Note:

I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!

  • machinin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Of course the IDF should investigate itself. I’m sure they are completely unbiased.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Clearly you’re right. But the UN report did not say what the article said it said. Which means it’s biased reporting.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The article prefaces every item with the word “alleged” or “alleges”, just like the report. How is this biased?

          • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            9 months ago

            What are you expecting from “World Socialist Website”? Fact-based reporting? I don’t think so.

            • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              For a site calling itself “socialist”, it sure is scared of unabashedly calling out an apartheid ethnostate.

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              9 months ago

              I would like the articles referenced here in this community to be fact-based, and I would like our discussion to be based on reality. The situation is bad enough as it is without having to make things up

              • المنطقة عكف عفريت@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                While I see what you mean by that, is the title being “biased” equal to the article being biased? Seems like all doubts are resolved upon reading the first paragraph.

                • jet@hackertalks.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Most people don’t read the articles, they read titles and they take the inference and go to the comments and fight. Titles that are misleading are effectively lies.

                  In the propaganda war, titles are ammunition

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          The title does not say allege. The title says something very different

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              To report something is to make a finding. You may have an interesting definition of report, but the common usage is about findings. The UN did not make a finding that Israel committed a mass killing. The implication of the title is the UN made a determination which it did not do.

              The UN is calling on Israel to investigate an allegation but it did not make a finding.

              https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/report

              • To return or present as the result of an examination or consideration of any matter officially referred.
                • jet@hackertalks.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  considering you and I have both agreed the title is misleading. I’m not being pedantic. You understood what I meant, and you have acknowledged it.

                  So when the question of what the title actually means came up, it seems like a worthwhile discussion

              • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                I think we’ve moved out of ‘not understanding’ and into the realm of ‘you don’t want to believe and you also don’t want others to’ territory.

                Which would be fine if you were more honest about it. Have a nice day.

                • jet@hackertalks.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Fighting over dictionary definitions is the least interesting type of discussion. That’s why we have dictionaries