So you’re upset because a reporter is checking their information rather than rushing to premature conclusions? The video was taken down by Twitch and could not be immediately verified. Now that it has, the article reads:
Leading up the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he “will no longer be complicit in genocide.” Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling “Free Palestine!”
Waiting a few hours for reliable information is exactly what a good news agency should do. People demanding news that rushes to conclusions regardless of their information is what leads to misinformation.
Please also link to my latest post proving that an ex IDF intelligence soldier without journalistic background wrote the false rape accusation article for New York Times.
Who’s the bozo though, me or Hyperreality which keeps screaming that Zionism equals Judaism and criticism of israel is anti Semitic?
Hyperreality is a fervent defender of israel in every thread.
It’s sad to see that someone who posts a wall of complete nonsense with multiples lies such as me calling Hamas “freedom fighters” somehow gets taken seriously.
I strongly suspect he also uses alts to upvote his own comments and submissions, because he once mistakenly replied to my comment quoting someone else.
Oh, he mistakenly replied to my comment and quoted someone else.
I pointed out it was someone else who had said that, but he didn’t seem to understand and that I had literally not said that. His reply was upvoted anyway.
Basically something like this:
Me: I like apples. +0
Him: How dare you say “I like driving in my car.” +10
Me: ? I think you’re quoting someone else? +0
Him: No. Clearly blablabla. +10
Anyway, that’s how I remember it. Please don’t ask me to trawl through a hundred pages of his comments. Please. I’d rather stick a spoon up my peepee. LOL
Oh shit, I’d misread that and assumed it was him carrying on a conversation from an alt as in forgetting to change accounts.
But nope thats just some brain dead logic to assume someone is botting. Its like this is the users first time experiencing “reddit hivemind” voting patterns and using that as their reasoning.
Looking through comment histories and I see you defending a cop pulling a gun on a dying mans charred body?
Looking through OPs comment history and I see posts like so, filled with some degree of fact based explanations.
I’ll admit your posts have a better mastery of English on display, but OPs coming through with the better and informed takes from my brief first page pass.
Yeah I almost pulled off the road yesterday to comment on all the “you’ll never hear the media talk about this” as NPR ran a segment on the uncommitted vote for Michigan then went into a report about this incident. Clearly stating the why and intent and what they shouted during even.
For a “rapidly published article” the writers of the article seemingly had the time to include irrelevant details about the flags in front of the israeli embassy symbolizing the hostages taken by Hamas
All the information was available in a two minute video. There is no ambiguity. Even if NPR would not agree with the statements that were made they could have still verbatim quoted them as they are so happy to do for every statement made by the IDF. The video was circulating everywhere online.
So should we automatically believe every video that circulates online? Basic journalistic standards require verification of any source. As has already been pointed out, the article was updated with the relevant information once it was available and verified. This is common practice among every news source that publishes online.
Journalists have two options in the midst of a developing story. They can rely on rumor and instinct to publish whatever version of the story they think is the truth, and if they get it wrong, update the retraction later. Or they can wait until they have verified information, and report on only what they know. Frankly, I think there are too many sources out there who do the former, and too few who take the latter path.
You’re upset over basic journalistic standards and projecting them into something they’re not. There’s a reason that articles published online list the date/time of the most recent update, not just the time of publication.
So you’re upset because a reporter is checking their information rather than rushing to premature conclusions? The video was taken down by Twitch and could not be immediately verified. Now that it has, the article reads:
Waiting a few hours for reliable information is exactly what a good news agency should do. People demanding news that rushes to conclusions regardless of their information is what leads to misinformation.
Removed by mod
can you link it?
Removed by mod
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=3867209
nothing there shows them saying Jews control all the media.
I just see bad faith engagement with their nuanced point.
Please also link to my latest post proving that an ex IDF intelligence soldier without journalistic background wrote the false rape accusation article for New York Times.
https://lemmy.world/post/12398680
Please report this bozo and his alts whenever you see him, don’t need sockpuppets here
Who’s the bozo though, me or Hyperreality which keeps screaming that Zionism equals Judaism and criticism of israel is anti Semitic?
Hyperreality is a fervent defender of israel in every thread.
It’s sad to see that someone who posts a wall of complete nonsense with multiples lies such as me calling Hamas “freedom fighters” somehow gets taken seriously.
deleted by creator
what?
Oh, he mistakenly replied to my comment and quoted someone else.
I pointed out it was someone else who had said that, but he didn’t seem to understand and that I had literally not said that. His reply was upvoted anyway.
Basically something like this:
Me: I like apples. +0
Him: How dare you say “I like driving in my car.” +10
Me: ? I think you’re quoting someone else? +0
Him: No. Clearly blablabla. +10
Anyway, that’s how I remember it. Please don’t ask me to trawl through a hundred pages of his comments. Please. I’d rather stick a spoon up my peepee. LOL
You think it might have something to do with people agreeing with me and not with your pro israel takes? No everyone must be a bot.
deleted by creator
don’t make claims you aren’t willing to support
Oh shit, I’d misread that and assumed it was him carrying on a conversation from an alt as in forgetting to change accounts.
But nope thats just some brain dead logic to assume someone is botting. Its like this is the users first time experiencing “reddit hivemind” voting patterns and using that as their reasoning.
Looking through comment histories and I see you defending a cop pulling a gun on a dying mans charred body?
Looking through OPs comment history and I see posts like so, filled with some degree of fact based explanations.
I’ll admit your posts have a better mastery of English on display, but OPs coming through with the better and informed takes from my brief first page pass.
Yeah I almost pulled off the road yesterday to comment on all the “you’ll never hear the media talk about this” as NPR ran a segment on the uncommitted vote for Michigan then went into a report about this incident. Clearly stating the why and intent and what they shouted during even.
For a “rapidly published article” the writers of the article seemingly had the time to include irrelevant details about the flags in front of the israeli embassy symbolizing the hostages taken by Hamas
All the information was available in a two minute video. There is no ambiguity. Even if NPR would not agree with the statements that were made they could have still verbatim quoted them as they are so happy to do for every statement made by the IDF. The video was circulating everywhere online.
So should we automatically believe every video that circulates online? Basic journalistic standards require verification of any source. As has already been pointed out, the article was updated with the relevant information once it was available and verified. This is common practice among every news source that publishes online.
Journalists have two options in the midst of a developing story. They can rely on rumor and instinct to publish whatever version of the story they think is the truth, and if they get it wrong, update the retraction later. Or they can wait until they have verified information, and report on only what they know. Frankly, I think there are too many sources out there who do the former, and too few who take the latter path.
You’re upset over basic journalistic standards and projecting them into something they’re not. There’s a reason that articles published online list the date/time of the most recent update, not just the time of publication.
There were no basic journalistic standards applied. They had full access to the video and quote and knew his exact motivations.
His name was correctly spelled. His motivations “forgotten”.
If journalists do not know why they are writing an article they should not write the article.