Detailed accounts by former Israeli soldiers describe how they fired their weapons out of "boredom," designated any Palestinians in sight as a threat, and routinely burned homes down.
The only way to prove that a news agency is reliable, is by not finding any fake/false/wrong news on their websites - that they didn’t publish correction for -.
The duty of providing proof lies on the accuser, if you accuse gurdian of wrong doing you’d need to the provide a proof.
This is the reason I didn’t call commondreams fake or unreliable, I don’t have a proof.
So because you’re unfamiliar with this organization (that has existed for almost 30 years), you called them “questionable” instead and merely implied that the report was fraudulent and that we should all do better than to post articles from sources you haven’t heard of and can’t be arsed to look into.
Then, when someone gave you evidence, you dismissed it because it didn’t agree with how you see the world. Don’t get me wrong, I think the bias fact check site is bullshit about half the time, but you still made an accusation, if obliquely, and provided no evidence.
What’s that thing we can do when people make assertions without evidence again? Oh right, dismiss those assertions without evidence.
Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed is competitively reported by Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides, it’s an informational warfare. We believe we can trust at least bigger publications to vet their information before posting and cautiously read the reports from other sources. Why it should be different for that one news site? At the very least, basic level, I don’t see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.
If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.
All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
to say it’s a code to shoot anyone in their belly and that Gaza now is their shooting range without any liability.
Very, very credible. Especially after that story of how IDF drove multiple victims to the hospital on their SUVs’ hood made a disaster, but that somehow didn’t.
Does anyone knows what +972 Magazine and Local Call are?
Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?
Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.
How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.
According to mediabiasfact, this website is highly reliable while the guardian reliability is mixed (one level above low reliability )
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
agrre to disagree I guess
Guardian is trash. Zero credibility.
What proof? Facts?
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/why-the-guardians-hamas-mass-rape
What sources do you have for The Guardian being highly reliable?
The only way to prove that a news agency is reliable, is by not finding any fake/false/wrong news on their websites - that they didn’t publish correction for -. The duty of providing proof lies on the accuser, if you accuse gurdian of wrong doing you’d need to the provide a proof.
This is the reason I didn’t call commondreams fake or unreliable, I don’t have a proof.
So because you’re unfamiliar with this organization (that has existed for almost 30 years), you called them “questionable” instead and merely implied that the report was fraudulent and that we should all do better than to post articles from sources you haven’t heard of and can’t be arsed to look into.
Then, when someone gave you evidence, you dismissed it because it didn’t agree with how you see the world. Don’t get me wrong, I think the bias fact check site is bullshit about half the time, but you still made an accusation, if obliquely, and provided no evidence.
What’s that thing we can do when people make assertions without evidence again? Oh right, dismiss those assertions without evidence.
Idk why we may doubt this fountain of truth.
Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed is competitively reported by Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides, it’s an informational warfare. We believe we can trust at least bigger publications to vet their information before posting and cautiously read the reports from other sources. Why it should be different for that one news site? At the very least, basic level, I don’t see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.
If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.
All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
to say it’s a code to shoot anyone in their belly and that Gaza now is their shooting range without any liability.
Very, very credible. Especially after that story of how IDF drove multiple victims to the hospital on their SUVs’ hood made a disaster, but that somehow didn’t.
Does anyone knows what +972 Magazine and Local Call are?
Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?
Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?
Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.
How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.
Personal attacks? Nice.
Next.
The Guardian is a Zionist propaganda mouthpiece claiming they saw footage of Hamas raping people which turned out to be lie.
MBFC should rate them far lower