• Deceptichum@quokk.auOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Please not MBFC is biased garbage.

    MBFC’s biggest criticism of Al Jazeera?

    Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

    MBFC only approves IDF mouthpieces.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Opinion section of a newspaper should not be accounted in how “Factual” the reporting of a news agency is. I’m not sure why that would even be relevant…

        • Timii@biglemmowski.win
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          The opinion section reveals the bias of the author and if that author writes news articles, guess what, that bias transfers. Ones biases do not simply vanish on a whim.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.auOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because I have a brain and understand being critical of Israel is not a detriment to a newspaper.

        • Timii@biglemmowski.win
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          As a perfect example, your obvious bias strongly influences readers evaluation of your opinion. Guess what mine is.

              • zazo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Ok let’s be pedantic then

                The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.

                Israel isn’t convicted of committing genocide, yet as there’s only “a plausible risk of genocide” - and I’m sure the “defense” minister calling for the starvation of all people in Gaza and referring to them as “human animals” will do wonders for Israel’s case…

                The current ruling is that “Israel must take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza” - which is an interesting statement to make if the ICJ thought no genocidal acts were happening.

                But hey innocent until proven guilty right - I just hope if it does get proven you’ll be the first one to start shouting how Israel is committing genocide - the same way you’re currently doing the opposite - as that would show your true lack of bias…

          • SoJB@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Witness how, yet again, these types play their cute little games dancing around the question, never addressing the core issue that they themselves spout as some kind of grand “gotcha”.

            Israel is committing state sponsored genocide on the Palestinian people.

            We will remember you as the collaborator you are.