- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
The written military statement said troops had identified a camera “positioned by Hamas” in the area of the hospital to observe the activity of Israeli troops in order to direct terrorist activities against them.
It said the troops acted to remove the threat by striking and dismantling the camera.
So, since they’ve walked back that they were trying to hit ‘terrorists’ they’ve now settled on that they called in TWO AIR STRIKES at a hospital killing 20 people to hit a fucking camera? Not even a cameraman, the camera itself.
They know they don’t even have to try anymore.
Vince, after he nailed your head to the floor, did you ever see him again
Yeah…after that I used to go round his flat every Sunday lunchtime to apologize and we’d shake hands and then he’d nail my head to the floor
Every Sunday?
Yeah but he was very reasonable about it. I mean one Sunday when my parents were coming round for tea, I asked him if he’d mind very much not nailing my head to the floor that week and he agreed and just screwed my pelvis to a cake stand.
Dinsdale 🦔
Well, if Reuters say so, it must be true.
I’m confused by this article as the headline is no longer the same as that screenshot (that statement is at the end of the article) and overall it seems like a factual report which brings the Israeli account into question by simply presenting facts and quotes: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reuters-ap-journalists-killed-gaza-strike-were-not-a-target-an-israeli-military-2025-08-26/
Reuters tends to initially run a full on pro-Israel propaganda headline at the moment of the event and then change it retroactively when the wind blows over.
Strangely I can’t find the article archived in the wayback machine
I see the initial headline is problematic, but I also believe it would have been factual if they’d just put quotation marks around “Hamas camera”, as it is an article reporting on the Israeli quote (at least initially). There are a bunch of other articles on this topic citing other sides and an obituary for the cameraman, so I’m still not convinced Reuters as a whole is compromised.
But, yeah, it’s super weird to completely re-write an article instead of just publishing a new one. And I also don’t know about their history with this type of thing, as you mentioned.
Reuters journalists are literally quitting because the paper is so extremely biased pro-Israel
https://lemmy.ml/post/35237236
Multiple Reuters employees accuse their employer of being heavily biased in favor of Israel https://www.declassifieduk.org/reuters-journalists-accuse-newswire-of-pro-israel-bias/
And lastly Reuters claimed to have seen footage of rapes on October 7, which the UN has confirmed does not exist
Interesting links and context. They have previously been accused of bias for not using the word “terrorist”, so I’m surprised they have even used the word “genocide” at all frankly.
It’s also interesting to read in their wiki controversies section that they have been accused of bias against Israel previously.
I’m on the fence. I’m of the belief that true journalism should be simple reporting on facts, which is what I see. Refusing to condemn a side, or to condemn actions is an odd thing to call bias. Surely declaring anything like that, however righteous it may be, is bias itself.
Another major lie spread by Reuters for which Reuters is being sued is when they bought a video from a Dutch journalist showing Maccabi supporters beating up a Dutch person. Reuters put in the subtitle that it was Dutch people beating up a Maccabi supporter to spread the “pogrom” narrative.
Reuters was contacted and made aware of this fact but refused to change their knowingly false headline because they had a Zionist narrative which they were ordered to spread. Reuters then once again retroactively “corrected” themselves very long time after the damage was done.
This stuff has happened so many times already. It is not an accident. Reuters does this on purpose. It usually tells the truth, but when the boss calls with a false narrative they will directly abandon all journalistic integrity and spread that propaganda.
They didn’t bother condemning the death of it’s own journalist it’s shameful. Those media should stop mentionning isrseli stupid claims
what’s confusing? they run with what the boss at the IOF says then they publish with no integrity. A few hours later the bosses are off to the next thing and the internet has caught up so they “correct” the headlines.
the headline says “initial inquiry says…”
so they’re not calling themselves hamas because israel wants them to, they’re say “isreal killed our cameraman man and said it was hamas”.why does everyone respond to titles without reading the article? that should be an incredibly shameful thing to do….
Journalism does not mean putting vague propaganda in the headline.
deleted by creator
@geneva_convenience @ozymandias
🤔 (checks his #Headlines)
To copy my comment from !ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml (since you unhelpfully didn’t crosspost it)
The headline could be understood to mean that there was a ‘hamas camera’ at the place where, separately, other journalists, including Reuters, also had cameras. It doesn’t make it ok, of course, but it would mean that Reuters isn’t calling its own journalist a ‘Hamas camera’
No. Israel confirmed that they targeted the Reuters camera which was livestreaming. They went as far as claiming that KHAMAASSS disguised it with a cloth (there was a white cloth over the camera to prevent it from overheating in the sun). And a female journalist wearing a white headscarf. There was no other camera nearby. Also crossposting other people’s comments is not a thing.
Also bombing a hospital with journalists because you saw a camera has to be the absolute dumbest excuse possible and Reuters doesn’t even mention that even in the off-chance that it was true it would be a massive violation of international law.
Crossposting comments is not a thing, but crossposting posts is, and you didn’t do that. I understand and apologise for the confusion, though.
Why reuters not condemning it’s journalist killing it’s journalist?
No, it doesn’t. A whole bunch of journalists with cameras were killed in this attack. Even if we take the Israeli army’s claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital, it only means that Reuters has a journalist in the same place just like several other news outlets did
claim at face value and assume they really were targeting a Hamas camera, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for bombing a hospital
“Even if we take Adolf Hitler’s claim at face value and assume they really were ridding Germany of criminals, and also ignore whether or not that makes reasonable grounds for gassing millions”Why would we take that at face value?! This is the important claim!
So what if it “only” means that Reuters has a
journalistcamera in the same place and it was some other reputable news outlet that they’re calling Hamas?No, not even a person. Israel said it was a camera that had been placed there, nobody was holding it.
Their argument is that they were justified in killing 20 people and bombing a hospital to destroy a singular camera. I’m sure they changed their story as they discovered that the press knew the names of the people killed so they couldn’t just use the first people they pretended to have hit (they released names and photos of 6 people they say were the target and said they were Hamas, just that these people who were indeed killed didn’t get killed anywhere near the hospital).
Fair enough. Although they won’t see my reply, in the context of their comment, my argument is that although I think accurate reporting matters, it is essentially moot whether it was actually one camera or 15 journalists physically present. Both are unjustifiable and serve to distract from the actually important part that
is bombing a hospital without even so much as a “Hamas tunnels” excuse, which the UN claims is a protected civilian object under international law and probably is a war crime.Yeah, I think that is the extraordinary part. They’re not even saying that they were bombing the hospital to kill terrorists or take out a base, but to take out a single camera that could “track army movement”. Israel is clearly not even trying to keep the facade up.
Also wonder how many other cases there have been of Israel bombing two places and saying that people dead from one place justified the other when international press wasn’t around. Seemed practiced.
Wow go fuck yourself you sniveling genocide apologist. This is the kindest thing I can say to you without breaking site rules.
Bad take. Why do you think Israel has earned even a shred of the benefit of the doubt that “Hamas” was the real target, and not journalists or just the hospital in general?
I don’t. It’m talking about how Reuters’ headline does not say what the post says it does and saying that even if we gave Israel the benefit of the doubt in order to make the most likely situation for the Reuters headline to say what the post says it does, it still doesn’t say that
deleted by creator
