leicsmac

Hmmmm... it doesn't stop the original headline being accurate, nor is it a lie of omission (a favoured tactic along some media outlets). I can see what you mean about framing of sentences and statements being very important, though. Still maintain that the Beeb are doing the best they can and I'd go to them for reliable information on this matter before practically anyone else, though.

It's right there in the headline. I'm not sure what's wrong with that reporting or how they could add more clarity.

I think that's entirely subjective tbh. As @Lionator points out above, the Beeb are doing the very best they can to stay impartial in a highly charged and difficult environment where there are a great many contexts IMO.

And that it is contested is being reported day and night by the Beeb, is it not? One report by one journalist does not a wholesale stance make.

We don't know that for sure yet. When and if we do, we should judge then IMO. I do agree though that misinformation and people buying into it is a massive problem here that costs time and likely lives.

And again, mediating stuff like this is what the UN was created to do. It's absurd that by and large they're having to sit on their hands because... reasons, apparently. What's the point?

Certainly they should, but I don't believe this particular incident to be a massively standout episode of journalistic malpractice, even though the event it depicts is terrible. I'm not big on the implications being made here that the Beeb in particular have chosen a side. They have not.

This is spoken as if only one side of this conflict engages in such media manipulation. That is not true.

That's true. But it does need to be done for the sake of the people who died there.

Dead is dead, and there's a reason the accidental killing of a human being is still considered a criminal act, though one of lesser grade than one with proven intent (and quite frankly war makes monsters out of everyone it touches, so I'd wager that not all the Palestinian deaths in this were entirely accidental anyway). Israel really should take its share of responsibility for the innocent lives it takes while carrying out the destruction of Hamas, rather than simply washing their hands off them as simply "collateral damage" or putting all the blame on Hamas for them being there - like it or not, the choice to actually pull the trigger is their own, no one else's, as difficult a choice it may be. Do what they have to do, but don't blame others for the blood spilled. Front up and at least admit some culpability and at least tolerate the judgment of the international community from it.

It really needs third party impartial verification. And quickly, too.

Really accomplished second half from England, this.

Bellingham is making world class players from a very very good team look daft tonight.

Tbf he seems to be doing pretty well in the existing setup.

I think the exact answer to that depends on how cynical one's view of international relations and how much face means more than actual human lives is.

At a fundamental level, once you burrow through all of the flowery language, it simply comes down to "sorry, but they're collateral damage and this happens in every war and we're not really going to apologise or answer for it", I think.

Fair enough and well said, mon ami. I think we just look at our species and what it does (and what it can do) as a whole in a different way, really, and that's fair enough too.

Yeah, you're right. It's just stupid on the part of all parties that there's disagreement on that at all, or that a resolution that could get things moving is voted down based on arguing the toss about a fact that's purely symbolic in terms of the agreement itself. NB. I hope my reply last night clarified things.

Russia floats a UN resolution regarding humanitarian solutions. US and UK (among others) veto it because it doesn't state the obvious that Hamas are Very Bad People. Sigh.

Bit of both for me. China clearly meet any of that stuff with an utterly withering response (given what comes with that I'm not sure that's an example to follow btw) but also the "Muslim countries" aren't one single entity like the fvcking Borg and have their own agendas, most of which do include a healthy dose of sectarianism.

Pardon my lack of clarity then. To be clearer - UN peacekeepers (from any "neutral" nations, don't have to be melanin-deficient ) could (bolded and italicised for emphasis) help stop the immediate problem of these two sides murdering each other at a horrific rate right now. The much bigger problem of why they're doing it in the first place and how to stop them from doing it in the future is a much bigger issue that, yes, probably won't go away until fundamentalism fvcks off. Deal with the immediate loss of life first and do the geopolitical equivalent of getting between the two scrapping blokes and keeping them at arms length from each other, and then perhaps we might have a little more room to at least try to address the much bigger problem of why they wanted to kick the shit out of each other in the first place.

Thank you for pointing out both the greatest strength and critical - probably fatal - weakness of purely individualist market based solutions; that the individual chooses the best option for them based on short sightedness both in terms of affecting those around them and the future.

Astute. The only think I'll add to this is an observation that IMO a lot of people in the UK are making a noise regarding the plight of Gaza/Palestinians because both the government and the majority of the print media appear to have picked their side regarding this one and, as you very rightly point out, it's a complicated situation with a lot of grievances on both sides and so picking that side at an establishment level doesn't appear fair.

I think looking at the recent form of both teams and making the Saffers the obvious favourites and by a heavy score isn't exactly anti-English, just logical. Of course, sport isn't played on paper, though.