this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
224 points (96.3% liked)
World News
32323 readers
478 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This happened two days ago and began being reported on yesterday, yet only Dutch sources are really commenting on it. And even those Dutch media sources seem to really be burying the lede on the fact that she was killed by an Israeli bombing run. Many of the articles are putting that fact at the end and equivocating it with "According to the Associated Press".
Most of the headlines just say she died "in an explosion", giving the implication Hamas was responsible.
I really don't think anyone reads that Hamas bombed her. You'll also see news will always say alleged, according to, etc until absolutely verified. That's proper journalism.
The other comment chain is literally reading it as that. People literally deny the Holocaust, are you at all surprised that they can deny the genocide of Palestinians?
"I really don’t think anyone reads that Hamas bombed her."
I've got someone now doing that exact equivocation in the reply just above yours.
Where?
Hyperreality up above.
Or maybe the media learned not to point fingers until there's better evidence after that whole hospital debacle where everyone picked up the story without verifying the details.
Except that the IDF acknowledges that they bombed the refugee camp market on Saturday. That's not in question right now. The only hanging question is whether she was killed in that or died in some other way at the exact same time, according to the above article.
Original Dutch article cited in the English article above, translated with deepl:
So let's go over your comments here:
Not a verified fact.
Not equivocating or implying anything. Engaging in good journalism. They weren't there. They didn't see it with their own eyes. They're simply reporting on what they've been told. IDF says this. Hamas says that. Nothing more. That's just your bias speaking.
If the IDF makes a claim, reporters shouldn't report it as a fact. If Hamas makes a claim, they shouldn't report it as a fact.
Article says the IDF has not yet responded to inquiries. It is as yet unclear in which explosion the victim died.
What was the whole hospital "debacle?" Like I know the facts, there was a hospital that was hit by some kind of weapon. But the intention, and the who, is not exactly clear. So what are those two very important facts that the media got wrong?
I can't remember the exact timeline of events, but early on it was reported and assumed to be IDF, while others claimed it wasn't. Reports got walked back until there were more details, and now it's generally agreed that it was probably a Hamas rocket that exploded or something.
So I think the press may just be a little more careful with how they portray things when there is only one source or they are reporting on what other news organizations are saying. You know - like they should be doing anyway.
That agreement has been getting walked back by the OSINT sources that initially confirmed it... As expected.
The only reputable international sources with journalists actually on the ground are Al Jazeera, Associated Press, and Reuters. There's more regional sources like Al Arabiya operating there as well, but they're not well-known in the West. Everyone else is just commenting on the same secondary sources and made up bullshit that we are online.
To be fair the IDF have bombed many times more hospitals than Hamas ever could.