They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
You’ve seriously never came across those “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display” headlines? Read more newspapers then I’d say. It’s standard practice at least in British and British-influenced journalism, that’s not up to debate it’s a fact.
Straight up IDF propaganda, eh. Seriously read that article and claim that again I’ll know if you didn’t.
They’re highly neutral in their factual reporting, textbook journalism, to the point where you don’t even get a whiff of political bias if you don’t look at opinion pieces.
Posting verbatim propaganda and encapsulating everything in quote marks does not make it non-propaganda. Especially if you’re only quoting IDF soldiers and apartheids apologists.
From their front page:
IDF investigating ‘cruel’ Hamas claim that Bibas children, mother killed in Gaza
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-investigating-cruel-hamas-claim-that-bibas-children-mother-killed-in-gaza/
The word “cruel” has no place in that title other than to try to influence the readers emotion. Furthermore the article then goes on quoting some insane IDF rant how all people killed by bombs in Gaza are actually Khhhamass fault
They also try to use the word “terror” and “terrorist” like five times every sentence…
The only israeli newspaper with some dignity seems to be Haaretz and Netanyahu is currently very angry at them for it.
They put “cruel” in quotation marks because it’s IDF’s framing, distancing themselves from it. What you’re looking at is them 110% reporting what the IDF said without injecting themselves into it. It’s what neutral reporting looks like. You read that article when you want to know what the IDF said – which is, TBH, your morbid curiosity and not my fault. Read something else.
Speaking of: Go back and actually read the article that I linked, as you didn’t, or you wouldn’t have written what you wrote. Notice something? The exact same kind of neutrality: Reporting on what can be seen on videos that have appeared on the net. Words that they used in that neutral analysis, without quotation marks, include “brutal” and “abuse”. With the IDF as perpetrators. Because those are indeed objectively correct terms, thus neutral, describing those videos.
If you think that journalism is only valid if it takes sides when reporting facts then you are, I’m afraid, quite lost indeed. Neutrality is invaluable precisely because they can let the crimes of the IDF stand there, uncommented, and it stings. The absence of narrativation is a power in itself, and they’re always quite good when it comes to including relevant context. But yes Haaretz is the other Israeli newspaper with dignity.
There are few articles that are not favorable to the IDF in there but they are few and far between. You could then also say that Aljazeera is fully factual and unbiased since they also publish negative stories about Hamas or Qatar sometimes. And I’m not even going to take the stance that Aljazeera is unbiased.
The word “cruel” in that title is not a quote. It is a word they injected there themselves.
Journalism is impartial when it doesn’t try to inject unnecessary fluff wording and presents the facts as they are. Words like “evil” or “cruel” should very rarely be used, especially in this case when somehow an announcement is cruel??
Putting every article (and even titles) full of propaganda quotes that add nothing to the factuality is not unbiased nor is it even factual as most of the IDF quotes are straight up disinformation. Nor are the attributions done to a person. A lot of the time it’s "IDF spokesperson said " at which point there’s not even a name attached to the quote.
Then why is it in quotation marks? How come it occurs in the IDF’s description of Hamas’ claim? Just coincidence? How come they put it in quotation marks, unlike “brutal” or “abuse” in the IDF one? That’s how quotes work in English journalism, at other times people are complaining when e.g. the Guardian titles, say “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display”, using quotes around beautiful because they interviewed someone and ‘beautiful’ is the term they used, while “crowd impressed” is the Guardian’s own judgement of the situation.
Statements by IDF spokespersons are not statements of the person but of the IDF.
Seriously, you should brush up on your media competency. But for completeness’ sake: Aljazeera English by and large isn’t half-bad in most cases, just make sure to not consider them neutral as soon as it concerns anything the Qatari government has a strong opinion about. Also they aren’t always properly thorough e.g. Hamas never claimed 500 dead at Al-Shifa.
Half a quote is not a quote. A single word from a quote is not a quote. Either you quote a whole sentence or you don’t. Learn what quoting is.
You’ve seriously never came across those “Crowd impressed by ‘beautiful’ flower display” headlines? Read more newspapers then I’d say. It’s standard practice at least in British and British-influenced journalism, that’s not up to debate it’s a fact.