World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
To be honest, I'd probably wait for proper verification of the footage by someone like the BBC. And if I were running an information war campaign, I would absolutely fill those cans with water and film myself delivering them. The footage isn't great evidence.
Not to mention it was just 300 liters, the hospital uses from 8 to 12 thousand liters a day.
I mean, if you knew it would probably be stolen would you send it lots or enough to see what happens?
If accurate, a small delivery was the right choice
Someone already replied to that person showing them the math
https://lemmy.world/comment/5268159 and https://lemmy.world/comment/5268509
Grain of salt on whether Israel actually did it or not. But if they did, that is actually a good amount. It keeps the essentials of the hospital going for 1-5 days (depends how it is broken down, how many ICU beds are full, etc). But it isn't enough fuel to make them a target for Hamas.
Also: Storing fuel is hard. You COULD leave the fuel tanker in the parking lot but considering that is likely to catch a stray bullet/artillery shell...
And, from the shitty perspective: it keeps said hospitals on a tight leash. Because they can last maybe one day before they have to acquiesce to whatever the IDF wants in exchange for the humanitarian aid.
There's no footage to verify here, the evidence is just an audio recording. The only way to get verification is to find out who is the health officiaal on that line and contact them.
The linked story has footage, no?
It's just soldier carrying fuel. The issue here isn't that IDF lie about fuel delivery, the issue is israel say Hamas blocking the delivery while Hamas deny it, and only sound clip are provided which is super easy to fake. So calling the health official on the end of the line will provide insight about the issue.
Or step back, turn the cameras off, and then get the fuel again.
All the video shows is that it was there at a time and place. It doesn’t show what happened after the fact,
If there is one thing this conflict has taught us, it is the power of state funded media.
Al Jazeera have been putting in work. They are historically one of the best "view points" for the never ending hell in the middle east, but it is also worth remembering that they are funded by Qatar and were pretty much the first to accuse the IDF of the hospital bombing a few weeks back (that they most likely didn't do... as opposed to the ones last week that they probably did...).
The BBC demonstrated during King Chuck's coronation that they are 100% willing to toe the party line. So take it with a grain of salt
What we should be keeping an eye out for are the trustworthy OSINT outlets
The BBC is imperfect - but BBC Verify does excellent work analysing and verifying disputed footage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check - I'm impressed with their work.
I'm not sure what you think the "party line" is in this case - the BBC has been covering the current action in Gaza robustly with their foreign correspondents. How they covered the investiture of the head of state, doesn't really tell you mucgh about their coverage of Israel-Palestine.
They are good until they aren't. Up until a month or two ago, I would have gone to bat for Al Jazeera as the closest thing you can get to an "unbiased" source on the never ending invasions of the Middle East. But right from the start of this round of Israel vs Palestine, they have very strongly been showing their side as state funded media. I still think they are incredibly valuable, but now as an alternate source to try to make sense of this mess rather than as a "reliable" source, if that makes sense.
And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, "when it matters".
Am I saying you should assume they are liars? No. But I would lean more toward the outlets that aren't state affiliated for something so intrinsically tied to global politics and relations.
Can you give an example of an investigative story where they have 'bended their knee?' are you talking about the coverage of the coronation? Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
So they should appease the userbase rather than tell the truth? how the fuck is that an argument?
It’s not an argument. I was asking for an example where the BBC had ‘bended the knee’ to the UK government, and was suggesting that the coverage of the Coronation was a bad example.
It REALLY isn't worth arguing with the Royalist crowd.
Like, I'll dick around with a tankie or a CCP shill. But the Royalists are just rabid in a way that isn't even fun. Probably a side effect of having one of the most detested Brits of the past few decades (and that is saying A LOT) as a King and having him now defend and protect the Royal Nonce at every step.
It’s certainly worth talking about the merits of the monarchy, but that’s not the issue here. I was asking about the extent to which the BBC’s monarchy coverage had anything to do with its ability to verify footage coming from the IDF. In my opinion they are unrelated.