Earlier this week, the White House also announced that it was the “right time” for Israel to lower the intensity of its devastating military offensive in Gaza.
Or we could just stop sending them arms and munitions. Obviously they can buy more, but cutting off the endless American supply line would give them pause.
The New York Post has been consistently promoting the ideas of innocent Israeli victimhood and malicious murdering Hamas since the war began. It is not a trustworthy unbiased source of information for this conflict. [It's also a shitrag paper in general.]
This is funny because I literally just read an article about Shell trying to sell it's gas extraction business in Nigeria to a conglomeration of local companies, saying that that was the best way to ensure that decades of massive environmental pollution were cleaned up, and my first thought was, "Yeah, all that 'cleanup money' is gonna get stolen." And the very next story in my feed is "Corrupt Nigerian officials stole money" ...
Again: what an interesting alternate reality you live in.
What an interesting alternate reality you live in.
If their objective is "balanced journalism [...] objective, non-partisan", then they should stop using loaded terms in their news articles. Until that happens, I'll consider them less reliable as a source.
It's less trustworthy as a source because they're using loaded terms in the article. The headline calls it a "sick video", labels it as "propagandist". Those are terms intended to provoke a reaction: 'sick' is an attempt to prime your reaction if you watch the video, 'propagandistic' is intended to make you distrust the intent behind the video.
An impartial journalist would've used different language or added sources. If I was writing the article, I would've called it a 'new video' or perhaps a 'newly-released video'. I wouldn't have used 'propagandistic' at all; the speculation on the intent behind it is adequately covered a few paragraphs later. If you were intent on calling it propagandistic, that wording should be credited to a specific person, preferably an Israeli government spokesperson or a high-ranking official.
Using loaded words should only ever be done in clearly labeled opinion columns or letters to the editor (although honestly, I'm against their presence even there); if used in a news article, they should only be used when quoting a person.
Objectively, I know that loaded words are going to be impossible to avoid: even describing someone as a 'Hamas fighter' vs a 'Hamas terrorist' is fraught, and don't get me started on why civilians held by Hamas are 'hostages' while civilians held by Israel are 'prisoners'. But simple, obvious terms designed to tell the reader how to feel about the news should absolutely be avoided.
Media bias / fact check for The Messenger:
Overall, we rate The Messenger Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial perspectives that moderately favor the right. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of poor sources, sensationalized content, and one-sided reporting.
Legitimate question: I understand the Suez Canal is this major shipping route and it's owned and operated (slightly indirectly) by the Egyptian government. But why do all the news stories I see about the Houthi attacks say the US, the EU, all these other countries are sending ships to secure safe passage?
I know these countries want to protect their people and their goods going through the canal. But Egypt owns and operates the Canal and they make over half a billion dollars a month off it. They have the largest navy in the middle east, the largest navy in Africa, and the twelfth largest navy in the world. So why aren't they doing more to protect transiting ships from attack?
Oh, it's you, bringing up this trash article again. Please go away.
This may or may not have occurred, the meeting may or may not have been related to the attack. Whatever happened, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for finding out.
Let us know if you find the Amber Room, will you?