[flagged]
Putting quotes from unreliable sources in headlines is dangerous journalism in my opinion.
It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
101–110 of 258 posts
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one's calling into question that there was an explosion. The question is over the cause and the extent of casualties, which people who lived next door likely wouldn't be in the best position to evaluate.
I think too many people don't realize how hard it is to really estimate these things even if they happen right next to you, and especially if they happen at night. It's hard enough to estimate the caliber and distance of a single pistol or rifle shot (with training you can get pretty good), let alone the difference between a smaller mortar and a larger JDAM.
It doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between a hospital building being flattened and a fire in the parking lot. The people actually there knowingly lied, end of story.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#103I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not. The story would look the same no matter who did it.
Perhaps, but plenty of OSINT accounts on Twitter posted multiple videos and pictures they sourced, and they pretty much came to the same conclusion.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#104I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not. The story would look the same no matter who did it.
> still not sure what to believe on that story Do this. A lesson from air crash investigations: wait a week. Until then, discount everything. > story would look the same no matter who did it This is not true. Too many countries with disparate motivations had eyes on the area. We haven’t had time for intelligence to be scrubbed for public release. Again, give it a week. In the meantime, observe the meta story; who con…
Sure, ignore everything for a week.
Unless you want to make money in prediction markets - then help out humanity by reading as much information as possible and moving the price so that people who don't have time to do that can have better information.
A week is a long time in a fast moving conflict, and the ambiguity favours the defenders if it slows down any attack.
An explosion at a hospital doesn't need a golden rule of 100% discount rate for 1 week. That's insane. Anyone telling you 100% of anything is incorrect because the world doesn't work like that.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#105Comparing a fake image of some volcano and lava in the middle of the ocean (?!?) with the real deaths of people now dying in Gaza is peek Western journalism. It's why the West has ideologically lost its grip on the Global South, and deservedly so. Later edit: It might have helped if the author or the article had included his ethnicity at the start of the article, that way the stupid Gaza comparison and the futile att…
By the title, I knew that the article would be about creating a narrative to protect Israeli narrative in lying about their bombing of a hospital. Now how they could go so far to get back to it really got me impressed. Volcanos and lava.
It's wild that people are still pushing the IDF bombed a hospital narrative. You have to be willfully ignorant or just lying.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#106I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not. The story would look the same no matter who did it.
> blow up a hospital How about the fact this very hospital is still standing with walls intact? Does that change anything in your view? How do we know its still there and we arent being fed lies? Hamas, the so called "other side" uploaded videos after the fact showing this undamaged hospital building and burned cars in parking lot around small crater consistent with other Hamas rocket strike sites. Same story with tw…
Seems like we're witnessing a bubble collapse in mainstream news.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#107I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not. The story would look the same no matter who did it.
The visual evidence is what makes me think Palestinian militants (accidentally) caused the explosion.
First, live footage from Al Jazeera at the time showed rockets firing from a location in Gaza toward Israel. One rocket appeared to malfunction in mid-air and within a few seconds, an explosion happened on the ground approximately where the hospital is. The lean-too shape of the hospital roof can even be seen in the light from the explosion.
Second, daytime footage after the explosion showed that the hospital was still standing, with burned out cars in the parking lot. Several palm trees nearby were standing and unscathed (it was hard to tell if there were even scorch marks). The parking lot had a small crater maybe a meter in diameter with very little penetration into the ground. Israel's weapons have much stronger explosives, which would likely have completely destroyed the parking lot and wreaked havoc on adjacent buildings.
IMO, those two pieces of evidence strongly indicate to me that the Palestinians fired this rocket and it accidentally caused an explosion in the hospital parking lot.
One confusing aspect of the story to me is the death toll given in a matter of minutes after the explosion. It seems extremely improbable to me that anyone could confidently say 500 people died so quickly unless they were spreading propaganda.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think too many people don't realize how hard it is to really estimate these things even if they happen right next to you, and especially if they happen at night. It's hard enough to estimate the caliber and distance of a single pistol or rifle shot (with training you can get pretty good), let alone the difference between a smaller mortar and a larger JDAM.
It doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between a hospital building being flattened and a fire in the parking lot. The people actually there knowingly lied, end of story.
Even if you don't imply known malice, you have a major factor - if a bystander is asked a question they very rarely will say "I don't know" or actually just describe what they saw. It's a well-known effect, and why analyzing recordings can be much more effective.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#109The reason everyone believed it was Israel is because they do it all the time. Today they bombed a church.
I find it funny (as long as you ignore that these events involve dead people) that Silver here is up in arms for an alleged misattribution when it happens otherwise every day and nobody is bothered.
A novel thought: maybe stop bombing civilians and the chance of you unjustly being accused of bombing civilians goes dramatically down.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#110A long time ago, I worked for a brand that bought expensive advertisements in the nytimes. The sales team invited me to be a silent attendee of the 'page one meeting', a meeting during which the editors decide which stories will be on the front page of the paper and how they will be presented. By that time, they were also discussing if certain stories warranted a push notification, and how tweets would be presented.…
What I really appreciate about X is that stories too crazy to be true (like that one about protestors occupying that House office building) is that when someone posts a sensationalized but FAKE version of the headline (“Congress Invaded Again! Just like Jan 6!”) it often comes with a Community Note attached (“This was the Cannon Office Building, not the Capitol”). The Community Notes feature set allows users to attach important context to stories and keeps things from spiraling too far into one narrative or another at the expense of the truth when a tweet starts to go viral.