https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-bia...
And from the BBC itself: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2d4egk17l2o "Questions still remain for BBC after damaging Gaza documentary"
https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/skcfkb1iyx "From bias to blunders: The BBC’s anti-Israel shift since October 7"
We can fix this by forcing Hamas to release the hostages, surrender, and end this war. Could have happened a long time ago if the pressure was on the right side.
You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes. In every war you can cherry pick any narrative. For what its worth I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza and they maintain they hold high standards and the incidents you hear of are outliers.
You might think those videos are aberrant, but I see it as just part of the overall pattern.
"War" is a misnomer when Israel has 10x the money, the resources, the military, controls Palestinian movement/water/food, erects walls completely surrounding Gaza, and bombed 100% of the hospitals and universities in Gaza.
"War" creates the illusion of roughly-equal enemy forces.
You don't have "war". You have a displaced, dehumanized people living in modern apartheid conditions, who periodically strike out against their conditions and history, and then get vengeance visited upon them 100-fold.
----
"You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes ... I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza"
So... you heard some anecdotes.
I think it's an interesting question of how we measure bias.
For me, as an Israeli (who hasn't lived there for decades), who has some first hand knowledge of the situation, much of the reporting appears to be extremely biased. I know there are claims from the other side the bias goes in the other direction. What's the ground truth? I think using AI to crunch the large amount of data is a decent first order approximation.
Ofcourse bias depends on ideology. For some people if a Palestinian guns down an Israeli in a Tel-Aviv bar simply reporting this fact is biased towards Israel. And I mean, from their position that is understandable. And indeed we can see some media outlets that would not report these events at all, which I would consider an anti-Israeli bias.
I'd also agree that using AI for sentiment analysis could be a good approach, I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe this is one of the things AI is best at. But it needs an extra step to translate that into bias. Establishing a sympathy baseline is my initial idea, but I haven't tested it and maybe there's something better.
Whether something is biased is less about how any given individual(s) feel about what's been said and more about if the different viewpoints are presented honestly. Though it can get really difficult to identify except in the most extreme cases. As you say, it's not just what's said where the bias occurs, but also in the choice of what not to say.
I try to keep emotions out of these places, but sir, you're a truly awful person.
Where can we see evidence of what you claim?
What do you claim Kahn has done? Do you have evidence? The NY Times regulary publishes news critical of Israel.
Children and parents, siblings, etc. disagree, sometimes extremely, regularly. Children and parents disagreeing is one of the most common stories in humanity. Should Joe resign because of dad's activities?
Before the leak there was already data-driven analysis about coverage that, in aggregate, shows imbalance. [2]
This is not only a reasonable question, but it is a good one, too. Unfortunately, the line beforehand:
> Just rumors and conspiracy theories.
...makes it seem like you've already made up your mind, and makes it difficult to interpret your post as a good-faith attempt on your part to learn something new from someone.
How much are they going to tolerate narratives that go against their financial interests?
You can't trust the main stream media, the legacy media is lying, etc
Why would they do this it the media is controlled by them?
All I can say is I hope we see a real economic policy response from democrats in congress, and fast. They seem to be fishing around for ideas in all the wrong pockets (foreign interests, domestic private interests, namely not the daily interests of the majority of their constituents).... but even rhetorically, it would be a start.
Is this AI?
The GGP comment said that journalists conspired with the country's leaders, not business.
This is a conspiracy theory - they are secretly conspiring. Do you have evidence of this conspiracy actually happening on any scale?
Many attended the same universities on all sides of politics and issues. The universities are big places that have been operating for generations. Ask someone who went to a university - do they know and agree with everyone else who went there? It's absurd.
> most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites.
You need to do more than throw around stereotypes. Give us some evidence.
> I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.
Who asked permission?
Doesn't meet the criteria of what people typically call a conspiracy theory. It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information, it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
Yeah but that’s how modern conspiracy theories work. They have evolved beyond the old staples like flat earth and moon landing stuff which make clear statements. They instead just insinuate. And that’s enough to achieve the intended effect: to move your predispositions, while remaining immune to debunking because they haven’t made any specific claim.
That is indeed how modern conspiracy theories work. They make outlandish claims that aren't supported by scientific fact, that some shadowy group controls the world through improbable means, and offer no evidence.
"Hey, these two groups are awfully cozy together" just isn't even close to being anything like a conspiracy theory. You've stretched your fallacious counter-argument too far.
You mean that you find it credible. But we need evidence; human intuition of truth has led to 9.x thousand years of pre-science.
> It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information
If there was a specific factual claim - about who and what associations - it would take a mountain of research to explore it across the very many people involved. But there's not a specific claim - like most conspiracy theories.
And the implications, the only things that matter here, are unspoken conspiracy theories - again unspecified.
> it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
You know what claims it implies; otherwise it would be meaningless.
My political perspectives are completely mainstream--according to David Shor, my mom and I are the median naturalized citizens (Biden won that group in 2020, Trump narrowly won them in 2024). But if my family members where white instead of brown, the New York Times editors would call us "deplorables."
Covering up Biden's decline was the last straw. The press has become an organ of one ideological segment of society.
First term was fine, he was mostly harmless and made the libs cry every day with fake culture war stuff.
In 2024 I get the impression people were voting for a repeat of that, not some crazy reconfiguration of the entire economy. Trump ran on "they're making your kids trans and the Somalis are eating dogs", not "we will end global trade and deport anyone who criticizes Israel".
And stopping outsourcing was #5 on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform
Of course, this means that the reporting isn't very good at addressing its blind spots–i.e., most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites. And I say this as a member of that same class. Most of the political perspectives in my life are completely unrepresented in the opinion columns, which generally tend to pander upwards rather than downwards.
I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.