World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Nothing says, "we've done nothing wrong," quite like banning journalists who disagree with you.
They're the propaganda arm of Doha, the same government that protects Hamas leadership. They've repeatedly printed Hamas lies without fact checking. Why would Israel not ban their propaganda outlet? Calling them journalists when they don't adhere to basic journalistic standards is ludicrous. This isn't new either. They've been acting this way forever. Lying about the hospital bombing was just the last straw.
Lies like the 40 beheaded babies that the entire western media spread?
Israel literally kills journalists.
If whatabautism about the other side propaganda is your best response to defend their journalistic integrity I don’t think you have an argument
Israel didn't just ban Al Jazeera, they also killed their reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh.
Have you condemned them for killing her?
Israel is out there killing reporters (which is a war crime), and you guys here are talking about biased media?
Since you do condemn Israel for their war crimes, why isn't Israel prosecuted for them?
since you double down on not having any way to defend their integrity and derail by asking if i condemned I'll do the same.
Have you apologized for condemning israel for the "hospital bombing"?
No, because Israel did it.
Thanks for showing your true colors. Blocked.
Lmao. Go live in your echo chamber.
"Lies" in this case means "reported on claims made by actual Israeli soldiers without sufficient cross-checking, but explicitly walked back pretty much immediately", plus there are non-Israeli sources (at least one french journalist-editor and czech ambassador) who specifically say that they were shown the actual photos of beheaded babies and cross-checked them (the number 40 seems to be bullshit, but iirc most media did not report that and these people did not claim that either).
Next to that is Al Jazeera whose purpose for existing is to spread Qatari world of view by reporting relatively objectively on most things to gain trust and spreading pure propaganda on issues like most things related to Israel.
It really isn't all that similar.
So random rumors spread by soldiers should be treated as truth (because its pro-team Israel ) but reporting on what the ministry of health of gaza, officials in israel, and random israel soldiers all confirm is spreading baseless lies (because it is anti-team Israel)?
No denying AJ doesn't spread propaganda. But if Israel wants to stop propganda, maybe they should start by getting rid of their officials and soldiers, who are spreading the rumors in the first place?
I thought that my quote on what happened in that case pretty clearly implied that it was a screw-up. Nevertheless, it was a relatively short-lived screw up which, unlike the claims of 500 killed by a supposed Israeli strike on a hospital, didn't seem to do any damage apart from slightly lessening the trustworthiness of media or Israel for some people.
If you're talking about the hospital strike, I haven't seen anyone but the ministry of health of Gaza say what they said, and the ministry of health of Gaza is de facto Hamas. I do see Hamas, a terrorist organization, as implicitly less trustworthy than IDF, even though I don't trust everything IDF says, yes.
Yeah man, nothing happened except succeeding in dehumanizing Palestinians and Muslims, which resulted in a man in the US to stab a Palestinian woman, and kill her 6 year old son by stabbing him 26 times with a 7 inch knife while screaming "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE".
Nothing important really.
So you didn't even bother looking at the sources for the claim you make fun of?
Given members of the IDF have supported the idea that it was an intentional attract to get Hamas hiding in the hospital from the moment it happened, why don't you believe the IDF members and Hamas when they agree that it was an Israeli attack? I don't even believe it was an Israeli attack* and this incident just further demonstrates the IDF members and Israeli officials will just make up stuff to bolster their side even when they have no actual information. There's no reason to believe either side imo.
*The worst case is Israel defended themselves against a missile and the payload from the middle happened to fall on a hospital because a terrorist group was too incompetent to make sure that a hospital wasn't directly under the trajectory. I don't think someone having an incoming missile has any obligation to first check what happens to be under the missile at the time before destroying said missile, so it's still doesn't make Israel look bad imo like some people are claiming.
Honestly, the only context in which I see it is people complaining about it being a lie, but that may just be that we have different internet bubbles.
Personally I don't call it horseshit because several people that I consider trustworthy confirmed being shown photos of beheaded babies (though not 40 of them, but I've never even seen that claim anywhere, I've seen a separate early claim that 40 babies were killed in total, not specifically beheaded) by Israeli officials, one of them being our ambassador, who so far has been a completely trustworthy person as far as I know. We also do know that Israelis only showed some photos privately to selected foreign politicians, journalists and diplomats, because (apart from them saying so) the people shown described those photos and they were later released publicly. It is not inconceivable that the beheaded babies were among those not released to public for some reason.
The issue is that is not what happened. Apart from what I say above, the fact that white house representatives pretty much immediately walked back on that was widely reported by mainstream media a day later. Also, the attack was already so brutal that it changed nothing about how Hamas is being perceived. For most people, slaughtered civilians with marks of torture and burned babies (those were afaik released on photos, but I did not want to look to check) were unsurprisingly enough.
Compare that to a failed rocket of palestinian islamic jihad falling on a hospital parking lot, Hamas knowingly lying about it according to a released wiretap and people still arguing that Israel did it in similar threads on Lemmy.
Also I'll have you know that I fuck sheep, not goats.
So, why don't they show these pictures to the world?
Also
Do you by any chance happen to have believed the US lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the US lied about to invade Iraq, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
Decency? I don't know that of course, I'm not saying that I'm sure about this, but not releasing photos of people that are too undignified or drastic is a relatively common policy.
I'm not from the US and I was not yet following US/international politics at that time. Also none of the people I talked about were americans ("our" ambassador being czech, a journalist-editor from France also confirmed seeing the photos), so I don't see it as particularly relevant anyway.
Oh, so Israel has images proving that Hamas beheaded babies, which is like, literally the worst thing in the world, but they just decided not to release to show the world for some reason, and you genuinely believe that? You just can't sense something weird in that at all?
By how much is it worse than burned babies, which were released?
Plus, notice that I said it's plausible, not that I believe one version or the other. And, again, even if we say that it was a lie and therefora a fuck up and journos did not sufficiently crosscheck the validity and several people who claim to have seen the photos are lying even if it could cost their careers, in the light of the colossal fuckup with the hospital parking lot bombing that endangered diplomatic ties with several countries and started protests in the streets of several countries, this was relatively minor and pretty well handled.
No, spreading lies about Hamas beheading babies to dehumanize Palestinians and justify the war crimes Israel is committing against them is not "relatively minor and pretty well handled".
Spreading "lies" requires intent. Like what Hamas did with the hospital parking lot. With the babies all context points to a professional screw up at best. And there was no screw up or lying required to create justification for Israel's behavior, slaughtering hundreds of civilians including babies and likely torturing them was enough.
What makes it a screw up instead of an intended lie?
"Yeah there were no actual beheaded babies, but that wasn't a lie, that was just a screw up!"
What kind of mental gymnastics do you play to look at it this way?
First news from Israeli forensics institute are out, seems like it was not a lie at all: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-769339
What's more likely?
That a news outlet appears totally committed to the most objective possible view on any issue ever except for exactly this.
Or
Maybe you might be wrong sometimes as humans are not infallible.
Both are entirely possible, even at once. Also it's not just "exactly this", it's generally a broader range of topics. And, to nitpick a bit, "relatively objectively" is not the same as "totally committed to the most objective possible view".
For another example of the former, as the guy below you says, years ago this was the exact modus operandi of (the english version of) Russia Today, until it reoriented and started targeting straight up pro-russian conspiracy nuts. Sputnik I think was always a bit out there, but I'm honestly not sure.
Yeah man, nothing happened except succeeding in dehumanizing Palestinians and Muslims, which resulted in a man in the US to stab a Palestinian woman, and kill her 6 year old son by stabbing him 26 times with a 7 inch knife while screaming "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE".
Nothing important really.
As criminal as that is, I'm pretty sure burned babies and slaughtered and likely tortured civilians were enough for that.
So, you acknowledge that Israel lied about beheaded babies, what makes you think they didn't lie about burned babies?
As far as I know, they released some of those photos publicly. I rely on word of others because I have no interest in seeing it, you can google it yourself.
No, they didn't.
You are just content with being fed propaganda and lies and are willing to spread them without verifying them.
https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1712471782303867144
Page doesn't exist.
Try logging in bro, it's just marked as sensitive content for obvious reason.