outhouseperilous comments on Reuters says Reuters is Hamas

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

significant

Significant for what though?

what evidence

Dunno, havent seen the video, but the statement us that they were targeting a hamas what? They literally admitted it.

must always assume theyre telling the truth

This is worse journalism than the elon musk owned media platform 'twitter'. The platform. Add a tag that says 'these guys lie a lot' or send it straight to the archive, never published on the main site. Include the fact that ot may not be true.

And why do we even need to know they said this? It's not like their words have meaning anymore; the texture of their poop is genuinely more illuminating most of the time. 'Israeli minister of defense scorzeny, recently reanimated in a ritual involving a swimming pool full of palestinian children's blood and pureed genitals, sprayed the inside of the bowl with an orange goo in several hacking bursts this morning, followed by a short light brown log' tells me more than the shit they said.

There are lots of solutions here, you just seem to be arguing for the status quo and figuring out why as the need arises.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Are you claiming you are a public figure in any sense? Do I actually need to explain why "the IDF" is significant to a story about Israeli military action?

Dunno, havent seen the video, but the statement us that they were targeting a hamas what? They literally admitted it.

I'm not understanding you or your point here. Yes, they did admit to killing the journalists. Everyone has reported on this and it's not in dispute. The report was about Israel claiming their death was unintentional, not that they claimed they were Hamas or that they didn't do it.
What could possibly be in the video that would prove they intended to kill the journalists, as opposed to them being collateral damage? I doubt the Reuters live stream caught the IDF commander who ordered the strike articulating his intentions.

must always assume theyre telling the truth

Not sure why this is a quote. I didn't say that. You don't need to assume someone is telling the truth to report what they said as being something they said.

And why do we even need to know they said this?

You don't. You can close the webpage and not follow the news and you'll probably be happier in the long run.

You're arguing that an organization that exists to provide objective reporting shouldn't do that because sometimes they report that someone you dislike made a claim you disagree with.

I'm arguing that it's okay to report facts without commentary. I'm somehow able to conclude that Israel was targeting the journalists based on the context provided in the report without needing the report to tell me the conclusion to have upfront.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

But they're not reporting all the facts.

If they printed the zio commentary as a response with a video of theit live stream, this would be less absurd.

Like how you haven't raped any kittens then used their bloody cum soaked crying little bodies to bully and beat school children until the kittens were dead since your lunch break. Im pretty sure this is true about a horrible thing you haven't done this side of your most recent lunch break. Congratulations not doing any kitten focused atrocities (in the past couple hours).

You seem to think that communication only has one side, and that thinking about likely interpretation of your words is disingenuous. This is like communication 101 shit, though. Im literally autistic and i learned this from literal fairy tales before i was out of primary school. It's so fucking basic i cannot believe you genuinely don't understand this. I am literally retarded about specifically this, and i have an understanding so much more robust than your claim that even explaining how you're wrong feel like an act of violent deliberate alienation.

Nobody with a genuine education or who is not literally retarded could possibly be so profoundlu stupid as to believe decontextualizing knowledge and then telling you little bits is somehow 'neutral' or 'objective' or 'incapable of being lies'.

Edit: i could also ask if you ever went to school, but i mostly didn't and i figured it the fuck out. I could ask if you're high, but im also riding the afterglow of a pretty spicy worthy-of-mkultra coctail myself, and this concept is still entirely clear to me.

Unless you have severe brain damage, i guess. So do you have severe brain damage? Were you fed a diet of lead paint as a child and then hit in the head until you believed this, or are you fucking lying?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

Here's the video you wanted: https://youtu.be/C_pg-5B8K2I

What facts do you think they're leaving out? Do you think this one headline is their only coverage?

I am literally retarded about specifically this

And yet you think you know more about it than a renowned news organization?

Again, what context do you think is missing? Did you read the report or just some twitter hot takes about the title?

You seem to think that communication only has one side, and that thinking about likely interpretation of your words is disingenuous

What? What part of "other articles have information about the dispute of Israeli claims", and those disputes being explicitly brought up in the article is only paying attention to one side? You're looking for editorial if you want your news to give you an interpretation, and propaganda if you're looking for it to lead the reader to a specific one.

decontextualizing knowledge and then telling you little bits is somehow 'neutral' or 'objective' or 'incapable of being lies'.

Where did I say that? Spoiler alert: I didn't, that's just what you would rather argue against.

You're very keen on insulting people you're talking to or devolving into the grotesque aren't you? It just makes you come across as childish and it's much easier to dismiss your opinions as those of an ignorant child.
I get it. You think your interpretation of the facts and the implied narrative is so clear and obvious that it's dishonest not to include it alongside a report, so when they issue a report on the IDFs initial internal investigation findings you feel like someone is trying to spin things for Israel when they don't actively support your narrative, even if they don't support Israels either.
They aren't however. Your interpretation and narrative didn't happen, they're implied. You can't take footage of motivation. The only insight we have into how the IDF selects targets is what they say, so the only facts are "Israel states their intent is to not kill journalists", "this isn't the first time they've killed a journalist this week", and "not even the first Reuters journalist".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Can't watch youtube from here. Security settings are a pain to change, and this doesn't merit.

appeal to authority

Well if you could explain why that's not a nonsense bullshit position, sure. But you haven't shown any interest in doing that. It shouldn't be hard. Please, make literally any attempt. I'll try my best to understand.

other articles have information about the dispute of

Not "this is a confirmed unreliable source". So it's still the headline any zio can use, but totally honest to an audience who consumes media in a way nobody consumes media these days. This is called honest reporting.

grotesque

Youre talking about the murder of journalists trying to catch genocidal war criminals being excused and normalized by the outlets that hired them. I sought only to match that level of fucked, and i genuinely don't think i was successful. If you think i was escalating, maybe that's an issue with you.

your interpretation

The writer is interpreting even on what they consider "neutral". How can you, in the year twenty rwenty five, nit understand this? Genuinely how?

both sides

Okay so you're lying. Like, there's cases where both sides, nut this really isn't one

the only insight is uncritical parroting of what we're told

Also a god damn century of precedent, the last hundred times this happened, explicit doctrine, how this story turbed out the last five hundred times we read it this year, the social media of the fucker who pulled the trigger (even odds they were also live streaming it over a truly horrible abuse of the rap genre) and report-backs from anyone with a strong enough stomach to press "hebrew to english" on their translation tool of choice. Yes. Other than those things all we have is their word against the word of the usual smouldering corpses.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

Yeah, acting like you're quoting but instead changing the words to what you want them to be makes it really hard to figure out what the fuck you're saying.

Summary of the video: a cellphone video of the second strike. The Livestream feed showing smoke in the distance and then cutting off. A video from a camera person approaching the bombsite before getting hit in the second strike. A voice over detailing what happened, Israels statement, the Palestinian press association calling it an unacceptable act of terrorizing journalists attempting to report the truth, and the response from other relevant parties, like Reuters.

Well if you could explain why that's not a nonsense bullshit position, sure. But you haven't shown any interest in doing that. It shouldn't be hard. Please, make literally any attempt. I'll try my best to understand.

Do you mean trusting Reuters more than you? It has something to do with you overtly stating that you don't know what you're talking about and being opposed to factual reporting while Reuters has a reputation as a reliable news source. And I see that you went back and edited your comment to include you being uneducated and deleriously inebriated.

I'm not sure what other position you could be referring to, since I've explained things pretty clearly and repeatedly.

audience who consumes media in a way nobody consumes media these days

... Reading the article? Not getting their news from a screenshot of a tweet? If you need media outlets to not even reference in a headline someone you disagree with saying the murder was unintentional, you're looking for propaganda.

I sought only to match that level of fucked

You thought to yourself "genocide and killing journalists is horrific, I better talk about raping kittens"? That's even more bizarre than you being a child who thought it added dramatic flair.

Okay so you're lying. Like, there's cases where both sides, nut this really isn't one

I'm actively at a loss for what you're talking about here. I went back and I never talked about sides. The closest I came was trying to empathize with your viewpoint?

You list a pile of things that would be evidence for their motivation that weren't reported on. Do you actually have any of those things? A recording of the pilot saying they were gonna go bomb some journalists would actually be evidence.

No one is taking their word for anything. Do you understand the difference between repeating what someone says and saying that they said it?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

quoting

No. Thats "quoting". I'm indicating qhqt im responding to, ideas, not full text, and on the assumption that anyone reading what i said has at least least skimmed upthread of here. Bad assumption, i guess

i fucked your mom

Oof, but no accounting for taste. Get checked, k?

edited

Before you saw, so not 'going back'. I assume the down vote was you.

trusting reuters

You still can't actually address my criticism and tell me why i should. Like, youve said literally nothing to actually engage with it. You're just appealing to authority and reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn't aware. As if that produces some inherent trudtworthiness either generally elsewhere or specifically reuters. Which is just convincing me that im right and you have a boot in your mouth.

do you understand

Discourse and how human brains and perception and communication actually work literally at all? It doesn't seem so.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What criticism? You've said that you don't trust them because they don't tell you how to feel. I've engaged with that notion the entire time. Maybe go back and read through things again. Oh, wait. I forgot you said that actually reading was not how people engage with media anymore.

Err...

reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn't aware

Hey, you asked. You saying you know nothing about the topic is a big motivation to not give you a lot of credence.

Before you saw, so not 'going back'.

Confused about why you seem to be taking offense at that. I reread your comment while replying because it was jumbled (still not sure what you meant by "both sides"), and saw the "Edited:” bit and then the part about you being high. I assumed you didn't just write 'Edited:' in the middle of the comment, which would mean you ... Went back and edited it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

telling you how to feel

For someone being teeious about wuotes you're aefully fast and loose with them. You're not self aware enough to explain yourself. I don't believe you're entirely a person, and I'd like to disengage from this and you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

At this point i see you as some combination of bad faith and not-being-a-conavious-actor enougg that i see no reward in exchange. I would like to disengage.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

You think I'm bad faith, as the person who has continuously dragged things off topic and ignored what's been written? Rich. If you want to disengage, it's called "stop engaging". I find it entertaining enough to start engaging in this conversation on the level you started at.