Is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting?
NPR sure thinks so.
why not…just not publish it?
Because that’s too obvious. In the west newspapers lie by omission. So people still believe that they are “reading news” instead of getting brainwashed. And go on the internet to defend their amazing newspapers. They put important news on the back of the paper and frame it very vaguely when it’s not convenient for our narratives.
Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
NPR has zero issue not fact checking any IDF propaganda before publishing false rape accusations, but a first party source on video against israel suddenly has the “highest journalistic scrutiny”.
You do understand the difference between reporting on understood facts and reporting on reasonable conclusions, right?
People can put one and one together to draw a conclusion, but it’s actually a boon for journalists to independently verify what they report on. If you don’t believe this, there are a number of conservative news outlets that may appeal to your need of reporting of unverified conclusions.
So here’s my big issue with what you’re saying.
When you say
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
I look and see that the article currently says:
Israel responded with a military assault on Gaza which, according the health ministry in the enclave, has killed over 29,000 people. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced and over 60% of housing has been damaged in Gaza, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
“BUT INTERNET, THEY MODIFIED THE ARTICLE ONCE IT GOT POPULAR!” you’ll say.
To which I refer you to the earlier archive.org snapshot of this very same article that mentions neither Hamas hostages nor Palestine/Gaza.
So it seems your beef is neither with the initial release of an article, nor the current state, but instead with a random snapshot of a developing story, which is simply silly. The initial article from archive.org does not have the issue you don’t like, and any argument you have for “further modifications of the article having more weight” automatically apply to the current versions of the article that does talk about Gaza.
Then they “confirmed it was Aaron” and still made no mention of his motives. And they added a nice line about Hamas hostages. Really needed that. Then they got called out and actually included the quote.
Even current version of the article is propaganda. They claim they quote his social media but replace the word “Genocide” with 'War".
Then they addressed the very thing you have an issue with.
Do you not understand how developing stories are updated?
The current version cites his post to show that it was a protest against the Gaza war.
It is not quote of his post.
Look man, if you’re going to look for every opportunity to victimize yourself, you do you.
The fact of the matter is the initial post did not have what you struggle with. The current version does not have what you struggle with.
You’re trying to paint this as a propaganda piece by cherry picking a point in time that fits your argument, which, if you need to do, go for it. I just want you to recognize that’s what you’re doing.
What? They are still twisting words to dance around the fact it is Genocide. And they are framing the personal opinion of Aaron as if he does not think it is Genocide.
And this is after supposedly carefully examining his “social media post” which uses the word Genocide not war
There only one cherry picking is you by saying “Oh look near the bottom of the article where the majority of readers already close the page do they mention Genocide”
There only one cherry picking is you by saying “Oh look near the bottom of the article where the majority of readers already close the page do they mention Genocide”
Jesus Christ.
Most of your arguments literally refer to a state of the article that does not exist anymore, and you’re accusing me of cherry picking by referring to a part of the article that does?
This is some trump “NO PUPPET NO PUPPET YOURE THE PUPPET” shit right here lol.
You do you man. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I hope you have a day as good or miserable as you want it to be.
NPR sure thinks so.
Because that’s too obvious. In the west newspapers lie by omission. So people still believe that they are “reading news” instead of getting brainwashed. And go on the internet to defend their amazing newspapers. They put important news on the back of the paper and frame it very vaguely when it’s not convenient for our narratives.
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
NPR has zero issue not fact checking any IDF propaganda before publishing false rape accusations, but a first party source on video against israel suddenly has the “highest journalistic scrutiny”.
You do understand the difference between reporting on understood facts and reporting on reasonable conclusions, right?
People can put one and one together to draw a conclusion, but it’s actually a boon for journalists to independently verify what they report on. If you don’t believe this, there are a number of conservative news outlets that may appeal to your need of reporting of unverified conclusions.
So here’s my big issue with what you’re saying.
When you say
I look and see that the article currently says:
“BUT INTERNET, THEY MODIFIED THE ARTICLE ONCE IT GOT POPULAR!” you’ll say.
To which I refer you to the earlier archive.org snapshot of this very same article that mentions neither Hamas hostages nor Palestine/Gaza.
So it seems your beef is neither with the initial release of an article, nor the current state, but instead with a random snapshot of a developing story, which is simply silly. The initial article from archive.org does not have the issue you don’t like, and any argument you have for “further modifications of the article having more weight” automatically apply to the current versions of the article that does talk about Gaza.
Then they “confirmed it was Aaron” and still made no mention of his motives. And they added a nice line about Hamas hostages. Really needed that. Then they got called out and actually included the quote.
Even current version of the article is propaganda. They claim they quote his social media but replace the word “Genocide” with 'War".
Then they addressed the very thing you have an issue with.
Do you not understand how developing stories are updated?
The current version cites his post to show that it was a protest against the Gaza war.
It is not quote of his post.
Look man, if you’re going to look for every opportunity to victimize yourself, you do you.
The fact of the matter is the initial post did not have what you struggle with. The current version does not have what you struggle with.
You’re trying to paint this as a propaganda piece by cherry picking a point in time that fits your argument, which, if you need to do, go for it. I just want you to recognize that’s what you’re doing.
What? They are still twisting words to dance around the fact it is Genocide. And they are framing the personal opinion of Aaron as if he does not think it is Genocide.
And this is after supposedly carefully examining his “social media post” which uses the word Genocide not war
There only one cherry picking is you by saying “Oh look near the bottom of the article where the majority of readers already close the page do they mention Genocide”
Jesus Christ.
Most of your arguments literally refer to a state of the article that does not exist anymore, and you’re accusing me of cherry picking by referring to a part of the article that does?
This is some trump “NO PUPPET NO PUPPET YOURE THE PUPPET” shit right here lol.
You do you man. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I hope you have a day as good or miserable as you want it to be.