Media in Kyiv and other places have plenty of satellite communication and in normal wars more protection from shelling (the IDF for example will blow Gaza to hell, but they won't say hit the building Reuters are in)
Whether Russia cares about the bad PR it would cause by blowing up international media (including crews from places like CCTV) is another matter.
Yes, exactly, destroying Associated Press and Al-Jazeera offices and equipment (and endangering lives). And despite all the protestations about concrete evidence that it was a "Hamas cyber HQ", and all the claims that the corresponding evidence had been given to the US, there hasn't been any such evidence released publicly, and as far as we know, not even privately to the US (the US denied receiving such evidence when the claim was made).
These reports use unnamed sources, but there are reports that it was almost entirely a PR move to destroy large structures, and that decision makers weren't aware of the presence of Associated Press and Al-Jazeera until after the "knock" bombs were already hitting the roof (it's my understanding that these offices are prominently registered with the IDF in order to prevent such events). https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-only-discov...
> However, he added, the IDF was aware that Hamas was winning the PR war in Jerusalem, in mixed Arab-Jewish cities in Israel and in Lebanon. Moreover, its rocket fire at Israel was escalating. Consequently, he said, both the politicians and senior army officers “were looking for a victory picture.”
> ...
> This source linked the strike on Al-Jalaa to an earlier attack on Hamas’ underground tunnel network, “which began well, but afterward it become clear that it hadn’t succeeded, so they were looking for something to give the public, some victory, even a small one. That’s why the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was so quick to release pictures and videos of before and after the attack on the building. The IDF didn’t understand the implications of this incident and released the pictures of the building’s ruins as a public relations victory.”
There’s no such thing as an unbiased news source. Al Jazeera is a prominent source for news about matters in the Middle East, and I want to read what they have to say, as do other HN users.
Constructive discourse requires differing perspectives on reality, many of which may be uncomfortable. For example, I can’t begin to understand the situation in Ukraine without also understanding how Russia is portraying the matter. While we can’t stop you from requesting censorship, the answer will always be “no.”
Al Jazeera is an excellent news source on Middle Eastern affairs, also its telling how you shifted the conversation to the source (this story has been confirmed by the AP and other sources as well) when your false claim about he IDF was proven wrong.
The IDF are war criminals, worse than the Russians
I think calling them 'excellent' is taking it a bit far. I'd view Al Jazeera as structurally similar to many other 'regime broadcasters', for example, the BBC. However, the regime they are broadcasting for is the Qatari dictatorship, which is marginally more liberal than the Saudi dictarship[0]. So there's actually a pretty big difference there: it's representing a state (in the broad sense), and unless you have some really biblical political opinions, it's not a state you have much in common with. Aside from the usual depravities (stoning, slavery, etc), the taliban were headquartered in Doha in recent years.
I also occasionally read AJ for a sort of 'third opinion', but I think the people they represent are some of the worst in the world. It's marginally more reliable than RT, and then only because Qatar is more of an ambiguous global player. It's worth always remembering that AJ is the english language, liberal-compatible face of a regime that murders gay people, imprisons women, and flogs people for adultery.
Is it telling? Let's say a true story were reported in a paper you think is garbage but also in a reputable one. Someone posts a link to the garbage one. Wouldn't you tell them to avoid the garbage site?
I think you and GP disagree on whether Al Jazeera is trustworthy or garbage, but I don't see the problem you seem to be implying exists.
Google curates your search results based on your past behavior. If you’re constantly looking to biased, false reporting for news, that’s what you’ll get in the future, everyone downvoting me for saying AJ is biased doesn’t like to look in the mirror.
They all think “the other side is the one that reads fake news, all my news sources are impeccable.” No, you’re just in your own echo chamber that you’ve got telling you the exact things you want to hear. Sharing a story from AJ on Israel is like using RT for the state of Ukraine’s nazi agenda. You’re gonna get a very false picture of reality.
You make a good point. Please excuse my offtopic aside: could you use better news sources than the NY Post? We have, for instance, active discussion of the story on this site, via a Politico story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30482998
You only need one good connection.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/elon-musk-activates-starlink-i...