So Israel and its ally Egypt have issues with it. As you can see, it's biased accusations.
IDF have killed more women and children than Hamas and aren't currently using collective punishment in Gaza against civilians and in the West Bank (bulldozing houses, not Hamas).
So, in a media website owned by a group with links to the GOP, which pushes to be more conservative (bias, likely to pro Christian, pro Israel and Zionism), they interviewed a Israeli (who has a beef with Hamas) attempting to sue (but not successful yet, so she just feels it until a judge agrees), supported by an Israeli NGO (bias who's goals is to legally challenge entities in support of Israeli policies).
Due to this fact they interviewed Hamas. Does that mean anyone who interview Bibi, whose forces killed countless women and children (terrorism), are a terrorist funding org? As you can see, it's all subjective and what you think is bias only applies for things you disagree with...
I can tell from this, you either haven't watched All Jazeera or you're so biased against it, that you hate it and won't consider it in a balanced manner. Somewhat ironic, I'd say.
Fox News is made up tripe. Alternative facts with little regard for truth. AJ is well thought out and researched content. Yes, it has its biases, but most news does.
I included both RT and BBC. The latter is very credible, the first is not. The point was about bias, not credibility.
Bias is a fact. There is no unbiased news sites. They are there to get clicks SBD engagement. They all look for an angle and have editorial influence on the slant of articles, titles etc. Every word is written with intention and academic works is the opposite of news content. Boring, and unengaging, but higher quality and generally less biased.
I will say, if you are confident in your knowledge and opinions. Watch conflicting information, and challenge your views. If you are less secure in your knowledge, it's probably better sticking with the stuff that reinforces your conformational bias.
That's a long way of saying it may have biases in favour of Qatar, like Voice of America etc for USA, BBC for the British, RT for Russia.
All media is biased and its important to know their biases. It doesn't stop some of their content being very good on Palestine, Africa etc. It's informative and highlights stuff ignored by the West and their interests. The fact Saudi and Egypt oppose it as Western Allies who work with Israel is unsurprising. Hacking up people in embassies doesn't make you the voice of impartiality.
Never consume only one source and be aware that consuming only Western media is choosing to digest Western Propaganda.
For reference, I'm from the UK and my media is pro Israel and it covers up terrorist activities of the IDF. Activities supported by my government who sell them arms. I'm happy for mine and Western, pro-Western governments to be held to account. Shitty activities happen on both sides and there is no good and bad guys. Just various levels of crimes against human beings.
For the record, Israel has killed more women and children in the aims of their domestic interests. The people you consider good folk aren't. Likewise the groups fighting Israel do nasty things also and we should hold them to account.
They do say it is the lowest form of wit.
Not everyone speaks English as a first language here. What is obvious to you, isn't obvious to everyone.
Playing devils advocate. Lemmy isn't reddit and the only reason people used old reddit was because new reddit was unusable to them.
As with new context and new front ends that Lemmy has, no one with the technical skills seems to care about this enough and blaming Lemmy Devs for not tiptoeing around unmaintained software so development grinds to a halt isn't fair. It's like saying "they don't want to support it, and I don't, but you shouldn't spend your free time doing so".
I thought the point of the right to bear arms was about freedom. If you need consent from a sheriff and it's based on their feelings, it's giving them freedom to take rights away.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a US citizen and guns are banned here, but the main reason for it seems to be playing out, and taking those freedoms away could be massively dangerous. More so than the threat of gun violence right now. How could any opposition defend themselves being shipped off to El Salvador en masse if a secretary of state things you contradict foreign policy goals?
Looks like legally, officials have free reign to decide who is and isn't in line with "foreign policy goals".
I naively thought US legal system would have checks and due diligence. How wrong I was.
Oh how convenient. Without that knowledge they cannot fact check marketing claims from SpaceX. If they need something done, they can write SpaceX a blank check. Now that is Efficiency...
I wouldn't say game. Games are fun. Tech demo or simulation maybe.
He doesn't own shares?