Well, the only “reputable” source that’s brazen enough to keep the headline is Al Jazeera:
Eta: on preview, I copied this URL from a link where the title was different. Looks like Al Jazeera changed the title too.
Most other papers have edited the titles already.
And as I noted, sure, the papers will admit that the only source for the claim is Hamas - a couple paragraphs in. Or they might claim the source as “Gazan health officials” neglecting to mention that health officials in Gaza work for Hamas.
As I noted a bunch of times, the articles were all changed.
Come on man, this happened like 48 hours ago. We all remember the headlines. Are you really denying that Reuters and others ran with headlines that unambiguously said Israel was at fault with clarifications of “according to Gazan health officials” a few paragraphs in? We were all right here.
Well, I’m sure some of the right-wing nuts creamed their pants when they saw the “mainstream media” make such a big mistake, I’m sure it’s been archived. Broken clock, twice a day, etc etc. If you’re really gonna pretend we don’t both remember a few days ago perfectly well, I can dig that up. But I’m gonna remember that first you made me defend Netanyahu by quoting egregious mistranslations of him that I had to correct, and now you’re gonna make me read through RW tweets - gross and grosser!
It was all over the news for quite a while. Most of them have since changed their headlines since there’s plenty of evidence now that it was definitely not an Israeli airstrike. But even BBC at one point pretty much just parroted Hamas’s claim:
See, now you’ve moved the goalposts. I never said “definitively”. I said that the headline is unambiguous and then later on they drop in “according to Gazan health officials”, neglecting to mention that Gazan health officials means Hamas.
So yes, no reputable westen media outlet said “This was Israel, there’s proof!”. But a bunch parroted Hamas claims and dropped in a quick “according to officials” disclaimer that A, no one read and B, does not specify that those officials are fucking members of a terrorist organization.
“Palestinian Officials” is Hamas. That’s not an opinion, that’s objective fact. Hamas is the governmental authority of Gaza. Even some of the articles in the second image I posted outright say Hamas.
I thought you were claiming that we should unskeptically trust reputable news outlets to use reputable sources, even when not identified? “Palestinian officials” sounds awfully authentic and objective, when the only source for this completely unverified news headline was Hamas propaganda. An irresponsible unverified headline that sparked riots across the world.
Ohh i think I get it now. @Walken_After_Midnight thinks thinks that since all of the headlines and articles use the term “xxx state that”, then those publications are merely offering up their opinion instead of identifying them as a factual source.
They don’t need to use the word “definitively”. They just have to say it was an Israeli airstrike and not follow it with words such as “according to Palestinian officials”, or “according to Hamas” or “according to the Gazan Health Ministry” etc.
If the BBC and other reputable outlets think that “Palestinian officials” is a reasonable way to refer to unverified Hamas propaganda, why would anyone unskeptically assume that unidentified “Arab journalists” are unbiased sources?
So there’s no problem whatsoever with these headlines in your eyes then? They aren’t misleading? Clearly you are a very distinguishing and critical consumer of media, but you do understand that most people reading headlines are not?
That the average consumer of headlines is not going to know that “Gazan Health Officials” are actually in fact Hamas?
The fact is, many people - including some otherwise intelligent people - read these headlines and interpreted them in exactly the misleading way I am warning about. Unless you think these people are particularly stupid or are maliciously against Israel, what do you think explained these tweets, other than the headlines being very misleading?
Either these headlines ARE misleading, or Tlaib and Omar are particularly dense and couldn’t figure out the totally not misleading headline, or they weren’t confused at all and just saw an opportunity to attack Israel and took it.
My guess is the first one. And I think a whole lot of people were equally misled. I find that tragic. Maybe you have a different read on the situation.
It’s hilarious that you quote a dozen posts as evidence of some huge campaign to discredit a journalist - when every one of those posts was a response to your dozens posts suggesting that we should unskeptically accept vague unidentified sources.
If you post “2+2=5” a hundred times, it would hardly be “extraordinary” to get 100 responses saying otherwise.
And yet, despite your philosophy of heroic skepticism, for some reason you felt the need to defend (in dozens of posts) your assertion that unidentified “Arab journalists” are a credible source just because the second-hand information came from a reputable Channel 4 journalist, and to defend highly misleading unverified news reports that came out immediately after the incident.
