https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/shoot-everything-how-israeli-pilots-killed-their-own-civilians
Viral video highlights chaotic and indiscriminate attacks by Apache helicopters on 7 October.
I'm glad that we can get news from such obviously neutral and unbiased sources. I'm sure a site calling itself "Electronic Intifada"would never try to distort the truth. /s
The videos are there for you to view and the statements are there for you to read.
You can agree or disagree with the conclusions, but the videos and statements are there.
Mate, I don't know you or your politics, but the view you represent above I can't let go without challenge.
A lot of people have no objection about receiving news about Palestinians from blatantly pro Israeli outlets. So yeah, there is one Pro Palestinian source, surely the balanced person would take info from both.
The double standards have to stop. Either object against both, or read both and decide for yourself.
But to always call out just Palestinian sources, it smells of cultural opression
A lot of people have no objection about receiving news about Palestinians from blatantly pro Israeli outlets. So yeah, there is one Pro Palestinian source, surely the balanced person would take info from both.
In the real world this is certainly true, there are way more Pro-Israel publications and listening to an opposing opinion is wise, but on Lemmy it seems that the vast majority of active persons have been unwilling to accept any Israel source, no matter how tangential.
The double standards have to stop. Either object against both, or read both and decide for yourself.
There's nothing to say this person doesn't, and given the amount of flak Israel related sources get it's worth noting the bias here as well.
But to always call out just Palestinian sources, it smells of cultural oppression
I completely agree, but I am somewhat thrown by the choice of name by this publication. It just lacks a certain professionalism associated with good journalism. This isn't to say it's not a worthwhile source, it's just not the best name. It's kinda like if someone named their publication the Digital Revolution, the Uprising, or something similar, I'm just gonna cringe a bit and be skeptical from the start.
Looking online I found this site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/) which reviews the bias of various media sources. Based on this it's just a group of international journalists with their publication based out of Chicago. Their information seems to be mostly from grass roots reporting or third and fourth party accounts.
EDIT: I wanted to quickly follow up, I'm reading through the article now and it's a real shit show for navigating. In general I'm not familiar enough with the people they reference that it's really hard to get a good read on this article. It's kinda like if I said that a guy I know named Billy works at the city and he said he spoke with the Mayor who said that crime is on the rise, but the Chief of Police released a report to the contrary. Billy could be worthwhile, but I don't know Billy and I can't readily find good references to the Mayor's statement.
Even the representation of the original referenced article by YNet is kinda shit. For example, they use a reference to Syrian Girl on Twitter who is referencing Yoav Zitun on YNet, who is referencing a paraphrased statement from Lieutenant Colonel A. Zitun states that the Lieutenant ordered the Fighters to shoot everything near the fence and later attacked their own installation so that other troops could move up to it. Syrian Girl makes the connection that Zitun's reporting indicates that the military was blindly killing everything that moves (including their own troops) and EI runs with that sentiment.
In Zitun's own article (included at the bottom of the EI article) it is clear that unrestricted firing was only in proximity to the fence itself but other bypasses of firing restrictions were approved separately as needed or were taken by Fighters without approval.
While I agree it is a bit of an unfortunate name the news site does appear to be a pretty reliable source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/
I used to think it was just a few bad apples but literally every time I do an antifascism one of them shows up to harass me in the comments. Instance blocking can't come fast enough.
Oh that's cool, I ran across the same website while making a comment to another user here.
I'm not super sure how reliable they should be considered to be honest. Looking at Mediabiadfactcheck.com they state that they are mostly factual in reporting but points to their lack of transparency on funding and strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading.
Based on the rest of the review it seems that they are really good about being very specific in their statements to avoid inaccuracies. Looking through this article and a few of their other articles they mostly focus on local accounts (X person said this, they live in Gaza) or third party references (Y on Twitter said this based on an article by Z at the BBC).
Another representation of this style of reporting would be this example:
Headline: "The Election Was Stolen!"
Body: New information has come out about an investigation into the legitimacy of the 2020 election. SOUTHERN boy on Twitter shows a video of FBI officials going into the election offices to perform an investigation. SOUTHERN boy also recently posted a potential connection between the investigation and the Trump 2020 election, but it hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media.
We also spoke to Melissa Simpson in Mississippi and she says she and all her neighbors believe the election was stolen.
Since 2020 Trump has been telling everyone that, "The Election Was Stolen!" Does SOUTHERN boys information show the proof to Trump's claim?
End example
Technically nothing I posted is false, I'm not making any claims myself, but anyone reading this would know the subtext to my article.