320
CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
320 points (94.7% liked)
News
23406 readers
1638 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Journalist outlets everywhere are doing it, not just CNN...
BNN Bloomberg and Canadian news outlets CTV, CP24 were forbidden from using the word Palestine and heavily restricted coverage including banning reporting on calls for a ceasefire.
I think that's why it's important on various unions, US and Canadian cities, and other groups to call for a ceasefire, that way the press will be less and less able to ignore it or censor it.
What? How do you even discuss the situation without using the word 'Palestine?'
Oops, everything is Hamas now!
The truly sad thing is that there are people who believe just that.
https://newrepublic.com/post/178679/gop-congressman-brian-mast-dead-palestinian-babies-not-innocent
Oops, all berries!
They use Gaza instead.
The thinking behind this is that you're not making it out like it's all Palestinians that are part of the Hamas death cult...at least that's how it's been explained to me. Not sure how that's pro Israel exactly, seems to be more pro Palestinian but I'm sure someone will tell me how that's wrong.
I said this to @MxM111- my problem is that the IDF is now doing raids in the West Bank too. When the IDF is in both parts of Palestine, using Gaza doesn't really make sense.
If you click on the link in the post above, then you will see that they specifically talk about war to be called "Israel-Gasa", not "Israel-Palestinian" war to avoid confusion with Palestinian Authority. Such titles are click-bates.
I admit I did not click through, but the war has expanded beyond Gaza, so calling it the Israel-Palestinian war makes sense.
Such raids Israel was doing well before the war. Israel also does not have a goal to destroy the Palestinian Authority. You are twisting facts here. Precisely because of such statements the journalists are given instructions NOT TO DO THAT.
What facts did I twist? Because all I said was that the war has expanded to beyond Gaza to the West Bank whether their goal is to destroy the PA or not. I'm not even sure why not having that goal means the war can't expand into the West Bank. Are you under the strange misapprehension that every war is about regime change?
Also, my link was one example. There have been plenty of others.
It seems to me that calling it the Israel-Gaza war when it isn't just in Israel and Gaza is a twisting of facts. Even Wikipedia has the sense to call it the Israel-Hamas war since at least Israel claims that's who they're at war against (I would argue that is also false). And let's say that's true. Why can't Hamas members be in the West Bank?
Was America at war with Pakistan when it killed Bin Laden in Pakistan during the "Great War on Terror?"
Calling this Israili-Palistinian war is twisting facts. There are also shorts traded with Hezbollah, so, let's call it Israeli Lebanon/Iranian war.
Shots traded is not the same thing as multiple incursions.
How many military operations do there have to be in the West Bank for it to not make sense to call it the "Israel-Gaza War?"
You understand that West Bank is occupied by Israel for many years and they do these raids for many years (decades even), right?
You didn't answer my question.
Also, from the link I pasted that you obviously ignored:
And yet the war is only in Gaza.
Weird kind of peace.
I would not call it peace, I would call it occupation. And it is absolutely expected increase of activities there when something is happening in Gaza. That was true the last time Israel had excursion into Gaza, it is true now. But it is absolutely dishonest to call it the war with Palestine. Israel does not have goal to dismiss the Palestinian Authority, does not try to attack the officials or government buildings of the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian Authority does not use any paramilitary forces to fight Israel. Calling it a war with Palestine is simply false and is anti-Israel propaganda in my opinion.
As for your question - it does not matter if it is 5 or 35 or 3005 times those raids happen. Weather it is a war or not is not defined by the number of raids, but by what I have discussed above.
So you're saying that despite this being the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank in recorded history and despite Israel occupying parts of the West Bank, taking away any authority the PA may have in those areas and despite Israel conducting raid after raid into the West Bank, the war is only in Gaza.
It really sounds to me like you're arguing that the war is only in Gaza because Israel says so and no matter what the IDF does in the West Bank and no matter how many people they kill in the West Bank, the war is only in Gaza.
That's some real 1984 shit.
Yes, I am saying precisely that. The raids are not war. It is just the question of definition of what war is and is not. One thing I agree with you, it is 1984 shit. Just I suspect we disagree who is doing it. You may want to open dictionary and check what war is.
Ok.
Sure sounds like what's happening in the West Bank to me... unless the IDF is only killing unarmed people. Is that what is going on?
given the decades of blockades, i dont see how anyone couad be armedin gaza
Let’s abstract this. We marine you are asking someone: “there is this state that as result of war occupied territory, but did not annex it. In this occupied territory it organized provisional government, yet this territory is not independent and still under occupation. There is resistance in this territory and the state periodically has raids to squash the resistance. The resistance is not organized or have relationship to the provisional government. At some point due to events happening elsewhere, the resistance is activated and number of raids dramatically increased to the levels higher than before, higher than at any time since setting up the provisional government. The state did not declare war on provisional government, the provisional government did not declare war on the state nor is the one who is responsible for increase in resistance activity. The state does not target the government or officials from the government, it only increased the number of raids. How would you call this situation?”
How do you honestly think that person answer? As for me, I would be very surprised that the person would answer “a war”. It is continued occupation with increased activity and raids. Don’t you agree that this is reasonable answer?
You told me to look up the definition of war. I did. Now you're saying that definition is wrong.
It is not wrong, it is just not full. Answer the question I ask you in the above post about abstracting situation.
You: "You may want to open dictionary and check what war is."
Me: Okay, here's the definition.
You: That's not the full definition.
Then why did you tell me to look it up? Or at least not tell me which dictionary to look it up in that would agree with you?
Did you even check what the dictionary definition was before you told me to look it up?
You are not answering my question. Are you trying to discuss dictionaries instead? You are avoiding topic. I probably should have said encyclopedia , but you will face the same problem when you see “intensity of conflict” etc. So, let’s not talk about dictionaries but about the meaning of the word as most people would understand in this situation. This is why abstracted for you to see my point. Can you answer my question?
You told me to look it up in a dictionary. I did what you told me to and you dismissed it. I have no reason to answer your question when you won't even accept something I did that you told me to do.
He's a fascist troll
Just want to point that out :)
Could be considering I did what they asked and that apparently didn't matter.
It's happening on multiple fronts:
Pro-Israel groups target US lawmakers critical of Gaza war with attack ads
Palestinians were on TV a lot in Canada just after October 7. We were all waiting for them to denounce Hamas for the genocide they committed. It didn't happen.
Then Palestinians started protesting a Jewish community in Toronto. There's an Israeli consulate in Toronto, but instead of protesting there they protested a Jewish community. Wait, why are they protesting Canadian Jews? I thought this was just about being against Israel, not about being against Jews?
Then they started trying to burn down Jewish businesses. Hold up....
Attacks on synagogues have increased dramatically.
Hmmmm... why oh why aren't they giving these groups more airtime?
Also the news has similar policies on calling a certain region of India to be Khalistan, or a certain region of Iraq and Turkey to be Kurdistan. They'll mention the Khalistan movement but won't refer to the region to be Khalistan. And nobody is upset about that because no one expects a news organization to take up an activist cause.
They certainly did show the words "Free Palestine" that was spray painted on the doors of a Jewish owned business that some assholes tried to burn down. So no, the word Palestine is not banned, they just don't call the region Palestine because it's not the place of the news to take part in an activist cause. And the actions of the people in this movement doesn't really create a lot of sympathy from people that aren't stuck in an information silo.