Like in this very recent case: https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake...
Edit: haaretz link: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-0...
Because I can think of quite a number of stories over the years, and even in terms of this current conflict in the Middle East, where there were falsehoods in the fog of war or even intentionally seeded that turned out not to be true and many of the news organizations airing them initially only took stories down and didn't run front page denouncements of their own reporting.
I agree that retractions and in general journalistic integrity needs a bit more attention as a global society, but banning news organizations that print things you don't like is something I tend to associate with a very Stalinesque mindset and not a bastion of democracy and liberty.
In general, individuals and groups are bettered by exposure to naysayers than surrounded by yes-men.
But that the whole point. It's not just that Israel "don't like it". It's false claims.
> aren't sufficiently loud about retractions
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Almost every news agency got this wrong to some degree [1]. What matters is whether they corrected their story as new information arose.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-b...
What matters is how often this happens and what the response is when it happens. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is not significantly worse than anyone else here. There's a difference between "spreading misinformation" and "being wrong every once in a while".
The problem with sites like "honest reporting" is that they take these incidents, completely ignore (or outright defend) all the types their side has been wrong on this type of stuff, and then construct a narrative that "proves" that "the other side" is merely a malicious cluster of evil that seeks to spread evil for evil's sake. This is exactly the type of dehumanizing hyper-partisanship that got us in this mess in the first place.
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Also: why are you using two accounts? :-/
Sure, I would like to see something similar from Haaretz/Ynetnews where they believed Israel without critical due process. And did not retract in a consistent matter.
And the second account is my mobile (I like it separate)... that is why I gave them the same name.
The reason stated on why Hamas affirmed the rape story was false wasn't 'because it backfired and made civilians flee'. This never happened,and the justifications is too convoluted. No, they took a page out of IRA and ETA's: total transparency. They want people to believe what they say, and for that, you can't be caught lying. I don't know if it's recent or not, but that's also the reason why the death toll reported by Hamas is lower than the one expected by the US and most military intelligence. If a news is from a Hamas official spokesman, it's likely true (might be misleading, but always factually true)
Shame on Al-Jazeera to let liars on air, but to be fair, that 24h news for you.
What? They lie constantly! They just got caught. Here is what happened when BBC just reported them without checking:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250
And then when they apologized admitting they should have not speculate:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/israel-accuses...