Not that it justifies the deletion, I wonder how a state sponsored propaganda outlet came to be regarded well among global audiences. It would be interesting to read up on what they have done to garner that image.
Since 9/11 Americans can't trust anything with an "arabic background", they are constantly bombarded by the media, so they can't ever discover that the middle east is much more than a place with oil or "weapons of mass destruction".
Al Jazeera hires top journalists, they are well-funded. They are just very concerned when talking about Qatar, which in a geopolitical sense, doesn't matter, all other news are typically very unbiased.
Only a few news outlets from Europe are similar in quality.
Americans rarely want to see the truth anyways, so they stick with those republican/democrat-leaning media outlets, eating Mc Donalds, going bankrupt on a hospital emergency and believing in the American dream: you need to be asleep to believe on it.
Doesn't seem like the sign of a good news org if you can't say a word of criticism about the country you're headquartered at. Makes me wonder what else is rotten in there, how can we know the rules of the country aren't dictating a bunch of other stuff to the news? News should be as independent as possible.
Qatar threw money at them "to be the best of the best" in global reporting .. pretty much because they can then point to Al Jaz's world class credentials when it comes to the void on bad reporting at home.
I can see a time in the future when they might start strongly bending their international reporting .. but for now at least they play with an even bat on most issues outside their own borders, they've hired a number of top tier global reporters away from prestige journals elsewhere.
I've been observing media across the world for decades .. all media has biases, it actually helps to know what those are.
"are there fox news reporters who are critical of donald trump ?"
"Yes, throughout Donald Trump's presidency and even before, there were reporters and commentators associated with Fox News who, at various times, were critical of him, his actions, or his policies. While Fox News is often seen as leaning conservative and many of its hosts and commentators have been supportive of Trump, it's a diverse network with a range of voices. Some figures who have shown willingness to criticize Trump include:
Chris Wallace: The anchor of "Fox News Sunday," Wallace has frequently asked tough questions of Trump administration officials and has occasionally criticized Trump directly. He's been praised for his moderating of the first 2020 presidential debate, during which he challenged both candidates on their positions.
Shepard Smith: Before his departure from Fox News in 2019, Smith, who anchored "Shepard Smith Reporting," was known for his straightforward news reporting and sometimes offered fact-checks that contradicted claims by Trump or his allies.
Neil Cavuto: The host of "Your World with Neil Cavuto" has been willing to push back against some of Trump's claims, particularly around issues related to the economy and Trump's comments about the Federal Reserve.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: The senior judicial analyst for Fox News often offered legal perspectives that didn't align with the Trump administration's stances. He was notably critical of Trump during the impeachment proceedings.
Bret Baier: As anchor of "Special Report with Bret Baier," Baier aimed for an even-handed approach to news coverage and occasionally highlighted discrepancies between Trump's statements and established facts.
Megyn Kelly: Although she left Fox News in early 2017, during her tenure she had notable confrontations with Trump, especially during the 2016 Republican primary debates.
Juan Williams: A co-host of "The Five," Williams often plays the role of the liberal counterpoint on the show and has frequently criticized Trump.
It's worth noting that while these individuals have criticized Trump on specific issues or actions, they also may have praised him or supported other aspects of his presidency. The extent and nature of their critiques varied."
To me it shows a certain degree of intellectual freedom and non cult like thinking for Fox news.
So you'd need to give the same test to Al-Jazeera to see what kind of diversity of thought they allow. Nothing I've seen makes me think its any good.
Re trusting an LLM’s answers: HN is full of detailed discussion about how they work and how they hallucinate. There is often delight expressed when someone pastes something from chatgpt that is actually factually correct, but this is because we marvel at the statistical chances, not because we believe chatgpt groks the subject!
For fun, ask it about something that you know a lot about. Even when it is making stuff up it is really good at prose.
The main State-sponsored media outlet in my country is considered to be of a pretty high quality. It has some international recognition.
I’d say a fair chunk of those that actually care about media outlet trustworthiness (and aren’t just sharing whatever articles come their way barring a few outlets that are in their person blocklist) are aware of the nuances of AJ’s authority and trustworthiness. The reality is that they have built this reputation by doing heaps and heaps of good reporting, not even in spite of being state-sponsored, but really because of it. There are certain topics that you shouldn’t listen to AJ regarding. Otherwise? They do a good job.
I would argue that they just have more polish to their presentation rather than having more integrity, and the coverage in local language is quite different from the one in English
Because they are different govs, with different agendas, each of them see the propaganda of others as evil, but it's still all very much propaganda.
Remember CNN diffused many bits on how WMD were in Irak to justify the war the UN voted against. The USA went to war anyway, and we learned there were no WMD.
Al Jazeera does the same, but for their side.
It is, nevertheless, quite qualitative content for many topics, and give you another points of on the world events than our own medias outlet.
I am sorry, but they aren't. This is just false equivalence, you can just go read BBC's coverage of UK politics and you will see criticism of their government
All you have to do is just compare bbc coverage on palestine and ukraine.
The BBC is absolutely biased.
Speaking personally, as an ex-journalist I found their English-language coverage generally to be pretty well-balanced and well reported - so that's probably why. And I came to them with a pretty sceptical eye. I've heard that their arabic language stories are rather different - but I don't have a way of checking that for myself.
You realize that all media/press is backed by something, right?
Do you prefer click-baity ridden press looking for ad revenue instead? Or media as a business where they avoid reporting anything controversial that would hurt their business/image/relationships/backers.
Just because it doesn't adopt you worldview doesn't mean its a propaganda outlet.
Certainly there's very negative coverage of Quatar's many faults, but that's not the same as constantly pushing a positive agenda. In other areas the reporting seems sound.
A starter for you https://www.aljazeera.com/search/quatar?sort=date