Comment on BBC ignores funeral of 31 Yemeni journalists murdered by Israel

twinnie@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I think the article is pretty clear.

  The BBC did mention the murder of the journalists last week – kind of. In a single article on its news site, the BBC said that “At least 35 people were killed in Israeli air strikes” and threw in that two newspaper offices “were hit.” It’s almost as if it just happened spontaneously or was incidental – if it happened at all, because it was only “the Houthis’ military spokesman” who said it:

  the Houthis’ military spokesman said the targets were civilian, adding that journalists and passersby were killed when the offices of two newspapers were hit.

  No mention of the clearly targeted strikes then or since.

  source

  • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Wait so they did mention the newspapers were struck? If they did that why would anyone feel the need to bitch about them ´ignoring the funerals´?

    source

    • DancingBear@midwest.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Because more journalists have died in Gaza than all other wars combined, and BBC is trying to present this genocide and blatant disregard for life as if it is just an accident that only deserves one paragraph in one article on a website.

      source

      • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Should they cover every journalist´s funeral (especially if they´ve already covered them being killed)? What other coverage should they drop to create the space? What if they lose all their readers because they´re covering nothing else but funerals?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Hazmatastic@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      There’s a difference between “Two missiles hit an area, destroying several buildings including two newspapers and killing over 30” and “Israel targets Yemeni press in strikes destroying two newspaper offices, killing over 30 journalists.” One looks like a little whoopsie-daisy mistake, where they are only announcing in a small article the tragedy that has happened due to equally tragic circumstances. It is doing its bare minimum to acknowledge an event while minimizing all details. The other lays the obvious responsibility and intent at the doorstep of the people who did it.

      It’s “driver struck during altercation with police” and “fleeing unarmed teen shot in back multiple times by officer during traffic stop.” They convey some of the same basic information, but with one of them sterilizing its language so much that it’s technically correct while avoiding the details that make the people in power look bad.

      source

      • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        If you read about a missile strike hitting newspapers´ offices and killing a bunch of journalists and you think that must be ´a little whoopsie-daisy mistake´, that just makes me think that you´re not part of their target audience.

        They have the CBBC that would explain things more thoroughly if they consider it necessary or you could look for outside sources that explain how airstrikes work, which in turn frees up space to add other information.

        Likewise, I don´t think that the BBC believes that their target audience requires a follow-up article to zxplain to them that the victims received a funeral.

        source
• sik0fewl@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  BBC has a streak of white washing their genocide of Palestinians. The “coverage” is not that good.

  source