Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FindorKotor93 t1_iwiztpq wrote

That last article is pro Qatar, framing it as an issue that has been addressed and including more criticism of those opposed to Qatar than Qatar.
Posting that as evidence AGAINST AJ's bias is straight up Goebellian propaganda.

6

xxtoejamfootballxx t1_iwjaou8 wrote

The last article is not even remotely pro Qatar. It’s reporting on FIFA’s comments and giving context that doesn’t paint Qatar in a great light.

Some quotes:

> In February 2021, the Guardian newspaper reported that 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had died in the country since 2010, when Qatar was awarded the World Cup.

&

> Denmark recently announced its players would wear a “toned down” kit during the World Cup, with Danish manufacturer Hummel saying it “does not wish to be visible” at a tournament that “has cost thousands of lives”.

&

> The Australian national team recently released a video criticising Qatar for its human rights record and calling for the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, which are strictly prohibited in Qatar.

I fail to see how this comes across as pro-Qatar

5

FindorKotor93 t1_iwjc5p4 wrote

Let's start with the title:
"FIFA urges World Cup teams to ‘focus on the football’ in Qatar"
And then we'll move onto the Qatari propaganda it presents without counter:
“The mortality rate among these communities is within the expected range for the size and demographics of the population.”
And then:
"Khaled al-Suwaidi, a senior member of Qatar’s World Cup organising committee, responded to Denmark’s announcement, saying the country has used the World Cup “as a catalyst to drive change” and has reformed its migrant worker laws.

And then: "She later said her remarks had been “misinterpreted“, adding, “It is important to support the country of Qatar in groundbreaking reforms.”"
The whole thing is back breaking apologetics for Qatar with negative quotes you highlighted it then tries to present as unreasonable with every line you just so happened to gloss over.
I'm sure your choice of not citing a single one of the apologetic lines was purely accidental and definitely not motivated by your agenda.

4

xxtoejamfootballxx t1_iwlqrub wrote

Yes…FIFA urges that, not Al Jazeera. That is what they are reporting on.

> And then we'll move onto the Qatari propaganda it presents without counter:

They are quoting the Qatar government on the issue. Common place to have a statement from an accused or relevant party in the article. It’s clearly stated that it’s the Qatari government stating that and not Al jazeera’s view.

The point is that the article is about a comment from fifa. It shows what led to the comment, criticisms of Qatar for a number of reasons, statements from criticized parties, and then contextual comments from the relevant parties. Then it includes clarifying comments from criticizing parties, which would be irresponsible not to include.

That’s called journalism.

2

FindorKotor93 t1_iwmxxr6 wrote

The point of the article is to openly engage in apologetics for Qatar. You knew that when you strategically chose your quotes and wilfully failed to see anything pro Qatar in that. Every single negative quote is framed with an excuse afterwards. The article is entirely written to present Qatari excuses to address criticisms. Each section ends pro Qatari.

1

xxtoejamfootballxx t1_iwnxk2i wrote

I strategically chose quotes? Lol I chose quotes that they wouldn’t have included in an article if it was meant to “pro Qatar”. I don’t have a strategy or a goal here, I’m simply engaging in the discussion and stating my beliefs.

There are pro-Qatar quotes in the article…from other people, like fifa, not from Al Jazeera themselves.

It’s called journalism. They are reporting on a relevant current event, presenting facts and quotes from both sides, including follow up quotes that clarified earlier quotes. What would you rather them put in the article about FIFAs comments?

I never said “Al Jazeera is anti-Qatar”. I said that they are reporting on the issue we’re talking about and that this article isn’t “pro-Qatar”. That is true regardless of how personally anti-Qatar anyone is.

2