Correct, and that's bad. It was also reported on by the news outlets being criticized in the same articles where they reported Israels claimed intention, next to how often they kill journalists, and more information about their method of targeting first responders.
While ethically it doesn't matter who they were targeting, it's still newsworthy. In the past they've openly admitted to targeting a journalist.
What to you would qualify as critical reporting? Ideally while remaining grounded in the objective.
I think reporting what they said their target was, and in the same report reporting that that isn't what they hit, that the camera has been there a while, that it's not unusual to have a camera in place like that, and that Israel was informed of the camera qualifies.They can't objectively show the report is a lie, but they can provide the evidence you need to come to that conclusion.
Objectivity is not the same as neutrality. Both news outlets strive for objectivity, but I would say their coverage is not neutral at all, largely because they strive to report the facts as they are.
I don't know that I can take seriously an opinion piece that's outraged that a news article repeated a statement by one of the parties in the story.
as if Israel had the right to balance the assertion that the journalists were targeted with its own fabrication
That's powerfully loaded language. It presupposes that it's a fabrication, which, although entirely likely (or a tangle of redefined words tantamount to fabrication) , is still biased. It's weighing two ultimately unsubstantiated claims against each other and saying only one is invalid.
Given that the linked AP article the author objects to spends significantly more time covering human rights condemnation of the attack, the method of the attack, and how the Israeli military comports itself than it does reporting what the Israeli military claimed as their motivation, I can only conclude they object to it being reported on at all.Personally, I would like to know if they're claiming they targeted the journalists, as they have in the past, or if they're claiming something else.
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.
What about when nearly the exact same thing happened and they reported it was baseless?
Or when one of their staff was killed by Russia, but they couldn't confirm ukranian statements that it was a Russian missile so they reported the ukranian statement and made it clear that the could not confirm if it was Russia or if it was deliberate?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/reuters-staff-hit-strike-hotel-ukraines-kramatorsk-2024-08-25/
I'm incredulous that Reuters should be categorized as Israeli propaganda because one headline, clarified shortly after publication, is accurate but lacking an explicit source.That's why getting your news from a screen shot of a screenshot of Twitter isn't a good idea. A new source can correct or clarify a headline, but the screenshot is forever.
Also, Israel isn't in NATO. I'm not sure if you meant that as another caveat but it sounded like you were saying they were.Should I dismiss your comment as misinformation because it appears you implied that Israel was in NATO?
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.
They updated the headline, likely because it created some confusion.
Reuters and AP journalists killed in Gaza strike were not 'a target,' an Israeli military spokesperson says
I mean, I honestly don't think "Initial inquiry says Hamas camera target of Israeli strike that killed journalists" is uncritical propagation of Israeli FUD.
It's not a good title, since it clearly causes a misunderstanding and it doesn't convey key information like "whose investigation", but it's not disinformation.
The supposed justification is that there was a camera used by Hamas to monitor IDF operations for military purposes. So "Hamas camera" would be used in the same capacity as "US spy satellite".
Leaving the veracity if that claim aside, attacking a hospital to destroy a camera being used to observe your forces operating dangerously close to a hospital is not great.
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?
I mean, you can go look at Reuters headlines for the middle east.
https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/
It's hardly uncritically accepting of Israels narrative goals, which would be expected for a news outlet that tries to report objectively.Given that the initial headline, which I don't think was as bad as people are responding, was shortly changed and their long history of good reporting and current history of seemingly not following someones dictated narrative, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's true that all publishing decisions are ultimately editorial, but there's a big difference between deciding to report on what IDF and Hamas representatives say while not reporting on social media opinion, and reporting speculation and interpretation of events.
I don't feel like they failed to contextualize the headline. It was a subpar headline updated for clarity shortly after publication.
There just seems to be a lot of jumping on one of the more factual and objective news sources for a headline taken out of context for failing to include sufficient context.
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".
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.
Did they put misinformation in the headline?
How would you report on the IDF releasing an initial report that said they didn't kill them on purpose?
Does their rephrasing of the headline to "Reuters and AP journalists killed in Gaza strike were not 'a target,' an Israeli military spokesperson says" make a difference?
I'm not saying it was a perfect headline, but it's hardly misinformation.
They're not reporting that because you're not a significant public figure.
Now, I think they were targeting journalists. Explain to me how the video or live stream from their reporter is proof that their intended target was the journalists. They're not disputing that they killed them, just what their intentions were.It's difficult to prove intentions without having some form of explicit documentation of the sort that's unlikely to be forthcoming from the Israeli military.You can point out that they've killed a lot of journalists (which they did), that international journalism organizations are calling for UN intervention and sanctions for the targeting of journalists (which they did), that the stream was not new or an unknown thing, and the location had been being used by multiple news organizations for coverage (which they did), that their second strike hit medical responders from the bombed hospital (which they did), that they're historically not productive at investigations into their killing of journalists (which they did), that there's counter claims that the people they claimed to have been targeting were known to be elsewhere or were previously killed in a different location (which they did).
Those are facts. They paint a clear picture from which one can easily draw a conclusion, but that conclusion is not a fact.
Are you that desperate for every line of every relevant news article to align with your beliefs that you can't tolerate a news agency reporting "Israel claims they didn't do it on purpose"?
Reuters isn't reporting what happened, they're reporting on what Israel said happened.They are, to the best of their abilities, a non-editorial news source."Israel lies about target of attack" is editorial, regardless of accuracy.
The report about what happened is a different article
In the content of the article about Israels statement they open with it being journalists who were killed, continue to point out that they had been there for weeks and that it's normal for news outlets to do this, which is why multiple news agencies were at that location. They also only refer to the targets as "alleged targets" who were "allegedly militants".
They also list the report about the man and his killing by Israeli forces above the story of what Israel said about it.
We've gotten very used to media being by default editorial in nature. It doesn't just say what happened, it tells us how to feel about what happened. A handful of new agencies still try to report on facts, and leave qualitative judgement for the reader.
This does result in odd headlines sometimes when they report on stories they are involved in. Like this headline (which has been revised), or when the AP dutifully reports on the white house calling them lunatics for following standard journalistic writing style, mysteriously detailed in the "AP style guide".
Neutrality free from context or interpretation of any sort is opening the door for lies to have equal ground with the truth. Needing that context to be present in the headline without reading the body is starting to erode the notion of being unbiased.
I would never advocate or incite for imminent lawless action. I would advocate for a change in public policy that included things currently held to be illegal.As long as it makes a difference, the first amendment protects your right to advocate for changes to law and policy. You just can't tell people to right now go and break a specific law if you have reason to believe they might.
"People should shoot maga fascists dead in the street and hang them from lampposts" is protected because it's saying what society should do, not actively calling for people to go do this.
While true, it's hardly fair that I, as a man, don't need to learn to sew, buy a sewing machine , spend time getting materials or actually doing the sewing in order to have good pockets. My pants just come with good pockets.