You must log in or register to comment.
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.
The Australian Government also had a “children being thrown overboard by asylum seekers coming by boat” scandal. I wonder how many others there have been.
more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair
basically asylum seekers were passing their babies off a sinking boat to border patrol authorises and the government cropped it to make it look like they were throwing their kids overboard to shed weight and save themselves
Wow
yeah so that was our conservative government. no surprises there aye?
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.
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.
Inevitable that Israel has killed more babies than Palestine in this war. It happens every time.
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.
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 6•9 months ago
Yeah if it was real they’d be trumpeting the evidence. It’s bullshit of course.
I read that various journalists had confirmed it with their own eyes, I think French ones.
Well I’m convinced! /s
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.