The outlet attributed to mistake to “faulty sourcing.”

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Aljazeera has been very factual in the conflict. Probably the most factual out of any English-speaking news source since all the others are too afraid to call out real genocide and terrorism and their articles are clouded with double standard wording.

    Get out of here with your “both sides” nonsense.

    • Cinner@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It should be noted that there is Al-Jazeera English, which is credible and good, and then Al-Jazeera which… well, isn’t so much. They are two different companies run by two different sets of people, basically. They do not run the same articles generally. Similarly, American mainstream media reporting is generally pretty accurate about stuff in other parts of the world (when it’s not a war article) but when reporting about things here it can get murky.

        • Cinner@lemmy.worldB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          correct, the guy I’m replying to said Al-Jazeera English but the OP just said Al-Jazeera. I think it’s important that more people are aware there is the Western Al-Jazeera (English) which has pretty solid reporting, and regular Al-Jazeera which is the paper all the articles were about recently where (one of) the journalists who were targeted with a strike worked for as it was pushing pro-Hamas stuff… obviously any attacking of the press is not OK. the point of my mentioning it was people should know that Al-Jazeera English isn’t pushing a bunch of pro-Hamas articles. that it’s Al-Jazeera that’s had a lot of bad press lately, not Al-Jazeera English which is still solid.