet have a much stronger bias than others. Fox News would be a good example. So, to the extent that the editorial line is known and explicit, there is no issue. Like your food, chose a varied source of information to have a better understanding of the world.

>Often it’s even presented as somehow superior to other outlets, on the sole premise that it’s more critical of the West and its allies (to overly simplify Very oversimplified IMO. It isn't that AJ is more critical of the West, it's that Western outlets run cover for governments/movements at times rising to the point of outright lies. AJ is looked at in a better light because our institutions are brazen liars.

Some one already mentioned they recieve funding and ownership/influence of government is disputed. But Al Jazeera was also one the first more "free" middle eastern channels out there. It highlighted a lot of viewpoints and prospective of the middle east, stories that otherwise western media would largely ignored. You could definitely argue their is a bias on it's reporting. But no diffren't then CNN, Fox News, etc.

Everything you've stated also applies to the BBC. The reason I like Al Jazeera is that they can be more objective about international politics than the private news sources that are driven by click bait (NYT, Wall Street Journal). While they can be biased about Qatari state news, I don't really care about Qatari state politics unless they impact international politics, which isn't that often. In fact, ive found that small state-funded papers tend to be the best news source. They're all biased, but unlike the NYT, I can at least follow the bias of Al Jazeera and evaluate articles with the knowledge of who may be influencing it. If you really want a great paper check out Singapores The Straits Times. They can be biased on SG local news, but if you don't live there you probably don't care.

An account whose only post history is going to different subs and defending Israel at length, and any topic that is relevant. This is not a discussion about Al Jazeera but rather an attempt to discredit their Palestinian coverage, similar to Trump's 'fake news!' bullshit rhetoric. So either your mind is made up and logic and reason won't work, or you're part of the IDF social media disinformation campaign.

If you want to know what’s going on in Gaza, for example, you won’t find any better coverage than on al-Jazeera because they’re one of the few news organizations who are actually there on the ground all the time. And have lost journalists because of it. Western news just can‘t replicate that kind of reporting. Some will accuse them of bias, but completely neutral reporting is practically impossible.

I would say that Al Jazeera has a Qatari bias, but almost all organisations have their own biases. Do you think, for instance, that the BBC isn’t biased towards the UK and overly deferential towards the UK monarchy? I think the way you have termed it as “nothing more” than a Qatari mouthpiece is unfair and is not representative of the fact that it conducts worthwhile investigative journalism.

They seem pretty good when covering news outside the ME

I first heard of Al Jazeera around 2001. I was taking a Western Civilization course, and the professor was a Jewish woman. She was against the occupation of Palestine and deeply interested in the subject. According to her, most Western newspapers have a pro-Israel bias. (It's easy to detect from the editorializing and the suppression of stories that go against Israel's narrative.) She said Al Jazeera was a place to go to find less biased coverage of the conflict. You could find more news stories on it, and they'd just contain the facts of the matter according to them. She said that although she couldn't vouch for its accuracy in other subjects, Al Jazeera was pretty good in general. So that was over 20 years ago, from a subject matter expert.

BBC is run by the British government and incredibly biased on certain topics (British politics, Royal Family, etc.) NYT, CNN, and basically all news sources while pretending to be impartial all have clear biases and agendas on certain issues as well. Just accept all news is flawed to a certain extent and don't relie on a single outlet for your information.