3 ms·
Is this bad or good in your opinion?
by Sirizarry 2y ago
Is this bad or good in your opinion?
- lysace 2y agoIs what good or bad?
- pbarthelemy 2y agoIsn’t that obvious ? “The hamas-run health ministry is reporting 40,000 deaths” is a not-so-subtle way make the number questionable… But some will say mentioning hamas is fair, because it is factually true that it runs the government. No wording is neutral… all newspapers have style guides and guidelines and “elements of language”, the NYT ones for the US-funded destruction of Palestine leaked not so long ago, the ones for Israel counter-terrorism operations by Wikipedia is in the article… (see, no wording is neutral, I guess everyone hates me now )
- halflife 2y ago[flagged]
- pbarthelemy 2y agoGlobally ? Nope … “by western governments and a few others” is more accurate ( most liberation movements are called terrorist at some point, most French called their internal resistance in WWII terrorists, only to use the same word for groups who fought France in their decolonization (Viet-Minh, FLN) Terrorism is not even defined in international laws ; the more generic notion is war crime is used. ( not that lexical discussions change much for the civilians of any side who lose their lifes … )
- rich_sasha 2y agoShould all articles about Israel's government call it "Netanyahu-led government"? Should every mention of Israeli settlements be qualified as "supported by Ben-Gvir"? These are factually correct, but using these as qualifiers is clearly trying to make a point that belongs with journalism or politics, not something that's supposed to be factual and bland, like Wikipedia. It doesn't sound like there is any ban at all in describing the "government" in Gaza and Hamas' involvement in it.
- halflife 2y agoWell yeah, context matters. When Ben gvir or smotritch say one of their extremely stupid things, if you label it as “Israel says” it will be very disingenuous addressing their opinion as the official opinion of the state. And in the case of Gaza health administration, calling it without mentioning Hamas does the exact opposite, removing important context. And is especially egregious since they never mention how many combatants killed, which makes readers assume that all deaths are civilians (as Gaza health administration is a civilian body). Think of it like these 2 sentences- Hospital says 10 people killed. Military hospital says 10 people killed. Both will be correct, but omission of context makes you assume different outcomes
- rich_sasha 2y agoI think in an encyclopedia, the distinction you make should in fact be blurred. If there is an article about West Bank settlers' poor health, say, I don't want to mix in politics and Palestine-Israel conflict. It is irrelevant who in the government champions settlements, or that they are widely considered illegal. If numbers come from biased sources, you mention that directly. Referring to Gaza institutions in general as Hamas-lead is adding implicit context - it says "according to Hamas and it's questionable". An encyclopedia should use the latter language. Also it's not like every single thing coming out of Gaza is untrue, just because Hamas is there. Just like it shouldn't say flat earthers are crazy, people who speed are assholes, or which color is the best.
- defrost 2y agoDrop the obfuscation by all means. Gaza Health is a Government body, the Government is Hamas, and no independant figures are available due to Netanyahu-led government locking out observers and delibrately targeting journalists within. https://cpj.org/2024/10/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ https://cpj.org/2024/10/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... That seems fair.
- weatherlite 2y agoHammas literally kills any Palestinian who is outspoken against it's regime, that's the main reason why there aren't any opposition in Gaza.