The Palestinian news agency reported that Israeli tanks had fired at thousands waiting for aid. Israeli officials said Gazans were trampled and run over by aid trucks.
MSM where I live are reporting the controversy, ie. "Palestine says Massacre, 'Israel' says tragedy" and sprinkling it heavily with the usual "Hamas-controlled health authorities" and such. They have some decent stuff inside the articles, like saying that Gazan health authority numbers are usually correct, but if you just read headlines you could easily think it was all just a bunch of accusations.
Because when israel slaughters hundreds of Palestinians they are intentionally starving, journalistic integrity requires that you obscure who did the killing or why thousands of Palestinans were so desperate for aid. The readers need to know that what's important is how Hamas(!!!) might react, of course, with the implication that Hamas would no longer be receptive to a hostage deal (even though the deals they've offered to israel have always been rejected).
It's wild how the media uses a word like that in at least three different ways. The Gaza war really brings this out to an insane degree.
It's used in a biased way to show the bararity of Hamas and the damage (or "scars" - figurative of course) inflicted on Israel. "On October 7, 2023, a day forever etched in the collective memory of Israel, an unspeakable tragedy unfolded, leaving a deep scar on the nation..."
It can be used in a neutral way.
It can be used to mean an unfortunate oopsie was made by Israel and they are so sorry about it.
I got the idea for this comment from this quote.
People uttered so, in a slight flatting of tone, means white people. Uttered another way, it means black. A third way means people in general.
Here's how the NYT describes it. "Many" is doing a lot of evil heavy lifting.
Lol the MSM is incapable of mentioning Palestinians in a massacre in the same sentence. It’s one or the other.
Even NYT couldn't do their signature "Palestinians die mysteriously for no apparent reason" entirely this time
They still managed their passive voices in the headline though.
MSM where I live are reporting the controversy, ie. "Palestine says Massacre, 'Israel' says tragedy" and sprinkling it heavily with the usual "Hamas-controlled health authorities" and such. They have some decent stuff inside the articles, like saying that Gazan health authority numbers are usually correct, but if you just read headlines you could easily think it was all just a bunch of accusations.
deleted by creator
Writers also don't typically get to pick their own headlines.
The Guardian's (now edited) headline was: "Middle East crisis live: Hamas warns it could end hostage talks after more than 100 Palestinians killed near aid trucks"
Because when israel slaughters hundreds of Palestinians they are intentionally starving, journalistic integrity requires that you obscure who did the killing or why thousands of Palestinans were so desperate for aid. The readers need to know that what's important is how Hamas(!!!) might react, of course, with the implication that Hamas would no longer be receptive to a hostage deal (even though the deals they've offered to israel have always been rejected).
"Consciousness ceded in a dynamically calorie restricted situation"
deleted by creator
It's wild how the media uses a word like that in at least three different ways. The Gaza war really brings this out to an insane degree.
It's used in a biased way to show the bararity of Hamas and the damage (or "scars" - figurative of course) inflicted on Israel. "On October 7, 2023, a day forever etched in the collective memory of Israel, an unspeakable tragedy unfolded, leaving a deep scar on the nation..."
It can be used in a neutral way.
It can be used to mean an unfortunate oopsie was made by Israel and they are so sorry about it.
I got the idea for this comment from this quote.
WaPo right now:
Whoops no idea how that happened, each side blames the other, who's to know the truth??????