260
Genocide Joe Rule
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
260 points (99.6% liked)
196
16505 readers
2128 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What in that statement is conjecture?
Everybody who clicks on a link to that website without an ad blocker just gave ad revenue to an explicitly anti-semitic government. Going without a VPN, and that government now has a really simple way of unmasking the identities of who visited, directly from Lemmy.
As leftists, we have to be pro Palestine while being anti Qatar and anti Hamas. Trusting what they tell us isn't leftist, nor intelligent and I think if you are being honest with yourself, you already know that.
leftists link corporate media of all kind. it doesn't impugn their politics.
Most corporate media aren't the sister organizations of Hamas.
You know that.
but they take money from people just as shitty, like bayer and lockheed and the pentagon. there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
What specific US based leftist media are you accusing of taking money from weapons manufacturing?
I have been specific in my accusations against a media company, it is only right that you should as well.
none, but there is plenty of us corporate and state sponsored propaganda posted in these communities and i don't see accusations of shilling for the pentagon and cia being thrown around like the accusations of shilling for putin/trump
If you can name a single account of a supposed leftist who is filling their day by posting state propaganda or pro-weapons manufacturing sources to leftist communities, than I will happily consider this to have merit.
From my perspective it seems like you are excusing authoritarian behavior under the guise that leftists do it for others and thus are obligated to do so for Hamas.
I think until you name and shame we can probably dismiss this specific point.
i never suggested any obligation. i'm saying that it's unreasonable to disqualify factual reporting on the basis that you don't like the people that funded it. object to the framing, or even to the actors themselves, but the reporting of facts is done by all kinds of actors, and it's up to readers to understand biases in even factual reporting and come to their own conclusions.
how hard is this?
new york times
washington post
given how ubiquitos links to these war-hawking publications are, your objection to al jazeera can't be motivated by the fact that tehy are f unded by bad people. it must be something else.