7 ms·
This article is trying desperately to avoid stating the obvious, that the evidence now points directly at a failed Hammas missile launch.
by kaiwen1 3y ago
This article is trying desperately to avoid stating the obvious, that the evidence now points directly at a failed Hammas missile launch.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoIf it states "obvious" and then later we find out the obvious is wrong, they lose all of their credibility. Publications should only report, not make conclusions (let someone else connect the dots and report on their conclusions instead).
- dogma1138 3y agoUnlike the situation in which everyone jumped on the same headline within 5 min before any evidence or footage was even identified and then had to walk back from it?
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoAgain, if you read the article, it would probably say X claims Y, not Y is true. Like BBC articles: - Hundreds feared dead at Gaza hospital as Israel denies strike (17 hours ago) - Hospital blast in Gaza City kills hundreds - health officials (18 hours ago) - Dozens killed as Israeli strikes hit southern Gaza refuge areas (1 day ago) The last one is before the hospital was hit. If you have a specific article with a headline, what was it? The only thing I can find is: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-criticised-after-reporter-says-israel-was-responsible-for-gaza-hospital-blast-4hhWSOB87hbLdrgxTCCJd0 https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-criticised-after-reporte... Which wasn't a headline, rather than in-person live report. And ya, that's still bad, but it isn't as bad as crafting an article with time to think and still coming up with a bad headline. And even in the live reporting, the byline still has attribution ("health officials: at least 500 killed in strike on hospital"), meaning I would need to actually hear what was said live to pass judgement (if they said "health officials are saying that X is true" is quite different from saying "X is true").
- dogma1138 3y agoThe titles were changed after the fact, BBC did had “Israeli strike hits hospital killing over 500” for several hours last night on their main page.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoOk, I'll have to take your word for it, or maybe someone archived it?
- _ea1k 3y agoThe problem is that they started by implying the opposite. They should have been at least this ambiguous to begin with.
- Daviey 3y agoHamas? I understood the Israelis were stating it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad's. Which evidence are you relying on to be sure it was Hamas?
- camdenlock 3y agoAre you insinuating that Hamas is not an Islamic jihadist organization?
- Daviey 3y agoI made no such assertion. However, PIJ != Hamas. It's factually wrong and unhelpful to conflate the two.