4 ms·

If the BBC didn't ban the documentary, why do you think there are journalists now protesting in front of the building? What is the reason for those ongoing prot

If the BBC didn't ban the documentary, why do you think there are journalists now protesting in front of the building? What is the reason for those ongoing protests if that didn't happen? Maybe read some world news outside Fox News once in a while, man. The name of the documentary (obfuscated to avoid auto flags, because this is HN after all): Gaza: D0ctors under attack (2025). I agree that the 1000% were hyperbole on my part, but you have to admit that destroying clearly labelled-on-the-outside buildings that are hospitals and houses of international organizations like doctors without borders were all destroyed. Not once, but actually more than 13 hospitals alone (just in case you play the it was a mistake part). People literally died while the IDF/IOF was "checking" their passports, refusing critical treatment, with people literally bleeding out outside the hospital because they were not allowed to enter. Nurses and hospital doctors were stripped naked and beaten to death, in mass interrogation camps. This is not some misidentification issue. This is post-Desert Storm trying to manufacture evidence, at all cost. These types of actions are absolutely disproportionate. (Downvote me all you want, I can take it)

nelox 1y ago
I’m not downvoting you, that would be someone else. Protests outside a broadcaster do not prove that a ban occurred. People protest over editorial decisions, framing, or lack of coverage without there being an actual prohibition. Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. The rest of the comment mixes admitted hyperbole with serious accusations that are either unverified or based on partisan sources. The destruction of “clearly labelled” hospitals and aid facilities has been reported, but such claims require independent investigation to determine context — including whether the sites were being used for military purposes, which changes their legal status under the laws of armed conflict. The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. Allegations of executions, beatings, or denial of treatment are grave, but they must be supported by verifiable evidence from credible investigators, not presented as conclusive fact. Calling such events “not misidentification” assumes intent without proof. Assertions about “manufacturing evidence” are also speculation unless backed by concrete documentation. Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness.
- cookiengineer 1y ago
  > The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. They are utterly destroyed, aka blown the fvck up. There is no degree of "maybe they can work again", the buildings are now rubble and lose bricks. > Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_d... You can also just google once in a while, you know. That's how you keep an open mind for discussion. You didn't do that, you criticized my claims without even bothering to google it. You've made up your mind already, therefore this discussion is kinda pointless. If you don't believe me because you hold a personal grudge against me for whatever reason, check the sibling comments from other people.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  > Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. Good news! https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/gaza-doctors-under-attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/gaza-doctors-un... > Yesterday it became apparent that we have reached the end of the road with these discussions. We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC. Impartiality is a core principle of BBC News. It is one of the reasons that we are the world’s most trusted broadcaster. Alternatively, credible reporting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crenz9d3181o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crenz9d3181o > The production company's founder, Ben de Pear, said earlier this week the BBC had "utterly failed" and that journalists were "being stymied and silenced". > Responding to De Pear's comments, a BBC spokesperson said the BBC "totally reject[s] this characterisation of our coverage". > An open letter, which was also signed by cultural figures such as Dame Harriet Walter, Miriam Margolyes, Maxine Peake, Juliet Stevenson and Mike Leigh, said: "This is not editorial caution. It's political suppression." Plenty of other UK news agencies have covered the story, too: it's really not hard to substantiate this one. Consider how many people read each HN comment, and then please put a bit of time into researching the things you say.

nelox 1y ago

I’m not downvoting you, that would be someone else. Protests outside a broadcaster do not prove that a ban occurred. People protest over editorial decisions, framing, or lack of coverage without there being an actual prohibition. Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. The rest of the comment mixes admitted hyperbole with serious accusations that are either unverified or based on partisan sources. The destruction of “clearly labelled” hospitals and aid facilities has been reported, but such claims require independent investigation to determine context — including whether the sites were being used for military purposes, which changes their legal status under the laws of armed conflict. The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. Allegations of executions, beatings, or denial of treatment are grave, but they must be supported by verifiable evidence from credible investigators, not presented as conclusive fact. Calling such events “not misidentification” assumes intent without proof. Assertions about “manufacturing evidence” are also speculation unless backed by concrete documentation. Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness.

cookiengineer 1y ago
> The figure of “more than 13 hospitals” destroyed is meaningless without distinguishing between those damaged, rendered inoperable, or completely demolished. They are utterly destroyed, aka blown the fvck up. There is no degree of "maybe they can work again", the buildings are now rubble and lose bricks. > Emotive claims without substantiation do not replace the need for clear, verifiable facts when discussing events of this seriousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_d... You can also just google once in a while, you know. That's how you keep an open mind for discussion. You didn't do that, you criticized my claims without even bothering to google it. You've made up your mind already, therefore this discussion is kinda pointless. If you don't believe me because you hold a personal grudge against me for whatever reason, check the sibling comments from other people.
wizzwizz4 1y ago
> Without a formal statement from the BBC or credible reporting confirming a ban, the claim remains unsubstantiated. Good news! https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/gaza-doctors-under-attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/gaza-doctors-un... > Yesterday it became apparent that we have reached the end of the road with these discussions. We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC. Impartiality is a core principle of BBC News. It is one of the reasons that we are the world’s most trusted broadcaster. Alternatively, credible reporting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crenz9d3181o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crenz9d3181o > The production company's founder, Ben de Pear, said earlier this week the BBC had "utterly failed" and that journalists were "being stymied and silenced". > Responding to De Pear's comments, a BBC spokesperson said the BBC "totally reject[s] this characterisation of our coverage". > An open letter, which was also signed by cultural figures such as Dame Harriet Walter, Miriam Margolyes, Maxine Peake, Juliet Stevenson and Mike Leigh, said: "This is not editorial caution. It's political suppression." Plenty of other UK news agencies have covered the story, too: it's really not hard to substantiate this one. Consider how many people read each HN comment, and then please put a bit of time into researching the things you say.