Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Al Jazeera journalist who had previously been threatened by Israel has been killed along with four colleagues in an Israeli airstrike. Anas al-Sharif, who was one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable faces in Gaza, was killed while inside a tent for journalists outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City on Sunday night. Seven people were killed in the attack, including al-Sharif, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa. The IDF has admitted the strike, claiming the reporter had apparently “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”. The UN has said the IDF claim is unsubstantiated " The problems here is that without credible journalists on the ground in Gaza, it's impossible to determine the veracity of these stories. Were Hamas using rules of journalism as a cloak? They did with hospitals, so it wouldn't be that surprising. On the other hand why do Israel fear independent journalists in Gaza? My guess is that both sides routinely breach the accepted protocols of war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Israel's intelligence services are very good, and it would not surprise me if this is correct. Any media outlet who employs "reporters" in Gaza are employing people who live in Gaza and are controlled by Hamas. There is lot of propaganda being provided by these "reporters", MSM use it and then bury it when it is proven to be propaganda." Israeli intelligence services are very frequently utter shit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Israel's intelligence services are very good, and it would not surprise me if this is correct. Any media outlet who employs "reporters" in Gaza are employing people who live in Gaza and are controlled by Hamas. There is lot of propaganda being provided by these "reporters", MSM use it and then bury it when it is proven to be propaganda." If only they had been as good in the run up to the 7 Oct attacks.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Israel's intelligence services are very good, and it would not surprise me if this is correct. Any media outlet who employs "reporters" in Gaza are employing people who live in Gaza and are controlled by Hamas. There is lot of propaganda being provided by these "reporters", MSM use it and then bury it when it is proven to be propaganda. If only they had been as good in the run up to the 7 Oct attacks.." That was a disappointment for them no doubt, but I don't think you can argue that they are usually very good and need to be because of events like the Oct 7th massacres..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on" It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on" Which suits Netanyahu.. Meanwhile in the West Bank it's business as usual for any Israeli who chooses to murder a Palestinian with literally zero consequences under the law.. And people who have lived there for centuries are driven out and their land taken.. In the Balkans the civilised world rightly called it with ethnic cleansing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Israel's intelligence services are very good, and it would not surprise me if this is correct. Any media outlet who employs "reporters" in Gaza are employing people who live in Gaza and are controlled by Hamas. There is lot of propaganda being provided by these "reporters", MSM use it and then bury it when it is proven to be propaganda. If only they had been as good in the run up to the 7 Oct attacks.. That was a disappointment for them no doubt, but I don't think you can argue that they are usually very good and need to be because of events like the Oct 7th massacres....." I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, human errors and sheer ineptitude certainly gross negligence of duty I think fits the massive failure that allowed the attack to be as extensive and extreme as it was.. It can however be justifiably said that the actions by Hamas were an opportunity not to be missed for the extremists in Israeli politics and it's most likely keeping Netanyahu out of the dock for previous allegations.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Israel's intelligence services are very good, and it would not surprise me if this is correct. Any media outlet who employs "reporters" in Gaza are employing people who live in Gaza and are controlled by Hamas. There is lot of propaganda being provided by these "reporters", MSM use it and then bury it when it is proven to be propaganda. If only they had been as good in the run up to the 7 Oct attacks.." https://youtu.be/IhEN14luMHI?si=RaAzGaYZEnmAZUlJ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now." It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. " I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either." So in your mind the assassination of five journalists was OK because you believe the IDF when they say that one of them worked for Hamas. And the best way for the world to know the truth about what's going on is to stop independent journalists with experience in other war zones from going in. Have I got that right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. So in your mind the assassination of five journalists was OK because you believe the IDF when they say that one of them worked for Hamas. And the best way for the world to know the truth about what's going on is to stop independent journalists with experience in other war zones from going in. Have I got that right? " Do you actually read anything I write? Step back and go through what I have written and highlight where I said or indicated this "so in your mind the assassination of five journalists was OK because you believe the IDF when they say that one of them worked for Hamas." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you actually read anything I write? Step back and go through what I have written and highlight where I said or indicated this "so in your mind the assassination of five journalists was OK because you believe the IDF when they say that one of them worked for Hamas."" Yes, I try to read posts carefully but often your posts are ambiguous, which is why I asked whether my understanding of your position was correct. So just to be clear are you saying that the assassination of the five journalists wasn't OK? And are you saying you don't believe that one of them was a member of Hamas? Or are you agnostic about these things? And on the last point do you think the best way for the world to know the truth about what's going on is to stop independent journalists with experience in other war zones from going in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either." Not disagreeing but Mossad are the best on the globe, information would be unreliable in my view. These people buried the last lot of aid workers they assassinated and their cars with an excavator. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you actually read anything I write? Step back and go through what I have written and highlight where I said or indicated this "so in your mind the assassination of five journalists was OK because you believe the IDF when they say that one of them worked for Hamas." Yes, I try to read posts carefully but often your posts are ambiguous, which is why I asked whether my understanding of your position was correct. So just to be clear are you saying that the assassination of the five journalists wasn't OK? And are you saying you don't believe that one of them was a member of Hamas? Or are you agnostic about these things? And on the last point do you think the best way for the world to know the truth about what's going on is to stop independent journalists with experience in other war zones from going in?" My posts are not ambiguous, you find it hard to understand the subject matter, which leads you to post random replies. To demonstrate this point, I said nothing at all in relation to the question you asked which shows zero ambiguity from my side, and again a random reply from you. Maybe stop and think before you ask a person if they are okay with the murder of 5 people, when they have not indicated anywhere that is how they think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An Al Jazeera journalist who had previously been threatened by Israel has been killed along with four colleagues in an Israeli airstrike. Anas al-Sharif, who was one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable faces in Gaza, was killed while inside a tent for journalists outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City on Sunday night. Seven people were killed in the attack, including al-Sharif, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa. The IDF has admitted the strike, claiming the reporter had apparently “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”. The UN has said the IDF claim is unsubstantiated " The Israelis have regularly murdered journalists, the truth hurts imo. The fact that war torn journalists who have risked their lives to report to us what is happening all over the world are not trusted tells me all I need to know. The Israelis have lied in the past and will continue to do so. Once I have lied to you about something you consider important, are you going to listen to me further, if you did what would that make you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either." In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo." If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m saying clearly that both Hamas and Israel will go out of their way to present the version of events they want the world to see. Too many people are blind to the fact that there are two sides in this war. By refusing to consider the whole picture, and clinging to the mantras of their echo chambers, the debate has become one side or the other, the end. Objectivity has been replaced by emotional reactions. Allowing journalists into Gaza would, as I have said, turn into a circus, with both sides desperately trying to undermine each other. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to starve people deliberately for the cameras. I wouldn’t put it past Israel to set up field hospitals for the same reason. Neither would solve anything they would simply feed more propaganda to the emotionally blinkered on both sides. Take the recent example of the staged photo by Gaza journalist Anas Zayed Fteiha, children holding empty bowls, crying for food. Most media outlets dropped the image when wider shots showed clearly there was no food bank, and the children were laughing and smiling moments later. Reuters kept it, they insist it meets their standards of accuracy and impartiality, what a joke! That single image provoked emotional outrage worldwide people screaming, crying, and protesting, all spurred on by something staged. Now imagine multiplying that effect many times over… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo. If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m saying clearly that both Hamas and Israel will go out of their way to present the version of events they want the world to see. Too many people are blind to the fact that there are two sides in this war. By refusing to consider the whole picture, and clinging to the mantras of their echo chambers, the debate has become one side or the other, the end. Objectivity has been replaced by emotional reactions. Allowing journalists into Gaza would, as I have said, turn into a circus, with both sides desperately trying to undermine each other. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to starve people deliberately for the cameras. I wouldn’t put it past Israel to set up field hospitals for the same reason. Neither would solve anything they would simply feed more propaganda to the emotionally blinkered on both sides. Take the recent example of the staged photo by Gaza journalist Anas Zayed Fteiha, children holding empty bowls, crying for food. Most media outlets dropped the image when wider shots showed clearly there was no food bank, and the children were laughing and smiling moments later. Reuters kept it, they insist it meets their standards of accuracy and impartiality, what a joke! That single image provoked emotional outrage worldwide people screaming, crying, and protesting, all spurred on by something staged. Now imagine multiplying that effect many times over…" I Googled " Anas Zayed Fteiha, Gaza picture ". But found nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo. If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m saying clearly that both Hamas and Israel will go out of their way to present the version of events they want the world to see. Too many people are blind to the fact that there are two sides in this war. By refusing to consider the whole picture, and clinging to the mantras of their echo chambers, the debate has become one side or the other, the end. Objectivity has been replaced by emotional reactions. Allowing journalists into Gaza would, as I have said, turn into a circus, with both sides desperately trying to undermine each other. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to starve people deliberately for the cameras. I wouldn’t put it past Israel to set up field hospitals for the same reason. Neither would solve anything they would simply feed more propaganda to the emotionally blinkered on both sides. Take the recent example of the staged photo by Gaza journalist Anas Zayed Fteiha, children holding empty bowls, crying for food. Most media outlets dropped the image when wider shots showed clearly there was no food bank, and the children were laughing and smiling moments later. Reuters kept it, they insist it meets their standards of accuracy and impartiality, what a joke! That single image provoked emotional outrage worldwide people screaming, crying, and protesting, all spurred on by something staged. Now imagine multiplying that effect many times over…" As long as independent journalists are not allowed to report in Gaza no one will know the truth Israel can say what they like they can kill who they like. In fact they can do whatever they wish. For me internationally those other despots who slaughter populations can now use the Israeli model ignore what others say, do what they wish any objections will be met well Israel can do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo. If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m saying clearly that both Hamas and Israel will go out of their way to present the version of events they want the world to see. Too many people are blind to the fact that there are two sides in this war. By refusing to consider the whole picture, and clinging to the mantras of their echo chambers, the debate has become one side or the other, the end. Objectivity has been replaced by emotional reactions. Allowing journalists into Gaza would, as I have said, turn into a circus, with both sides desperately trying to undermine each other. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to starve people deliberately for the cameras. I wouldn’t put it past Israel to set up field hospitals for the same reason. Neither would solve anything they would simply feed more propaganda to the emotionally blinkered on both sides. Take the recent example of the staged photo by Gaza journalist Anas Zayed Fteiha, children holding empty bowls, crying for food. Most media outlets dropped the image when wider shots showed clearly there was no food bank, and the children were laughing and smiling moments later. Reuters kept it, they insist it meets their standards of accuracy and impartiality, what a joke! That single image provoked emotional outrage worldwide people screaming, crying, and protesting, all spurred on by something staged. Now imagine multiplying that effect many times over… As long as independent journalists are not allowed to report in Gaza no one will know the truth Israel can say what they like they can kill who they like. In fact they can do whatever they wish. For me internationally those other despots who slaughter populations can now use the Israeli model ignore what others say, do what they wish any objections will be met well Israel can do." You should ask yourself if your bias could identify the truth. Hamas wants the bias, it as a perfect vessel for their propaganda and this is the reason Israel will not let journalists into Gaza right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You should ask yourself if your bias could identify the truth. Hamas wants the bias, it as a perfect vessel for their propaganda and this is the reason Israel will not let journalists into Gaza right now." You seem to have an extremely low opinion of professional war correspondents. If your ridiculous argument held any water then independent journalists should be banned from covering any war because in any conflict there will be propaganda from the belligerents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You should ask yourself if your bias could identify the truth. Hamas wants the bias, it as a perfect vessel for their propaganda and this is the reason Israel will not let journalists into Gaza right now. You seem to have an extremely low opinion of professional war correspondents. If your ridiculous argument held any water then independent journalists should be banned from covering any war because in any conflict there will be propaganda from the belligerents." Ridiculous argument? Lets hear why you think it is ridiculous, or is just another random outburst? I don't want the usual vague whataboutery, be specific to the topic of this war, Hamas and Israel. I have a low opinion of professional war correspondents  Where did you get that from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ridiculous argument? Lets hear why you think it is ridiculous, or is just another random outburst? I don't want the usual vague whataboutery, be specific to the topic of this war, Hamas and Israel. I have a low opinion of professional war correspondents Where did you get that from " I'm just reading the words you are writing and you apparently aren't reading the words I am writing so I'm not sure there's much point to this conversation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ridiculous argument? Lets hear why you think it is ridiculous, or is just another random outburst? I don't want the usual vague whataboutery, be specific to the topic of this war, Hamas and Israel. I have a low opinion of professional war correspondents Where did you get that from I'm just reading the words you are writing and you apparently aren't reading the words I am writing so I'm not sure there's much point to this conversation. " Oh but I did read your words, "if your ridiculous argument held any water then independent journalists should be banned from covering any war because in any conflict there will be propaganda from the belligerents". I have asked you to be specific in explaining what I have said that is ridiculous, but to please keep whataboutery and random things out of the response, and making it relevant to Hamas and Israel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that Israel won’t let journalists in.. so without the ones that actually lived there we would not know what is going on It would be a disaster letting journalists into Gaza, they would certainly be killed by who would always be the question, and Israel would then have a bigger problem than they do now. It looks like these journalists were specifically targeted by the IDF .. and they had been under Israeli death threats for months Literally yesterday in the UN they were talking about Israel not letting journalists into Gaza and Israeli claims that the situation was a hoax, to which the Palestinian representative literally said and challenged Israel to let in 100 journalists from the UN Security Council countries and they can report the truth And then the ordered airstrike happened last night Not a great look…. I believe he was the only target. Israel claim to have found rosters, salary records and other documents in Gaza that showed he was head of a Hamas cell. The reporting in Gaza is controlled by Hamas and we can't ignore that. This is a war of propaganda on both sides, it is not a one way street. Letting outside journalist into Gaza would be a circus, what Hamas would present and what Israel would present would never be believed either. In short I take from what you wrote is there is no point in letting in western journalists as through propaganda no one would not know what to believe especially if we know Hamas are not to be believed and we all cannot ignore that? Further from information you have gleaned Israel state they found records including salary payments, rosters and other documents that showed him to be a Hamas commander, and he was the only target? Imo the Israelis are liars they lie and lie and what kind of person continue to believe liars who are continue to lie, a fool imo. If you read what I wrote, you will see I’m saying clearly that both Hamas and Israel will go out of their way to present the version of events they want the world to see. Too many people are blind to the fact that there are two sides in this war. By refusing to consider the whole picture, and clinging to the mantras of their echo chambers, the debate has become one side or the other, the end. Objectivity has been replaced by emotional reactions. Allowing journalists into Gaza would, as I have said, turn into a circus, with both sides desperately trying to undermine each other. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to starve people deliberately for the cameras. I wouldn’t put it past Israel to set up field hospitals for the same reason. Neither would solve anything they would simply feed more propaganda to the emotionally blinkered on both sides. Take the recent example of the staged photo by Gaza journalist Anas Zayed Fteiha, children holding empty bowls, crying for food. Most media outlets dropped the image when wider shots showed clearly there was no food bank, and the children were laughing and smiling moments later. Reuters kept it, they insist it meets their standards of accuracy and impartiality, what a joke! That single image provoked emotional outrage worldwide people screaming, crying, and protesting, all spurred on by something staged. Now imagine multiplying that effect many times over… I Googled " Anas Zayed Fteiha, Gaza picture ". But found nothing. " I did a Google search, I actually cut and pasted your search and 9 articles on this came up, with more i could have looked at This is a direct quote from one of them, "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." This happened, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x" Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Once I have lied to you about something you consider important, are you going to listen to me further, if you did what would that make you?" That goes both ways, you cannot deny that hamas has put some pretty obvious fake images from ai and videos in the past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs " I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. " The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good." Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you?" No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no?" What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias." That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good." The forerunner to this was Hamas who killed foreign nationals from 41 countries who were not Jewish nor their enemies. 75% of Palestinians were reported to have supported this. You are right of course, gloves are off. The short sky news film on YouTube from yesterday showing Palestinians in the West Bank being intimidated, there will never ever be any peace or compromise with the current leadership on both sides. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors." Maybe you think it is a poor assessment because it goes against what you believe. Tell me why it is a poor assessment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors. Maybe you think it is a poor assessment because it goes against what you believe. Tell me why it is a poor assessment. " Well for a start this : "they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel". Seriously? These are hard-nosed professionals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors. Maybe you think it is a poor assessment because it goes against what you believe. Tell me why it is a poor assessment. Well for a start this : "they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel". Seriously? These are hard-nosed professionals." Do you think Hamas would not go out of their way to present injured, starving and sick children? Would you then without question believe those children were not starved, or injured by Hamas? Do you think Israel would not do similar, showing compassion and help in areas that they were previously flattening? Come on you are smart enough to know what the situation would be, reporters going into Gaza would be closely protected and forced to leave once the show was over. There is no way Israel would add killing foreign journalists to the number of issues they already have. I think you are you suggesting that reporters should be free to wander around Gaza like human shields? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors. Maybe you think it is a poor assessment because it goes against what you believe. Tell me why it is a poor assessment. Well for a start this : "they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel". Seriously? These are hard-nosed professionals. Do you think Hamas would not go out of their way to present injured, starving and sick children? Would you then without question believe those children were not starved, or injured by Hamas? Do you think Israel would not do similar, showing compassion and help in areas that they were previously flattening? Come on you are smart enough to know what the situation would be, reporters going into Gaza would be closely protected and forced to leave once the show was over. There is no way Israel would add killing foreign journalists to the number of issues they already have. I think you are you suggesting that reporters should be free to wander around Gaza like human shields?" The answer is yes and yes. But I trust independent war correspondents to report what they see without bias. Again, you underestimate them. They do not 'wander round' a war zone. They are clearly identified as journalists and take the necessary precautions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery." x Photographer bombed for showing fake images then It’s becoming more of a disinformation war every day; no babies were burnt on 7 October, the Palestinians are on three meals a day and there’s nothing to concern anyone just a few squabbling Jews and Arabs I agree on war of disinformation, it is off the scale! However ref the photographer in question: That isn't the story... The Palestinian journalist who worked for Qatar based Al Jazeera was targeted by Israel's IDF as a high ranking Hamas terrorist cell leader. I'm more than confident nobody can say he was or he wasn't as Israel describe. It is more fuel for the propaganda machine that many form their opinions on. The danger in all this is the bad precedent it sets. In future, aggressors will be able to bomb hospitals, journalists, food queues at liberty by claiming they were infiltrated by their foes. Israel have lowered the bar for behaviour in war and that can't be good. Lets stick to journalists for a second. Israel will argue that he wasn't a journalist he was a terrorist making him a legitimate target. Hamas will say nothing and allow Al Jazeera and other western journalist groups to argue their corner by proxy. Neither you or I know the truth, someone is right but I wouldn't put any money on who, would you? No I wouldn't. But if there were reputable independent journalists on the ground, I/we could make a more informed judgement, no? What would that give you or I in the case of the "journalist" who was killed? They would not know one way or another if he was a Hamas cell leader, would they? As I have mentioned in other posts, independent journalists in Gaza would be a nightmare. They would be killed in close combat fighting, they would be hit by bombing and they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel, and whether we like it or not, they will have their own personal bias. That's a poor assessment or war correspondents. I think you underestimate their professionalism and independence. The fact is, all war zones are dangerous, yet journalists routinely get their stories out. But this point strengthens my point - if combatants have no respect for the rules of war then we are left with a bloodbath behind closed doors. Maybe you think it is a poor assessment because it goes against what you believe. Tell me why it is a poor assessment. Well for a start this : "they would be manipulated by Hamas and Israel". Seriously? These are hard-nosed professionals. Do you think Hamas would not go out of their way to present injured, starving and sick children? Would you then without question believe those children were not starved, or injured by Hamas? Do you think Israel would not do similar, showing compassion and help in areas that they were previously flattening? Come on you are smart enough to know what the situation would be, reporters going into Gaza would be closely protected and forced to leave once the show was over. There is no way Israel would add killing foreign journalists to the number of issues they already have. I think you are you suggesting that reporters should be free to wander around Gaza like human shields? The answer is yes and yes. But I trust independent war correspondents to report what they see without bias. Again, you underestimate them. They do not 'wander round' a war zone. They are clearly identified as journalists and take the necessary precautions." I'm not sure exactly saying yes and yes to? I will discard human shields, unless you meant yes to that? So I will assume it is Hamas and Israel "presenting" their propaganda. What would you expect a journalist to report if Hamas presented a child that they injured but claimed it was Israel, whose parents have been threatened to say the IDF carried out an attack? Putting these journalists on a pedestal of they only speak the truth, makes me even more convinced that it is not the right thing to do. People will hang on every word regardless if they have got it wrong. We have seen many examples of this already and the global unrest it causes. I'm also not sure why you think a journalist wearing a blue bullet proof vest with the word journalist on it, would be safe or have the ability to take any precautions other than to be protected by the IDF or Hamas, outside of that they are sitting ducks! Hamas kills another foreign journalist, Israel kills another foreign journalist, which one was it? Demanding foreign journalists should be given access to Gaza is not as simple as saying it, it is complex and could have many repercussions and what access means is going to be widely different from one person to another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Journalist, businessman, academic. Those are the usual cover stories for operatives. The killed guy looked awfully well presented for someone living in rubble." The killed guy was well presented for a person living in rubble. Ok. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Journalist, businessman, academic. Those are the usual cover stories for operatives. The killed guy looked awfully well presented for someone living in rubble. The killed guy was well presented for a person living in rubble. Ok." Was he? Or did they use a good picture? Why are you so keen to put the Palestinian plight down? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Journalist, businessman, academic. Those are the usual cover stories for operatives. The killed guy looked awfully well presented for someone living in rubble. The killed guy was well presented for a person living in rubble. Ok. Was he? Or did they use a good picture? Why are you so keen to put the Palestinian plight down? " I am all for Palestine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud " Yup. Nazi literature has seen a massive revival in many corners of the Middle East, especially amongst Palestinians. Violence against Jewish targets worldwide is now commonplace. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud Yup. Nazi literature has seen a massive revival in many corners of the Middle East, especially amongst Palestinians. Violence against Jewish targets worldwide is now commonplace." Recent events they have not endeared themselves well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud Yup. Nazi literature has seen a massive revival in many corners of the Middle East, especially amongst Palestinians. Violence against Jewish targets worldwide is now commonplace." There's no evidence of a revival of Nazi literature. It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. It's counterproductive too, because it makes it harder to properly analyse the actual antisemitism of certain regimes. Islamic antisemitism is not the same as neo-Nazism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil." Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels. "For both of you, it's spelled Goebbels. But I have no idea why the previous poster invoked him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud Yup. Nazi literature has seen a massive revival in many corners of the Middle East, especially amongst Palestinians. Violence against Jewish targets worldwide is now commonplace." As is the abuse of Muslims and trans people including the MSM and right wing politicians in Bristain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Journalist, businessman, academic. Those are the usual cover stories for operatives. The killed guy looked awfully well presented for someone living in rubble. The killed guy was well presented for a person living in rubble. Ok. Was he? Or did they use a good picture? Why are you so keen to put the Palestinian plight down? I am all for Palestine." If you died your family would probably use a decent picture of you not one of you in rags  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels.
For both of you, it's spelled Goebbels.
But I have no idea why the previous poster invoked him."I invoked Goebbels because the current propaganda against Muslims and trans people is designed to dehumanize them so that being abusive towards them is acceptable. Just like Goebbels and just like the propaganda during transatlantic sl@very happened. It's happening now to Muslims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels.
For both of you, it's spelled Goebbels.
But I have no idea why the previous poster invoked him.
I invoked Goebbels because the current propaganda against Muslims and trans people is designed to dehumanize them so that being abusive towards them is acceptable.
Just like Goebbels and just like the propaganda during transatlantic sl@very happened.
It's happening now to Muslims."You have some evidence of this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels.
For both of you, it's spelled Goebbels.
But I have no idea why the previous poster invoked him.
I invoked Goebbels because the current propaganda against Muslims and trans people is designed to dehumanize them so that being abusive towards them is acceptable.
Just like Goebbels and just like the propaganda during transatlantic sl@very happened.
It's happening now to Muslims.
You have some evidence of this? "Sorry, open any right wing newspaper, listen to gbeebies. They are conflating, asylum seekers, immigrants, brown skin and Muslims as a threat to our being! Switch on any talk show radio and there they are salavating for racists to burn brown people in buildings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Amazing how easy it is to turn people against a population. Goebelles would be proud ... It's facile propaganda designed to make Israel unassailable because in the West Nazism is shorthand for unqualified evil. Oh... So that's why the previous poster invoked Goebels.
For both of you, it's spelled Goebbels.
But I have no idea why the previous poster invoked him.
I invoked Goebbels because the current propaganda against Muslims and trans people is designed to dehumanize them so that being abusive towards them is acceptable.
Just like Goebbels and just like the propaganda during transatlantic sl@very happened.
It's happening now to Muslims.
You have some evidence of this?
Sorry, open any right wing newspaper, listen to gbeebies.
They are conflating, asylum seekers, immigrants, brown skin and Muslims as a threat to our being!
Switch on any talk show radio and there they are salavating for racists to burn brown people in buildings.
"Lefty hand-wringing BS. The media focus is on the headline number of channel crossings, 50,000,and criminal gangs, Rightly so. The general public have a perfect right to be concerned about these numbers independently of ethnicity and skin colour. Conflating opposition to blatant criminality with racism is socialist smoke and mirrors to disguise the magnitude of the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lefty hand-wringing BS. The media focus is on the headline number of channel crossings, 50,000,and criminal gangs, Rightly so. The general public have a perfect right to be concerned about these numbers independently of ethnicity and skin colour. Conflating opposition to blatant criminality with racism is socialist smoke and mirrors to disguise the magnitude of the problem." The general public has a perfect right to be concerned about housebuilders not conforming to safety specs. Arguably a bigger threat to the general public than asylum seekers and the gangs that ferry them but you don't see protracted media campaigns and populist politicians whipping up sections of the population into an indignant frenzy about it. Let's not pretend that the focus on non-white immigrants isn't motivated by the ease with which xenophobic sentiment can be marshalled to sell papers and drive electoral outcomes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lefty hand-wringing BS. The media focus is on the headline number of channel crossings, 50,000,and criminal gangs, Rightly so. The general public have a perfect right to be concerned about these numbers independently of ethnicity and skin colour. Conflating opposition to blatant criminality with racism is socialist smoke and mirrors to disguise the magnitude of the problem. The general public has a perfect right to be concerned about housebuilders not conforming to safety specs. Arguably a bigger threat to the general public than asylum seekers and the gangs that ferry them but you don't see protracted media campaigns and populist politicians whipping up sections of the population into an indignant frenzy about it. Let's not pretend that the focus on non-white immigrants isn't motivated by the ease with which xenophobic sentiment can be marshalled to sell papers and drive electoral outcomes." Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lefty hand-wringing BS. The media focus is on the headline number of channel crossings, 50,000,and criminal gangs, Rightly so. The general public have a perfect right to be concerned about these numbers independently of ethnicity and skin colour. Conflating opposition to blatant criminality with racism is socialist smoke and mirrors to disguise the magnitude of the problem. The general public has a perfect right to be concerned about housebuilders not conforming to safety specs. Arguably a bigger threat to the general public than asylum seekers and the gangs that ferry them but you don't see protracted media campaigns and populist politicians whipping up sections of the population into an indignant frenzy about it. Let's not pretend that the focus on non-white immigrants isn't motivated by the ease with which xenophobic sentiment can be marshalled to sell papers and drive electoral outcomes. Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian." Evidence for that claim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian." Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation?" Just for reference, I asked Chat GPT to summarise a comparison between biases of left-wing vs right-wing press. Here's what it said: "Comparison Volume & reach: Right-wing press dominates UK print and much of TV commentary (Daily Mail, The Sun, Telegraph, GB News). Left-leaning press has smaller reach (Guardian, Mirror) but more presence online. Inflammatory tone: The tabloid right is more likely to use outrage-driven, aggressive rhetoric. Left-leaning press can be partisan, but it’s usually less tabloid-style and more framed in terms of moral critique. Balance: The BBC tries to sit in the middle, but is regularly accused of bias by both sides (which usually means it’s managing a middle ground). --- ✅ So: Both sides are biased. The right-wing media is typically more inflammatory and sensationalist, while the left-wing media tends toward moral outrage and advocacy journalism. The difference is often in style rather than existence of bias." Do you accept that, or do you disagree? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation?" Look, we all know the DM, DE and Sun are excitable, and sift news accordingly. But the Gruaniad purports to be a serious broadsheet, yet publishes the most crass leftist drivel - often portrayed as 'opinion' so they are off the hook for verification. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation? Look, we all know the DM, DE and Sun are excitable, and sift news accordingly. But the Gruaniad purports to be a serious broadsheet, yet publishes the most crass leftist drivel - often portrayed as 'opinion' so they are off the hook for verification." Same question. How are you establishing your baseline? On what basis are you forgiving the right-wing shitrags while making out like the Guardian is nothing but partisan lies? Care to share some analysis? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation? Look, we all know the DM, DE and Sun are excitable, and sift news accordingly. But the Gruaniad purports to be a serious broadsheet, yet publishes the most crass leftist drivel - often portrayed as 'opinion' so they are off the hook for verification. Same question. How are you establishing your baseline? On what basis are you forgiving the right-wing shitrags while making out like the Guardian is nothing but partisan lies? Care to share some analysis?" It's based on the Gruaniad feeds I get daily - usually with a begging letter for donations (don't their socialist brothers pay their subscriptions?) I even read them sometimes for light relief. I expect them to have a left bias but some of their stuff is right out there bonkers. Send me some 'shitrag' stories that are outright wrong and I'll reciprocate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation? Look, we all know the DM, DE and Sun are excitable, and sift news accordingly. But the Gruaniad purports to be a serious broadsheet, yet publishes the most crass leftist drivel - often portrayed as 'opinion' so they are off the hook for verification. Same question. How are you establishing your baseline? On what basis are you forgiving the right-wing shitrags while making out like the Guardian is nothing but partisan lies? Care to share some analysis? It's based on the Gruaniad feeds I get daily - usually with a begging letter for donations (don't their socialist brothers pay their subscriptions?) I even read them sometimes for light relief. I expect them to have a left bias but some of their stuff is right out there bonkers. Send me some 'shitrag' stories that are outright wrong and I'll reciprocate." Okay then. Start with the Sun's coverage of Hillsborough. Then read basically anything Boris Johnson wrote about Brussels in the Daily Telegraph. Then for a bit more light reading have a go at Jan Moir's column in the Daily Mail about Stephen Gately. Then it's back to the Sun for the Katie Hopkins article where she called boat people "cockroaches" and "a plague". Tip of the old iceberg, mate. But yeah, I'm sure the couple of Guardian stories you saw on Facebook are way worse than any of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why do the left always blame the media for 'whipping up' it's readers? It's a fallacy. Nowadays people get their news from multiple sources and form their own judgement. For what it's worth, one of the worst rags for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts is no less than the Guardian. Because the right-wing media consistently focuses on controversial hot-button issues designed to inflame. There's evidence for it. Have you seen that collage of Mail front pages screaming all-caps bloody murder about immigration? By right-wing media I don't just mean the Mail and the Telegraph, I mean GB News & Co, numerous single-issue podcasts and the extensive network of semi-pro and amateur commentators across all social media platforms. Not that I'm any particular fan of the Grauniad, but on what basis are you accusing it as being one of the worst for blatant bias and grossly distorted facts? Worse than The Sun? The Mail? The Spectator? The Times? How are you scaling that evaluation? Look, we all know the DM, DE and Sun are excitable, and sift news accordingly. But the Gruaniad purports to be a serious broadsheet, yet publishes the most crass leftist drivel - often portrayed as 'opinion' so they are off the hook for verification. Same question. How are you establishing your baseline? On what basis are you forgiving the right-wing shitrags while making out like the Guardian is nothing but partisan lies? Care to share some analysis? It's based on the Gruaniad feeds I get daily - usually with a begging letter for donations (don't their socialist brothers pay their subscriptions?) I even read them sometimes for light relief. I expect them to have a left bias but some of their stuff is right out there bonkers. Send me some 'shitrag' stories that are outright wrong and I'll reciprocate. Okay then. Start with the Sun's coverage of Hillsborough. Then read basically anything Boris Johnson wrote about Brussels in the Daily Telegraph. Then for a bit more light reading have a go at Jan Moir's column in the Daily Mail about Stephen Gately. Then it's back to the Sun for the Katie Hopkins article where she called boat people "cockroaches" and "a plague". Tip of the old iceberg, mate. But yeah, I'm sure the couple of Guardian stories you saw on Facebook are way worse than any of that." Oh yeah, and then there was that Sun story about a Muslim plot to assassinate the Pope - hilarious. Oh, and remember when the Daily Mail smeared Stephen Lawrence and his family? Remember when the Daily Mail called those judges "enemies of the people" for ruling in favour of parliamentary democracy? Remember when the Sun said that asylum seekers were eating swans? Remember when the Sun said 20% of UK Muslims were in favour of jihad? Remember when the Daily Mail smeared Ed Miliband's dad? Remember when the Daily Mail said 70% of new HIV cases were caught from immigrants? Remember when the Daily Mail said plastic bags kill 1,000 people every year? It keeps going, mate, but do tell about that time you saw a Guardian story that was a bit more pro-Labour than you're happy with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, and who could forget Milly Dowler and all the other victims of tabloid spying. News of the World's gone, hasn't it. Remind me, was that paper right-wing or left-wing? Did the Guardian ever hack anyone's phone?" I think you must be thinking of the Leftist Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People which were all involved in the “phone hacking scandal”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Had another little look and found these joyful nuggets: - Back in '08 the Daily Express lost a libel case to the McCanns, I'll let you guess why - In 2012 Christopher Jefferies won substantial libel damages from newspapers including the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express after they falsely linked him to murders and generally smeared him - In 2020 the Daily Telegraph had to apologise for falsely linking a scout leader to Islamic extremism - In 2021 the Daily Telegraph was forced by IPSO to apologise for and correct a Toby Young article that was full of lies about Covid 19 - In 2019 the Times lost defamation cases against Imam Parel and Sultan Choudhury for attributing fabricated extremist statements to them - In 2020 the Times lost a libel case against Cage and Moazzam Begg for implicating them in a murder case For balance, I had a little look for times the Guardian has retracted, and found the following: - They voluntarily retracted a claim that a Sun journalist had doorstepped a Leveson lawyer - They apologised for wrongly reporting the death of care home resident George Robinson There are others which you can look for in the Guardian's daily "Corrections and Clarifications" column which they voluntarily introduced in 1997. Some right-wing papers do also have corrections columns, mostly introduced under pressure from the Leveson inquiry in or after 2011. I'm still eager to hear your confident and well-evidenced explanation for why the Guardian is way worse than the right-wing press for bias and fabrication." I've explained why the Gruaniad is worse already, and repeat : the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly. On the other hand the Gruaniad publishes the most juvenile left wing claptrap dressed up as serious broadsheet journalism. It's leftist readership accept it is fact when it is often just ranting opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, and who could forget Milly Dowler and all the other victims of tabloid spying. News of the World's gone, hasn't it. Remind me, was that paper right-wing or left-wing? Did the Guardian ever hack anyone's phone? I think you must be thinking of the Leftist Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People which were all involved in the “phone hacking scandal”." Yes, shitrags all of them, however many right-wing papers were involved, it was a right-wing paper that literally shut down because of it, and the guy I'm talking to has singled out the Guardian specifically as being worse than right-wing papers for bias and fabrication, so the comparison is to the Guardian, not left-wing press generally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I've explained why the Gruaniad is worse already, and repeat : the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly. On the other hand the Gruaniad publishes the most juvenile left wing claptrap dressed up as serious broadsheet journalism. It's leftist readership accept it is fact when it is often just ranting opinion." You've explained that that's your opinion but you haven't substantiated it with any facts. Now you're excusing all of the right-wing shit above by claiming their readership "sifts news", whatever that means - but the Guardian isn't allowed to publish opinion pieces? Dude, it was you who asked me to give you examples of the right wing press publishing bias and fabrication, upon which you'd come back with your own examples of the Guardian doing the same. If you're not able to find any that match or surpass what I've listed above, is it not time you re-examined your point of view? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I've explained why the Gruaniad is worse already, and repeat : the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly. On the other hand the Gruaniad publishes the most juvenile left wing claptrap dressed up as serious broadsheet journalism. It's leftist readership accept it is fact when it is often just ranting opinion. You've explained that that's your opinion but you haven't substantiated it with any facts. Now you're excusing all of the right-wing shit above by claiming their readership "sifts news", whatever that means - but the Guardian isn't allowed to publish opinion pieces? Dude, it was you who asked me to give you examples of the right wing press publishing bias and fabrication, upon which you'd come back with your own examples of the Guardian doing the same. If you're not able to find any that match or surpass what I've listed above, is it not time you re-examined your point of view?" Sift : to examine (something) thoroughly so as to isolate that which is most important. Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, and who could forget Milly Dowler and all the other victims of tabloid spying. News of the World's gone, hasn't it. Remind me, was that paper right-wing or left-wing? Did the Guardian ever hack anyone's phone? I think you must be thinking of the Leftist Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and People which were all involved in the “phone hacking scandal”. Yes, shitrags all of them, however many right-wing papers were involved, it was a right-wing paper that literally shut down because of it, and the guy I'm talking to has singled out the Guardian specifically as being worse than right-wing papers for bias and fabrication, so the comparison is to the Guardian, not left-wing press generally." I’m sure the Guardian just reflects the opinions of its urban affluent middle class public sector readership. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already." No, you're not, even though you said you would, firstly because you know you wouldn't find anything close to as bad and secondly because you don't have the intellectual rigour. Do you see the irony in you now expecting me to accept your opinion as fact? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m sure the Guardian just reflects the opinions of its urban affluent middle class public sector readership." Show me a newspaper that isn't broadly aligned with the political affiliations of its readership. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already. No, you're not, even though you said you would, firstly because you know you wouldn't find anything close to as bad and secondly because you don't have the intellectual rigour. Do you see the irony in you now expecting me to accept your opinion as fact?" Well opinions aren't necessarily facts are they? Yours no more than mine. I don't trust opinions in the DM, DE, Sun any more than the Gurinad. You've said yourself, they all skew their stories to their readership. It's just that the Gnuriad is so pompous and self-righteous about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already. No, you're not, even though you said you would, firstly because you know you wouldn't find anything close to as bad and secondly because you don't have the intellectual rigour. Do you see the irony in you now expecting me to accept your opinion as fact? Well opinions aren't necessarily facts are they? Yours no more than mine. I don't trust opinions in the DM, DE, Sun any more than the Gurinad. You've said yourself, they all skew their stories to their readership. It's just that the Gnuriad is so pompous and self-righteous about it. " So your issue is really just that you don't like their tone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already. No, you're not, even though you said you would, firstly because you know you wouldn't find anything close to as bad and secondly because you don't have the intellectual rigour. Do you see the irony in you now expecting me to accept your opinion as fact? Well opinions aren't necessarily facts are they? Yours no more than mine. I don't trust opinions in the DM, DE, Sun any more than the Gurinad. You've said yourself, they all skew their stories to their readership. It's just that the Gnuriad is so pompous and self-righteous about it. So your issue is really just that you don't like their tone." No, I expect the leftist tone from The G. But it all too often it's output is unfactual leftist dogma dressed up as serious news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Look I'm not gonna 'sift' through 10 years of Gruaniad bed-wetting drivel to find the top examples. Google yourself although you've probably read them already. No, you're not, even though you said you would, firstly because you know you wouldn't find anything close to as bad and secondly because you don't have the intellectual rigour. Do you see the irony in you now expecting me to accept your opinion as fact? Well opinions aren't necessarily facts are they? Yours no more than mine. I don't trust opinions in the DM, DE, Sun any more than the Gurinad. You've said yourself, they all skew their stories to their readership. It's just that the Gnuriad is so pompous and self-righteous about it. So your issue is really just that you don't like their tone. No, I expect the leftist tone from The G. But it all too often it's output is unfactual leftist dogma dressed up as serious news." And again, while you'll get no argument from me that the paper is obviously left-leaning, you still have all your work to do ro show that it's worse or even as bad as the alarmist, inflammatory and frequently misleading, dishonest and often literally libellous material published in the right-wing press - which is what you were claiming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly." So right-wingers buy populist right-wing newspapers because they reflect their views but they also know that the news published in these papers is often inaccurate so they ignore the inaccurate reporting even though it matches and reinforces their views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly. So right-wingers buy populist right-wing newspapers because they reflect their views but they also know that the news published in these papers is often inaccurate so they ignore the inaccurate reporting even though it matches and reinforces their views. " So who is buying the left wing papers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the populist press you mention sometimes get it wrong but often capture the public mood perfectly). But everybody knows their journalistic style and sifts news accordingly. So right-wingers buy populist right-wing newspapers because they reflect their views but they also know that the news published in these papers is often inaccurate so they ignore the inaccurate reporting even though it matches and reinforces their views. " Sounds about right. An edition of the DM say, will have multiple story lines. All will have some basis in fact, but with comment through a right wing prism. Readers might concur, they might not, they have minds of their own contrary to the stereotypes painted by the leftists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sounds about right. An edition of the DM say, will have multiple story lines. All will have some basis in fact, but with comment through a right wing prism. Readers might concur, they might not, they have minds of their own contrary to the stereotypes painted by the leftists." I wasn't thinking about opinon but rather news reporting. I have no problem with opinions being expressed whether they're on the left or right. It's when the facts are distorted to fit the opinions that we get into troublesome waters. The poster Story_of_M listed a few of the times that newspapers have distorted the facts in order to fit the opinions they push. Your suggestion is that readers know that certain papers do this and filter out the distortion but I'm not sure this is true. Of course this applies to all news sources not just the right-wing ones but when we look back at the evidence it seems that certain papers on the right are particularly economical with the truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sounds about right. An edition of the DM say, will have multiple story lines. All will have some basis in fact, but with comment through a right wing prism. Readers might concur, they might not, they have minds of their own contrary to the stereotypes painted by the leftists. I wasn't thinking about opinon but rather news reporting. I have no problem with opinions being expressed whether they're on the left or right. It's when the facts are distorted to fit the opinions that we get into troublesome waters. The poster Story_of_M listed a few of the times that newspapers have distorted the facts in order to fit the opinions they push. Your suggestion is that readers know that certain papers do this and filter out the distortion but I'm not sure this is true. Of course this applies to all news sources not just the right-wing ones but when we look back at the evidence it seems that certain papers on the right are particularly economical with the truth." The guy's contention is that the right-wing press can publish the kind of lies and distortions and outright provocations I listed above, and their readers are so whip-smart they'll just filter all that out and read what's left (the weather and football results, presumably). Meanwhile, the Guardian publishes opinion pieces clearly labelled "opinion", but Guardian readers are so thick they mistake them for hard factual news reporting. That's it, that's the whole argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, I expect the leftist tone from The G. But it all too often it's output is unfactual leftist dogma dressed up as serious news." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/16/malnourished-palestinian-woman-dies-in-italy-after-gaza-evacuation The Guardian fails to mention anywhere that this girl was dying from leukemia. But they can get away with it because they've covered themselves by saying "The hospital did not elaborate on her condition, but Italian news agencies reporting health facility sources said that she was suffering from severe malnutrition.". I.e. the anti-Israel rumour mill. Great journalism. Expect a tiny correction (not a retraction) in a week or so. This is not an isolated case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, I expect the leftist tone from The G. But it all too often it's output is unfactual leftist dogma dressed up as serious news. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/16/malnourished-palestinian-woman-dies-in-italy-after-gaza-evacuation The Guardian fails to mention anywhere that this girl was dying from leukemia. But they can get away with it because they've covered themselves by saying "The hospital did not elaborate on her condition, but Italian news agencies reporting health facility sources said that she was suffering from severe malnutrition.". I.e. the anti-Israel rumour mill. Great journalism. Expect a tiny correction (not a retraction) in a week or so. This is not an isolated case." You are correct that they did not mention the leukemia, and it is a relevant fact that should have been mentioned. However, the malnutrition is a more relevant fact in context. Speaking from experience (I'm a survivor of acute leukemia) malnutrition is not a necessary result of acute leukemia. She was malnourished because the war in Gaza made it impossible to treat her correctly. The woman was 20 and acute leukemia is treatable and frequently curable as long as the correct care is administered in a timely fashion. We can't know for sure if she would have survived in a country not at war but we also can't be sure her condition was necessarily terminal. On the other hand, we can be sure that the conditions of her care while in Gaza complicated her deterioration. She was malnourished, and not because she was already ill. So while the Guardian is guilty of omission, COGAT's claim that her deterioration and ultimate death was entirely due to her illness is a lie. This being said, while the Guardian is arguably guilty of bias in emphasising the complicating factors caused by the war without explicitly describing her pre-existing illness, if that's the standard to which we should hold newspapers (I do agree that it is) then most if not all right-wing newspapers need to completely overhaul their editorial standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...if that's the standard to which we should hold newspapers (I do agree that it is) then most if not all right-wing newspapers need to completely overhaul their editorial standards." No argument there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sounds about right. An edition of the DM say, will have multiple story lines. All will have some basis in fact, but with comment through a right wing prism. Readers might concur, they might not, they have minds of their own contrary to the stereotypes painted by the leftists. I wasn't thinking about opinon but rather news reporting. I have no problem with opinions being expressed whether they're on the left or right. It's when the facts are distorted to fit the opinions that we get into troublesome waters. The poster Story_of_M listed a few of the times that newspapers have distorted the facts in order to fit the opinions they push. Your suggestion is that readers know that certain papers do this and filter out the distortion but I'm not sure this is true. Of course this applies to all news sources not just the right-wing ones but when we look back at the evidence it seems that certain papers on the right are particularly economical with the truth." The problem here is what are 'facts' or for that matter 'truth'. You and I might witness say a RTA and give a completely different account, each believing we've captured the 'facts'. The media dress up a lot of biased opinion as facts - the L and the R. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not talking about slight variations arising from different perspectives. For instance can you think of a left-wing newspaper that has ever sunk as low as the Sun? They claimed, under a banner of "THE TRUTH" that Liverpool fans picked the pockets of the dead, that they urinated on police officers and beat up a police officer giving the kiss of life. I think on the inside pages they quoted a Tory MP saying that fans wanted to have sex with one of the dead female victims." This is what I'm saying. The guy started by accusing the Guardian of being far worse for partisan lies than any of the right-wing press. I gave him two dozen examples of the right-wing press behaving in inexcusable ways, none of which the Guardian has ever done. He's ignored those, refused to supply any examples of the Guardian's alleged constant wrongdoing, and has now revised his position to "they're all as bad as each other" while still maintaining that the right-wing readers are clever enough to ignore the bullshit in their papers, but the Guardian's readers are brainwashed zombies. And then people accuse the left of fabricating our own narratives and refusing to accept reality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
