Actually, I spent about 5 minutes looking for it earlier but then remembered I don’t really need to expose myself to it. If it had just popped up in front of me, I’d have seen it.
Maybe you don’t use the internet like the average person does, so your experience is different from theirs?
We want journalists to be honest about what they have and haven’t verified. And if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better to be quiet about it, so your quote of “while unverified, we have received some reports of decapitated babies in one of the areas attacked” doesn’t turn into “decapitated babies found in areas attacked by Hamas.”
And yes, I deliberately chose a recent and relevant example of something that actually happened and was used to justify Israel’s response early on.
You open Mastodon or Twitter, type in his name, and it pops up. Not difficult.
The beheaded babies example is particularly bad because it shows how actual journalistic standards go out of the window when israel makes a claim.
There was no video or picture evidence of the beheaded babies
“Journalists” did quote the claims directly
“Journalists” suddenly had no problem using the words “alleged” or “suspected” to cover themselves during a developing story
Relies on the most well known propaganda source in the world
Manufactures consent for israel. which is why it did reach front page of every single newspaper despite being a lie.
Journalists can’t use the “journalistic integrity” cover for everything that is anti-israel while simultaneously barraging us with “IDF says Hamas tunnel network under hospital X” every single day without any evidence.
That is reports of widespread sexual violence in the Hamas attack that started this latest conflict. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, says the U.N. has been too slow to speak out.
GILAD ERDAN: Sadly, the very international bodies that are supposedly the defenders of all women showed that when it comes to Israelis, indifference is acceptable.
You’re cherry-picking stories if that’s how you’re classifying NPRs coverage. I’m on their site now and searched Gaza…1st 2 stories that come up are about the Michigan voters and the potential cease-fire…makes sense as those are the American-centic stories. Then we get into a story about children starving to death that unequivocally states that Israel tanks were shooting aid trucks and groups of civilians trying to get that aid. Then, a story about a nurse with Doctors without borders who was in one of their shelters when Israel opened fire on them. Again, there is no equivocation.
You are cherry picking stories. Even the newest NPR version of this article is propaganda as it uses the word “war” instead of Genocide at the very top of the article, literally twisting Aarons words and lying.
Would you have been happier if they said “a protest against Israel’s ‘genocide’”?
They weren’t quoting him directly in that first sentence, and regardless of how any of us feel about it personally, the ICC said this isn’t genocide. Personally, I also feel it’s a genocide, but if I said that in an article I wrote, it would be an opinion piece because, when it comes to committing crimes, the western world has generally agreed on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we prove that guilt in courts of law.
I noticed you didn’t link to the actual article. I’m assuming at this point, based on your posting history and this interaction, that it was a deliberate choice on your part to use a screenshot instead because 4 sentences later, the same article states, "Leadinf up to the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he ‘will no longer be complicit in genocide.’ Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling “Free Palestine!”’
Makes it seem like you’re not arguing in good faith, which makes me want to disengage with you at this point.
Actually, I spent about 5 minutes looking for it earlier but then remembered I don’t really need to expose myself to it. If it had just popped up in front of me, I’d have seen it.
Maybe you don’t use the internet like the average person does, so your experience is different from theirs?
We want journalists to be honest about what they have and haven’t verified. And if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better to be quiet about it, so your quote of “while unverified, we have received some reports of decapitated babies in one of the areas attacked” doesn’t turn into “decapitated babies found in areas attacked by Hamas.”
And yes, I deliberately chose a recent and relevant example of something that actually happened and was used to justify Israel’s response early on.
You open Mastodon or Twitter, type in his name, and it pops up. Not difficult.
The beheaded babies example is particularly bad because it shows how actual journalistic standards go out of the window when israel makes a claim.
Journalists can’t use the “journalistic integrity” cover for everything that is anti-israel while simultaneously barraging us with “IDF says Hamas tunnel network under hospital X” every single day without any evidence.
Let’s not forget NPR has been heavily pushing IDF propaganda for the last few months as well, directly pushing the Hamas rape story: Israel demands U.N. investigate charges of sexual violence by Hamas fighters
You’re cherry-picking stories if that’s how you’re classifying NPRs coverage. I’m on their site now and searched Gaza…1st 2 stories that come up are about the Michigan voters and the potential cease-fire…makes sense as those are the American-centic stories. Then we get into a story about children starving to death that unequivocally states that Israel tanks were shooting aid trucks and groups of civilians trying to get that aid. Then, a story about a nurse with Doctors without borders who was in one of their shelters when Israel opened fire on them. Again, there is no equivocation.
You are cherry picking stories. Even the newest NPR version of this article is propaganda as it uses the word “war” instead of Genocide at the very top of the article, literally twisting Aarons words and lying.
Would you have been happier if they said “a protest against Israel’s ‘genocide’”?
They weren’t quoting him directly in that first sentence, and regardless of how any of us feel about it personally, the ICC said this isn’t genocide. Personally, I also feel it’s a genocide, but if I said that in an article I wrote, it would be an opinion piece because, when it comes to committing crimes, the western world has generally agreed on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we prove that guilt in courts of law.
I noticed you didn’t link to the actual article. I’m assuming at this point, based on your posting history and this interaction, that it was a deliberate choice on your part to use a screenshot instead because 4 sentences later, the same article states, "Leadinf up to the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he ‘will no longer be complicit in genocide.’ Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling “Free Palestine!”’
Makes it seem like you’re not arguing in good faith, which makes me want to disengage with you at this point.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/25/1233810136/fire-man-israeli-embassy-washington
Yes.
NPR said that according to Aaron’s social media post this is a “war” not a “Genocide” which is a lie.