Reuters says Reuters is Hamas
Reuters says Reuters is Hamas
35 comments
-
-
Here's the article. The headline now says:
Reuters and AP journalists killed in Gaza strike were not 'a target,' an Israeli military spokesperson says
According to the "last updated" field, the article was last updated 8 hours before OP made this post on Lemmy.
It's possible the headline was changed, but this may also have been the original headline -- I can't find any record of the previous headline on Reuters, including Internet Archive.(Edit: the headline was changed; see comment.)Seeing as this is "Fediverse vs Disinformation," I think posters have a duty to verify the web page actually reads the way they are claiming at the time they post, or else provide context that the headline has changed.
-
-
do you have another archive link? are we sure this is actually the same original article because the entire content of the article is now different, not just the headline. how could we independently check?
-
-
-
Regardless of what reuters does or doesn't say, what kind of explanation/justification is targetting "hamas camera"?
-
The supposed justification is that there was a camera used by Hamas to monitor IDF operations for military purposes. So "Hamas camera" would be used in the same capacity as "US spy satellite".
Leaving the veracity if that claim aside, attacking a hospital to destroy a camera being used to observe your forces operating dangerously close to a hospital is not great.
-
Also they "double tapped". So after the initial strike they attacked the same spot again to kill the people trying to rescue wounded.
It is a war crime tactic also popular with Russia in their attack on Ukraine.
These kind of attacks are always geared at maximizing civilian casualties by killing rescuers. This does not make sense for destroying supposed equipment.
-
-
-
Hussam al-Masri
Well, there's your problem. Everyone knows that when Israel says "Hamas", they mean that sort of person.
-
Reuters does not say that. It only reports on Israel's stated motivation.
-
I see no problem with this headline - when the narrative shifts after the next inquiry Reuters will report what that says as well… and will keep a trail of the shifting story that the IDF / Israeli government try to spin.
-
People need to learn how to read.
(Although Reuters would have done better if they had used the word "claims")
-
They updated the headline, likely because it created some confusion.
Reuters and AP journalists killed in Gaza strike were not 'a target,' an Israeli military spokesperson says
-
-
-
If even a few articles are outright lies, why should I trust the rest? I'll take it as a suggestion at most
35 comments
Why are private companies so committed to the Israeli narrative? I don’t get it.
Reuters isn't reporting what happened, they're reporting on what Israel said happened.
They are, to the best of their abilities, a non-editorial news source.
"Israel lies about target of attack" is editorial, regardless of accuracy.
The report about what happened is a different article
In the content of the article about Israels statement they open with it being journalists who were killed, continue to point out that they had been there for weeks and that it's normal for news outlets to do this, which is why multiple news agencies were at that location. They also only refer to the targets as "alleged targets" who were "allegedly militants".
They also list the report about the man and his killing by Israeli forces above the story of what Israel said about it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/obituary-hussam-al-masri-reuters-journalist-killed-by-israeli-fire-gaza-2025-08-27/
We've gotten very used to media being by default editorial in nature. It doesn't just say what happened, it tells us how to feel about what happened. A handful of new agencies still try to report on facts, and leave qualitative judgement for the reader.
This does result in odd headlines sometimes when they report on stories they are involved in. Like this headline (which has been revised), or when the AP dutifully reports on the white house calling them lunatics for following standard journalistic writing style, mysteriously detailed in the "AP style guide".
Neutrality free from context or interpretation of any sort is opening the door for lies to have equal ground with the truth. Needing that context to be present in the headline without reading the body is starting to erode the notion of being unbiased.
Nothing about being a "non-editorial news source" requires them to put misinformation in the title.
People not understanding what a news wire service is never fails to surprise me
palestine doesn't have a lot of money
who doees I wonder