https://orinocotribune.com/inconsistencies-between-arabic-and-english-programming-al-jazeera-walks-a-tightrope/

This Orinoco Tribune article posted by Al_Sham (well-highlighted) in the news mega got me thinking about how I need to write down my impressions the way seemingly radical journalism can subvert and demoralize, I'm sure this is better put by other people.

To lay out a few general traits that I will back up with examples (starting with ones less likely to piss people off then moving up)

equivocating US/NATO/Canada/Aus/SK/Japan/Zionist tactics/political aims with enemy

defeatism, under the guise of outrage. US/etc. side is merely accused of disproportionate response. the sustainability of our tactics isn't questioned, but the morality of it is. it is frequently remarked it could be spent on healthcare instead. (this enforces more myths about government spending than it dispels, which you can see by how it gets equal play with libertarians)

strictly using US/NATO/etc. sources, even if critical. uses the logic of anti-disinformation against what you'd consider

amplifies existing messaging possibly without attribution

dilutes & prunes messaging to get more coverage within the Western media sphere & its outputs

sensationalism focuses attention on redundant events & doesn't examine the larger program an atrocity is a part of (My Lai for instance, Doug Valentine calls this out in the book he wrote after the Phoenix Program, mentioning Hersh, Scahill, Ellsberg, Amy Goodman, and others, if you want to go look at examples, although those are also examples of how to maintain access to intelligence sources tit for tat)

Sorry for yapping I'm walking around