„Associated Press“ kritisiert Berichterstattung über Opferstatistiken der Hamas

https://www.jns.org/associated-press-blasts-own-reporting-on-hamas-casualty-statistics/

24 comments
  1. We’ve reached self-blasting. How long until self-slamming?

  2. It’s a reminder that antisemitism can be revealed simply through a selective lack of due diligence.

  3. Is there a link to the AP report? I didn’t see it in the article.

  4. What is up with this sudden barrage of Israel/Palestine posts in the past few hours?

  5. The damage is done. Good job on helping a literal terrorists group.

  6. Who could’ve guessed taking Hamas casualty numbers at face value could be a bad idea…

  7.  AP-paid “journalists” rode along with Hamas on 10/7. Never forget. 

  8. Because Hamas has lied since they stole leadership and ended all elections. They’ve always lied about the number of casualties because they know western liberal media will eat it up like a tear jerking novel.

  9. Would i kill them to link to the app analysis they’re reporting on?!

  10. Are the college students at least going to go back to class now?

  11. Less than 100 comments when I am typing this and there are already 7 different users all making a post using the same talking point about how good the 1:1 ratio of civilians to combatants actually is(which isn’t actually combatants but just adult males).

    Propaganda alive and well on reddit.

  12. I mean, at least they are admitting it? We should be encouraging self-corrections and stuff, right?

  13. Just blows my mind that the media has been lapping this up like a dying man in the desert.

    Can you imagine if during the height of the Afghanistan war the Taliban was like “oh yeah the USA is killing like a buncha women and children” and people believed it like it was being given to them by an infallible source? Fucking crazy.

  14. I am just going to say this. There was never over 2 mil people in gaza, more like 500k max.

    Why, becouse profit for HAMAS.

  15. This is the FO part of FAFO.. there are consequences! They still exist in this world-barely!

  16. Why would you link to an admittedly biased source (jns’s tagline appears to be “fighting israel’s media war”) instead of just linking to the actual ap article?

  17. I’m just throwing this out there, but maybe a website that has the tagline “Fighting Israel’s Media War” might not be the best source for unbiased coverage of a war involving Israel.

  18. I’ve read the article twice and I’m still not sure what the old figures were and the newly revised ones are. Can someone help?

Leave a Reply