Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 08 Apr 2024 23:47
collapse
Is Sky News misinformation? We’ll have to wait for a Mod to tell us.
maynarkh@feddit.nl
on 09 Apr 2024 01:48
nextcollapse
Why so hostile?
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 02:05
nextcollapse
Had a better article, but givesomefucks@lemmy.world didn’t like it because it was an Israeli news source. Unfortunately, the mod agreed with him and deleted it due to misinformation. So this is another source. This will hit the wires in the morning. I don’t know what these guys are afraid of.
jordanlund@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 03:41
collapse
Yeah, I don’t know that I would have accepted an Israeli news source reporting on Hamas anymore than, I dunno, Pravda reporting on the latest from Zelenskyy. :)
The Sky article, as weak as it is, is impartial and led me to the Reuters story confirming it.
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 03:51
nextcollapse
But, would you accept Al Jazeera reporting on Isreal? Because, that happens all the time around here.
BtW, since I’m at it. There are a lot of Pravdas. Ukraine even has one.
jordanlund@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 04:28
collapse
Al Jazeera’s big blind spot is actually Qatar. So anything with a Qatari aspect should be suspect.
For example… Al Jazeera likely isn’t reporting this:
“95 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 90 Palestinian, 2 Israeli, and 3 Lebanese.
16 journalists were reported injured.
4 journalists were reported missing.
25 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings of family members.
CPJ is also investigating numerous unconfirmed reports of other journalists being killed, missing, detained, hurt, or threatened, and of damage to media offices and journalists’ homes.”
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 08:41
collapse
In case you missed it. How could al Jazeera be a unbiased news source when it comes to Isreal?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 10:27
nextcollapse
Oh no israel the world authority on moral rights and press freedom!
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 11:40
collapse
FFS Isreal even kicked them out of the country.
Maybe you’re right and Israel kicked them out of the country because they had a blind spot.
It also could have been that Israel, like many countries before it, kicked them out because they were reporting truths that Israel didn’t want reported.
You cannot assume the former and use it as an explanation of Al Jazeera’s bias in regard to Israel.
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 12:18
collapse
It doesn’t matter. Either way, they are a biased source.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 12:22
collapse
Every news source is a biased news source. It would be impossible to post any news source here if that were the criterion being discussed.
The question is whether or not the bias is bad to the point of not being truthful, or wholly truthful. “Israel kicked them out” does not answer that question.
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 13:07
collapse
Truthful defined by you?
If that concept was true in practice this wouldn’t have been a problem.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 13:10
collapse
Again- your only reason given to not trust Al Jazeera as a source is that Israel kicked them out, which I already explained was not a good reason.
Isn’t Pravda ironically anti-Putin nowadays? Or am I mixing it up with something?
Ross_audio@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 14:03
collapse
There’s a Russian Pravda and a Ukrainian Pravda.
Both extremely partisan. Neither what I’d call reliable sources of news but you’ve probably seen propaganda from both.
Of course the Ukrainian Pravda has literally been able to print facts, unguilded, and they’ve matched what they would say as propaganda anyway so it’s appeared like a reputable news source recently.
That’s what happens when Russia genuinely does things like use chemical weapons (cs gas) banned by the Geneva convention.
(For those wondering, even though cs gas is used in riots the convention bans all gas based weapons as they target indiscriminately and could easily be mistaken for nerve agents by either side. Leading to either accidental use of nerve agents or accidental retaliation with something similarly destructive)
Or when the Russians directly hit a nuclear reactor 3 times.
Meanwhile the Russian Pravda has to manufacture its propaganda, like claiming an Islamic State attack which Islamic State issued video evidence of and claimed was somehow Ukrainian.
goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
on 09 Apr 2024 15:53
collapse
They don’t like it when people question their sources. Especially when they link from ones that are pretty obvious hasbara
jordanlund@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 01:49
nextcollapse
I wouldn’t call it misinformation, but man, this link is AWFUL.
The page is a collection of headlines mostly unrelated to the topic, and the one piece involving the ceasefire is one headline + 2 sentences, sourcing Ali Baraka.
Reuters is reporting it as “deadlocked” but directly quotes Baraka as saying:
“We reject the latest Israeli proposals that the Egyptian side informed us of. The politburo met today and decided this.”
Another Hamas official had earlier told Reuters that no progress had been made in the negotiations.
“There is no change in the position of the occupation (Israel) and therefore, there is nothing new in the Cairo talks,” the Hamas official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters. “There is no progress yet.”
So you have Baraka saying it’s rejected and another un-named official implying talks are still ongoing.
So the Sky page may not necessarily be misinformation, it’s just bad reporting.
Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
on 09 Apr 2024 02:06
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Is Sky News misinformation? We’ll have to wait for a Mod to tell us.
Why so hostile?
Had a better article, but givesomefucks@lemmy.world didn’t like it because it was an Israeli news source. Unfortunately, the mod agreed with him and deleted it due to misinformation. So this is another source. This will hit the wires in the morning. I don’t know what these guys are afraid of.
Yeah, I don’t know that I would have accepted an Israeli news source reporting on Hamas anymore than, I dunno, Pravda reporting on the latest from Zelenskyy. :)
The Sky article, as weak as it is, is impartial and led me to the Reuters story confirming it.
But, would you accept Al Jazeera reporting on Isreal? Because, that happens all the time around here.
BtW, since I’m at it. There are a lot of Pravdas. Ukraine even has one.
Al Jazeera’s big blind spot is actually Qatar. So anything with a Qatari aspect should be suspect.
For example… Al Jazeera likely isn’t reporting this:
politico.eu/…/west-search-truth-qatar-israel-hama…
FFS Isreal even kicked them out of the country. That’s more than a blind spot.
Could have been worse…
cpj.org/…/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaz…
As of April 8:
“95 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 90 Palestinian, 2 Israeli, and 3 Lebanese.
16 journalists were reported injured.
4 journalists were reported missing.
25 journalists were reported arrested.
Multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship, and killings of family members.
CPJ is also investigating numerous unconfirmed reports of other journalists being killed, missing, detained, hurt, or threatened, and of damage to media offices and journalists’ homes.”
In case you missed it. How could al Jazeera be a unbiased news source when it comes to Isreal?
Oh no israel the world authority on moral rights and press freedom!
Maybe you’re right and Israel kicked them out of the country because they had a blind spot.
It also could have been that Israel, like many countries before it, kicked them out because they were reporting truths that Israel didn’t want reported.
You cannot assume the former and use it as an explanation of Al Jazeera’s bias in regard to Israel.
It doesn’t matter. Either way, they are a biased source.
Every news source is a biased news source. It would be impossible to post any news source here if that were the criterion being discussed.
The question is whether or not the bias is bad to the point of not being truthful, or wholly truthful. “Israel kicked them out” does not answer that question.
Truthful defined by you?
If that concept was true in practice this wouldn’t have been a problem.
Again- your only reason given to not trust Al Jazeera as a source is that Israel kicked them out, which I already explained was not a good reason.
Do you have a better one?
Edit: Ugh. Wrote Al Qaeda.
Isn’t Pravda ironically anti-Putin nowadays? Or am I mixing it up with something?
There’s a Russian Pravda and a Ukrainian Pravda.
Both extremely partisan. Neither what I’d call reliable sources of news but you’ve probably seen propaganda from both.
Of course the Ukrainian Pravda has literally been able to print facts, unguilded, and they’ve matched what they would say as propaganda anyway so it’s appeared like a reputable news source recently.
That’s what happens when Russia genuinely does things like use chemical weapons (cs gas) banned by the Geneva convention.
(For those wondering, even though cs gas is used in riots the convention bans all gas based weapons as they target indiscriminately and could easily be mistaken for nerve agents by either side. Leading to either accidental use of nerve agents or accidental retaliation with something similarly destructive)
Or when the Russians directly hit a nuclear reactor 3 times.
Meanwhile the Russian Pravda has to manufacture its propaganda, like claiming an Islamic State attack which Islamic State issued video evidence of and claimed was somehow Ukrainian.
They don’t like it when people question their sources. Especially when they link from ones that are pretty obvious hasbara
I wouldn’t call it misinformation, but man, this link is AWFUL.
The page is a collection of headlines mostly unrelated to the topic, and the one piece involving the ceasefire is one headline + 2 sentences, sourcing Ali Baraka.
Reuters is reporting it as “deadlocked” but directly quotes Baraka as saying:
reuters.com/…/hamas-says-gaza-truce-talks-remain-…
“We reject the latest Israeli proposals that the Egyptian side informed us of. The politburo met today and decided this.”
Another Hamas official had earlier told Reuters that no progress had been made in the negotiations.
“There is no change in the position of the occupation (Israel) and therefore, there is nothing new in the Cairo talks,” the Hamas official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters. “There is no progress yet.”
So you have Baraka saying it’s rejected and another un-named official implying talks are still ongoing.
So the Sky page may not necessarily be misinformation, it’s just bad reporting.
Explained this in this string,
BTW, this is Ali Baraka en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Baraka
You can reject a specific proposal and still keep talking.
Yes because Hamas did not reject a ceasefire proposale, israel did.