GRcade

Albert wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

Albert wrote:You know when you did History at School, and you read about some past awful atrocity (Slavery, War etc) and you would think to yourself, "No way that could happen today, the people/world just wouldn't stand for it...."

I have never known so many people who I like/respect etc, who seem to still be supporting Israel. I feel like I'm in some strange Twilight Zone episode.

Yeah, we do tend to see the past as an entirely different world but on the whole people now are still pretty similar to a century ago. There were plenty more people with progressive ideas in the distant past than we generally give credit to and I don't feel there's a logical reason for us to think that the horrors of various atrocities can be consigned to being a series of dark chapters of human history. A population can still be conditioned to consider a group of people as being less human and being less entitled to the level of human rights as they are, and that hasn't really stopped being the case across the world despite the post-WW2 liberal international order. I think there's also an ingrained element of feeling here that conflict in certain parts of the world is just the natural order of things.

A lot of people who are outside of the actual conflict also like to advise others that this is too complicated a situation to have any real kind of opinion on or that there is nothing that can be done to stop this conflict on the international stage. Sure, a generations long dispute over a population being forced from their territory is going to be extremely difficult to resolve, but the average person sees cities being made unliveable or children being deliberately sniped at and it doesn't feel like being opposed to that is really a very complicated position to hold at all. Israeli politicians made it abundantly clear within days of Hamas' 7th October terror attacks what the scale of their military's response would be. Their allies in the US, UK, EU, and elsewhere were explicit that they would have their unwavering backing and resources to carry out all manner of actions that most people would rightly identify as being inhumane, if not outright war crimes or potential acts of genocide.

Good post, if thoroughly depressing.

I'm so glad I am not dating that Israeli girl I saw back in my 20s, I am convinced it would have lead to divorce over what is currently going on over there. Its very difficult to have any form of conversation without being branded antisemitic, which is just a distraction technique and very reductive.

Whilst knowing nothing about your specific special friend - it can't be missed that there's growing pushback against the ruling regime within Israel itself. In part due to it's disregard (or outright murder) of the hostages and in part it's genocidal campaign.
It's still a vast minority, but it's growing. NotallIsraelis etc.

Ah that’s slightly relieving to hear. The only ones I had seen have been the fanatical mouth pieces interviewed on the news!

It's also vitally important to recognise the number of Jewish people and organisations across the world who are openly opposed to the actions of Israel, in spite of the potential harassment and vilification that can come their way for doing so, while ultimately recognising that opposition to Israel shouldn't be demanded of them just because they're Jewish.

I don't think anyone should be blind to the fact that antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents have dramatically increased in the last six months either, nor be blind to how much hatred there can be for one another within those communities and elsewhere.

Alvin Flummux wrote:So the World Central Kitchen personnel were known by the IDF, they gave them their coordinates, and their three vehicle convoy was subjected to intentional attack by the IOF, three times.

Then the IOF turns around and says "Oopsy! Can we have more Hellfire missiles, Mister Biden, pwease?"

Now they're trying to silence Al Jazeera, whose coverage of this genocidal campaign has been illuminating and damning.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... -netanyahu

Al Jazeera is fine if you know what you're being served up. It is entirely owned by the Qatar govt so whatever they say, goes. First off, it reflects the Qatar Emir's Islamist worldview (good: Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, bad: Israel, India, France, US, Saudi). His dad was a lot more open to the West, hence the World Cup bid. And Al Jazeera regularly upholds freedoms that will never exist in their own country: freedom of speech (check out what happened to Doha News after they published an anonymous op-ed from a gay Qatari), religious freedoms (no Hindu temples for what is 14% of the population), citizenship rights (not possible for foreigners unless they marry a Qatari man) and treatment of refugees (197 in the entire country). My wife interned there when the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened and the consensus in the newsroom was a shrug and a 'well, what did they expect?'. It represents a viewpoint, which is great for us to have the options of multiple perspectives, but it's important to remember that it represents the only viewpoint legally permissible in its homeland.

That's really interesting and all, but why are we selling weapons that get used for genocide of civllians?

speedboatchase wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:So the World Central Kitchen personnel were known by the IDF, they gave them their coordinates, and their three vehicle convoy was subjected to intentional attack by the IOF, three times.

Then the IOF turns around and says "Oopsy! Can we have more Hellfire missiles, Mister Biden, pwease?"

Now they're trying to silence Al Jazeera, whose coverage of this genocidal campaign has been illuminating and damning.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... -netanyahu

Al Jazeera is fine if you know what you're being served up. It is entirely owned by the Qatar govt so whatever they say, goes. First off, it reflects the Qatar Emir's Islamist worldview (good: Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, bad: Israel, India, France, US, Saudi). His dad was a lot more open to the West, hence the World Cup bid. And Al Jazeera regularly upholds freedoms that will never exist in their own country: freedom of speech (check out what happened to Doha News after they published an anonymous op-ed from a gay Qatari), religious freedoms (no Hindu temples for what is 14% of the population), citizenship rights (not possible for foreigners unless they marry a Qatari man) and treatment of refugees (197 in the entire country). My wife interned there when the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened and the consensus in the newsroom was a shrug and a 'well, what did they expect?'. It represents a viewpoint, which is great for us to have the options of multiple perspectives, but it's important to remember that it represents the only viewpoint legally permissible in its homeland.

So basically we can get biased news from the West (Cnn/Sky News) or biased news from the East (Al Jazeera)? and no in between (AP maybe?)

Albert wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:So the World Central Kitchen personnel were known by the IDF, they gave them their coordinates, and their three vehicle convoy was subjected to intentional attack by the IOF, three times.

Then the IOF turns around and says "Oopsy! Can we have more Hellfire missiles, Mister Biden, pwease?"

Now they're trying to silence Al Jazeera, whose coverage of this genocidal campaign has been illuminating and damning.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... -netanyahu

Al Jazeera is fine if you know what you're being served up. It is entirely owned by the Qatar govt so whatever they say, goes. First off, it reflects the Qatar Emir's Islamist worldview (good: Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, bad: Israel, India, France, US, Saudi). His dad was a lot more open to the West, hence the World Cup bid. And Al Jazeera regularly upholds freedoms that will never exist in their own country: freedom of speech (check out what happened to Doha News after they published an anonymous op-ed from a gay Qatari), religious freedoms (no Hindu temples for what is 14% of the population), citizenship rights (not possible for foreigners unless they marry a Qatari man) and treatment of refugees (197 in the entire country). My wife interned there when the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened and the consensus in the newsroom was a shrug and a 'well, what did they expect?'. It represents a viewpoint, which is great for us to have the options of multiple perspectives, but it's important to remember that it represents the only viewpoint legally permissible in its homeland.

So basically we can get biased news from the West (Cnn/Sky News) or biased news from the East (Al Jazeera)? and no in between (AP maybe?)

We’re free to choose whatever perspective we want. What I’m saying is you can get every perspective funded and hosted here (e.g. Novara Media and GB News are very different and operate in the UK), whereas there is one perspective allowed in Qatar. Doha News tried, was blocked by the govt and sold for nothing and is now hush hush owned by the Emiri Diwan. I can’t speak for all of the ‘East’ (I’m sure Turkey is not comparable to Qatar) but what AJ preaches is not what it practices at home.

Another illuminating and damning investigation by Israeli publication +972 Magazine on the AI system with a potential 10% error rate that the IDF has used to identify 37,000 targets, and how their processes have been deliberately changed to allow the families of all these targets and wider population to be targeted alongside them.

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

Albert wrote:

speedboatchase wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:So the World Central Kitchen personnel were known by the IDF, they gave them their coordinates, and their three vehicle convoy was subjected to intentional attack by the IOF, three times.

Then the IOF turns around and says "Oopsy! Can we have more Hellfire missiles, Mister Biden, pwease?"

Now they're trying to silence Al Jazeera, whose coverage of this genocidal campaign has been illuminating and damning.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... -netanyahu

Al Jazeera is fine if you know what you're being served up. It is entirely owned by the Qatar govt so whatever they say, goes. First off, it reflects the Qatar Emir's Islamist worldview (good: Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, bad: Israel, India, France, US, Saudi). His dad was a lot more open to the West, hence the World Cup bid. And Al Jazeera regularly upholds freedoms that will never exist in their own country: freedom of speech (check out what happened to Doha News after they published an anonymous op-ed from a gay Qatari), religious freedoms (no Hindu temples for what is 14% of the population), citizenship rights (not possible for foreigners unless they marry a Qatari man) and treatment of refugees (197 in the entire country). My wife interned there when the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened and the consensus in the newsroom was a shrug and a 'well, what did they expect?'. It represents a viewpoint, which is great for us to have the options of multiple perspectives, but it's important to remember that it represents the only viewpoint legally permissible in its homeland.

So basically we can get biased news from the West (Cnn/Sky News) or biased news from the East (Al Jazeera)? and no in between (AP maybe?)

Yes, correct. Unbiased news sources are largely a myth. Biased news is not the issue in and of itself - perspectives and viewpoints are important, and bias is impossible to eliminate from the equation wherever you are, and whatever you're reporting on. The issue comes when news sources present themselves as fair and unbiased to hoodwink unsuspecting viewers/readers into believing an ideological position is a fact.

Most news sources in the western world tend to take a fairly centrist position, and many are very much beholden to populism and perceived shareholder value rather than a specific ideology. This is prevalent in the United States thanks to changes in licensing laws that led to partial conglomerates forming in the 1980s and 1990s (Clear Channel owned 54% of all US radio stations at one point, I'm not sure what the percentage is for their new name, iHeartCommunications ( ).

This is anecdotal and possibly represents my political viewpoint more than anything, but the news-as-propaganda seems much more regular and much more pernicious on the right than on the left, for example, talk radio and Fox in the United States or GB News here in the UK. Their more left-wing counterparts, like Novara Media or Byline Times here in Britain, are a bit less well-known or overt.

With all of this said, I think nitpicking about which news outlet is saying what about and where entirely misses the point - that what's going on at the moment is utterly unconscionable.

So you strike me as a sensible chap RetroC, What would be your News Channel of choice?

Or is it just a case of following a few and making you own mind up?

I've always understood AP to be the most reliable/non biased, but it's not an easy source to follow.

But...You know...We are in End times...Everything is terrible, what do I know.

Albert wrote:So you strike me as a sensible chap RetroC, What would be your News Channel of choice?

Or is it just a case of following a few and making you own mind up?

I've always understood AP to be the most reliable/non biased, but it's not an easy source to follow.

But...You know...We are in End times...Everything is terrible, what do I know.

A couple of fun facts about the AP - they are well known in academic circles for their aggressive pursuit of copyright infringements. We're told to avoid AP images where possible just in case there are issues securing copyright. They've also stood accused several times of anti-Israeli reporting and were partially responsible for the foundation of a pro-Israel news review group in 2000. This is not relevant 80 years down the line, but they are also one of the few international news agencies that fully collaborated with Nazi censorship requests and allowed access to their archives for Nazi propagandists.

All of this adds up to a narrative - not necessarily the truth - of AP as leaning towards the Palestinian side of the argument here. The counterpoint is that they fired a staff member in 2021 for breaching their social media policy by posting pro-Palestinian stuff online. Essentially all of this waffle is to say even the most unbiased-seeming news source has some kind of history that may or may not influence their reporting. I personally couldn't tell you what AP's actual editorial direction on Israel/Palestine is, but as with all things it's worth checking their facts and sources if you're particularly interested in the topic.

I think ultimately it's personal preference more than anything else. I tend to follow a lot of news channels because that practice links in well with my job (I have a book on communications, politics, and protest music coming in 2025), but you won't go too far wrong if you do a bit of research before deciding what the worth of a source is. It's the same with any source, just ask yourself a couple of questions when you read something: "Is this source biased?" If the answer is yes, "Does that bias impact the validity of the information," and "Is there value in this piece regardless?" You'll find the right balance for you, as long as you avoid thinking that any one source is the be-all-and-end-all of fair reporting.

It is mental, in the modern day, that the lines are so blurred that I'm recommending academic rigour for basic news articles. But here we are.

Interesting stuff, and thank you all for your input.

I won't derail the thread further as has been pointed out, the most important thing to note is the absolute shitshow that is going on in Gaza. Sad times indeed.

RetroCora wrote: It is mental, in the modern day, that the lines are so blurred that I'm recommending academic rigour for basic news articles. But here we are.

Don't worry, I'm sure the ensuing advances in AI will help clear up the lies from the truth...

RTE is honestly pretty based when it comes to news and strawberry floating NAILING politicians and other plebs in interviews.

I've said it before but the Tories would get annihilated if your media was as aggressive, the odd time a Tory does talk to RTE they routinely get eviscerated. Channel 4 and Sky News nearly do it but never a killer question.

Tories would get annihilated if the majority of our media wasn't owned by Tories.

Fair. Although RTE is funded by a license fee and by the government but if there was even a sniff of an RTE journo being compremised they'd be fired into the sun along with any politician that tried it.

Photek wrote:RTE is honestly pretty based when it comes to news and strawberry floating NAILING politicians and other plebs in interviews.

I've said it before but the Tories would get annihilated if your media was as aggressive, the odd time a Tory does talk to RTE they routinely get eviscerated. Channel 4 and Sky News nearly do it but never a killer question.

Why would our media be aggressive against the Tories, when most of the media supports the Tories?

It'd be like Gary Neville slagging off Alex Ferguson.

Albert wrote:Interesting stuff, and thank you all for your input.

I won't derail the thread further as has been pointed out, the most important thing to note is the absolute shitshow that is going on in Gaza. Sad times indeed.

RetroCora wrote: It is mental, in the modern day, that the lines are so blurred that I'm recommending academic rigour for basic news articles. But here we are.

Don't worry, I'm sure the ensuing advances in AI will help clear up the lies from the truth...

I think it is extremely important to talk about this stuff, to be fair, it could just probably use its own thread or be part of one of the politics threads rather than in here. Blowing my own trumpet for a sec, I'm actually teaching a summer school on recognising political propaganda this year that will look at things from the perspective of party politics, but the media are an intrinsic part of that, and have a huge part to play in world geopolitics. So I'm always happy to talk about stuff like this and answer any questions!

I mentioned it earlier in the thread but Channel 4 offers probably the most informed coverage in the UK, with Haaretz, +972 Magazine, and Al Jazeera the best coverage from Israel and Palestine from what I've seen.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1779242072421114056

The USA had been warning something big might happen around now.

I thought this was directly related to Gaza, but it seems it's retaliatory for a Damascus strike. Last time the Iranians did this after the killing of Solemani (sp?), it was purposely benign (as far as retaliatory missle strikes go). So if there's no follow up missile launches I'm assuming the signal is, we can agree enough is enough..... Hopefully.