A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
His inaccuracies: blaming Israel for the al-Shifa missile attack, and referring to the hospital as, "flattened."
I've seen people repeating these inaccuracies constantly on Lemmy.
He didn't blame the attach on Israel. He did say it had been flattened.
His claim of it being flattened caused the BBC to report that it was likely Israel who did it because they were the only ones who had ordinance powerful enough to level a hospital:
In the first story about the hospital on the BBC on Oct 17, correspondent Jon Donnison suggested Israel was behind the blast. Speaking shortly after 8pm on BBC News, he said: “It’s hard to see what else this could be, really, given the size of the explosion, other than an Israeli airstrike or several airstrikes.”
So you agree that he did not say that IDF were to blame?
I admit, I was surprised at how many people are indifferent to the truth (at best) regarding this conflict. I know some people in real life who see a lot of antisemitism in modern American society and I used to think they were paranoid but now I'm not sure what else could be motivating this sort of motivated reasoning.
The problem is, that Israel made it relatively easy to fall for these stories by doing similar things for real in the past.
So you've got a credible source (BBC) reporting something that's not really unheard of (i.e. kind of plausible) and that's happening to align with what you've already suspected. Bam, rumor is born.
BTW, you had the same mechanism shortly after the attacks with the "Hamas beheaded babies" stories.
Criticizing Israel’s atrocities is not antisemitism it’s being a decent human being.
You don't know what could possibly cause people to have an anti-Israel bias other than antisemitism? Maybe a history book?
Beheaded babies and the IDF saying “we have lied before but not this time.” really muddies the water.
Do you mean the Al-Alhi Baptist missile or did one happen to Al-shifa now too?
Also this title sucks ass, not alluding to what was wrong and leaving your mind to fill it in
luckily there's an entire article hiding behind the title!
Looks more like a paywall to me.
Weird, I didn't have one. Maybe it's regional?
Edit: I'm US based so maybe there is a paywall in other countries
No paywall in Canada.
Maybe, I do have paywall in Israel.
Agree, I wanted to edit it for it to say what have he said but rules state to not change the title.
You could put it in the body.
Actually that's a great idea, thanks, I'll do it right now!
Dude shares the name of an ex. The headline threw me for a loop.
Welcome to Whose Truth is it Anyway?, where the news is made up and the facts don't matter.
Oh well as long as you don't feel bad about it man
To be clear Bowen did not from my recollection say that the strike was from Israeli. He did, however, incorrectly say that the hispital had been "flattened" based in drone footage he was looking at on screen.
I mean technically yes but it's one of those things where you're saying Israel did it without saying it directly. Its really not much better.
No. The programme as a whole said responsibility hadn’t been determined. The news was breaking as Bowen was on air - he didn’t say anything about responsibility
I think I just have to agree to disagree. It's a simple philosophy problem in my head
"Hospital got flattened"
"Hamas doesn't have munitions to flatten hospital"
"Israel flattened the hospital"
If you're reporting about a flattened hospital in Gaza, you're tactically supporting the idea Israel did it by simply reporting that a hospital got flattened. It also shouldn't suprise you that's how many people online ran with it.
The report of a massive explosion outside the hospital would have lead the same people who made assumptions about Israel being responsible to assume that Israel was responsible.
Yeah it would lead neutral observers to beleive Israel flattened a hospital since they are the only ones immediately in the region with the munitions to do so. Both things can be true
But there was a massive explosion outside the hospital. Are you really saying that that shouldn’t have been reported with the caveat ‘we don’t know who is responsible’ because people would have assumed it was Israel ?
No, im saying the reporting the explosion in the parking lot of a hospital as "flattening the hospital" was irresponsible and it's no wonder it would make people think Israel blew it up by simply stating those things as facts. It was irresponsible to report it this way, especially since there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.
Yeh. We agree, he fucked up by making a hasty assumption about the hospital explosion, based on the drone footage he was seeing.
I’m saying that if he had reported accurately- a large explosion outside of the hospital - people would still have made the same assumption that Israeli action caused it.
You're probably right but I think the bigger issue is he can use cover of "well people would have ran with whatever narrative anyways so it's really not relevant to people jumping to that conclusion." In my opinion, we 100% should criticize him and recognize that it helped foster the sentiment it was an Israeli attack. Either way, the bigger issue is he doesn't think he did anything wrong reporting that way and I think thats a problem. Appreciate the back and forth.
Appreciate the back and forth.
Likewise. Thank you for making me think - I'm still pondering now.
Edit: If you want to see the source interview with Bowen, it's quite interesting. It's hear https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0gts7c1/behind-the-stories-on-the-front-line-jeremy-bowen - start at 14:30.
He's asked if he regrets anything he said that evening and he says no - then he's challenged on the "flattened" comment and he says "Oh yeh - well, I got that wrong. I was looking at the pictures .... and that was my conclusion looking at the pictures and I was wrong on that".
He basically comes across as pissed off that the Israeli's wont open the borders so that reporters can observe directly. But yes - he should have started with "that was a cockup on my part"
Maybe lemmy.ml will unban me now that they can see I was right all along.
I wonder how all those cringy hamas whiners feel now? If they even think about how wrong they were.
I don't think that most of them care. It's like the Musk and Starlink incident. People rather stick with the original story even when it turns out to be false.
International editor doesn't understand how media works.