this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
635 points (97.7% liked)
Not The Onion
12203 readers
422 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ironically your preferred article uses Amnesty "clickbait" International as one of it's sources.
Right at the top of the guardian's website it says "Support us now". Doesn't that, by your definition, make it clickbait?
Uhhh, why are you so hostile? I didn't make up the concept of good journalism versus sensational shit.
This the the part I am talking about. None of these details are included in Amnesty's blog post, because it cuts against the outrage. Can't very well lose your shit over it if nobody else wants the chair. I think it's safe to say that anyone concerned about this now do their part to make sure the body has the impetus to contest the seat, next time. Perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps this was a protest? Perhaps spring in the body with no time to mount a challenge? I don't know.
Because you lumped a well respected human rights NGO in with buzzfeed.
You were attacking the messenger, not the message, which made me think you were defending SA's appalling human rights record. But you've admitted what was written is correct so I'm much less hostile now.
In this case the "sensational shit" was one of the sources that the good journalism was based on.
Is it really relevant that the seat was won uncontested? Not to an organisation who's sole purpose is to highlight human rights abuses. Not to OP. OP could have linked to the Guardian's article rather than Amnesty's but the point they are making about hypocrisy remains.
I think Amnesty is half shit. This is what they do. They spread half truths and outrage bait and raise money with it. They use some of that money to do some great and important work. They also use some of that money to spread the shit.
This article was not published to inform people. It was published to outrage people and raise money off it. Amnesty is glad this dude got appointed. 🤑
Except they don't, they even link to a more detailed article that includes many more reference links for more information. Not to mention entire reports about the human rights abuses in detail.
There is no evidence they 'spread half truths' or 'outrage bait.' Sounds like you just want to discredit them because the human rights abuses they report about Israel make you uncomfortable.
The evidence is in this thread. Try and keep up. They make me uncomfortable because they are half truths. This how Amnesty funds itself. No shite they find human rights abuses wherever they look. Their job is not to vindicate people, it's to accuse them. Surgeons where I'm from always find a reason to operate. To hammers, everything is a nail. I find your approach to evaluating Amnesty's credibility as a news publisher to be shallow and self serving.
So you're mad that a Human Rights Organization is reporting on the details of Human Rights abuses Saudi Arabia has institutionalized to oppress women, showing exactly why the UN appointing Saudi Arabia is a terrible decision. It's a report on Saudi Arabia, not the UN.
The Guardian is a news outlet reporting on the UN Decision, it makes sense they report on the details of the UN proceedings, and quote Amnesty on the human rights violations.
What part of the Amnesty report is a half-truth? They are reporting on exactly what human rights abuses Saudi Arabia has committed and how. This is not a general news outlet like The Guardian or The Intercept. Amnesty reports on human rights. They don't report anything on without substantial evidence either.
Who are they vindicating here? It's certainly not Saudi Arabia, they talk about how they are guilty of oppressing women. It's not the UN either, they detail exactly how this decision goes against the UN charter.
Your specialty is being emotionally over reactive and putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
If you can't see the literal language I quoted from the guardian article that was entirely omitted from the Amnesty blog post, and you don't see what the problem is with treating Amnesty as journalism, than you are beyond redemption and your media literacy is just not adequate.
And btw, Saudi Arabia is a great example of how your buddies in Hamas plan to rule over all of the Levant after for real genociding all the Jews and Christians and installing an Islamic caliphate: theocracies cannot be a legitimate source of human rights since any concept of religious law is entirely made up by the people in charge of it and anyone can claim to be the next prophet.
Nothing in the Guardian article contradicts or discredits the Amnesty article, in fact it uses Amnesty as a source. You'll notice how the HRW article the guardian also sources also doesn't go into the details of the UN appointing Saudi Arabia. That's because human rights organizations focus on reporting about human rights. The details of how the UN appointed Saudi Arabia despite their oppression of women, does not change the reality that Saudi Arabia oppresses women. The human rights organizations are reporting on that reality of oppression, because that's the focus of a human rights organization.
I support a One-State Solution with equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinians do have a right to armed resistance against Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler Colonialism. Hostilities need to end.