A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Making an exception for one organisation, pressured by politicians, would be harmful. BBC has the following policy about neutral reporting:
We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy
this is very relevant. thanks.
Hamas is a terrorist organization
Wikipedia first lines summarizes the 7th of October quite well:
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Hamas still haven't released the civilian hostages. Hamas hides among civilians. The list goes on and on.
The only sad part is that the Palestinian people once voted for a terrorist organisation to represent them.
People can call Hamas for "Freedom Fighters" all they want but it doesn't erase the fact:
Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
And there's the problem. Why should Hamas be called a terrorist and not the Israel government?
This is why news organisations avoid the word. It clearly picks a side.
Sounds like the BBC's explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:
John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. "British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word 'terrorist', and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it," he wrote.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
He said: "It's about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we're giving them, that they don't think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful."
The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".
They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.
"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.
"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."
Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?
Can we label him as a pig-fucking PM? Oh wait, we already do.
Isn't that a Black Mirror episode?
The very first, if I recall.
Continuing the tradition of British conservative prime ministers labelling things "terrorism" when the poor get uppity.
How's Thatcher looking these days for insisting that Mandela was a terrorist?
If Hamas isn't a terrorist organization then what would you call them?
I'll put this back to you this way: is Likud also a terrorist organization? Is the IDF? Because they do a lot of the same stuff.
There are definitely terrorists associated with Hamas, and Hamas definitely carries water for them, but they're also the duly elected government in Gaza and if I were Israel I'd be asking why Gazans feel like they were so wronged that the only option seems to be a political movement that's sympathetic to terrorist tactics.
Saying "they're terrorists" without acknowledging how we got here is a lot like calling the ANC in South Africa "terrorist" in the 1980s. It's stupidly reductionist and ignores complexity for the sake of jingoism.
It's also why Cameron is a disingenuous jackass.
I agree with everything you've said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.
if you describe hamas as a terrorist organisation (they are) then you also have to point out israel's role in creating and funding them.
One man's terrorist group is another man's freedom fighter. This is why many new organizations that are big on neutrality normally shy away from calling anyone terrorist groups. You could just as easily frame Israel as a terrorist group with the same justifications listed above.
Hamas are every bit as much a terrorist organisation as Isis, the IRA, FARC, Red Army faction, Al Qaeda or UDF have been.
None of which are called terrorists by the BBC.
The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.
Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.
Hamas is comparable to the IRA but not the rest.
The big difference is that organisations like ISIS try to take over other countries whereas Hamas is resisting colonists of their own country.
Sorry Dave, I trust John Simpson. You're just a pink-faced ham botherer.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. So is the IDF. Protect the people, not the barbarian leaders they admittedly did choose. I choose to defend the people because no sane minded person would elect a leader that uses their own citizens as bait and hostages and i believe most people can be at least called sane minded.