Journalist killed by sniper -- why no outrage?

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestinian journalist shot in the head ’by PA’ in West Bank

A Palestinian journalist was shot and killed in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, where the PA has been carrying out raids against Palestinian fighters.

www.newarab.com

Very simple: the sniper was Palestinian, no way to pretend it was Israel.

(And while the article doesn't actually say so I have a strong feeling this is part of the Hamas/Fatah conflict.)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Palestinian journalist shot in the head ’by PA’ in West Bank

A Palestinian journalist was shot and killed in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, where the PA has been carrying out raids against Palestinian fighters.

www.newarab.com

Very simple: the sniper was Palestinian, no way to pretend it was Israel.

(And while the article doesn't actually say so I have a strong feeling this is part of the Hamas/Fatah conflict.)

Shall I pass a long a few links about blacks who were murdered recently that you didn't bother to complain about... as proof you hate blacks?

 

[laughing dog]

My take on the OP is ok and what is your point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

Ah so just Tu Quoque then. I get bullshit, bad faith arguments mixed up sometimes.

 

[Derec]

My take on the OP is ok and what is your point?

"No Jews, no news"

 

[laughing dog]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

Am I supposed to become more outraged at Hamas?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are no good guys in any of this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Yes it does: controversy or mystery sells more than an open and shut case in these instances.

Really, this Trumpian in victimhood claiming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Condemnation? What does this have to do with ketchup or mustard?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There are no good guys in any of this.

Watch him ignore your comment and continue to delusionally act as though people are saying PA was right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Like, I'm pretty sure I pointed out that the behavior of all the leadership groups of the region is at fault here.

If this were a biblical story and I were God, I would write it thusly:

And God sent all the warring peoples who claimed God's favor out of the region to wander the earth until all of the current generation had passed. The lands were given to all the other people of the world who had had their land taken from them, to be ruled by these people, the meek inheriting the holy land.

Finally, once all those living of the current generation had passed and the area was rebuilt with nice widespread mixed density construction at the behest of all the world powers, God called all the people home, to share the space under the graces of those who believed nothing of Allah or God.

Too many people make holy claim to that land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Yes it does: controversy or mystery sells more than an open and shut case in these instances.

Really, this Trumpian in victimhood claiming.

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Yes it does: controversy or mystery sells more than an open and shut case in these instances.

Really, this Trumpian in victimhood claiming.

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Your explanation rebuts your Trumpian conclusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Yes it does: controversy or mystery sells more than an open and shut case in these instances.

Really, this Trumpian in victimhood claiming.

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Terrorists kill innocent person usually doesn't make the news because it isn't particularly news-ish, rather it is expected. Also, this is hardly the first time that the media will report on an initial case and let it float away. The media can suck like that, but people generally don't want nuanced, long-term reporting.