291–300 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this true? I do not think journalists are just allowed to the front lines of any war. The entire Gaza strip seems like one giant front line. There needs to be more journalists reporting but I think just allowing anyone to walk anywhere because they've got 'press' on their jacket is probably just going to end up with dead journalists considering journalists will want to be were the fighting is and will gravitate to…
War correspondents have been around since at least the French revolution. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides for protection of war correspondents to the level of civilians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Words are not knifes. People eventually will adapt to lies and weird things. And truth will find a way. I really see it differently that both ends are equally bad. After all, on the same night that the BBC announced 500 dead after the "bombing" at a hospital in Gaza, which turned out to be a Hamas missile that fell and killed at most 50 there... crowds took to the streets and created a threat to Israeli embassies a…
Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and one which is presented to Middle-Eastern audiences. The media and articles are politically aligned in each region. Don't assume what you read in the US/UK/wherever is the same as over there. In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further upr…
Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is doing what you're accusing?
https://www.memri.org/search-results?country_id_report%5B0%5...
I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. Once you’ve established that the government can unilaterally ban a voice for reasons of “national security” you’ve essentially given them a free pass. As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment.
It's quite usual to ban the enemy from inciting dissidence from your own population during a war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe has done the same with Russia. Also, I think a few other Arab countries like Egypt have blocked/banned Al Jazeera.
Do you have examples for Europe blocking Russia? Because all I have seen is DNS providers omitting certain sites (i.e RT), but their apps still work (plus URLs when using other DNS). An nothing of that coming from the nation states as all seems to be due to the activities of private companies doing these things.
Reporters Without Borders gathers data and produces some interesting graphics. They recently released their World Press Freedom Index https://rsf.org/en https://rsf.org/en/country/israel --- edit: they appear to keep a list of mirrored news sites to circumvent censorship https://github.com/RSF-RWB/collateralfreedom (was hoping they had data available for their index, but have not found it yet) --- edit: the index has…
FTL: "... while more than 100 journalists were killed in six months in Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ..." Anyone know where to find what the current accurate count of number of journalists killed in the Gaza bombardment to date? Last I heard it was 170. There are also journalists who lived but their whole family died in the strikes.
I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. Once you’ve established that the government can unilaterally ban a voice for reasons of “national security” you’ve essentially given them a free pass. As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment.
The EU has banned many Russian and Belarussian news sources since the invasion of Ukraine. The USA seems to not have followed through (as far as I know - as Russian news sites seem to be available).
rt.com, enter… loads instantaneously.
sputnikglobe.com, enter… loads instantaneously.
Please don’t lie.
Edit: it was not a lie, my apologies.
One of the most ineffectual bans I have ever seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is doing what you're accusing?
See for yourself: https://www.memri.org/search-results?country_id_report%5B0%5...
There's nothing more shocking than the stuff Ben Gvir (security minister of Israel) does or says.
The second interview even references his calls to burn women and children as, yknow, a bad thing.
"memri" doesnt seem to consider that valid context, that is probably because it is a state propaganda outfit acting on behalf of that same Israeli minister who openly expressed a desire to burn women and children.