5 ms·

Al Jazeera is an exceptionally disreputable source for coverage on this particular issue. It's not just their primary source of funding -- the Qatari state -- b

Al Jazeera is an exceptionally disreputable source for coverage on this particular issue. It's not just their primary source of funding -- the Qatari state -- but also their abhorrent track record of running stories with no factual basis (such as in the wake of the Al-Ahli incident). I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. But you have to take a lot of primary-source-based reporting on faith, and why would I trust a source that has such a non-neutral track record? We'd all be better served by sticking to sources that don't have obvious conflicts of interest. Edit: I want to be clear that I don't have any specific evidence that the article contains falsehoods, and I'm not excusing any of the conduct alleged in the article. I just think Al Jazeera is a terrible way to start a constructive discussion, given its reputation.

epgui 3y ago
> I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. Then your comment is a genetic fallacy. You're highlighting a potential motive or potential for bias, but without anything substantive to say.
- aluminum96 3y ago
  I absolutely said something substantive. But I'll make it even more explicit: Al Jazeera has an untrustworthy track record, and their unverifiable primary-source reporting should not be assumed impartial. This is only the "genetic fallacy" if you assume that the trustworthiness of Al Jazeera articles is uncorrelated. My entire argument is that this publication is systematically not impartial, and wants to convince you of a particular (Pro-Palestinian) position.
dang 3y ago
On HN, we've always gone by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Having a HN thread about an article does not imply endorsement of everything, or even anything, on the site. In my experience, it's a mistake to make reliability judgements about major sources (such as news organizations) at site scope. To pick an unrelated example, we often get criticisms when HN has a thread about a Daily Mail link, but occasionally a good (for HN) article does appear there; and of course many bad (for HN) articles appear there too. If you don't like that example, substitute any other major source—they all have a mixture of good and bad articles, good and bad information. It's therefore important to make finer-grained distinctions about these things—e.g. article scope rather than site scope. This is one of those cases where it's super helpful to have a single principle that one is optimizing for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... – the moderation strategy I just outlined is derived from it.
- aluminum96 3y ago
  Wow, thanks for responding dang! It's like a fleeting encounter with a celebrity. I see the HN policy, and understand it generally. But I am vocally lodging my objection in this particular case. To put a finer point on it: I don't think I'm the only person in my community who has an extremely negative opinion of Al Jazeera, and its historical lack of neutrality on this issue. Having a balanced and nuanced discussion underneath an article from Al Jazeera is, in my sincere opinion, impossible. So why choose this source, when many more reputable sources have covered the suffering in Gaza?
  - dang 3y ago
    Thanks for the kind reply! (but please don't prize my comments that highly, they don't merit it) Re your point: I hear you, but given the nature of this particular article, I assume there isn't a more primary source with this material, which mostly consists of quotations. No one has mentioned any evidence (so far as I know) that the quotes are falsified. (And yes, this is different from whether the things the quotes are saying are true, whether they've been selectively edited, and other things.) I know it's easy for me to post things like my GP comment without understanding the impact that it can have on readers. I've been trained through thousands of iterations (if not tens of thousands by now) to think this way, when in fact it's not obvious and is even counterintuitive to most people. When the underlying topic is as painful as this one, that's a problem.
    - aluminum96 3y ago
      Just to be clear -- I'm not alleging that the quotes in the article are falsified or manipulated, as I have no evidence of that either. I think my most salient argument is that this selection of article is not conducive to a constructive discussion, because some (many?) Jews have a reflexive distrust of Al Jazeera. Don't take that to minimize the substance of the article.
      - dang 3y ago
        (Yes, that was clear, and sorry if I gave the impression otherwise)
random_upvoter 3y ago
Do you think the current report at all incredible given Israel abysmal track record concerning human rights versus the Palestinian people?

epgui 3y ago

> I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. Then your comment is a genetic fallacy. You're highlighting a potential motive or potential for bias, but without anything substantive to say.

aluminum96 3y ago
I absolutely said something substantive. But I'll make it even more explicit: Al Jazeera has an untrustworthy track record, and their unverifiable primary-source reporting should not be assumed impartial. This is only the "genetic fallacy" if you assume that the trustworthiness of Al Jazeera articles is uncorrelated. My entire argument is that this publication is systematically not impartial, and wants to convince you of a particular (Pro-Palestinian) position.

dang 3y ago

On HN, we've always gone by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Having a HN thread about an article does not imply endorsement of everything, or even anything, on the site. In my experience, it's a mistake to make reliability judgements about major sources (such as news organizations) at site scope. To pick an unrelated example, we often get criticisms when HN has a thread about a Daily Mail link, but occasionally a good (for HN) article does appear there; and of course many bad (for HN) articles appear there too. If you don't like that example, substitute any other major source—they all have a mixture of good and bad articles, good and bad information. It's therefore important to make finer-grained distinctions about these things—e.g. article scope rather than site scope. This is one of those cases where it's super helpful to have a single principle that one is optimizing for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... – the moderation strategy I just outlined is derived from it.

aluminum96 3y ago
Wow, thanks for responding dang! It's like a fleeting encounter with a celebrity. I see the HN policy, and understand it generally. But I am vocally lodging my objection in this particular case. To put a finer point on it: I don't think I'm the only person in my community who has an extremely negative opinion of Al Jazeera, and its historical lack of neutrality on this issue. Having a balanced and nuanced discussion underneath an article from Al Jazeera is, in my sincere opinion, impossible. So why choose this source, when many more reputable sources have covered the suffering in Gaza?
- dang 3y ago
  Thanks for the kind reply! (but please don't prize my comments that highly, they don't merit it) Re your point: I hear you, but given the nature of this particular article, I assume there isn't a more primary source with this material, which mostly consists of quotations. No one has mentioned any evidence (so far as I know) that the quotes are falsified. (And yes, this is different from whether the things the quotes are saying are true, whether they've been selectively edited, and other things.) I know it's easy for me to post things like my GP comment without understanding the impact that it can have on readers. I've been trained through thousands of iterations (if not tens of thousands by now) to think this way, when in fact it's not obvious and is even counterintuitive to most people. When the underlying topic is as painful as this one, that's a problem.
  - aluminum96 3y ago
    Just to be clear -- I'm not alleging that the quotes in the article are falsified or manipulated, as I have no evidence of that either. I think my most salient argument is that this selection of article is not conducive to a constructive discussion, because some (many?) Jews have a reflexive distrust of Al Jazeera. Don't take that to minimize the substance of the article.
    - dang 3y ago
      (Yes, that was clear, and sorry if I gave the impression otherwise)

random_upvoter 3y ago

Do you think the current report at all incredible given Israel abysmal track record concerning human rights versus the Palestinian people?