Al Jazeera journalist, physician father, held Noa Argamani hostage, Palestinians say
Al Jazeera journalist, physician father, held Noa Argamani hostage, Palestinians say
Forces reportedly kill 3 family members in extraction; cameraman publishes near-daily reports on 'IDF atrocities'; Calls October 7 massacre 'courageous operation'; Al Jazeera denies links to Aljamal despite naming him on their site
You're viewing a single thread.
This source seems extremely biased.
FWIW:
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ynetnews/
Not sure how to rate a left-center Israeli source in this situation, but 'high credibility' does suggest that they do a decent job overall.
Take that with a massive grain of salt, a lot of Israeli media is high factuality except when it comes to Palestine, where they turn into dehumanizing propaganda mills. MBFC has no mechanism to account for selective factfulness
Okay, so how do we judge this story's validity? I do know Al Jazeera is denying it.
Mediabias check itself is very biased. It literally said "this outlet has never been known / shown to have reported fake news, but we still give it an untrustworthy label". It's done by one guy with a huge pro-Israel bias.
I really do not know how else to check this site's credibility. "They're Israeli" is not enough of an argument for me to say this is not a credible source. How can its credibility be rated?
Just read their wiki article and the sources there. It allows for subjective errors and is no way based in science.
Their Wikipedia article doesn't really appear to say anything different from what I can tell...
No, what I meant is checking media bias. Not the news site itself.
Literally read the article. Pay attention to the words they use when talking the people and groups.
I'm not a mind reader. What words do you want me to pay attention to in specific?
The article included baseless claims such as capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, which the IDF categorically denied.
This is a sentence from the article. If they were neutral towards the subject, they might have written it like this:
controversy surrounded the article, which described the IDF capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, something the Israeli government has denied.
If they were active supporters, it might have sounded like this:
his insightful journalistic work exposed the IDF’s capture of soldiers in Jabaliya, which they continue to deny.
Sorry... you're saying because they say IDF instead of Israeli Government, this article is ridiculously biased and can't be trusted?
Because I see people here using IDF and Israel interchangeably all the time when discussing this war.
No, it’s the word choice in the sentence as a whole. “Baseless claims” and “categorically denied” make it seem like the article was nonsense. “Controversy” acknowledges that there are different accounts of what happened, but doesn’t pick a side and “denied” feels like the most neutral choice to me, but I’m a layperson and there are entire classes in journalism programs dedicated to neutral phrasing. Calling the article “insightful journalism” is obviously biased and saying “continues to deny” sounds even more supportive of the journalist’s claims, because it implies that people are continuously asking Israel about it, which further implies that multiple people are unsatisfied with Israel’s account of the events.
I don't mean this in any sort of insulting way, but I think you've put far more analysis into this than the person who was writing on a deadline did into writing it.
Did the author have a bias? Quite possibly. But I think your implication that these were conscious choices is going a bit too far.
I have no idea if they decided to write the article in a biased way, but I don’t know if that matters. The people reading it still associate the article with “baseless claims,” which colors their view.
Fair enough. I guess up to now, it seemed to me like people were implying that this was a conscious bias.