• mcv@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I read and compare. When Maccabi supporters were picking fights with Arab taxi drivers in Amsterdam, they didn’t blindly repeat the government story about pogroms but told what really happened, a story that eventually won out. They’ve never shied away from stories inconvenient to any government or corporate interest, as long as it’s based in facts.

    They’re highly regarded for their objectivity.

    If you want to attack them, you’ve got to come up with more than vibes.

    And the fact that you’re baselessly attacking them while defending Tass, is outright ridiculous.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      but told what really happened

      How did you determine what “really happened”?

      They’ve never shied away from stories inconvenient to any government or corporate interest, as long as it’s based in facts.

      How did you determine that? You don’t know what stories they elect not to run.

      They’re highly regarded for their objectivity.

      By who? People who agree with their bias?

      If you want to attack them, you’ve got to come up with more than vibes.

      Mate, you’re the one who’s been making claims based on vibes. I’m not the one just asserting that they’re objective and honest without evidence.

      And the fact that you’re baselessly attacking them while defending Tass, is outright ridiculous.

      Strawman

      • mcv@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        How did you determine what “really happened”?

        Finally a productive question. You listen to all the sides. You listen to independent media on the ground. You don’t just cling to whatever story happens to fit your worldview, but you consider the different stories and watch what adds up and what doesn’t. Who leaves out what details to better fit their narrative and who tells the whole thing.

        And sure, that means you’ve got to do some work. Put in some actual critical thought. And yes, lots of people don’t like that just stick to whatever narrative they prefer, or even whatever is fed to them. But looking critically at media is a vital survival skill these days.

        Blindly accepting known partisan media on the very topic you know they can’t be objective about, is not that.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          34 minutes ago

          No, I asked how you did it. Because you clearly didn’t listen to all sides, and you clearly did just cling to whatever story happens to fit your worldview. You were even at the point of lying to defend your worldview

          Who leaves out what details to better fit their narrative and who tells the whole thing.

          How do you determine what “the whole thing” is?

          And sure, that means you’ve got to do some work. Put in some actual critical thought. And yes, lots of people don’t like that just stick to whatever narrative they prefer, or even whatever is fed to them. But looking critically at media is a vital survival skill these days.

          Lol, maybe you should try it then.

          Blindly accepting known partisan media on the very topic you know they can’t be objective about, is not that.

          Then you should stop doing it.