• acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t see what is antisemitic about considering an Israeli publication (even a good one like Haaretz) to be subject to the same kind of inherent biases as a Qatari one. Israelis are not magically exempt from bias, to claim otherwise would be the kind of a prejudice that feeds antisemitism.

      If you have objective data to show why Haaretz does not suffer from bias, please go ahead and point to them.

      • rivermonster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I believe you’re being earnest so I’m giving you the best information I have and doing my best to explain here.

        For one thing Al Jazeera is literally owned by Quatar who funds and is allied with Hamas. The Hamas leadership all live there, as millionaires, under the protection of the state that owns the media outlet.

        This is why their Media Bias Fact check is notably lower than Haaretz. Medium credibility vs. High credibility

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/haaretz/

        Secondly, Haaretz is not owned by the Israeli government. Which not being state owned automatically gives it a credibility edge.

        Personally, I do not like Haaretz, they are too soft on the conflict for me. But I don’t dispute the veracity of their journalism.

        Al Jazeera though is just a state run propaganda machine for Qatar and Hamas.

        EDIT and PS: For non Israeli/Hamas war, Al Jazeera isn’t as bad, for things they have no stake in its slightly better in it’s journalism. Same way you’d NEVER go to the BBC for info on the UK.

        • acargitz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know anything about the raters’ objectivity but I asked for evidence and you did provide them. Touché.

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

              MBFC is a gold standard.

              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

              Likely, you want a way to feed confirmation bias when the facts don’t support your narrative or view. For that, a bias or fact checker won’t help.

              But if you really don’t like MBFC, then you could also check out All Sides and Ad Fontes Media.

              • Hamartia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think you can get an objectively truly bias free news source nor bias checker. If you find one you agree with and people you trust agree with then that’s good for you. You can’t expect everyone else to conform to the same outlook as you. Regardless of which authority figures lauds it.