• AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It does sound rather lurid, a bit like Saddam Hussein’s troops throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators (which turned out to have been made up for selling Operation Desert Storm).

    Of course, that’s not ruling it out, though it does feel like someone at some stage may have over-egged the pudding.

  • fiat_lux@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like I’ve heard about beheaded children for the last 20 years whenever there’s an Islamic military group involved in a conflict. But the story is never confirmed by other sources and it just falls quietly off the 24 hour news cycle. Whereas stories with evidence, like the beaten unconscious/dead woman being driven around stick longer because there’s some confirmation.

    It would obviously help a great deal if Islamic military groups didn’t have a truly horrific habit of beheading people at all, but it also doesn’t help much if our media is (knowingly or unknowingly) pushing stories that are based on a possible lie.

    There are most certainly stories that are based on lies published about any global conflict, this isn’t Middle-East-specific, and it’s not a condemnation of the individual journalists reporting on live eye-witness accounts, but I dont see many formal retractions and apology from agencies to correct the record on much reporting, live or otherwise.

    Given that it eventually fully came out that Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” were a lie that was used to justify a “pre-emptive strike”, and all the media that supported that line at the time, what has changed enough about our media machinery to rely on the accuracy of stories like these now? How can we better ensure that the headlines we read are based on the most-confirmed and accurate information? How many retractions or corrections do media agencies publish on average anyway? Do they just publish an update somewhere and be done with it?

    Sorry for the train of thought, this is just something that has been bothering me about conflict-reporting accuracy for a while. I want to make decisions and judgements that are both accurate and cause the least damage, but when history is written by the victor, how can I know the foundations of my judgement are solid? Realistically I don’t think I can, and I do not like that concept at all.

  • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d say 20% odds the babies never even existed—and, if they did, 70% odds there were fewer than 40 of them and 80% odds they weren’t beheaded.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      100% certain they weren’t beheaded or it would have been confirmed by now.

      Inevitable that children, including babies, died. And also inevitable that Israelis get much more media attention than Palestinians, before and after they are killed by this wickedness.

      Predictable that the media are, often uncritically, publishing calls for the massacre of Palestinians in response, while condemning Hamas for doing exactly what they’re demanding Israel do.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Enough for you to what? Condone genocide? Cheer as Israel bombs Palestinian homes, schools, and hospitals? I promise they’ve killed far more.

          • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Everybody here agrees that beheading babies is bad. Nobody is defending beheading a baby. You are shadowboxing right now. Pointing out the two following facts:

            1. Nobody is currently willing to confirm the report that babies are actually getting beheaded,
            2. It is however confirmed that Israel is responsible for the death of many babies,

            Is not a defense of beheading babies. If you think it is, you are genuinely beyond help.

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your argument doesn’t make sense. The conversation has diverged into the number of babies killed by both sides and nothing to do with beheading babies since that is an unconfirmed event. The fact that you’re trying to conflate the two issues so that you can appear to be on the moral high ground is very concerning.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It has now been confirmed by the IDF and a senior coroner. It was not widespread luckily and only happened in one village. I didn’t believe it at first either, and had assumed it was misinformation.

    Sad news for sure.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I read that various journalists had confirmed it with their own eyes, I think French ones.