Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

Post by ragazzina » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 10:06 AM UTC

wtcactus wrote: post #303

ragazzina wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>after overwhelming evidence against it came to light Or maybe they removed articles because of political pressure? Post overwhelming evidence against the fact that the Al-Ahli hospital explosion was caused by an Israel airstrike, for example.

Sure, here you go: Not only every expert consulted by every journal agreed that the explosion was not even caused by an airstrike, but they also agreed it was caused by a projectile launched from Palestinian territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...

Post by wtcactus » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 10:16 AM UTC

ragazzina wrote: post #311

wtcactus wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here you go: Not only every expert consulted by every journal agreed that the explosion was not even caused by an airstrike, but they also agreed it was caused by a projectile launched from Palestinian territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...

You are posting, with a straight face, a link that repeats in all its entirety how nothing conclusive can be stated, how no expert has ever given a definitive answer, and you are saying the article affirms the opposite. Are you an LLM?

Post by rich_sasha » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 10:45 AM UTC

raxxorraxor wrote: post #304

rich_sasha wrote: post #260

Offending or over-accusing sides of this conflict is a very asymmetric risk. Misrepresent Palestinians negatively and you may eventually get an angry, vague letter - with a quarter of signatories doing so anonymously. Misrepresent Israelis negatively and you get very powerful and well-organised protests. BBC is sadly doing the rational thing of staying clear of suggesting Israel may be doing some bad things. It is a…

There was a study about negative bias towards Israel at the BBC. It contradicts your explanation. Do you have a single example of a protest you try to summon here? I very much doubt it.

Post by Paradigma11 » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 10:50 AM UTC

dvdplm wrote: post #263

dmix wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context. It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social…

This is the kind of comment that at first glance seems measured and well-phrased. I’m sure it depicts a common situation in journalism too, after all they’re just humans like the rest of us. The problem here is the enormity of what is actually going on in Gaza: a slaughter and a terror campaign we haven’t seen the likes of since Pol Pot. It is not two sides in disagreement, each jostling for attention on roughly equa…

Post by wtcactus » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 10:59 AM UTC

ragazzina wrote: post #316

wtcactus wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the consulted experts on the source agree that this wasn't an airstrike. Most of the consulted experts agree that it was fired from inside Palestinian territory. No consulted experts agree this was an airstrike. No consulted experts agree this was fired from outside Palestinian territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...

You keep posting this link while saying it states what it does not. Maybe you are, in fact, an LLM.