So I posted an article from al Arabiya about Christian villages denying that they asked Netanyahu to annex their villages on World News@lemmy.world.

Jordanlund removed it simply because he don't like the source. Yet he has no problem with articles from Saudi backed Iranian media https://irannewswire.org/ that also celebrate the terrorist group the MEK that sell out their country to side with Saddam and has no problem with israeli sources that deny the obvious genocide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -13 points 4 months ago (9 children)

True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won't call Israel "Pissrahell" is a bad faith argument.

We get it, they have actively been engaging in war crimes for my entire lifetime, but the BBC is not ignoring or condoning what they are doing:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1eyyyl8ye0o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlwwwyy70do

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn75ex1dv61o

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 4 months ago* (7 children)

    Bbc is untrustworthy because it got exposed for policing pro palestine voices

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/2/over-100-staff-accuse-bbc-of-bias-in-its-coverage-of-israels-war-in-gaza

    Rhe other didn't say bbc should have called israel pissrael and got mad because it didn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    From that link:

    "“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians,” the letter said."

    Someone doesn't understand how journalism works.

    When Israel, or anyone else really, says something insane, or objectionable, it is NOT the position of the journalist to robustly challenge it.

    The position of the journalist is to report what was said, the ramifications for saying it, and any sort of counter argument.

    (Source: I married a journalist...)

    Good journalism is not supposed to take sides, which is inherently problematic in OTHER ways, making minority counter arguments appear to be on equal footing when they are not.

    So, for example:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo

    https://web.archive.org/web/20260620041239/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo

    Pretty solid reporting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Good journalism is supposed to report facts not doing both sadism. I don't want in an article about Ukraine for the media to spread russian lies. A reputable media should never force it's journalists to police their tone to look politcally correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Tell me you don't know how journalism works without telling me you don't know how journalism works.

    The sites that refuse to police tone are some of the worst offenders, who also get removed BTW. Your Fox News, New York Post, ONN, Breitbart, etc. etc.

    The difference is, most people inherently know not to post that shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Tell me you don’t know how journalism works without telling me you don’t know how journalism works.

    It is you who don't know what journalism is. You prove again and again that you can't think by yourself and just follow blindly random factcheckers

    Walter Lippmann the father of modern journalism said The function of news is to signal an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them in relation with each other, and to make a picture of reality on which men can act. Nothing about balance and both siding

    Journalism professor Jonathan Foster said : "If someone says it's raining and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the window and find out which is true."

    The sites that refuse to police tone are some of the worst offenders, who also get removed BTW. Your Fox News, New York Post, ONN, Breitbart, etc. etc.

    Fox news do police tone. They will never allow anybody saying the word genocide or put democrats in a positive light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Tell me you don’t know how journalism works without telling me you don’t know how journalism works.

    Said the man who keeps up propaganda that agrees with him and said he actually hates black people defending themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won't call Israel "Pissrahell" is a bad faith argument.

    so obviously not my argument... 🙄 wonder why no one is talking to you in good faith? Its shit like this...

  • source
  • parent