09-03-2014, 06:05 AM
09-03-2014, 07:14 AM
FYI,
Al-Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Al-Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Monitor Wrote:Some commentators have alleged Al-Monitor follows the agenda of the Iranian and Syrian governments and Hezbollah.[6][7] In 2011 Al-Monitor founder Jamal Daniel bought 20% of As-safir, described by the New York Times as a "pro-Assad Lebanese newspaper". Daniel himself is said to have been a close friend of Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem when the latter was Syria's envoy to the U.S.[8]
09-03-2014, 09:59 AM
From that same wiki:
the International Press Institute awarded Al-Monitor its Free Media Pioneer Award, stating that Al-Monitor's "unrivalled reporting and analysis exemplify the invaluable role that innovative and vigorously independent media can play in times of change and upheaval"
All media is biased in some ways but well rounded people try to sample a variety of sources. I would hope you would try to find pro this and that to see the argument from another point of view.
the International Press Institute awarded Al-Monitor its Free Media Pioneer Award, stating that Al-Monitor's "unrivalled reporting and analysis exemplify the invaluable role that innovative and vigorously independent media can play in times of change and upheaval"
All media is biased in some ways but well rounded people try to sample a variety of sources. I would hope you would try to find pro this and that to see the argument from another point of view.
09-03-2014, 10:26 AM
From what I've read thus far, it's an interesting article. But, I just wanted to vet the website, as it's not exactly the Turkish Times of London. The website aggregates news sources and I think it's just a translation of a Turkish article. Don't forget the mintpressnews.com article posted over a year ago that questioned whether it was Assad who used chemical weapons in Syria. It has a very similar background as al-monitor (backed by the Iranian government), although it's dishonesty was far more glaring, having completely misrepresented the involvement of an AP reporter and thus deceptively tried to gain the same stature as an AP report. And, don't forget that the "publication" is only about four years old, so it doesn't have much of a history to go on.
I don't generally read a lot of articles that come from google searches of "what is Hassan Nasrallah's opinion of ...", but I do try to measure the credibility of a news source (in general, middle eastern news sources fall very low on that scale due to their history, though I expect more of the Turks).
As for diversity of sources, I think I've got that covered. By way of example, I've probably read at least a dozen articles by Steven Sotloff over the years.
I don't generally read a lot of articles that come from google searches of "what is Hassan Nasrallah's opinion of ...", but I do try to measure the credibility of a news source (in general, middle eastern news sources fall very low on that scale due to their history, though I expect more of the Turks).
As for diversity of sources, I think I've got that covered. By way of example, I've probably read at least a dozen articles by Steven Sotloff over the years.
09-03-2014, 10:34 AM
Fair Enough.