War in Israel (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

The NYT used a picture of a leveled building from somewhere else. Hope this helps

I literally just saw this.

Here's an explainer for those who are interested. @tommyGunZ in particular will find this interesting. NGL, I saw this NYT story myself on Twitter, on my phone, and on my desktop, and I never once thought to question whether that building was part of the hospital that was hit. I guess I sort of fell for this even if I was mad at the NYT for some other piece of misinformation.

Thanks for sharing. I think the NYT could have been better here. We agree in the micro - it's the macro where we diverge. Over the long run, you'll unquestionably be more accurately informed by reading the NYT, WaPost, etc. daily than following randoms on Twitter. There is far more misinformation and no editorial standards for the vast majority of armchair analysts on Twitter. None of them ever get any of the scrutiny the NYT is getting today.

I don't question your honesty IK, I'm sure there were lots of contrarians last night on twitter doubting Israel's responsibility. What I doubt is their accuracy over the long run vs. larger organizations with stricter standards and more seasoned editorial decision makers.

I’m not going to pretend to speak for IK here, but based on his comments in this thread, he isn’t “following randoms on Twitter.” He is following a specific subset of Twitter users who are drawn to facts, logic and critical analysis. People who have demonstrated what he concerns a rational approach to uncertain topics or events.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see that type of subset of people “outperform” random media members, particularly when it comes to unusual events like this one.

(Side note: good to see you in here TGunz. I still credit you with saving me a ton of money during the mid/late 2000s real estate bubble)

Of course the question is how would they hold up if they were under the same kind of scrutiny as NYT etc, with people and entire websites dedicated to tracking their every move and finding and calling out even the smallest errors, even if those errors are immediately redacted or the limitations in the first place completely put up front.

How many times have they posted incorrect information and then deleted their tweet and IK was never the wiser because there isn't a website dedicated to screenshotting everything they ever post and then cross referencing it later to see if it was deleted or changed 5 minutes later or when more information became available?

In this case we aren't even given the sources. We just have to take it on faith that there are this collection of people out there that report only completely accurate info all the time, in realtime, even though no one is checking them on it and we don't even know who they are. And our source on this is a guy who, while generally a good rational dude, is clearly approaching this topic with an extremely heavy bias (see: insane post about how if Elon hadn't bought twitter the whole world would still think Israel bombed the hospital).

The 'realtime' is another issue, where the larger media outlets just can't win. If they post "Hospital bombed by Israel, Palestinian authorities claim" they get lambasted for reporting on the allegations coming out of the region in realtime, even though they very clearly qualify it as allegations being passed on 2nd hand that they haven't been able to verify yet. Likewise if they wait, they get equally lambasted as they did in the Prigozhin news where they waited an hour to TRY and confirm some of the reports coming from Russian sources, and people here on this forum went absolutely nuts over them not reporting on it sooner even though it was all over twitter already. So they really can't win in that respect. Meanwhile if the Twitter guys pass on "according to Russian news sources" they get heralded for being fast.

Because people are apt to question the NYTimes, you discount what IK looks at on social media?
That's the gist of all this, yes/no?
I find that fascinating
One doesn't seem to be tied to the other but I appreciate you sharing why you feel the way you do.

My point was there are hundreds of people who dedicate their entire livelihood to watching sources like the NYT and finding every little inaccuracy or edit they can and letting everyone know about it.

There are zero people tracking everything these random twitter users post and seeing if they edit/delete anything to hold them accountable for it.

So are these sources actually more accurate, or do we just not know when they're inaccurate because no one is tracking them and grading them on it? I have no idea the answer, but I would strongly guess the latter. I would imagine these people have deleted things or even still have things out there that lack accuracy plenty of times, and their followers just don't know because there aren't entire websites dedicating to screenshotting everything they ever post at the exact minute they post it so they can reference later in case it ends up being incorrect or misleading.

 

[Joe Bryant]

On the unbiased sources topic, I have been using aggregators ever since I discovered Drudge way back when. Drudge is not an unbiased source but I still head over there quite a bit to see what's going on. At least they don't appear to care about just toeing the party line.

I get most of my news from 1440, a daily e-mail aggregator which was founded with the goal of being objective and balanced. They do a good job in my opinion.

Before I landed on them, I went through several aggregators. BBC and Reuters were blatantly biased. I got a daily e-mail from Reuters for about a year and am convinced that despite their Standards and Values, the stories they choose to push are selected and worded with a slant.

I also used the Daily Skimm for several years. Like 1440, they were originally supposedly created because the goal was an unbiased and balanced daily news aggregator. It was by and for women but at the outset I found it to be pretty good. Over time though that changed, and I ended up dropping them once they became pretty overt.

Same thing for a Catholic news aggregator. I was hoping it would be unbiased (other than obviously Catholic positions like abortion or birth control of course, which I expected would be in line with the church's teachings), but unfortunately it turned out to be pretty slanted as well so I dropped that one too after a couple years (I don't recall which service that one was).

For televised news, I can't stand Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, etc. NPR used to be pretty slanted but I've actually found them to be better when I've listened to them on occasion in the past few years. I tend to just watch local news tbh.

In short, I recommend 1440 if you haven't checked them out. And literally nothing else if you're just hoping for unbiased news. It's probably easier to go the opposite direction with complete bias, know that going in, and use a combination of sources from both sides. If you can stomach it (I can't).

I've glanced at 1440 a bit and for the quick look I did, they seemed good. That's not an endorsement as I haven't looked closely.

But clearly, there seems to be a need for better news.

Would better news matter? Seems to me most people will tune-in to the places that tell them what they want to hear anyway.

That's a good and fair question.

I'd hope it would matter. But people wanting confirmation of their own opinion is a powerful thing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

They are making up a "source" and hoping that you won't click through the link to check whether their source says what they say it says. The authors are lying to you.

So your position is that The Associated Press is trying to intentionally deceiving its readers? Knowing full well that they'll be caught in that deception?

I think that's the most likely explanation, yes. Keep in mind that the authors plainly state "Video from the scene showed the hospital grounds strewn with torn bodies, many of them young children." There is no such video. (If you can find it, I will consider myself duly owned). Moreover, they included a link that allegedly supported that statement, and the link takes us to a story that doesn't even reference the hospital strike in question. Given that this story was reviewed by two reporters and, presumably, an editor, I think malfeasance is a more likely explanation than honest error. For example, let's consider an innocent explanation like "It's just a botched link -- they meant to link to the video in question, which they totally have in their possession, but they just inserted the wrong link." Okay, but why didn't the editor catch that and ask them to update the link? Why no correction?

But that's sort of beside the point. The main point is that while people are complaining about misinformation circulating on social media, the misinformation is coming from inside the house.

Edit: I'll let this point go. I almost didn't write up this post, but I felt like I owed Disny an answer. Dropping it now.

Edit 2: Credit where credit is due, another poster PM'ed me an article from The Daily Mail that actually does appear to show the video in question. The visual quality is extremely poor and a viewer can't really tell what's being shown or where, but the video does apparently exist. Thank you @3C's !

 

[Psychopav]

On the unbiased sources topic, I have been using aggregators ever since I discovered Drudge way back when. Drudge is not an unbiased source but I still head over there quite a bit to see what's going on. At least they don't appear to care about just toeing the party line.

I get most of my news from 1440, a daily e-mail aggregator which was founded with the goal of being objective and balanced. They do a good job in my opinion.

Before I landed on them, I went through several aggregators. BBC and Reuters were blatantly biased. I got a daily e-mail from Reuters for about a year and am convinced that despite their Standards and Values, the stories they choose to push are selected and worded with a slant.

I also used the Daily Skimm for several years. Like 1440, they were originally supposedly created because the goal was an unbiased and balanced daily news aggregator. It was by and for women but at the outset I found it to be pretty good. Over time though that changed, and I ended up dropping them once they became pretty overt.

Same thing for a Catholic news aggregator. I was hoping it would be unbiased (other than obviously Catholic positions like abortion or birth control of course, which I expected would be in line with the church's teachings), but unfortunately it turned out to be pretty slanted as well so I dropped that one too after a couple years (I don't recall which service that one was).

For televised news, I can't stand Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, etc. NPR used to be pretty slanted but I've actually found them to be better when I've listened to them on occasion in the past few years. I tend to just watch local news tbh.

In short, I recommend 1440 if you haven't checked them out. And literally nothing else if you're just hoping for unbiased news. It's probably easier to go the opposite direction with complete bias, know that going in, and use a combination of sources from both sides. If you can stomach it (I can't).

I've glanced at 1440 a bit and for the quick look I did, they seemed good. That's not an endorsement as I haven't looked closely.

But clearly, there seems to be a need for better news.

Would better news matter? Seems to me most people will tune-in to the places that tell them what they want to hear anyway.

That's a good and fair question.

I'd hope it would matter. But people wanting confirmation of their own opinion is a powerful thing.

It would matter to me. It does matter. I would venture to guess that there's a lot of people like me in that regard. Maybe that's a false hope...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think that's the most likely explanation, yes.

Thank you for the clarity. Don't want to derail the thread, as it's already on a long media-related tangent and not really covering Israel, but do appreciate the reply.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Folks.

This has been a good and useful discussion on media. I think it's relevant to the original topic. But as others have said, let's steer it back toward the original topic as much as we can. (I've been one of the main offenders steering it to media accuracy!) Thanks.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Would better news matter? Seems to me most people will tune-in to the places that tell them what they want to hear anyway.

You're right, it wouldn't matter. The reason all the major media outlets are full of bias and hot takes is because that's what people read. You can't become a major media outlet unless that's what you do. If you value quality and accuracy over speed and sensationalism, you won't make any money and probably won't stay in business very long.

 

[Jayrod]

Looks like an IDF ground invasion of Gaza is imminent.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told troops on Thursday to "get organized" and "be ready" to enter Gaza.

"The order will come," Gallant said, according to The Associated Press. "Whoever sees Gaza from afar now, will see it from the inside. I promise you."

This is what I expected them to do. It will be a slow painful process of sweeping through the entire region, but it is the only way to completely remove Hamas from the region.

Looks like they aren't planning any kind of bombing campaign really moving forward either, but that's pure speculation on my part.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's hard to know what to believe - the fog of war is real and inevitable and we shouldn't be surprised by confusion. Emotions are fragile right now and people tend to assign malintent as opposed to accepting the understanding that war reporting is hard.

Al Jazeera's video breakdown of the bombing is interesting. IK, you may find this interesting as it includes shots of a mass of body bags and chaos that suggests lots of people did indeed die in the bombing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

As has been pointed out numerous times over the past week, 1400+ Israelis have been killed by Hamas terrorists, the equivalent of 15 9/11's.
By the same math, using the Palestinian estimated death toll (~3800), Gaza has had ~ 209 9/11's over the past two weeks.

War is awful.

 

[Jayrod]

As has been pointed out numerous times over the past week, 1400+ Israelis have been killed by Hamas terrorists, the equivalent of 15 9/11's.
By the same math, using the Palestinian estimated death toll (~3800), Gaza has had ~ 209 9/11's over the past two weeks.

War is awful.

I'm not sure that the "equivalent % of the population" method is the best way to do these comparisons. A life is a life and an Israeli life or a Palestinian life isn't worth more than a New Yorker on 9/11/01 just because there are less Israelis & Palestinians than Americans.

The total has surpassed 9/11's, but much of the deaths now are the result of war fighting, not a terrorist attack.

And yes, war is awful.

 

[Fat Nick]

Looks like an IDF ground invasion of Gaza is imminent.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told troops on Thursday to "get organized" and "be ready" to enter Gaza.

"The order will come," Gallant said, according to The Associated Press. "Whoever sees Gaza from afar now, will see it from the inside. I promise you."
This is what I expected them to do. It will be a slow painful process of sweeping through the entire region, but it is the only way to completely remove Hamas from the region.

Looks like they aren't planning any kind of bombing campaign really moving forward either, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I have to believe that the success of a ground sweep like this revolves heavily around a captive population. Has anyone read anything or given any thoughts on whether we feel Hamas leaders are actually "captive" in Gaza? I mean, it seems to me that while your average citizen may be captive and unable to exit by land, sea, or air, it has to be entirely possible that Hamas has tunnels that allow them to get out. If they operated largely in tunnels under Gaza city, why wouldn't it be logical for them to have tunneled under the Gaza border as well?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I'm not sure that the "equivalent % of the population" method is the best way to do these comparisons. A life is a life and an Israeli life or a Palestinian life isn't worth more than a New Yorker on 9/11/01 just because there are less Israelis & Palestinians than Americans.

Yeah, you take that method to the extreme and one guy getting shot in Vatican City is 124 9-11s. Doesn't make sense to me. A life is a life.

 

[Gr00vus]

This ground activity is as much about eliminating infrastructure (e.g. tunnels), equipment, the means to do damage from Gaza as it is about securing people (terrorists or hostages).

One of my main questions is, what comes after the IDF clears everything out? They just let the same people return, without monitoring and control in place? I don't see that happening, not soon anyway. Israeli security can't happen with an unmonitored Gaza, that's what the events of this month have proven (again).

 

[Jayrod]

I have to believe that the success of a ground sweep like this revolves heavily around a captive population. Has anyone read anything or given any thoughts on whether we feel Hamas leaders are actually "captive" in Gaza? I mean, it seems to me that while your average citizen may be captive and unable to exit by land, sea, or air, it has to be entirely possible that Hamas has tunnels that allow them to get out. If they operated largely in tunnels under Gaza city, why wouldn't it be logical for them to have tunneled under the Gaza border as well?

Israel has been dealing with this for decades and actually built walls underground to prevent tunnels from being dug under the border.

This article from 2014 details Israel and Egypt's process of discovering and closing tunnels out of Gaza. They were already starting to get them shut down at that point.

There is still an elaborate network of tunnels under Gaza, but I think the number of tunnels out of Gaza into Israel or Egypt are extremely minimal or even don't exist.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This ground activity is as much about eliminating infrastructure (e.g. tunnels), equipment, the means to do damage from Gaza as it is about securing people (terrorists or hostages).

One of my main questions is, what comes after the IDF clears everything out? They just let the same people return, without monitoring and control in place? I don't see that happening, not soon anyway. Israeli security can't happen with an unmonitored Gaza, that's what the events of this month have proven (again).

That was my question as well. I can't imagine things are allowed to go back to the way they were. They would just re-build it.

If the Gaza strip were a country and did what they did, the governing body would be completely removed and replaced. Not that that approach has had the best results, but is there any reason this wouldn't be treated the same way? It's an actual government that acts like the worst of the worst terrorists in the world. That can't exist anymore if you're the country sitting right next to them.

 

[Gr00vus]

Naivete at its worst here maybe...

Israel incorporates the Gaza territory into Israel, the Jordan river Palestinian territory incorporates an equivalent amount of currently Israeli territory contiguous with it (like a stretch north of the current upper boundary along the Jordan river). Israel helps pay for the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians, and (most importantly) relocates Jewish settlers settled illegally in Palestinian territory along Jordan.

Who says no? How painful would it be compared to what will come next if Gaza stays as is (a walled, blockaded, overpopulated prison).

I have my own answers to the question, but figure we may as well haggle over possible solutions instead of what the right number of dead people reported is.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

 

[SWC]

Naivete at its worst here maybe...

Israel incorporates the Gaza territory into Israel, the Jordan river Palestinian territory incorporates an equivalent amount of currently Israeli territory contiguous with it (like a stretch north of the current upper boundary along the Jordan river). Israel helps pay for the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians, and (most importantly) relocates Jewish settlers settled illegally in Palestinian territory along Jordan.

Who says no? How painful would it be compared to what will come next if Gaza stays as is (a walled, blockaded, overpopulated prison).

I have my own answers to the question, but figure we may as well haggle over possible solutions instead of what the right number of dead people reported is.

where does harden end up in this scenario take that to the bank brohan

 

[Gr00vus]

Naivete at its worst here maybe...

Israel incorporates the Gaza territory into Israel, the Jordan river Palestinian territory incorporates an equivalent amount of currently Israeli territory contiguous with it (like a stretch north of the current upper boundary along the Jordan river). Israel helps pay for the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians, and (most importantly) relocates Jewish settlers settled illegally in Palestinian territory along Jordan.

Who says no? How painful would it be compared to what will come next if Gaza stays as is (a walled, blockaded, overpopulated prison).

I have my own answers to the question, but figure we may as well haggle over possible solutions instead of what the right number of dead people reported is.

where does harden end up in this scenario take that to the bank brohan

Russia. Or the Clippers. Same thing.

 

[Todem]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Confirmed. As well as multiple Drones shot down.

 

[HellToupee]

On the unbiased sources topic, I have been using aggregators ever since I discovered Drudge way back when. Drudge is not an unbiased source but I still head over there quite a bit to see what's going on. At least they don't appear to care about just toeing the party line.

I get most of my news from 1440, a daily e-mail aggregator which was founded with the goal of being objective and balanced. They do a good job in my opinion.

Before I landed on them, I went through several aggregators. BBC and Reuters were blatantly biased. I got a daily e-mail from Reuters for about a year and am convinced that despite their Standards and Values, the stories they choose to push are selected and worded with a slant.

I also used the Daily Skimm for several years. Like 1440, they were originally supposedly created because the goal was an unbiased and balanced daily news aggregator. It was by and for women but at the outset I found it to be pretty good. Over time though that changed, and I ended up dropping them once they became pretty overt.

Same thing for a Catholic news aggregator. I was hoping it would be unbiased (other than obviously Catholic positions like abortion or birth control of course, which I expected would be in line with the church's teachings), but unfortunately it turned out to be pretty slanted as well so I dropped that one too after a couple years (I don't recall which service that one was).

For televised news, I can't stand Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, etc. NPR used to be pretty slanted but I've actually found them to be better when I've listened to them on occasion in the past few years. I tend to just watch local news tbh.

In short, I recommend 1440 if you haven't checked them out. And literally nothing else if you're just hoping for unbiased news. It's probably easier to go the opposite direction with complete bias, know that going in, and use a combination of sources from both sides. If you can stomach it (I can't).

I use the DrudgeReport quite often, mostly because I can pan n scan quickly.
Things of interest I might click or even Google to get a wider range POV if it's interesting
I'm glad I'm not the only one

There was a time in the distant past (probably 10-12 years gone now) when Drudge would have many things a day or even two in advance of the story becoming widely reported. That doesn't really happen anymore, for sure.

Matt Drudge sold the site 4-5 years ago

 

[Snotbubbles]

Naivete at its worst here maybe...

Israel incorporates the Gaza territory into Israel, the Jordan river Palestinian territory incorporates an equivalent amount of currently Israeli territory contiguous with it (like a stretch north of the current upper boundary along the Jordan river). Israel helps pay for the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians, and (most importantly) relocates Jewish settlers settled illegally in Palestinian territory along Jordan.

Who says no? How painful would it be compared to what will come next if Gaza stays as is (a walled, blockaded, overpopulated prison).

I have my own answers to the question, but figure we may as well haggle over possible solutions instead of what the right number of dead people reported is.

Israel would say yes in a heartbeat. They'd only have to worry about Palestinians on one front.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I have to believe that the success of a ground sweep like this revolves heavily around a captive population. Has anyone read anything or given any thoughts on whether we feel Hamas leaders are actually "captive" in Gaza? I mean, it seems to me that while your average citizen may be captive and unable to exit by land, sea, or air, it has to be entirely possible that Hamas has tunnels that allow them to get out. If they operated largely in tunnels under Gaza city, why wouldn't it be logical for them to have tunneled under the Gaza border as well?

Israel has been dealing with this for decades and actually built walls underground to prevent tunnels from being dug under the border.

This article from 2014 details Israel and Egypt's process of discovering and closing tunnels out of Gaza. They were already starting to get them shut down at that point.

There is still an elaborate network of tunnels under Gaza, but I think the number of tunnels out of Gaza into Israel or Egypt are extremely minimal or even don't exist.

A Vietnam vet talked about fighting in tunnels. He said it's hell. They tried water, gas, explosives. It doesn't work because the tunnels have multiple levels and drainage to water systems. He said you have to go in there with a knife, nice a quiet. The only way they're getting those hostages back alive is if Hamas gives them back.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Please everyone post links on stories. Thank you.

 

[The Commish]

Naivete at its worst here maybe...

Israel incorporates the Gaza territory into Israel, the Jordan river Palestinian territory incorporates an equivalent amount of currently Israeli territory contiguous with it (like a stretch north of the current upper boundary along the Jordan river). Israel helps pay for the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians, and (most importantly) relocates Jewish settlers settled illegally in Palestinian territory along Jordan.

Who says no? How painful would it be compared to what will come next if Gaza stays as is (a walled, blockaded, overpopulated prison).

I have my own answers to the question, but figure we may as well haggle over possible solutions instead of what the right number of dead people reported is.

The Palestinians.

 

[unckeyherb]

As has been pointed out numerous times over the past week, 1400+ Israelis have been killed by Hamas terrorists, the equivalent of 15 9/11's.
By the same math, using the Palestinian estimated death toll (~3800), Gaza has had ~ 209 9/11's over the past two weeks.

War is awful.

Wait, what? I'm missing something here obviously. We lost just under 3k in 9/11

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Please everyone post links on stories. Thank you.

It was a press conference on TV.

 

[Todem]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Please everyone post links on stories. Thank you.

It was a press conference on TV.

Yeah it’s all over the news on TV kinda figured people have already seen it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Please everyone post links on stories. Thank you.

It was a press conference on TV.

Ok. Please say that when you post. And for anything else, please post links to the story. Statements with no source is how things go wildly off track.

 

[Orange&Blue]

A dentist (with an Arab name) got fired after tearing down flyers of kidnapped Israelis. This was in a chic part of downtown Miami. I see the flyers in many parts of Miami Beach. Cameras and cell phones everywhere, not a smart move. This would've had its own thread back in the day.

Dentist fired after Brickell video shows him ripping down posters of kidnapped Israelis

A dentist with a Miami practice has been fired after video captured him and another man removing posters of those kidnapped in Israel in the Hamas attacks.

www.local10.com

to be fair, and I'm just going off your post, he could have thought people were gloating/etc.

 

[(HULK)]

One thing that stood out was how high the standards were for accuracy at the Times.

I have used this example before, and I won't get into the political details, but there was a weird story out about Bernie sanders, saying he lied about something during his campaign.

A yearbook photo emerged and WaPo sent a reporter to the school library to look at the yearbook from that year.

Now I used to use this as an example of journalistic standards.

But I have later come to realize that this is actually a perfect summation of how bias affects journalism.

That yearbook photo was verified in person, because it went against what they had originally printed. Had the yearbook photo supported their story further they would have inserted something like "according to a photo presented to the post by xyz"

This allows them to deny any wrongdoing if it turned out to be fake documentation.

This provides cover. It is a way to selectively report news that could very well be incorrect, but maintain the facade that they are truth seekers.

And this is not where that story ends(which I didn't learn until very recently). The journalist was so upset that the photo went against his story that he took to arguing with the school photo archives and got them to change the caption of the photo!!! Eventually the photographer caught wind of all of this and still had several photos from that day proving the original caption was correct and it has now been changed back.

Exclusive: College Alumni Raise Doubts About Bernie Sanders Campaign Photo

The best image of the candidate's civil rights activism under spotlight

time.com

Being unfamiliar with this story, I googled and came across this article. Is this the incident you're referring to? It appears that the college photographer concluded, based on other photos that he took that day, that it is Sanders in the disputed photo. Some classmates disagree. They think it is Rappaport. Sanders and Rappaport were similar looking and both acted as leaders in the civil rights movement at their college. Whether it is Sanders or Rappaport in that photo, I don't think this is a good example of journalistic integrity.

Time is a different publication than WaPo.

I believe Time and Newsweek were bought by a different entity a couple years ago and generally create junk now.

 

[nightmare]

As has been pointed out numerous times over the past week, 1400+ Israelis have been killed by Hamas terrorists, the equivalent of 15 9/11's.
By the same math, using the Palestinian estimated death toll (~3800), Gaza has had ~ 209 9/11's over the past two weeks.

War is awful.

Wait, what? I'm missing something here obviously. We lost just under 3k in 9/11

He is comparing percent of population of the U.S. to Israel.

 

[Balco]

Looks like an IDF ground invasion of Gaza is imminent.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told troops on Thursday to "get organized" and "be ready" to enter Gaza.

"The order will come," Gallant said, according to The Associated Press. "Whoever sees Gaza from afar now, will see it from the inside. I promise you."
This is what I expected them to do. It will be a slow painful process of sweeping through the entire region, but it is the only way to completely remove Hamas from the region.

Looks like they aren't planning any kind of bombing campaign really moving forward either, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I have to believe that the success of a ground sweep like this revolves heavily around a captive population. Has anyone read anything or given any thoughts on whether we feel Hamas leaders are actually "captive" in Gaza? I mean, it seems to me that while your average citizen may be captive and unable to exit by land, sea, or air, it has to be entirely possible that Hamas has tunnels that allow them to get out. If they operated largely in tunnels under Gaza city, why wouldn't it be logical for them to have tunneled under the Gaza border as well?

This was a long planned attack, it would be foolish to think there wasn’t an escape plan. I would think the orchestrators weren’t in Gaza during the attack.

 

[timschochet]

I simply do not understand what this ground offensive in Gaza is going to achieve. The only answer that’s given is “to destroy Hamas”. OK but how does a ground invasion achieve that? How will the Israelis distinguish members of Hamas from other Palestinians? Maybe they will be wearing helpful little buttons?

 

[timschochet]

You cannot destroy a popular guerilla force with a conventional ground invasion. We tried it in Vietnam. We tried it in Afghanistan. Israel has tried it again and again over the last 80 years. They run away and then they come back.

 

[(HULK)]

Thanks Folks.

This has been a good and useful discussion on media. I think it's relevant to the original topic. But as others have said, let's steer it back toward the original topic as much as we can. (I've been one of the main offenders steering it to media accuracy!) Thanks.

If I may, one last note on the topic. I typically like to read sources from outside the US in addition to US sources and it's entirely due to vaping of all things.

Vaping is how I quit regular cigarettes over a decade ago. In the US, vaping is universally vilified, however, that is not the case in other countries. Many countries like England consider it the best way to quit smoking and recognize the immense harm reduction one gains by switching. I have no proof but I suspect the coverage in the US is due to the influence of big tobacco early on and then continued by various groups that exist solely to fight tobacco use. In the US, completely debunked studies done in the early days and funded by tobacco companies are still cited as factual. Things like EVALI are still listed as a risk of nicotine vaping when it is proven to be linked to black market marijuana vapes that were cut with vitamin E acitates, etc. It's not completely without risk, but my kid's generation often thinks it's as bad or worse than smoking and it's empirically not.

Anyways, there are a lot of bad actors out there contributing to the narrative in our country. Sometimes getting sources outside our sphere helps get you more accurate information. There is plenty to like about our news sources IMO, but I don't think relying on them solely leads to being well informed.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Pentagon reporting that US warship shot down missiles launches from Yemen towards Israel.

Please everyone post links on stories. Thank you.

US military shoots down missiles and drones as it faces growing threats in volatile Middle East

U.S. forces in the Middle East are facing increasing threats. American bases in Iraq and Syria have been repeatedly targeted by drone attacks, and a Navy warship shot down missiles appearing to head toward Israel Thursday.

apnews.com

 

[rockaction]

New York Times prints an article about their retraction about their reporting on the hospital.

It sounds so neat, so conscientious. They then single out the BBC and Al Jazeera for not changing their stories that took the Palestinians at their word.

After Hospital Blast, Headlines Shift With Changing Claims (Published 2023)

The fast-moving events highlighted the difficulty of covering the war between Israel and Hamas.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Not sure about JPost as a source, but I think I've seen some others post links from there.

US envoy met with Israelis, Egyptians to develop mechanism for Gaza aid

US Special Envoy David Satterfield met on Thursday with Israeli and Egyptian officials to develop the exact me

www.jpost.com

To save you a click, this is the entirety of the article:

US Special Envoy David Satterfield met on Thursday with Israeli and Egyptian officials to develop the exact mechanism to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Thursday.​

​

Israeli government is worried about the possible diversion of aid to benefit Hamas, Miller said, a concern Washington shares. But he added that the United States expects assistance to be able to get into Gaza and that it wants to see "sustained" aid move into the enclave.​

Can't find much else on this so far.

 

[tri-man 47]

I simply do not understand what this ground offensive in Gaza is going to achieve. The only answer that’s given is “to destroy Hamas”. OK but how does a ground invasion achieve that? How will the Israelis distinguish members of Hamas from other Palestinians? Maybe they will be wearing helpful little buttons?

From an earlier CNN article (I recall it since I posted it), I expect that one of the goals is to destroy the extensive tunnel network ...and whoever might be in it. As to distinguishing Hamas leadership, I have to think that Israel knows who they are and what they look like. Finding them might be a different and difficult matter.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You cannot destroy a popular guerilla force with a conventional ground invasion. We tried it in Vietnam. We tried it in Afghanistan. Israel has tried it again and again over the last 80 years. They run away and then they come back.

You can however destroy the tunnels.

 

[Jayrod]

You cannot destroy a popular guerilla force with a conventional ground invasion. We tried it in Vietnam. We tried it in Afghanistan. Israel has tried it again and again over the last 80 years. They run away and then they come back.

It's not even remotely close to the same as Vietnam.

And they aren't just leaving and letting them have free reign again. It will be occupied, most likely, for the foreseeable future.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The corrupt, dishonest, and/or inept media could be what sparks WWIII. It needs to be reigned in and fought against at every turn by people and organizations and governments that want the truth to be told.

The news media have a huge responsibility when it comes to accuracy of reporting. They have an equal responsibility to quickly own up to mistakes and retract, with explanation, when necessary. There is not nearly enough of that IMO, and it's a large part of the problem as to why the news media are largely distrusted these days.

Also, an error from a front-page story should not have a page 20 correction...too often/most often there is not equal weight given to the correction.

Several politicians continue to support/"hype" the "Israel bombed the hospital" story even after some refuting evidence.

 

[eoMMan]

What are other countries (such as England, France, Germany, etc) doing regarding this conflict/war? What’s their reaction/response?
US always seems to be the country “stepping up” to maintain world order.

 

[Todem]

What are other countries (such as England, France, Germany, etc) doing regarding this conflict/war? What’s their reaction/response?
US always seems to be the country “stepping up” to maintain world order.

We are the largest and most powerful democracy on the planet.

It’s what we do.

 

[Todem]

You cannot destroy a popular guerilla force with a conventional ground invasion. We tried it in Vietnam. We tried it in Afghanistan. Israel has tried it again and again over the last 80 years. They run away and then they come back.

It's not even remotely close to the same as Vietnam.

And they aren't just leaving and letting them have free reign again. It will be occupied, most likely, for the foreseeable future.

Agreed and the Israeli military is highly trained in guerrilla and urban warfare….been at it since 1948.

 

[Jayrod]

In case anyone is wondering why Israel is taking the gloves off, read this article.

It is not for the feint of heart.

Not every death is the same. Signs of torture, mutilation, etc.

Animals did this. To children and women. Israel has never and would never do anything like this to their enemies.

 

[TLEF316]

What are other countries (such as England, France, Germany, etc) doing regarding this conflict/war? What’s their reaction/response?
US always seems to be the country “stepping up” to maintain world order.

Yup, we'll foot the bill and they'll spend the money they save on free health care and other goodies

 

[(HULK)]

What are other countries (such as England, France, Germany, etc) doing regarding this conflict/war? What’s their reaction/response?
US always seems to be the country “stepping up” to maintain world order.

We are the largest and most powerful democracy on the planet.

It’s what we do.

We spend more on our military than the next 9 highest military spending countries COMBINED.

Of course we're always embroiled in the stuff.