It’s Axel Springer. It’s a tabloid corporation that is constantly pushing racist, anti-left and anti-environment agendas. They have written in their core values that they will “support the Jewish people”, which seems like a good idea considering the role the German press played in the Holocaust. But they usually interpret this as “support everything the Israeli government does”.
The CEO told the head editor to support a specific political party in Germany. He talks about east Germans like they are lesser. And so much more…
In short, if your news is axel Springer, your news are trash
This is exactly why people should have multiple news sources with multiple varied biases to help the inform their opinion. By all means Western media is great, Reuters, AP, the economist, the guardian… Top class journalism, but they have to be categorized by their biases. So Al Jazeera should be part of a balanced news diet, or DW, etc they clearly have biases, but hopefully those biases balance out
Might I recommend Ground News?
Knew it was Springer just by the headline. Fuck them
deleted by creator
Just add "Israel has a right to defend itself ", after every war crime, it’s like a magic spell, you can report on it, but you downplayed in the same breath.
N Palestinian children died today reports Hamas, but I want to emphasize that Israel has a right to defend itself. Over a million people have been ordered to abandon their homes in the Gaza strip and move south, under conditions of no food, water, medicine, electricity, but I went to emphasize that Israel has a right to defend itself.
See…magic!
deleted by creator
It’s the new 14 words.
Unfortunately propaganda is done by both sides and neither source can’t be trusted. Should be journalism 101 that official numbers from extremist governments shouldn’t be reported as truths.
I don’t trust anyone or anything these days, in all honesty.
I had never seen the app before this article so I went to have a look.
So most headlines in the Israel Gaza section are very British related and pretty bland and not bad headlines (british-israeli national killed, no more police powers planned over ‘jihad’ chants…). But some can at least be said to not be spin to support Israel (Jenrick warns more lives likely to be lost in Gaza). I might argue that
Cleverly confirms trucks carrying lifesaving aid are beginning to cross Rafah border into Gaza
is biased towards Israel, given that last I read it was limited to only 20 trucks, this isn’t mentioned, and it also isn’t in the article. But it is worth mentioning the article is written by AP.
They also still have the headline saying the Israeli airstrike killed hundreds in a hospital.
And some of the other examples of media bias is not covered very well. The AP and BBC reporters that were suspended definitely had some tweets that would violate most media code of conduct. One called it a morning of hope after the attacks in Israel. One has been arguing that Israel has been commiting genocide since 1948.
The cartoonist that they don’t even mention by name, didn’t have his contract renewed and has had multiple issues especially with his depictions concerning Israel. And he’s either a liar or dumb as fuck. I can almost excuse him claiming he did not realize the pound of flesh thing with the one cartoon claiming it was a call back hardly anyone would get. You know except for the scalpel difference, the context being different, and what it said. But holy shit some of his other cartoons. Putting a Palestinian in the oven between Netanyahu and Theresa may and arguing that it is absurd for people to connect it to the Holocaust. Drawing a Hindu as a bull. Maybe he is just that fucking stupid, but I can see why they wouldn’t keep him any longer. After 4 decades maybe they don’t like explaining simple concepts to him.
The MSNBC situation seems like the one with the best case, except for a couple of issues. 1) is that one of the sources the cite (the nypost which is a rag of a paper, tbf) talks about how pro-palestine coverage is on MSNBC and 2) one of the complaints from Velshi is pretty out of line. It seems someone (likely Jewish from what was said) was making an event to allow people affected by the attack to be able to come together. It clearly says an event about the attack in Israel. That they would have a rabbi. And the producer said why no Palestinian representatives? Well the event was about the attack. Now, there is a valid complaint that there should also be an event for people mourning and hurting from the casualties in Palestine. But it doesn’t have to be the same event. That’s not the same thing.
All media is biased. I’m biased. You’re biased. That being said, evidence would be nice. Like the document they circulated or example headlines. At least this site does offer links to sources.
