this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
-13 points (19.0% liked)

conservative

949 readers
12 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
bloopinator@lemmy.world
shemmy@lemmy.world
baascus@lemmy.world
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world
-13
How the Washington Post Abandoned Basic Journalistic Standards Covering the Israel–Hamas War | National Review (www.nationalreview.com)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by DeadHorseX@lemmy.world to c/conservative@lemmy.world
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

NR spoke with military and foreign-policy pros about the renowned paper’s credulous treatment of Hamas.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anarchost@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I can't wait to see a good critique of how liberal newspapers were too gentle on Israel, maybe the National Review can provide a good counter arg-

The Washington Post’s coverage of the Israel–Hamas war has been a case study in moral confusion and anti-Israel bias

Oh no. I wonder what kind of horrible bias they have

Loveluck and her team never bothered to ask Israeli government officials for comment. “The Post neglected to seek comment from Israeli officials for this article, an omission that fell short of The Post’s standards for fairness,” an editor’s note affixed to the article reads.

They weren't missing facts, they were just not sharing the other side for why a bunch of babies had been separated by Israel

When the paper did reach out, Israeli officials predictably explained that the October 7 terror attack created an unstable security situation

Sure was predictable. If you look at the article, it mentions the October 7 terror attack twice (before the edit, it was once), so this was never hidden.