“On Wednesday, Mr Netanyahu described any suggestion that Israel had received a specific warning in advance of the deadly incursion as “totally fake news”.”
Anyone who uses the term “fake news” when talking seriously about anything is lying out their ass.
The same thing’s happening in Canada with the CBC; bunch of people calling them out for not saying “terrorist” implying it means they’re in favour of the attacks, when CBC simply has a policy of not saying that about anyone, because it’s not their job.
I just listened to a cbc segment that had a jew on saying to escalate, innocent civilians be damned. And yes, I hear JT call out Hamas as terrorists. We’re going to support a genocide if that’s what Isreal decides to do.
Best example comes to us via the BBC above, during WW2 they never called the Nazis wicked or evil, but they did not and did not need to have Nazi-apologists on air to present a “fair and balanced” view Fox-News style.
As long as you present opinion as opinion and reporting as reporting and refrain from loaded language in your reporting you’re perfectly fine. Could it be better? Yes. But while you might not have arrived at “morally good”, you have clearly left “morally bad”.
Is this true? I was sure when Jeremy Corbyn criticised Israel, he was labelled as a terrorist sympathiser and anti-semite by the state media.
Just as a disclaimer, I can’t really remember and was never particularly interested in English politics at this time, so I have no opinions on Corbyn, or know if he really did make anti-semetic comments or not. I do remember the tabloid papers going wild on this, I was sure the BBC voiced this or allowed guests to voice this all the time.
Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position
No one’s blaming the citizens that were killed. A better analogy would be that staff at a club were made aware of a predator on the premises and allowed them to victimize someone.
We’re also talking about a political party that literally funded Hamas at its inception to ensure it was more successful than the moderate coalition.
Sadly Bibi needed to drum up the hate machine for cover. And Pootie needed the distraction from Ukraine. So both sides worked together to achieve this tragedy.
So, basically: people performed atrocities. Are they evil? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, the BBC has no idea whether it is evil to perform atrocities. Right.
They are saying they do not use language that makes judgement, because that is not what they do. They are a neutral reporter of what is happening in the world (ie the news).
Everyone laments that “news” has been overrun by opinion journalism that tries to influence left or right. This is what “just news” looks like.
So basically, you can’t read above a 2nd grade level.
BBC is saying they report the facts and let people make their own judgements. I know this might be hard for your biased mind to understand, but the word ‘terrorist’ has been thrown around so much it’s practically meaningless. Heck, even when it should be applied (American terrorists shooting substations), it isn’t. It’s a political term at this point, nothing more.
You’re trying to advocate for news outlets to tell us how to think instead of showing us information, which is shitty journalism for idiots.
Show the information that this was a terrorist attack, because it was. That’s an indisputable fact. Indiscriminately killing, maiming, torturing and raping civilians to spread terror. That is terrorism.
I still can’t understand why naming Hamas a terrorist group goes against their “present only the facts” view. It’s the same group that raped and killed civilians just six days ago. They posted videos of their horrid raid on the internet and plan to stream hostage executions. These are facts, it is not subjective. Isn’t this the plain definition of terrorism? Why is BBC reluctant to brand a group that performs acts of terror as terrorists? This goes for how they treated IRA stories as well. I really can’t see how this adheres to good journalism principles, unlike many people here seem to be praising. It just seems to me a weird hill to die on.
The guy has been reporting since before many of us were even born. If you can catch his show on the BBC it’s a great antidote to the sensationalized, biased reporting that passes for journalism these days.
bbc.co.uk
Hot