If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.
All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
to say it’s a code to shoot anyone in their belly and that Gaza now is their shooting range without any liability.
Very, very credible. Especially after that story of how IDF drove multiple victims to the hospital on their SUVs’ hood made a disaster, but that somehow didn’t.
Does anyone knows what +972 Magazine and Local Call are?
Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?
Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.
How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.
You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don’t know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯
At the very least, basic level, I don’t see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.
Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.
You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don’t have to.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.
I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won’t convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.
You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.
In the aftermath of the october attack there were numerous journalist from the publications from all around the world, not stringers, not outsourced agents. They have their biases, but at the very least they have a reputation to lose. If +972 media would report bullshit, no one would hold them responsible or start to ignore them because they are nobodies.
necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous
That’s judged, again, by the reputation of the writer\publisher. Half of my country’s journalist are in exile, but I can trust those I know from before the war and hunt on them. If they refer to anonymous sources in the army, I look if that overcomes my limits of a reasonable doubt.
In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.
I’m impressed we still have that conversation and that you take time to null my internet points on every comment in that three. It’s not big, but that’s a honest work of a dedicated individual. I felt that we on Lemmy don’t care about them at all.
I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.
The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this…
In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.
I really can’t resist the bait there.
No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you’re talking about before you comment, though, or you’re adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.
If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.
All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
to say it’s a code to shoot anyone in their belly and that Gaza now is their shooting range without any liability.
Very, very credible. Especially after that story of how IDF drove multiple victims to the hospital on their SUVs’ hood made a disaster, but that somehow didn’t.
Does anyone knows what +972 Magazine and Local Call are?
Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?
Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?
Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.
How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.
Personal attacks? Nice.
Next.
You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don’t know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Quote stupid shit, please.
I’m sorry, you can’t even read what you wrote?
Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.
You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don’t have to.
It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.
I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won’t convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.
In the aftermath of the october attack there were numerous journalist from the publications from all around the world, not stringers, not outsourced agents. They have their biases, but at the very least they have a reputation to lose. If +972 media would report bullshit, no one would hold them responsible or start to ignore them because they are nobodies.
That’s judged, again, by the reputation of the writer\publisher. Half of my country’s journalist are in exile, but I can trust those I know from before the war and hunt on them. If they refer to anonymous sources in the army, I look if that overcomes my limits of a reasonable doubt.
In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.
I’m impressed we still have that conversation and that you take time to null my internet points on every comment in that three. It’s not big, but that’s a honest work of a dedicated individual. I felt that we on Lemmy don’t care about them at all.
I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.
The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this…
I really can’t resist the bait there.
No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you’re talking about before you comment, though, or you’re adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.
Bad LLM
Good bot! <3