this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
222 points (97.8% liked)

World News

50310 readers
2063 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Five Al Jazeera journalists were killed by an Israeli strike in Gaza City on Sunday - among them 28-year-old correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who had reported prominently on the war since its outset.

[…]

The targeted attack on a tent used by journalists has drawn strong international condemnation including from the UN, Qatar where Al Jazeera is based, and media freedom groups.

[…]

Israel had previously accused Sharif of being a member of Hamas's military wing - something he and his employer strongly denied. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a media freedom group, said the allegations against him were "baseless" and called on the international community to intervene. "Without strong action from the international community to stop the Israeli army... we're likely to witness more such extrajudicial mur

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're partially right. It was a visceral reaction, but it's true that they have to keep the house style.

I disagree that I'm reading "too much polemic instead of real journalism". I think journalism is in crisis, and that the pursuit of "neutrality" in a post-truth era has severely weakened the fourth estate when it should be armed to defend its existence and fundamental values.

First, it's a myth that news is impartial. Conventional news absolutely has a system of values: it's inherently pro-truth, pro-freedom of thought, and democratic. Assassinating journalists out in the open and decreeing that they're legitimate targets is a direct attack on fundamental principles of journalism and free society. Journalism does not need to be neutral on whether assassinating journalists is wrong to retain their legitimacy.

Sadly, these institutions are not experienced or practiced at navigating the challenge of addressing this kind of story. The real story here is that because the practice of journalism undermines what the ruling coalition considers to be in the national interest, Israel has decided as a matter of national policy that it will no longer abide by Article 79 of the Geneva convention. They have not admitted it explicitly, but there is an obvious pattern of fact that goes beyond hundreds of assassinations all the way to their law against publishing news that undermines "national morale". That, imo, is the story. Really stop and think about what a monumental and newsworthy thing it is for a major world power to so publicly confirm a policy that has been until now a matter of dispute.

But the BBC can't within their current operating guidelines find a way to tell that very vital story. That's a tragedy.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I think you should really consider the main article from the BBC on the topic, which is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqyyrp3yq9o In comparison to this profile, it has a lot more context.

Here the BBC lays out the full facts, including the IDF's accusations, and the reasons why those accusations are to be viewed with skepticism. It relates statements by the IDF three times, compared to 5 separate quotes from Al-Jazeera, the UN and the CJP condemning the killing, plus a letter signed by the BBC about the situation for journalists in Gaza.

In the "post-truth era" we need journalistic institutions which resist the temptation to polarise their coverage, and instead to provide neutral and balanced output that can be trusted by everyone. The tragedy of the post-truth era is the disintegration of a collective understanding of the world. By relating the facts with a neutral tone, an outlet maximises the audience which can gain that common understanding, which is far more important than instructing the audience on how to respond emotionally to a subject. It's not like the BBC are burying the problems of Israel's targeting for their readers: they lay out how the world is reliant on Gaza-based reporters to get the truth out, and quotes the accusation that Israel wants to prevent the world from seeing their crimes.

My question to you when you read the BBC's coverage is: are you not outraged by the facts? I am.