Journalist killed by sniper -- why no outrage?

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

I do agree the media stinks at followup. I'm not particularly faulting them for failing to cover the fact that the evidence of Israel's guilt turns out to be deeply flawed.

You make a big fuss about one journalist being killed, and also claim that the death of just one reporter is big news, and yet according to the International Federation of Journalists, and also other sources:
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, at least 166 journalists and media workers have been killed, several have been injured and others are missing. The IFJ is working closely with its affiliate, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate (PJS) to verify information in real time.
[Bolding in copied quote].

Most of those were Hamas. The news couldn't dig into it without exposing that, so they didn't dig.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

Did you miss the fact Shireen Abu Akleh was standing among a group of her fellow reporters when they all came under fire? That Abu Akleh wasn't the only one shot? That all those reporters worked for different news agencies, were there to cover the fighting, and had ways to immediately get the word out that they'd been fired upon?

Did you even stop to think for one minute why the shooting of reporters witnesses by other reporters who came under fire from the same shooter at the same time, got quicker and more widespread coverage than the shooting of an off-duty reporter at the time when there were no other reporters in the area?

In other words, the initial report was false: not a sniper.

And how did those reporters fail to note where the fire was coming from? They were there to cover the fighting and failed to point their cameras at nearby fighting?

 

[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.

I don't even see how that is supposed to be a meaningful reply.

There was combat in the area--but not on camera. That's not how reporters operate. That is how propaganda producers operate.

No camera, no legitimate news? Wow.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

Did you miss the fact Shireen Abu Akleh was standing among a group of her fellow reporters when they all came under fire? That Abu Akleh wasn't the only one shot? That all those reporters worked for different news agencies, were there to cover the fighting, and had ways to immediately get the word out that they'd been fired upon?

Did you even stop to think for one minute why the shooting of reporters witnesses by other reporters who came under fire from the same shooter at the same time, got quicker and more widespread coverage than the shooting of an off-duty reporter at the time when there were no other reporters in the area?

In other words, the initial report was false: not a sniper.

Link to the initial report. Don't just assert things.

Was there ever mention of a suspected sniper in the report of Abu Akleh's killing? The witness quoted in this report speaks of a barrage of bullets.

And don't just ignore subsequent reports. The Israeli Defense Forces apologized for Abu Akleh's death.

And how did those reporters fail to note where the fire was coming from? They were there to cover the fighting and failed to point their cameras at nearby fighting?

You really should follow links and at least try to be better informed.

The other reporters did not fail to note where the bullets came from. They pointed it out, and their testimony was the first bit of collected evidence that the bullets were fired by an IDF soldier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

Did you miss the fact Shireen Abu Akleh was standing among a group of her fellow reporters when they all came under fire? That Abu Akleh wasn't the only one shot? That all those reporters worked for different news agencies, were there to cover the fighting, and had ways to immediately get the word out that they'd been fired upon?

Did you even stop to think for one minute why the shooting of reporters witnesses by other reporters who came under fire from the same shooter at the same time, got quicker and more widespread coverage than the shooting of an off-duty reporter at the time when there were no other reporters in the area?

In other words, the initial report was false: not a sniper.

Link to the initial report. Don't just assert things.

Was there ever mention of a suspected sniper in the report of Abu Akleh's killing? The witness quoted in this report speaks of a barrage of bullets.

And don't just ignore subsequent reports. The Israeli Defense Forces apologized for Abu Akleh's death.

And how did those reporters fail to note where the fire was coming from? They were there to cover the fighting and failed to point their cameras at nearby fighting?

You really should follow links and at least try to be better informed.

The other reporters did not fail to note where the bullets came from. They pointed it out, and their testimony was the first bit of collected evidence that the bullets were fired by an IDF soldier.

Interesting that the bullets somehow magically record who fired them.

Hint: Hamas uses a mix of weapons, including the same rounds Israel uses. In other words, any report which identified the fragments as being from the IDF (as opposed to possibly from the IDF) is by definition false.

 

[WAB]

Out of sheer curiosity, Loren, you've revived at least three threads whose last post was January 22. Have you been trying out that time machine again?

 

[Arctish]

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.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

Did you miss the fact Shireen Abu Akleh was standing among a group of her fellow reporters when they all came under fire? That Abu Akleh wasn't the only one shot? That all those reporters worked for different news agencies, were there to cover the fighting, and had ways to immediately get the word out that they'd been fired upon?

Did you even stop to think for one minute why the shooting of reporters witnesses by other reporters who came under fire from the same shooter at the same time, got quicker and more widespread coverage than the shooting of an off-duty reporter at the time when there were no other reporters in the area?

In other words, the initial report was false: not a sniper.

Link to the initial report. Don't just assert things.

Was there ever mention of a suspected sniper in the report of Abu Akleh's killing? The witness quoted in this report speaks of a barrage of bullets.

And don't just ignore subsequent reports. The Israeli Defense Forces apologized for Abu Akleh's death.

And how did those reporters fail to note where the fire was coming from? They were there to cover the fighting and failed to point their cameras at nearby fighting?

You really should follow links and at least try to be better informed.

The other reporters did not fail to note where the bullets came from. They pointed it out, and their testimony was the first bit of collected evidence that the bullets were fired by an IDF soldier.

Interesting that the bullets somehow magically record who fired them.

Hint: Hamas uses a mix of weapons, including the same rounds Israel uses. In other words, any report which identified the fragments as being from the IDF (as opposed to possibly from the IDF) is by definition false.

Did you follow the links and read the reports they contained, or are you generating bullshit out of stuff and nonsense?

Which report are you disputing? Be specific.

 

[Arctish]

Press freedom groups condemn targeted killing of two journalists in Israeli strikes

It is illegal under international law to target journalists. The IDF claims they were terrorists but has provided no evidence in support of that accusation.