I don't think this is (far) off-topic. People start looking for "alternative news" when they suspect that the professional news is missing things, skipping topics. I was just about to make a daily blog post:
I don't think this is (far) off-topic. People start looking for "alternative news" when they suspect that the professional news is missing things, skipping topics. I was just about to make a daily blog post:
..about WHY people wander off the range, into the alt-news. I had expected an Al-Jazeera story of Dec 13 to move up to more-seen news sites the next day or so, as others checked out the story. (The story is just an accusation: a bunch of bodies, Palestinians screaming they were shot point-blank, even killed "execution style".) Al-Jaz did not have the IDF denial comment that I'm sure is inevitable.
But now, as my post notes, it has gotten to a dozen news sites, most of them only read by brown people outside 'the West'.
Why wouldn't major news media carry it? This is what drives people to imagine conspiracies and bias and all that. (I don't, because too many are not carrying it. Too big for coinspiracy.)
Is is just that the IDF can shut down a story for many days, not just two, by simply refusing to comment so that the Times/Post/etc can't report both sides?
I think there are good reasons why you'd either not match that story or at least take your time doing so — eyewitness accounts in war are notoriously unreliable, Western crews can't access those witnesses, al-Jazeera is not fully independent anymore, etc. And I think there's some bad ones, yeah: Nobody wants to repeat the mistake of the al-Ahli hospital bombing and get swarmed by the various groups that dedicate themselves to calling out "anti-Israel bias" in the media.
For what it's worth, I don't even see this story getting much traction outside of a few sites. Not even the pro-Hamas channels I follow — of which there are quite a few, and they are explicitly supportive or aligned with the leadership — are sharing this, aside from one post from Wednesday.
It's something I'll keep an eye on. Thanks for flagging.
I don't think this is (far) off-topic. People start looking for "alternative news" when they suspect that the professional news is missing things, skipping topics. I was just about to make a daily blog post:
http://brander.ca/stackback#altjourno
..about WHY people wander off the range, into the alt-news. I had expected an Al-Jazeera story of Dec 13 to move up to more-seen news sites the next day or so, as others checked out the story. (The story is just an accusation: a bunch of bodies, Palestinians screaming they were shot point-blank, even killed "execution style".) Al-Jaz did not have the IDF denial comment that I'm sure is inevitable.
But now, as my post notes, it has gotten to a dozen news sites, most of them only read by brown people outside 'the West'.
Why wouldn't major news media carry it? This is what drives people to imagine conspiracies and bias and all that. (I don't, because too many are not carrying it. Too big for coinspiracy.)
Is is just that the IDF can shut down a story for many days, not just two, by simply refusing to comment so that the Times/Post/etc can't report both sides?
It's a good case study, actually.
I think there are good reasons why you'd either not match that story or at least take your time doing so — eyewitness accounts in war are notoriously unreliable, Western crews can't access those witnesses, al-Jazeera is not fully independent anymore, etc. And I think there's some bad ones, yeah: Nobody wants to repeat the mistake of the al-Ahli hospital bombing and get swarmed by the various groups that dedicate themselves to calling out "anti-Israel bias" in the media.
For what it's worth, I don't even see this story getting much traction outside of a few sites. Not even the pro-Hamas channels I follow — of which there are quite a few, and they are explicitly supportive or aligned with the leadership — are sharing this, aside from one post from Wednesday.
It's something I'll keep an eye on. Thanks for flagging.
Thanks! Did a postscript on the post today noting that even The Guardian hasn't picked this one up, suggesting it's just really hard to pick up.