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.
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.
He claims all western media are controlled by the Zionists. He's called Hamas a freedom fighting army. He regularly comes with incredibly ill informed takes. In the past I've seen him so thoroughly misunderstand the article he's quoting, I suspect he may be functionally illiterate. As far as I can tell he posts about Israel-Palestine non-stop all day long.
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. I pointed out I was a different person, but his reply was highly upvoted anyway.
I really should block him, but he can be amusing. Obviously the whole '''they''' control the media thing is icky. But I suppose he does less harm here in the fediverse where few will see his self important rants anyway.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
For purposes of propaganda, is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting? I don’t think so. If npr had an agenda when it came to this story, why not…just not publish it?
Instead they posted facts that they were able to verify, then updated the article as they were able to confirm more facts. Seems reasonable to me. Do you think not publishing assumptions as to why a man self immolated in protest in front of an Israeli embassy really convinced anyone this airman wasn’t protesting isreali actions?
Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?
Is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting?
NPR sure thinks so.
why not…just not publish it?
Because that’s too obvious. In the west newspapers lie by omission. So people still believe that they are “reading news” instead of getting brainwashed. And go on the internet to defend their amazing newspapers. They put important news on the back of the paper and frame it very vaguely when it’s not convenient for our narratives.
Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
NPR has zero issue not fact checking any IDF propaganda before publishing false rape accusations, but a first party source on video against israel suddenly has the “highest journalistic scrutiny”.
You do understand the difference between reporting on understood facts and reporting on reasonable conclusions, right?
People can put one and one together to draw a conclusion, but it’s actually a boon for journalists to independently verify what they report on. If you don’t believe this, there are a number of conservative news outlets that may appeal to your need of reporting of unverified conclusions.
So here’s my big issue with what you’re saying.
When you say
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
I look and see that the article currently says:
Israel responded with a military assault on Gaza which, according the health ministry in the enclave, has killed over 29,000 people. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced and over 60% of housing has been damaged in Gaza, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
“BUT INTERNET, THEY MODIFIED THE ARTICLE ONCE IT GOT POPULAR!” you’ll say.
To which I refer you to the earlier archive.org snapshot of this very same article that mentions neither Hamas hostages nor Palestine/Gaza.
So it seems your beef is neither with the initial release of an article, nor the current state, but instead with a random snapshot of a developing story, which is simply silly. The initial article from archive.org does not have the issue you don’t like, and any argument you have for “further modifications of the article having more weight” automatically apply to the current versions of the article that does talk about Gaza.
Then they “confirmed it was Aaron” and still made no mention of his motives. And they added a nice line about Hamas hostages. Really needed that. Then they got called out and actually included the quote.
Even current version of the article is propaganda. They claim they quote his social media but replace the word “Genocide” with 'War".
Then they addressed the very thing you have an issue with.
Do you not understand how developing stories are updated?
The current version cites his post to show that it was a protest against the Gaza war.
It is not quote of his post.
Look man, if you’re going to look for every opportunity to victimize yourself, you do you.
The fact of the matter is the initial post did not have what you struggle with. The current version does not have what you struggle with.
You’re trying to paint this as a propaganda piece by cherry picking a point in time that fits your argument, which, if you need to do, go for it. I just want you to recognize that’s what you’re doing.
What? They are still twisting words to dance around the fact it is Genocide. And they are framing the personal opinion of Aaron as if he does not think it is Genocide.
And this is after supposedly carefully examining his “social media post” which uses the word Genocide not war
There only one cherry picking is you by saying “Oh look near the bottom of the article where the majority of readers already close the page do they mention Genocide”
There only one cherry picking is you by saying “Oh look near the bottom of the article where the majority of readers already close the page do they mention Genocide”
Jesus Christ.
Most of your arguments literally refer to a state of the article that does not exist anymore, and you’re accusing me of cherry picking by referring to a part of the article that does?
This is some trump “NO PUPPET NO PUPPET YOURE THE PUPPET” shit right here lol.
You do you man. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I hope you have a day as good or miserable as you want it to be.
An earlier version of the sentence reads (bold mine):
As of Sunday afternoon, NPR was not able to independently verify the man’s identity or motives.
Although there were indications that he was a US servicemember (he was wearing a uniform) and likely his identity - as you mentioned, he recorded the video - they were not verified at that time.
Once his Identity was verified, the reporter removed that part of the line. Once his motives were verified, she removed that part of the line as well. This is just how news reporting works.
No they posted his name so his identity was verified, they were just not sure about his motivations." Let’s check that quote
My name is Aaron Bushnell. I am an active-duty member of the US Air Force, and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest — but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.
Free Palestine
Geez this is all so vague, we only heard his name!
Let’s write an article about it not mention anything else from the video!
Actually, I spent about 5 minutes looking for it earlier but then remembered I don’t really need to expose myself to it. If it had just popped up in front of me, I’d have seen it.
Maybe you don’t use the internet like the average person does, so your experience is different from theirs?
We want journalists to be honest about what they have and haven’t verified. And if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better to be quiet about it, so your quote of “while unverified, we have received some reports of decapitated babies in one of the areas attacked” doesn’t turn into “decapitated babies found in areas attacked by Hamas.”
And yes, I deliberately chose a recent and relevant example of something that actually happened and was used to justify Israel’s response early on.
You open Mastodon or Twitter, type in his name, and it pops up. Not difficult.
The beheaded babies example is particularly bad because it shows how actual journalistic standards go out of the window when israel makes a claim.
There was no video or picture evidence of the beheaded babies
"Journalists" did quote the claims directly
"Journalists" suddenly had no problem using the words “alleged” or “suspected” to cover themselves during a developing story
Relies on the most well known propaganda source in the world
Manufactures consent for israel. which is why it did reach front page of every single newspaper despite being a lie.
Journalists can’t use the “journalistic integrity” cover for everything that is anti-israel while simultaneously barraging us with “IDF says Hamas tunnel network under hospital X” every single day without any evidence.
That is reports of widespread sexual violence in the Hamas attack that started this latest conflict. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, says the U.N. has been too slow to speak out.
GILAD ERDAN: Sadly, the very international bodies that are supposedly the defenders of all women showed that when it comes to Israelis, indifference is acceptable.
You’re cherry-picking stories if that’s how you’re classifying NPRs coverage. I’m on their site now and searched Gaza…1st 2 stories that come up are about the Michigan voters and the potential cease-fire…makes sense as those are the American-centic stories. Then we get into a story about children starving to death that unequivocally states that Israel tanks were shooting aid trucks and groups of civilians trying to get that aid. Then, a story about a nurse with Doctors without borders who was in one of their shelters when Israel opened fire on them. Again, there is no equivocation.
You are cherry picking stories. Even the newest NPR version of this article is propaganda as it uses the word “war” instead of Genocide at the very top of the article, literally twisting Aarons words and lying.
Would you have been happier if they said “a protest against Israel’s ‘genocide’”?
They weren’t quoting him directly in that first sentence, and regardless of how any of us feel about it personally, the ICC said this isn’t genocide. Personally, I also feel it’s a genocide, but if I said that in an article I wrote, it would be an opinion piece because, when it comes to committing crimes, the western world has generally agreed on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we prove that guilt in courts of law.
I noticed you didn’t link to the actual article. I’m assuming at this point, based on your posting history and this interaction, that it was a deliberate choice on your part to use a screenshot instead because 4 sentences later, the same article states, "Leadinf up to 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!”’
Makes it seem like you’re not arguing in good faith, which makes me want to disengage with you at this point.
I mean, him stating a name and his motivations and verifying that it was indeed this man and those were his motives are two different things.
I like journalism that verifies statements. Is there a man by that name and is he deceased? If the answer to those questions had been “no”, it would have been an entirely different story.
I suspect “independently” is the critical word here. I guess they aren’t willing to take the guy’s word for it when he says it’s because of Gaza. Probably a sound policy in general when suicide/mental health is in play. The followup investigation will have to determine if his competence was intact, at which point the motive will be “independently verified”.
It’s literally gaslighting by NPR. We can argue it’s intentions but I have a word and it’s gaslighting when you try and mess with reality on purpose. Thoughts?
I listen to NPR almost every day and I’ve never heard them shy away from objective reporting on Gaza. If anything they lean towards sympathy with Palestine.
I agree that the omission in this article is probably a technicality because there is only one source of information and that source died soon after setting himself on fire.
Possibly the reporter who wrote the article and editor sympathises with Israel rather than NPR as a whole. I strongly condemn Hamas and their actions but omitting what the man’s motives for self immolating were when he was very direct and clear about it being an extreme protest against his governments involvement in the genocide against the Palestinian people is fucked. Although it could also be because they don’t want other people to copy him kind of like when they report on mass shooters
Except they did report on it. This is from an early version of the story before they had access to a verified video. This version of the story was only up a couple hours while they were working to verify the information they had.
That’s it.
People are really working to make this something that it’s not.
Aaron Bushnell clearly said on video what his reasoning for his self immolation was. There is no possible doubt. He said he refused to be complicit in the Genocide in Gaza and was screaming Free Palestine while on fire.
Yet the NPR article made zero mention of Palestine, Gaza or Genocide but managed to cram in the israeli hostages. You can’t make this up.
Add comment