In this case, there is a large volume of evidence to indicate that Hamas carried out sexual assaults during the October 7 attack. But the Times, by opening its story with an anecdote later called into question by the victim’s family, along with the troubling actions of a freelancer, has left critics with plenty of material to sow doubt.
*Critisizes NY Times for using non-existent evidence for claim
*Says claim is still true regardless
*Doesn’t cite any evidence
Human centipede of news reporting. It’s god damn 2024. We have 4k video of people getting shot and blow to bits, but they can’t even name the number of so called rape victims because Israel forgot to make up an imaginary number on top of making their 9999999th fake claim.
I think that this article is saying that they don’t dispute the other claims made in the NYT article, only the one which they opened with, the lady in the black dress. I’m not claiming the NYT article is correct or not, just pointing out what I think the author’s intent was.
*Critisizes NY Times for using non-existent evidence for claim
*Says claim is still true regardless
*Doesn’t cite any evidence
Human centipede of news reporting. It’s god damn 2024. We have 4k video of people getting shot and blow to bits, but they can’t even name the number of so called rape victims because Israel forgot to make up an imaginary number on top of making their 9999999th fake claim.
I think that this article is saying that they don’t dispute the other claims made in the NYT article, only the one which they opened with, the lady in the black dress. I’m not claiming the NYT article is correct or not, just pointing out what I think the author’s intent was.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html
MIM criticizing cycle:
*see shit someone else shat
*claims its shit
*eats said shit
*shit new shit-based shit
*repeat