NPR is not sure why Aaron Bushnell set himself fire despite it being clearly mentioned in the video. Omit Gaza but mention the hostages taken by Hamas
NPR is not sure why Aaron Bushnell set himself fire despite it being clearly mentioned in the video. Omit Gaza but mention the hostages taken by Hamas
So you're upset because a reporter is checking their information rather than rushing to premature conclusions? The video was taken down by Twitch and could not be immediately verified. Now that it has, the article reads:
Leading up the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he "will no longer be complicit in genocide." Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling "Free Palestine!"
Waiting a few hours for reliable information is exactly what a good news agency should do. People demanding news that rushes to conclusions regardless of their information is what leads to misinformation.
Look through OP's commenting history.
He claims all western media are controlled by the Zionists. He's called Hamas a freedom fighting army. He regularly comes with incredibly ill informed takes. In the past I've seen him so thoroughly misunderstand the article he's quoting, I suspect he may be functionally illiterate. As far as I can tell he posts about Israel-Palestine non-stop all day long.
I strongly suspect he also uses alts to upvote his own comments and submissions, because he once mistakenly replied to my comment quoting someone else. I pointed out I was a different person, but his reply was highly upvoted anyway.
I really should block him, but he can be amusing. Obviously the whole '''they''' control the media thing is icky. But I suppose he does less harm here in the fediverse where few will see his self important rants anyway.
Looking through comment histories and I see you defending a cop pulling a gun on a dying mans charred body?
Looking through OPs comment history and I see posts like so, filled with some degree of fact based explanations.
I’ll admit your posts have a better mastery of English on display, but OPs coming through with the better and informed takes from my brief first page pass.
Yeah I almost pulled off the road yesterday to comment on all the “you’ll never hear the media talk about this” as NPR ran a segment on the uncommitted vote for Michigan then went into a report about this incident. Clearly stating the why and intent and what they shouted during even.
-
For a "rapidly published article" the writers of the article seemingly had the time to include irrelevant details about the flags in front of the israeli embassy symbolizing the hostages taken by Hamas
-
All the information was available in a two minute video. There is no ambiguity. Even if NPR would not agree with the statements that were made they could have still verbatim quoted them as they are so happy to do for every statement made by the IDF. The video was circulating everywhere online.
So should we automatically believe every video that circulates online? Basic journalistic standards require verification of any source. As has already been pointed out, the article was updated with the relevant information once it was available and verified. This is common practice among every news source that publishes online.
Journalists have two options in the midst of a developing story. They can rely on rumor and instinct to publish whatever version of the story they think is the truth, and if they get it wrong, update the retraction later. Or they can wait until they have verified information, and report on only what they know. Frankly, I think there are too many sources out there who do the former, and too few who take the latter path.
You're upset over basic journalistic standards and projecting them into something they're not. There's a reason that articles published online list the date/time of the most recent update, not just the time of publication.
-
An earlier version of the sentence reads (bold mine):
As of Sunday afternoon, NPR was not able to independently verify the man's identity or motives.
Although there were indications that he was a US servicemember (he was wearing a uniform) and likely his identity - as you mentioned, he recorded the video - they were not verified at that time.
Once his Identity was verified, the reporter removed that part of the line. Once his motives were verified, she removed that part of the line as well. This is just how news reporting works.
No they posted his name so his identity was verified, they were just not sure about his motivations." Let's check that quote
My name is Aaron Bushnell. I am an active-duty member of the US Air Force, and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest — but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.
Free Palestine
Geez this is all so vague, we only heard his name!
Let's write an article about it not mention anything else from the video!
I mean, him stating a name and his motivations and verifying that it was indeed this man and those were his motives are two different things.
I like journalism that verifies statements. Is there a man by that name and is he deceased? If the answer to those questions had been "no", it would have been an entirely different story.
If you check the archive.org link you'll notice that they 100% did not publish the name at that time.
You'll also notice this bit at the bottom:
This is a developing story.
I suspect "independently" is the critical word here. I guess they aren't willing to take the guy's word for it when he says it's because of Gaza. Probably a sound policy in general when suicide/mental health is in play. The followup investigation will have to determine if his competence was intact, at which point the motive will be "independently verified".
Aaron Bushnell clearly said on video what his reasoning for his self immolation was. There is no possible doubt. He said he refused to be complicit in the Genocide in Gaza and was screaming Free Palestine while on fire.
Yet the NPR article made zero mention of Palestine, Gaza or Genocide but managed to cram in the israeli hostages. You can't make this up.
It's literally gaslighting by NPR. We can argue it's intentions but I have a word and it's gaslighting when you try and mess with reality on purpose. Thoughts?
I listen to NPR almost every day and I've never heard them shy away from objective reporting on Gaza. If anything they lean towards sympathy with Palestine.
I agree that the omission in this article is probably a technicality because there is only one source of information and that source died soon after setting himself on fire.
One day later and the current version of the article does not use the word "Genocide" when quoting Aaron's motive, replacing it with "war".
NPR is very intentionally lying about the words used by Aaron Bushnell.
Only far down the article where they know most people will not read, do they actually quote what Aaron really said.
For purposes of propaganda, is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting? I don't think so. If npr had an agenda when it came to this story, why not....just not publish it?
Instead they posted facts that they were able to verify, then updated the article as they were able to confirm more facts. Seems reasonable to me. Do you think not publishing assumptions as to why a man self immolated in protest in front of an Israeli embassy really convinced anyone this airman wasn't protesting isreali actions?
Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?
Is there any doubt what a man setting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy is protesting?
NPR sure thinks so.
why not…just not publish it?
Because that's too obvious. In the west newspapers lie by omission. So people still believe that they are "reading news" instead of getting brainwashed. And go on the internet to defend their amazing newspapers. They put important news on the back of the paper and frame it very vaguely when it's not convenient for our narratives.
Is your issue the speed at which the reporting came through?
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
NPR has zero issue not fact checking any IDF propaganda before publishing false rape accusations, but a first party source on video against israel suddenly has the "highest journalistic scrutiny".
NPR sure thinks so.
You do understand the difference between reporting on understood facts and reporting on reasonable conclusions, right?
People can put one and one together to draw a conclusion, but it's actually a boon for journalists to independently verify what they report on. If you don't believe this, there are a number of conservative news outlets that may appeal to your need of reporting of unverified conclusions.
So here's my big issue with what you're saying.
When you say
My biggest issue is the mentions of Hamas hostages while not mentioning Palestine, Gaza or Genocide whatsoever.
I look and see that the article currently says:
Israel responded with a military assault on Gaza which, according the health ministry in the enclave, has killed over 29,000 people. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced and over 60% of housing has been damaged in Gaza, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
"BUT INTERNET, THEY MODIFIED THE ARTICLE ONCE IT GOT POPULAR!" you'll say.
To which I refer you to the earlier archive.org snapshot of this very same article that mentions neither Hamas hostages nor Palestine/Gaza.
So it seems your beef is neither with the initial release of an article, nor the current state, but instead with a random snapshot of a developing story, which is simply silly. The initial article from archive.org does not have the issue you don't like, and any argument you have for "further modifications of the article having more weight" automatically apply to the current versions of the article that does talk about Gaza.
That's NPR, always speaking truth to power. 🙄 https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2009/06/21/105657917/harsh-interrogation-techniques-or-torture
I feel like it's just bad journalism than boring dystopia tbh.
Government controlled and influenced media messaging was a primary theme in 1984, an iconic dystopian book.
That's a fair point.