[weatherlite]

> They are just very concerned when talking about Qatar,

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.

[smcl]

I mean FOX News and Newsmax are "as independent as possible" in that regard but they're both utter trash, so it's obviously more nuanced than that. Discarding Al Jazeera entirely because they can't/won't go hard on Qatari matters (which you can read anywhere else if you really care) is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me.

[actuator]

I think the problem is not that they won't criticise them, it shows that they lack editorial freedom, which means any coverage even if global matters coming from them should be looked at with suspicion, like what would be Qatar monarchy's view on this global issue

[defrost]

In another sense it helps that you can tell exactly where they're coming from on most issues.

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.

[smcl]

It is naive to think any news outlet shouldn't be regarded with any amount of suspicion. Bias exists everywhere, if you select a news source and blindly trust it you're going to be misled some day.

[weatherlite]

Could be that they're trash, don't follow them much. That still doesn't make Al-Jazeera not trash.

[smcl]

Nope, but it does show that you can be completely free of any government involvement and still suck. From what I've seen AJ has had some pretty decent reporting overall and if we're looking at it in terms of propaganda those supposedly "free" ones are positively dripping with it and make AJ look saintly by comparison.

[wood_spirit]

How is this different from Fox never criticising Murdoch? Newspaper magnets - in the AJ case it’s the royal family - have agendas that their media is expected to tow or be fired?

[weatherlite]

I would say one has to see how pervasive the interference from the owners is. It could be that Fox is just as bad, I don't follow it much. I asked ChatGPT:

"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.

[smcl]

I'm sorry but if you're having to ask ChatGPT for whether FOX is biased and are satisfied with an answer like As anchor of "Special Report with Bret Baier," Baier aimed for an even-handed approach as an argument then you really need to actually try it out or step back and say "I don't know anything about this topic"

[weatherlite]

I don't know enough about the topic, fully admit it. What's wrong with asking ChatGPT. Do you have a good way of getting an unbiased answer for what I asked?

[wood_spirit]

Re fox: Fox is so pro-trump that they are in court for claiming election fraud and all their internal messages are now public and you can read them discussing how they must support trump even over them not believing his claims.

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.