So I posted an article from al Arabiya about Christian villages denying that they asked Netanyahu to annex their villages on World News@lemmy.world.
Jordanlund removed it simply because he don’t like the source. Yet he has no problem with articles from Saudi backed Iranian media https://irannewswire.org/ that also celebrate the terrorist group the MEK that sell out their country to side with Saddam and has no problem with israeli sources that deny the obvious genocide.
Bias to the truth. Israel is a pissy and shitty state
True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won’t call Israel “Pissrahell” is a bad faith argument.
We get it, they have actively been engaging in war crimes for my entire lifetime, but the BBC is not ignoring or condoning what they are doing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1eyyyl8ye0o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlwwwyy70do
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn75ex1dv61o
Bbc is untrustworthy because it got exposed for policing pro palestine voices
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/2/over-100-staff-accuse-bbc-of-bias-in-its-coverage-of-israels-war-in-gaza
Rhe other didn’t say bbc should have called israel pissrael and got mad because it didn’t
From that link:
““The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians,” the letter said.”
Someone doesn’t understand how journalism works.
When Israel, or anyone else really, says something insane, or objectionable, it is NOT the position of the journalist to robustly challenge it.
The position of the journalist is to report what was said, the ramifications for saying it, and any sort of counter argument.
(Source: I married a journalist…)
Good journalism is not supposed to take sides, which is inherently problematic in OTHER ways, making minority counter arguments appear to be on equal footing when they are not.
So, for example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo
https://web.archive.org/web/20260620041239/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo
Pretty solid reporting.
Good journalism is supposed to report facts not doing both sadism. I don’t want in an article about Ukraine for the media to spread russian lies. A reputable media should never force it’s journalists to police their tone to look politcally correct.
Tell me you don’t know how journalism works without telling me you don’t know how journalism works.
The sites that refuse to police tone are some of the worst offenders, who also get removed BTW. Your Fox News, New York Post, ONN, Breitbart, etc. etc.
The difference is, most people inherently know not to post that shit.
It is you who don’t know what journalism is. You prove again and again that you can’t think by yourself and just follow blindly random factcheckers
Walter Lippmann the father of modern journalism said The function of news is to signal an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them in relation with each other, and to make a picture of reality on which men can act. Nothing about balance and both siding
Journalism professor Jonathan Foster said : “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the window and find out which is true.”
Fox news do police tone. They will never allow anybody saying the word genocide or put democrats in a positive light.
You are talking to a wall, one that time & again has had the backing of .world’s admns. It’s literally a waste of time to argue with him. People have tried for years, and it’s never had the slightest effect. This is who you’re dealing with
so obviously not my argument… 🙄 wonder why no one is talking to you in good faith? Its shit like this…