Hamas has rejected Israel's latest ceasefire proposal, despite reports suggesting talks had been progressing well. Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu says a date has been set for a ground offensive in Rafah - which he has long been warned against.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Why so hostile?
They don’t like it when people question their sources. Especially when they link from ones that are pretty obvious hasbara
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:
https://www.politico.eu/article/west-search-truth-qatar-israel-hamas-war/
FFS Isreal even kicked them out of the country. That’s more than a blind spot.
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.
Oh no israel the world authority on moral rights and press freedom!
Could have been worse…
https://cpj.org/2024/04/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/
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?
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.