Israeli forces bombed wide areas of the Gaza Strip on Sunday (December 3), killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, as civilians in the besieged territory sought shelter in an ever-shrinking area of the south. The Jabalia refugee camp in the north of the Hamas-ruled enclave was among the sites reported hit from the air. A Gazan health ministry spokesperson said several people were killed by an Israeli air strike. This edit contains graphic images. Lauren Anthony has more.
By Reuters? There’s a video of it.
So just to be clear, you think that Reuters is reporting that Reuters is reporting it? Or did you misread the article?
Are you being dense on purpose
The Reuters article uses the word “reportedly,” which is news-speak for “this has been reported by a group or individual but not independently verified.” It’s basic media literacy. They use specific terminology when it is information that is not coming from their reporters, but from an unverified third party.
If the source is generally reliable, then a reader might consider such an early report likely to be accurate. If it is a source like the Gaza Health Ministry (a branch of Hamas), then one should consider their unreliable record.
You, for reasons I don’t understand, didn’t link to something that supports an unreliable record. Just to a tweet by the Reuter’s Jerusalem beareu chief pointing out that they are part of Hamas.
You should point out their unreliable record which in my opinion would be an examination of their lengthy history of providing numbers and not just being wrong about one here or there.
Please see my other replies and links. They famously fabricated 500 deaths and an Israeli airstrike against Al Ahli hospital, that turned out to not be Israeli, not be the hospital, and not be 500 deaths.
I’m familiar with your other posts. I have a tough time understanding why you wouldn’t link to the CNN reporting to start with if you’re trying to make a point about their “unreliable record”.
Again, I don’t think that CNN report alone is sufficient to refute their claims nor the refutation of the claim is enough to refute their long and well regarded record.
Unreliable record? Bruh UNICEF came out and said the GHM’s numbers are accurate.