> It's not a "gotcha" to point out that journalists are also affected along with the other noncombatants.

It is a pretty massive gotcha when you're alleging or implying that Israel is deliberately targeting journalists but all you can muster is evidence that journalists are not being targeted but are rather being killed at rates of other civilians. And for whatever it's worth, I'm not pro-Netanyahu nor am I supportive of the way this war is being prosecuted. But the point about journalists just feels lazy; if people are going to imply that Israel is targeting journalists, then offer up some persuasive evidence.

> but all you can muster is evidence that journalists are not being targeted but are rather being killed at rates of other civilians.

No, they are being killed at much faster rate, to the point of depletion in relation to other civilians. Look at this plot: https://imgur.com/a/SWNSYOn

In my first post in this thread I did a detailed estimate that for the curve to bend this way, the journalists must be decimated with odds between 51:1 - 96:1 higher when compared to other civilians. This post got heavily downvoted and now sits at the bottom of the thread, but you can read the full explanation there.

Is it actually a reasonable assumption that journalists die at the same rate as civilians? Arguably, journalists are much more susceptible to go to dangerous places, close to actual combat, etc, for better videos.

Dying for better vidoes and clicks is an influencer thing.

In my estimates I used a biased urn model. Given the number of remaining journalists is very small when compared to total population (hundreds vs. millions), the final proportions should still be similar, unless the risk disparity is huge enough to overcome the effect of four order of magnitude difference in absolute number between groups.

I'm not disputing this, to be clear.