Is the title here editorialized? Or did BBC update their title because the old one was incorrect?
It may be editorialized
created: 6 minutes ago
karma: 0
You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. I've seen them do this a lot, but whether you believe me or want to investigate further yourself is entirely up to you.
Well, sure, but people also commonly believe that they are pressured to do so and eventually relent to the pressure. That they changed something is not strictly evidence that the old version was "factually incorrect".
> I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
Since we're already on the topic of worthless throwaway accounts, I feel the need to comment on this. This reads like a bit like a "regular internet citizen" phrase of someone who is not that attached to their accounts, which is, of course, a reasonable perspective, but it also reads a lot like someone who's literally paid to read popular discussion sites ("I normally just read") and make accounts they don't care about ("I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details") for the sake of voicing an opinion that benefits their employer if widely believed ("thought I'd comment today"). Just food for thought for the person who is presumably commenting with their genuine opinions. And, of course, readers who are interested in observing sneaky phrases that could potentially cause their thinking to be misdirected.
So n=2?
How about examples?
If anything Israel gets pretty much a free ride in the UK press and particularly on the BBC
That hardly seems surprising, given the way the war is going.
> It cites several examples, including a podcast last November in which Mr Bowen stated “Hamas ...an Islamic resistance movement...we’ve seen in the past few weeks has a military strategy” and a News at Ten report last October in which he said: “Hamas will try to use hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against a much more powerful army.”
Every word in that last sentence is accurate. Where's the bias?
> It claims Mr Bowen has also compared Israel’s offensive in Gaza to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including in a BBC article in November last year in which he stated: “Israel is on course to have killed as many Palestinian civilians in just over a month as Russia has killed in Ukraine since February 2022.”
Again, entirely accurate?
> In one example, the report cites Ms Doucet stating in a radio dispatch in February this year: “And from the beginning of this Israel Gaza War, which erupted on October 7, it has been clear that both the United States and Iran do not want to be dragged into a direct confrontation”
Accurate again?
The BBC reporting is the same. "Starving children" with a picture of a child with an disease that made that child look starved before the war. I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
The bias against Israel is striking if you open your eyes.
This is the BBC’s fault?
> I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
Even Trump agrees kids are starving in Gaza.
I'd say if you post an accusative claim on a controversial topic as your first post with a new account, it should probably include far more information.
- The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context. - If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?
> I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe
Why would that be necessary? They wouldn't be "throwaway" in that case.