The BBC's headline initially called Muhammad Bhar's killing a 'lonely death', despite him being attacked by a dog and left to die by the Israeli army.

A BBC report published on Tuesday on the killing of a disabled Palestinian man by Israel has drawn intense backlash, following what activists described as a “misleading headline” and “dehumanisation of Palestinians” amid the war in Gaza.

The British public broadcaster’s news website initially ran the story with the headline “The lonely death of Gaza man with Down’s syndrome” — omitting mention of the fact that 24-year-old Muhammad Bhar was left to die by the Israeli army after a combat dog was violently set on him.

In the report, written by veteran Irish journalist Fergal Keane, the attack was not mentioned until the 16th paragraph — almost halfway through the piece.

        • @AceticonEnglish
          6•4 months ago

          I’ve lived in a couple of countries in Europe.

          The UK is by far the one that most apes the US and you could even say that at least the English (there are more Brits than just the English, but they’re the majority by far) who tend to see themselves as more important than everybody else, don’t think that when it comes to Americans.

          And if you look at which countries follows the US into their wars of agression, Britain is always number 1 on the list.

          All this to say that US soft-power is far less effective in the rest of Europe than in Britain, which way more open to American influence and far less critical of it than the rest.

    • @LinkerbaanOPEnglish
      2•4 months ago

      They like money. Most politicians will let someone throw people into a meat grinder if it lands them a comfortable salary.

      Israel also makes sure to take them on paid brainwashing trips beforehand and tells them not to listen to anyone “advocating for Hamas”. So those people can sleep soundly at night as long as they don’t think about it.

      • @[email protected]English
        0•4 months ago

        Wow, that’s a very respectable looking conspiracy site.

        I’d give it a look regardless of their reputation, but they don’t actually make the raw data accessible, and most of the citations are polemic in nature.

        That being said, uncritical regurgitation of content from Western government sources is a thing. So far they’ve rarely turned out to be complete liars when off the record or anonymous, but it’s good to keep in mind.

    • @[email protected]English
      0•4 months ago

      Weird and interesting story at the same time, but there were already some royals who in the 1700s had the same evangelical beliefs, colonial interests and also strong antisemitism.

      They thought that by colonizing Palestine they could get rid of the Jews and also have them in a geopolitically convenient location where they could have a grip on the Arabs. They were undermining pan-Arabism already in the 1800s.

      It’s really some Illuminati conspiracy mumbo jumbo that goes back centuries and apparently it’s hard to get rid of.

      Another possible factor is perception management. They wanna keep up the image of Israel being the good guys because of geopolitics, arms sales and because it’s easier than trying to explain the complexity of the situation and also that it’s actually the fault of the British.

      I think politicians and the media think that us normal people are too stupid too handle a situation that isn’t black and white, so they try to make sure we have a clear idea of who are the bad guys and who are our heroes. And my personal view is that this has been going on for so long that they actually started believing their own lies.