Did they just now redefine the word?
What is the new definition, and why didn’t it apply to Israel before?
Does that mean that anything not meeting the new definition of evil is no longer considered evil?
This title sounds really stupid. There are many better ways to get the point across without saying something untrue/nonsensical.
And beyond that, who really needs to be told that it’s evil to massacre starving civilians who are queuing for bread? …and since the headline says “yet More”, I guess when Israel did it the first time, it wasn’t evil (at least not by this new definition), since it was this time that resulted in the redefinition.
Removed by mod
Maybe there’d be more objective reporting if the IDF would stop killing journalists. In lieu of that, I’ve got no choice but to take potentially less objective sources at face value.
I’ve got no choice but to take potentially less objective sources at face value.
That doesn’t logically follow at all.
Are you not trying to educate yourself as best as possible, given the information available?
Of course, but questionable or unsubstantiated reports don’t suddenly become 100% credible simply because they are the only information available.
Nobody thinks they become 100% credible.
The person I responded to literally said that they would take the report “at face value”, which means you accept it unquestioningly.
You accepting it doesn’t imply that the source is credible; you just don’t have any alternative.
No? I think it’s fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it’s also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other’s actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?
Think of it like a court. If one party didn’t respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn’t provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.
Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn’t mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.
News is being suppressed because the US supports Israel… I have read that news elsewhere
this video from the state department touches the subject a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwCTPW7-Oco
Also, we do know that most people killed in Gaza so far are plain civilians… lots of children and women.
From some outlets, certainly, however I’m talking about corroborating evidence from NGOs and humanitarian aid sources, which usually condemn confirmed attacks against civilians in Gaza. Here’s one such example, regarding the attacks on the aid trucks on Feb 29th.
I see no such reports for this alleged attack, however.
I sure wonder why Al Jazeera might not like the IDF…
Israeli forces killed Abu Akleh ‘without justification’, UN inquiry says
Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war
Al Jazeera journalist Abudaqa killed in Israel attack on Gaza laid to rest
Al Jazeera’s Ismail Abu Omar, Ahmad Matar wounded in Israeli strike on Gaza
Gaza media office says 100 journalists killed since Israeli attacks began
Removed by mod
It’s entirely unbiased to condition reporting on past, direct experiences with the IDF where the IDF went out of their way to kill your journalists.
That’s not bias. That’s just journalism.
Its bias, and it is reasonable to be biased in this way.
From what I can tell, Shreddie Biologist primarily uses the “World News” sublem on lemmy.ml to shitpost the most biased, least fact-based articles they can find. I think I’m gonna block them, see how it improves the sub.
I dunno, is this community generally like this? It’s quite odd how people are dunking on me for just pointing out basic media literacy.
