A lot of people have no objection about receiving news about Palestinians from blatantly pro Israeli outlets. So yeah, there is one Pro Palestinian source, surely the balanced person would take info from both.
In the real world this is certainly true, there are way more Pro-Israel publications and listening to an opposing opinion is wise, but on Lemmy it seems that the vast majority of active persons have been unwilling to accept any Israel source, no matter how tangential.
The double standards have to stop. Either object against both, or read both and decide for yourself.
There's nothing to say this person doesn't, and given the amount of flak Israel related sources get it's worth noting the bias here as well.
But to always call out just Palestinian sources, it smells of cultural oppression
I completely agree, but I am somewhat thrown by the choice of name by this publication. It just lacks a certain professionalism associated with good journalism. This isn't to say it's not a worthwhile source, it's just not the best name. It's kinda like if someone named their publication the Digital Revolution, the Uprising, or something similar, I'm just gonna cringe a bit and be skeptical from the start.
Looking online I found this site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/) which reviews the bias of various media sources. Based on this it's just a group of international journalists with their publication based out of Chicago. Their information seems to be mostly from grass roots reporting or third and fourth party accounts.
EDIT: I wanted to quickly follow up, I'm reading through the article now and it's a real shit show for navigating. In general I'm not familiar enough with the people they reference that it's really hard to get a good read on this article. It's kinda like if I said that a guy I know named Billy works at the city and he said he spoke with the Mayor who said that crime is on the rise, but the Chief of Police released a report to the contrary. Billy could be worthwhile, but I don't know Billy and I can't readily find good references to the Mayor's statement.
Even the representation of the original referenced article by YNet is kinda shit. For example, they use a reference to Syrian Girl on Twitter who is referencing Yoav Zitun on YNet, who is referencing a paraphrased statement from Lieutenant Colonel A. Zitun states that the Lieutenant ordered the Fighters to shoot everything near the fence and later attacked their own installation so that other troops could move up to it. Syrian Girl makes the connection that Zitun's reporting indicates that the military was blindly killing everything that moves (including their own troops) and EI runs with that sentiment.
In Zitun's own article (included at the bottom of the EI article) it is clear that unrestricted firing was only in proximity to the fence itself but other bypasses of firing restrictions were approved separately as needed or were taken by Fighters without approval.
In the real world this is certainly true, there are way more Pro-Israel publications and listening to an opposing opinion is wise, but on Lemmy it seems that the vast majority of active persons have been unwilling to accept any Israel source, no matter how tangential.
There's nothing to say this person doesn't, and given the amount of flak Israel related sources get it's worth noting the bias here as well.
I completely agree, but I am somewhat thrown by the choice of name by this publication. It just lacks a certain professionalism associated with good journalism. This isn't to say it's not a worthwhile source, it's just not the best name. It's kinda like if someone named their publication the Digital Revolution, the Uprising, or something similar, I'm just gonna cringe a bit and be skeptical from the start.
Looking online I found this site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/) which reviews the bias of various media sources. Based on this it's just a group of international journalists with their publication based out of Chicago. Their information seems to be mostly from grass roots reporting or third and fourth party accounts.
EDIT: I wanted to quickly follow up, I'm reading through the article now and it's a real shit show for navigating. In general I'm not familiar enough with the people they reference that it's really hard to get a good read on this article. It's kinda like if I said that a guy I know named Billy works at the city and he said he spoke with the Mayor who said that crime is on the rise, but the Chief of Police released a report to the contrary. Billy could be worthwhile, but I don't know Billy and I can't readily find good references to the Mayor's statement.
Even the representation of the original referenced article by YNet is kinda shit. For example, they use a reference to Syrian Girl on Twitter who is referencing Yoav Zitun on YNet, who is referencing a paraphrased statement from Lieutenant Colonel A. Zitun states that the Lieutenant ordered the Fighters to shoot everything near the fence and later attacked their own installation so that other troops could move up to it. Syrian Girl makes the connection that Zitun's reporting indicates that the military was blindly killing everything that moves (including their own troops) and EI runs with that sentiment.
In Zitun's own article (included at the bottom of the EI article) it is clear that unrestricted firing was only in proximity to the fence itself but other bypasses of firing restrictions were approved separately as needed or were taken by Fighters without approval.