Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.
WSJ I don't believe gives all it's articles to Apple. Could be wrong.
I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.
I think The Guardian is in there though.
Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.
Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.
Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.
NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.
I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.
A PBS poll recently showed that the divide on Israel-Palestine is 60-ish% in favor, but for the youth its split 48% for Israel and 52% for Palestine. That is quite the even split.
This has got to be one of the most divisive issues among people my age, which is ages 18-25.
Holy shit, that's a big stamp of the foot. That's the first country to ban Pro-Palestinian demonstrations isn't it?
"Not-for-profit" usually makes them more trustworthy, plus they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said about the hospital, prematurely too.
The most credible sources report truth and update stories if they are incorrect.
Yeah there is a thread put out by Geoconfirmed on Twitter, he only geographically locates where footage is, so he's pretty unbiased.
By basically confirming where and when footage is, putting all the videos of this event together paints a pretty clear picture on its own, even without considering the other evidence.
I can give you other sources, like the Al Jazeera stream, and the analysis provided by Geoconfirmed.
This is publicly available information.
The reason I chose the AP is because they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, and reported it as "Israel strikes Hospital, killing 500".
They do in fact pursue truth and update stories accordingly, to my relief.
I would like to explain some more context in the comments before people say things like "I'm denying war crimes"
This was reported a day ago, but open source intelligence had confirmed these reports 8 hours after the attack. All which has been covered in this article, even the Al Jazeera stream that caught the whole thing on camera. (Interestingly, Al Jazeera still reported that it was still caused by Israel I believe based on the same evidence.)
AP was one of the first to report the Gaza Health Ministry said, with the article titled, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500." Over the next hours, they edited the article title 3 times, and had to emphasize that it was just a statement by the Gaza Health Ministry.
By then, it had been reported across the media landscape as an Israeli airstrike. Now, considering the past actions of Israel, like that reporter they shot a year or so ago, it's quite easy to assume that Israel bombed it and tried to cover it up. But, news organizations are not supposed to assume. Instead, we learned that the Gaza Health Ministry, an organization controlled by Hamas, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
Casualties turn out to be far less than 500, more like 50-100. I am in no way minimizing the loss of life. But from a journalistic standpoint, this is a 90% error, a total disaster in reporting.
The NYTimes put out this Editorial reflecting on the error of the Gaza Hospital, comparing it to the error in the 2002 Jenin massacre.
The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all.
I'm inclined to agree, especially upon being banned from worldnews on the lemmy.ml instance for "denying war crimes and genocide" by posting this article FROM THE NYTIMES which was reported about a day after the incident.
I'm not trying to report "Pro-Israel" Propoganda, but this should make everyone take a seat back and be very careful when reading news. This conflict is extremely divisive and it's challenging the status quo in journalism and global politics.
Additionally, news media can get it wrong, but credibility can be gained just as it can be lost, so they should be given a second chance, especially if they admit it, like the AP or the NYTimes did.
Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.
Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.
The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.
The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.
I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.
The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.
Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.
And that's why you would never be put on a jury Mr. "Hunt the predators and rapists down and kill them violently".
If I were in your position, I might be getting equally angry at the meer suggestion that privacy is important, but I would be wrong for being angry at the wrong topic.
Anyway, this fight against encryption is going to lose, for the sake if journalists who report in hostile countries without freedom of speech, for the sake of kids with parents who'd kill them if they came out as trans, and for people in the intelligence industry.
Well it's understandable that you think the predators are random men in white vans texting your kids, grooming, and abducting them, but in actuality, a ton of the major produces of CSAM are parents or family members.
This doesn't account for a smaller, but significant percentage of self-producers that post online because they're following online sexual trends, innocently self-expressing, or self-exploiting.
Having the goverment ban encryption will only undermine the privacy and security of law abiding citizens, and jeopardize national security. Parents don't have to send messages to their kids really.
The police won't protect your child from your spouse.
Banning encryption won't do anything to curb this concern of yours, its like banning car locks because people could hide heroin in cars.
I can empathize with your stance, but I have to tell you, that the "protect children" argument has been used to justify genocide, racial segregation, and so many other violations of civil rights within the last 100 years.
They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)