4 ms·

Let me help you. Searching is difficult. Examples are in English, to avoid any "lost in translation" issues. Here's Al-Jazeera echoing completely made up rape

• Qem 2y ago
  The reports Al-Ahli (I think it's what you meant by "Al-Hila") hospital was targeted by Israel, like every other one in Gaza, are credible. See https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi... and https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-analysis-leaves-no-doubt-an-idf-aircraft-is-behind-the-al-ahli-hospital-massacre/ https://ararmaher.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/doppler-shift-ana...
  • brighteyes 2y ago
    No, there is wide consensus that it was most likely (but not certainly) an errant rocket from Gaza, and not Israel. Wikipedia has a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio... Specifically, that is the position of the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and also the conclusion of investigations by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. That's really the best we know about it.
    • philistine 2y ago
      You're giving a ton of weasel words here: most likely (but not certainly). All that word salad of wishy washy makes it clear that the fog of war is still present regarding those events.
      • naoric 2y ago
        Describing the report as credible is not accurate. Given that many news outlets retracted their initial claims and the official statements, it is very likely that there is enough evidence that Israel did not bomb the hospital and that the reported number of casualties is inaccurate. You using the "fog of war" argument to dismiss his claim—which was honest enough to say "not certainly"—is irrelevant. You could say this about almost every other reported event in Gaza. In this case, they have a good argument.
        • runarberg 2y ago
          If you include the surrounding context, that al Ahli had been targeted before, and since, and that other hospitals had also been not only targeted but actively sieged for days, at is in fact credible that the Israeli military targeted and hit the Hospital. Now remote forensics on the site makes it implausible that the initial reports of an Israeli airstrike were true, however we still haven’t ruled out other types of munitions by the Israeli military. Note that the initial reports of those supportive of Israel were also false. They claimed that they captured the rockets which they claimed hit the hospital on camera. It turned out this footage was of an unrelated rocket which got completely destroyed in air. Al Jazeera was actually one of few media outlets which correctly hypothesized that this rocket was unrelated to the incident. The fact is, we still don’t know what happened, all we know is that many of the initial reports were false. There was a lot of lying involved to win the narrative (especially by Israeli officials), and there are at least two very credible hypotheses on what happened.
    • catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      I have no idea how all those newspapers could manage >>independent<< investigations, as the Israeli army banned journalists. The first time [that I saw] CNN reported on something they actually filmed was The Israeli army pointing at tunnels. The "Summary" is clearly biased and absolutely not "The best we know" depending on who is "we" I have no idea about the reasons of the explosion, but contesting the palestinian dead toll without [credible] sources is politics. I dare say United Nations might have a more balanced approach, and they cite the enclave health authorities when they say that as of April 22th there are 34,000 deaths. No other source is cited for some reason. I have no idea how all those newspapers could manage >>independent<< investigations, as the Israeli army banned journalists. The first time [that I saw] CNN reported on something they actually filmed was The Israeli army pointing at tunnels. BTW, CNN is now much less biased towards the israeli narrative. During 2023 [Latam] CNN seemed a Netanyahu's outlet more that anything. France24 and DW >>seem<< neutral right now. Spain outlets have mediocre coverange, and Latinamerican outlets are only citing random news from other outlets. The Wikipedia "Summary" is clearly biased and absolutely not "The best we know" depending on who is "we" I dare say United Nations might have a more balanced approach, and they cite the enclave health authorities when they say that as of April 22th there are 34,000 deaths. No other source is cited for some reason. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876 https://archive.ph/B4MuA https://archive.ph/B4MuA
• acdha 2y ago
  Your second claim seems to being mistaking their role as telling absolute truth. The very first sentence makes it clear that they are reporting an official government statement, and the next that Israel disputes it and says the PLJ was responsible. This seems very normal for war reporting and I note that they’re very careful to attribute each claim so the reader can decide how much to trust it. Edit: your first source is a pro-Israeli advocacy group run by a former AIPAC employee, which has marked its coverage of the war with things like baselessly claiming reporters were in on the October 7th attacks: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-photographers-attack-200be1ba47361f1c1fc113cdaeb65d04 https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-photographers-attack... Given that in this case they ran a report by a witness, and then publicly updated that to say that a Hamas investigation had called her credibility into question, it’s interesting to note how carefully the “Honest Reporting” writer relies on uncited insinuation or tries to distract your attention to statements by people who are not part of al Jazeera. Again, it’s not great that they ran a story by someone who lied but that’s a hazard of breaking news coverage and it’s hardly unique in the field.
  • dlubarov 2y ago
    > then publicly updated that to say that a Hamas investigation had called her credibility into question I don't think there's much of a question, the claims were just fabricated, according to Hamas themselves. By "publicly updated", do you just mean quietly deleting the articles with false information? As far as I know, they never acknowledged the error and published a retraction, which calls into question their legitimacy as a news organization.
    • acdha 2y ago
      I was referring to the lead in that “Honest Reporting” article which was about one of their employees doing the opposite of this claim by correcting the record: https://twitter.com/abuhilalah/status/1771996521312973088 https://twitter.com/abuhilalah/status/1771996521312973088 Now, I do think they should have put out an official statement pointing out the unreliability of the interviewee rather than simply yanking the video but a single unreliable witness interviewed in a tumultuous event which is promptly dropped seems to fall well short of establishing a lie. All news organizations interview people who turn out to be wrong or misleading, so we’d want to see more than a single interview to establish whether there’s a pattern of poor vetting or running a story after evidence has come forth that the witness is unreliable. The public has rather strongly expressed a desire for immediate news coverage rather than waiting for lengthy review and corroboration.