Where can I NEUTRALLY keep up to date about the Palestina/Israel situation?
Looking at the two big news publishers in my country. One isn't reporting about the current bombings at all, while the other one is phrasing their words mostly anti-Palestinian.
Is there some neutral coverage I can keep up to? Where do you guys get your info from?
Honestly don’t think you can find any neutral news about it. I recommend use multiple news places to get the overall view (that’s what I do).
I feel like every news-publisher is leaning to one or the other.
https://ground.news/interest/israeli-palestinian-conflict
This site collects news from multiple sources, tells you their political affiliation, shows the difference in summary based on left / center / right news sources, and optionally shows a lot more like ownership network etc if you pay for it.
Nothing will be neutral, but I like it to get an overview.
Stick with reputable news sites. Reuters is my gold standard. Along with AP News. They tend to be some of the least bias sources out there and do their due diligence when it comes to reporting.
It's worth noting that a lot of the news coverage may come across as pro-isreal and anti-palestinian but that's because a lot of the news is "Isreal claims this" and "An IDF statement that" the sources themselves are biased.
Also keep in mind that this is an active war. There will be a lot of wrong information as media reports the best information available, it's not the media having a bias, it's just the fog of war as things rapidly develop.
but that’s because a lot of the news is “Isreal claims this” and “An IDF statement that” the sources themselves are biased
It's also important to keep in mind that when you read "Gaza health ministry claims", in reality it's the same as "Hamas' health ministry claims" since Hamas has been ruling that area since 2006 and tortured the Palestinian opposition ever since (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ ). Same thing with claims by Al Jazeera since Qatar hosts Hamas' leadership and funds their lavish lifestyles there so it wouldn't be right for them to suggest in their own newspaper that they're hosting terrorists, thus their news will rarely be critical of Hamas.
What's the solution? There are a few choices you could make. You could cherrypick pro-Palestinian sources like Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye or Electronic Intifada and automatically dismiss whatever Israel says as disinformation and it could make you feel good about yourself as it's very easy to oversimplify the conflict as just one big high-tech state abusing poor people fighting back with stones. You could also do the same cherrypicking for a pro-Israel position. Or you could dismiss any pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel source and only listen to news sources that provide a "balanced" account of the events (Associated Press is indeed very good). Or, much better but will require more thinking on your part: you read all of them and you dismiss none of them.
Ugh. That link is horrible. I mean the descriptions behind it.
It looks like non-Hamas Palestinians have two enemies working against them.
Makes me wonder what exactly a Pro-Palestinian position is.
After Amnesty's report on Ukraine when russia invaded it, many people no longer consider it a credible source.
I'm aware of that, and some of the current claims are probably subject to change in the future. I just browsed through reuters, and they seem unbiased. While my local news refers to hamas as "radical islamic terror organisation Hamas", reuters just uses "hamas".
Good journalists will never make their own opinion on the matter known outside the comment/opinion/analysis pages.
Not: Man eats a delicious red apple
Not: Man eats a red apple and says it's delicious.
But: Man says he ate a red apple and claims it is delicious.
Or in some cases: Footage appears to show many saying he ate a red apple and claiming it was delicious.
If the journalist didn't see it with their own eyes, they won't state that it's a fact.
It's annoying how intertwined opinion and journalism have become, but it isn't a journalist's job to do anything more than report on what they saw, read or heard.
Unfortunately journalism has been in decline for so long now, that many people don't know the difference between good and poor journalism. So when a good journalist simply reports on what someone said, they wrongly think the journalist is agreeing with them, instead of simply reporting on what they heard the person say.
Good journalism isn't someone shouting about how angry something makes them, even if you agree with them. Good journalism is the equivalent of a court stenographer or someone who subtitles movies for the deaf.
Right. It's all about media literacy. Once you start picking up on loaded language like "Radical Islamic terror organisation Hamas" it starts becoming pretty evident what the biases are. That's not to say the news they are reporting is false, just that it is going to take some extra work on your part to filter out all of the bullshit. Like you mentioned, the Common name of the government of Gaza is "Hamas" calling it anything else is an attempt to appeal to emotion to prime you to think about it a certain way. Like calling the Israeli government "zionists" it's ment to sway to to something, not give you news.
radical islamic terror organisation Hamas
This is an accurate, unbiased description of Hamas. They are exactly that, the same way ISIL/ISIS is.
Part of critical reading is collecting more sources, not less. You'll have to read differing opinions and make up your own mind
That's the neat part - you don't.
The idea that there could be a truly neutral source is not really realistic, human minds do not work that way and there are many other reasons why it's even harder than that.
As long as you stay away from the blatant extremes, partisans, people with some other stake in the game, etc., all you can do is evaluate relative bias, and try to adjust for it. It is inevitable that your take isn't going to be unbiased, either, but this way you'll have had a decent shot at minimizing wrongness.
Nowhere. There is no such a thing as a neutral report. You need to be able to think for yourself and identify possible biases in an author
There is nowhere you can get unbiased news. You have to analyze the bias and think critically about it if you want to really understand what's happening.
https://ground.news/interest/israeli-palestinian-conflict
This site collects news from multiple sources, tells you their political affiliation, shows the difference in summary based on left / center / right news sources, and optionally shows a lot more like ownership network etc if you pay for it.
Been using it for a few days now. Not a fan of the UI but seems quite reliable
Just read both Al Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post and take the average.
Permanently Deleted
BBC is often well regarded but not for this issue, they definitely have a pro Isreal spin to their coverage.
And yet they find themselves being accused of "blood libel" by the government of Israel.
I'm with OP, I don't know where to find facts that I can be assured are being related without (conscious) bias.
I just wish people of either side and outside could stop being shitty to each other for five goddam minutes.
Modern conflict in Asia/Middle East, (...) is largely upheld by western activity
That's a funny way to spell Iran
AP News is 'supposed' to give unbiased news....they're ok given how highly topical it is.
The most neutral coverage I've seen was from The Intercept.
It has a fairly anti-establishment bias, but that includes both Hamas, the PA, and the IDF.
They basically give a crap about civilians, but not about any of the institutional interests causing them to suffer, and spread that evenly across the various players.
I think BBC is pretty neutral, considering each side is accusing them of being biased towards the other.
BBC historically have shown bias based on what they do and don't report on, however what they do report on is generally a gold standard for neutrality
The BBC literally had to apologise a week ago for parroting Hamas propaganda about the missile hitting the hospital.
They then had the audacity to lecture people on how to avoid "misinformation".
I haven't found any, let me know if you do!
I just try to find all the information I can from all sources of all types, and then stress about my complete inability to be sure what is even true, considering how much of it is contradictory. The only thing I'm certain I learned is that neither side of this wants to tell the truth all the time, and new news will often change over the course of a week or so as people get caught in lies.
Bad guys vs villains is never neutral. The winner writes the history and call themselves the justice. That’s how conflict works
Reuters and AP are about the most neutral, reputable news sources youll find.
So far nowhere. You have to read multiple takes and glean the truth within.
There is no middle ground between their two conflicting narratives, so neutrality would be impossible unless you found a source that was criticizing every last individual who happened to be in the conflict. The closest you'd get is maybe a Bahai source, and I only say that as a tragically creative solution because Bahais don't believe in discussing politics while being forced to talk about this because their leadership has been caught in the crossfire of the attacks, having shared a promised land with the Jews and being headquartered there.
I'll continue to recommend an app called Improve the News. It'll let you filter things, but more importantly, shows you the source of articles, and explains different angles at the end of articles. Really well done.
https://www.allsides.com/ does this too. It’s not perfect, but it does a decent job at showing multiple articles about the same current event and tagging them based on how left or right leaning the article is and then describing the difference in coverage from each side
I love the way they show you each headline and give you an idea of how bias they are. I’ll definitely be using this going forward. Thank you!
Just downloaded it today. Looks great. I especially like the option to filter out "who kissed who" and "someone tweeted a thing" fluff pieces.
Is it a paid app?
Nope! Free.
If you find a reliable source, let us know
Read a few sources from both sides. It definitely isn't a one sided situation.
Just remember as you read news, these are inherently biased sources. Basically all of them are. Look at who they are citing to understand how bias might affect the information being relayed to you. For example, if Hamas or Gaza Authorities are saying something, it is probably coming from a pro Hamas perspective, if IDF or Israeli authorities are saying something, probably comes with some bias too. This is true of all news, all the time. The spin is real. Anyone claiming a lack of spin are probably the biggest spinners of bullshit. It sucks that to be well informed you have to be able to be literate not only in the language but also how to read journalism itself. But that's the reality.
All I can suggest is to read many sources. Keep a mental tally sheet. See which sources correct themselves when they are proven wrong. Note how often they present provably false information. Try to look up the original source material (some will misquote or distort to advance their agenda). Look for widespread corroboration from other sources. After a while you'll know how each spins their information, how well they vet their material, and their overall journalistic integrity. That will allow you to rank credibility.
Misinformation often has only one source, and that source will usually have a history of misinformation or extreme bias.
Highly recommend using mediabiascheck.
But if you're looking for neutrality, social media ain't the place to be, especially not lemmy.
I think CBC has had very fair reporting on the subject.
Good question. It’s unfortunately difficult because it requires some knowledge of history and since there’s a cycle of back and forth violence (which most media only reports the latest episode and not what prompted it), it’s hard to follow the big picture.
NPR/PBS is generally the way to go. Some bias can creep in, but they do their best.
I found Israeli news (in english, still) to offer a much less propagandistic view of the situation than American news.
This sort of depends on what you're looking for.
Do you just want a listing of facts with no analysis? Probably Reuters or Associated Press (AP).
Do you want facts and context and minor analysis (like historical comparisons, etc.)? That's gonna be BBC and NPR/PBS. Maybe The Economist.
If you want deeper analysis or opinion... That's gonna be tricky. Probably Al Jazeera, The Guardian (maybe), ... I dunno if it's possible to find one balanced need source that will have in depth analysis or opinion. Probably best to pick two that are about the same distance from "neutral" in either direction.
I do like Al Jazeera for an alternate perspective from the Western media taking points, but I wouldn't necessarily call them unbiased particularly when it comes to this conflict.
That being said, I highly recommend their documentary series Al Nakba which is a documentary series about the founding of Israel from the Palestinian perspective.
This is a topic that has centuries of history, dating back well before the existence of either Israel or Palestine as countries. You won't find a single source that can actually get into the thousands of nuances involved. Don't think there are only two sides, either. Read from everywhere, make up your own mind, but honestly you'll never fully understand it.
I doubt you're going to find truly neutral. We'll not know who is lying to us on any particular article.
For particular Gaza, Palestine news, you can read Al Jazeera. The Washington Post has good coverage of all the news.
No single source is going to be objective. You have to read a multiple sources and then balance what's written, and what's not written, kind of reading between the lines to infer your own conclusions. Not to mention the added chaos of an active war zone getting accurate data is always difficult
I am curious about ground news, how they're handling this situation.
From personal experience: the economist, the BBC, the guardian, Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera - are reasonable news sources to use to inform your overall opinion, don't rely on a single one though.
Probably nowhere, to be honest.
Today's Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back thousands of years and combines politics, religion, race, war, and territory all in one.
If you really want to understand this from a non- biased point of view, your best bet is probably wikipedia, where different people with different viewpoints can debate the facts and non-biased writing is somewhat enforced.
The truth is that it's a very complex conflict with innocent people and some very shitty people, on both sides.
Not a great idea to try. It's theoretically possible but fraught with peril. Instead, it's much more feasible to pick two news sources, one pro-whatever and one against, and check both.
There's aggregators like (our sponsor,) ground news (!) that let you sort by stance and affiliation, that can make it more convenient.
If you must go with a shortcut, pick a country that is interested in the conflict, but not particularly on one side or the other, and read how its being reported there. India for instance, has been fairly neutral on this conflict, to the dismay of both sides, as they have economic ties to both Israel and the Arab world. They're being critical of more or less everyone, and especially the British. lol Still not unbiased though, y'know?
So, it's better to just check both sides regularly.
Just read the news from both sides and ask yourself what's the most logical explanation when you combine those two sources.
It's the closest you'll get to an objective truth as there is one in a conflict older that any other conflict I am currently aware of.
I've found ground.news' layout quite useful in sutuations like this.
Seems like a neat website
Nowhere.
Neutrality isn't a thing. Everything written about something as contentious as this is propaganda.
For attempts to be neutral, try Western mainstream media or Wikipedia (which mostly just summarizes Western mainstream media anyway).
For one sided propaganda for Israel, try https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/
For one sided propaganda for Palestine, try https://mondoweiss.net/
Read all those and choose for yourself what parts of which sides you want to believe. Or don't. You can also live in peace and happiness knowing that the conflict exists without thinking about it too much because in the end it doesn't really matter what you think about it anyway.
noncredibledefense lol
I've been a cord cutter for a long time and I enjoyed watching world news on Al Jazeera for a long time. While I definitely enjoyed their content as an alternative to the celebrity fluff filled US cable news, it's definitely biased against Israel when it comes to this conflict. However, I would still recommend everyone watch Al Nakba which is streaming for free with no ads on their website. It's a four episode documentary series about the founding of Israel with primary accounts of what happened in the ground there from Arabs, Israelis, and British officers.
It's probably very biased and one-sided, but the rest of the media is very biased and one-sided in the other direction.
For example, Wikipedia says that the 1948 war was started by the Arabs once Israel declared a state. In Al Nakba, they challenge that narrative with first-hand accounts from Arabs and British officers who say that it was the Israelis who started the war through ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages, in some cases before the British even left.
TIL 1948 was hundreds, arguably thousands of years ago.
This seemingly simple comment already tells me you are pro-palestinian. Also, for someone that is interested enough in this matter to take part in this discussion, you show impressive ignorance.
So just to to troll you a bit, let me answer this way: Thinking that this crisis started when seven Arab armies attacked Israel with the proclaimed goal of "sweeping the Jews into the sea and pillaging the millions they invested in the country" is extremely short sighted.
So glad someone beat me to this comment.
"It's just a centuries old intractible conflict", says imperialist culture which drew the borders on purpose to destabilize the region.
There's definitely places to get unbiased news, but each side is likely to hide information.
In general, there are a couple good resources that show bias in different news sources, you can check those out.
At Telegram channels. Subscribe to the top channels for both and then use your own discretion. Note: You need to use translate tool in Telegram as they use local languages.
If you need some hints for the name of the channels (the ones I sub to):
Need to be careful. There are some fake channels having similar names to those. So you need to double check the number of subscriptions.
This war in the middle east has been going on as long as I've been around, for 64 years and beyond that. It's not ever going to stop. The only solution to any of this is the most easy and yet frightening one -total annihilation of every human on earth. Yet that's what MUST happen if the earth is ever going to be a place of peace.
Yes, because there are no deadly territorial disputes in the animal kingdom.
Yet somehow those "other" animal disputes don't end up destroying the climate or beheading kids in Palestine or Israel or threatening nuclear annihilation of the planet. Compared to what us human animals do to each other -- that looks very peaceful indeed.
r/joerogan
You can't, it isn't a neutral situation
The funny thing is how people on both sides could read your comment and agree with it, but for opposite reasons.
How is it funny? This is true of every war that has ever happened. There is no such thing as unbiased reporting of real time events. Its just the truth.
I think it is fair to say that every political entity involved has regularly walked away from peace talks. That every political power involved is regularly choosing violence over peace.
Short of glassing the whole region, the violence is only going to continue.