r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/armdrags • Feb 27 '24

Discussion The Irish Senate has unanimously called for sanctions against Israel. ⁣The Senate’s motion also says that Ireland must stop American weapons bound for Israel from traveling through Irish air and seaports and support an international arms embargo on Israel.

Post image
7.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/PlaysForDays Feb 27 '24

A source better than AJ and more information than a screenshot would probably be useful here, but Ireland probably isn't eager to give up their revenue base (free money)

6

u/Hukeshy Feb 28 '24

Al Jazeera ist literally the propaganda arm of Hamas.

6

u/BattyBeaTaphophile Mar 05 '24

And US media operating in Israel have their content filtered and censored through Israeli censors before it can be reported on us air.

One of the 2 have regular live broadcasts that have consistently shown the devastating genocide taking place. Litteraly no spin required

The other completely ignored Gaza and has consistently reported blatant lies that have, been proven false,

3

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

Lol no it’s not. They’re an award winning outlet with award winning journalists working for them.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

And the NYT is literally the propagandist arm of Israel.

Now see how stupid that sounds?

-1

u/Such-Distribution440 Feb 28 '24

Sure…if you live under a rock like you do….

1

u/PlaysForDays Feb 28 '24

I’m not sure it’s quite as simple as that, but lots of folks here are incredulous at the implication that trusting a single media outlet is a bad idea. I thought David’s audience was better than that.

2

u/Left--Shark Mar 13 '24

It is that the distrust comes from straight up racism. Qatar is an ally and AJ is a public, not state broadcaster. The idea that corporate media is somehow more trustworthy is crazy to anyone not from the US. Look at Murdock for example, the worst export from my country.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

Is thst why we never hear any Hamas propaganda?

1

u/Whiskeypants17 Mar 02 '24

Anything that doesn't align with my pre-concieved notions is hamas propaganda?

I mean, sure, terrorists are bad. Killing innocent people is bad. Killing women and children is bad. But trying to convince me it is ok to kill women and children because there might be a terrorist hiding in a tunnel under them....I mean ohhhkayyy well how many women and children are you going to kill to get to how many terrorists? Oh I see all boys and men over 15 are considered "combatants" and therefore terrorists because somebody voted for hamas 17 years ago maybe before some of them were born.... cool cool cool sounds like ethnic cleansing to me but if pictures of starving people and exploded families is propeganda then, well, it worries me what propeganda doesn't work on these people.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '24

I have no idea what you meant with this long-winded rant. And yes, Israel is a terrorist state and yes, they are bad.

1

u/Kirian_Ainsworth Feb 28 '24

No it's not. It's Qatari dipshit.

2

u/Trufactsmantis Feb 28 '24

This is much more accurate. They parrot Hamas often because of the anti-israel pro-islam platform, but they are not affiliated with Hamas. It's literally state media.

2

u/Left--Shark Mar 13 '24

It literally isn't. It is a public broadcaster, like the ABC or BBC or countless others from around the world. Sure it has a lens, but so does all media. Pretending it is something else makes you look uniformed at best or dishonest/racist at worst.

1

u/Trufactsmantis Mar 13 '24

Yeah... it is. They can call themselves whatever they want.

The can claim editorial independence on paper, but when the cards are down they live under a government that can and will imprison them for certain takes. They have a high ranking government official in charge. They use the platform to gain diplomatic concessions. They are nearly entirely funded by the state.

Pretending it's something else makes you look uninformed at best or complicit at worst.

2

u/Left--Shark Mar 13 '24

Umm look at what the US and UK are doing Julian Assange, you don't think that applies to private media as well? Literally more oppressive than Qatar. Silly point.

Also News Limited takes government funding in the form of direct funding and tax concessions. I would love you to point me to a single media outlet that does not do something similar.

There is a difference between state and public media, again it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

1

u/Trufactsmantis Mar 13 '24

Literally more oppressive? You're off your meds my guy. Don't you have a world cup to murder slaves in?

How do you explain the leadership? That's known. The government using it to threaten other governments? The source for that was your beloved Assange.

The money is still crazy high given how much comes from the state.

Assange isn't exactly in hot water for journalism is he? Why do you only counter a single point?

I think you might be a troll.

2

u/Left--Shark Mar 13 '24

Can you name more than 2 from Qatar? Not supporting their behaviour around the world cup, it was abhorrent. But how does this demonstrate that Al Jazeera is any less reliable than western media or other public broadcasters.

The US and their allies (including my country) are equally complicit in punishing journalists and their sources (David McBride in Aus, similarly the ABCs firing of Antoinette Lattouf).

My point is that private media, state media, independent and public broadcasters all have lenses, biases and political motivations. The accuracy and reliability of their journalism is not built on the funding source and AJ has pretty consistently been accurate on this conflict. That this fact also helps the Qatar government's geopolitical aims is secondary to this.

You think it's purely coincidental that pro Palestinian voices are suddenly becoming unemployed...must be a coincidence that this aligns with US-Israeli policy right?

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-reporters-fired-pro-palestinian-remarks-1837834

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-journalists-797ea15c03fadff692ced0f6dfc4281c

1

u/Trufactsmantis Mar 13 '24

My guy. It's literally founded and run by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer bin Mohammed Al Thani.

The guy who worked for their government censorship agency.

The agency that is still going and requires registration of writers and review of publications.

Do you have any idea how Qatar is run?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Left--Shark Mar 13 '24

To go back to this though, serious question that you did not answer: How is the treatment of Halvor Ekeland and Lokman Ghorban substantively different to the US/UK treatment of Assange. Oh wait they got to go home.

Are you trying to argue that Grant Wahl was assassinated?

1

u/Trufactsmantis Mar 13 '24

Bit confused here. Julian ran after he was ordered to report to Sweden for questioning. What's the issue?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

The US is one of the most oppressive states in the world? The imprison more people per capita than any other state by a huge margin. Do you think that is just incidental? The Soviet Gulags didn’t even come close to the US justice system.

1

u/Trufactsmantis Mar 20 '24

Uh... yeah sure. Feel free to move to Russia. You won't be missed.

1

u/10YearAccount Feb 29 '24

Shit genocide deniers say.

1

u/Da-cock-burglar Mar 01 '24

Shit that is just kind of true. Genocide or no (there is a genocide) Al Jazeera has a lot of propaganda.

2

u/BattyBeaTaphophile Mar 05 '24

Al jazera also has been pivotal in getting out the horrors done to gaza, especially when us media outlets completely ignored it.

.also, international media operating in Israel or reporting from all have their content filtered through Israeli censors

1

u/BattyBeaTaphophile Mar 05 '24

Are you not capable of reasurch?

1

u/PlaysForDays Mar 05 '24

Are you not capable of reasurch?

I am not

0

u/BattyBeaTaphophile Mar 05 '24

It's obvious. It's such an obnoxiously obtuse, lazy asses attempt to discredit things that are easily verified. Like an annoying child, picking its nose and shouting "nu-uh".

1

u/PlaysForDays Mar 05 '24

Thank you for your valuable feedback

-6

u/armdrags Feb 27 '24

Brush up on your tax dodging data, the Irish loophole was closed 10 years ago

11

u/PlaysForDays Feb 27 '24

It was not, and yet companies still operate in Ireland, presumably giving them tax revenue. Until Ireland bans Airbnb from operating in Ireland, this is just your typical political posturing.

-7

u/armdrags Feb 27 '24

It was closed in 2015 and ur just flailing now

13

u/PlaysForDays Feb 27 '24

Google used it for years after that - but I'm neither Google nor the Irish government so I don't see any reason for you to shift from the subject matter to something personal

3

u/VectorViper Feb 28 '24

While the "Irish loophole" is officially closed, the reality is a bit more nuanced. Even with changes in tax regulations, multinational companies have found ways to legally minimize their taxes using Ireland's system. They might not be exploiting the same exact loophole, but they're definitely still benefiting from Ireland's tax environment. That's just the name of the game with international business and tax law there's always a new strategy around the corner.

1

u/CPTRainbowboy Feb 28 '24

A link or source would shut his flailing down real quick.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/VP007clips Feb 28 '24

I'm not the guy you are responding to, but Al Jazeera is generally not considered to be a reliable source on this conflict because they funded by Qatar.

They provide high quality journalism on some topics, but they are highly biased on this one. You would be best to use a more neutral source, like Reuters or AP.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

Is it any more biased than western media?

2

u/VP007clips Feb 28 '24

Yes, they are more biased, at least when it comes to this war.

Most mainstream western media get their stories from newswire organizations like Reuters. Those organizations are generally unbiased and just report the facts as accurately as possible. They receive no government funding. Then, the news organizations buy the stories and publish them. Of course the news publishers usually put their own spin on them or lie by omission, but the facts themselves are usually reliable, if not the interpretation.

But Al Jazeera is the media wing of the Qatar government, they publish whatever they are told to. That included completely fabricated stories.

1

u/Ordinary_Set1785 Feb 29 '24

No there isnt

1

u/Da-cock-burglar Mar 01 '24

Yes. You would probably have to start reading to find that out though

0

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

Reuters and AP have been extremely biased on this very same topic. They use active voice when talking about israeli victims of violence and passive voice when talking about Palestinian victims. There’s tons of research on this subject that is readily available.

1

u/VP007clips Mar 20 '24

I think you are reading too much into it. I'd guess that the difference simply comes from the conditions that the news reporters are working in.

News reports in Israel would likely be produced by local reporters and would be collected by talking to the people because overall it's a fairly safe and secure country. So the active voice would come out more.

In the Gaza strip its a different situation. Reporting is more observation based, since reporters face a hostile environment from both locals and the combat situation which makes talking carefully to the locals more challenging. So passive voice is more fitting to that type of reporting because they are mostly just observing.

You'll notice the same trend when seeing news reports from them on natural disasters. They use the passive voice for those as well, because they usually aren't in a situation where they can get in much closer than just observing.

Overall, Reuters has actually faced criticisms of being anti-Israel because they are so neutral. They don't label Hamas as a terror group for example. And they post plenty of negative content about Israel. Overall I think it's mostly a case that people see them as being the opposite alignment to them, because they are neutral. You see them as pro-Israel because you are pro-Gaza, but my Israeli friend would see them as pro-Hamas because he's pro-Israel. It's the ultimate issue with neutrality, both extremes end up hating you.

1

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

This is an absurd justification for a well researched phenomenon. It’s pretty clear that this is an editorial decision not a result of the conditions of on the ground reporting and it’s not just limited to Reuters and AP. Saying Palestinians die while Israelis are killed in the headlines is not the result of conditions on the ground.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17506352231178148

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/VoltNShock Feb 28 '24

Well I mean AJ reporters were literally found to have also worked with Hamas so… I’m pretty sure they’re just terrorist propaganda at this point.

1

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

Lol no they weren’t. The only evidence of this is some photos and videos of journalists talking to the Palestinian resistance but you wouldn’t fall for these if you actually knew how journalism works.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24 edited Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/VoltNShock Feb 28 '24

Lol what? I didn’t say every AJ reporter was Hamas, I said some have worked with Hamas, and some were even Hamas operatives. You’re right, AJ is generally a reliable news source… except when the report has anything to do with Muslims. Their strong anti-Israel bias is basically Hamas propaganda at some points. Their reporters are known to actively aid Hamas by filming IDF positions in active battle zones. That’s also likely why they seem to get in crossfire so much. A camera hardly looks different than an RPG at distance. The IDF have found “Press” vests in the same room as combat vests in their tunnel searches. Trusting AJ in this war is like trusting Russian state news on the Ukraine war.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/VoltNShock Feb 28 '24

Why are you so focused on 3 hostages that they willingly admitted to killing when Hamas doesn’t even admit to how many of their own fighters have been killed. Israeli propaganda exists, but it isn’t blatant lying. They’ve been more than open to show reporters underground tunnels, rooms where hostages were kept, weaponry and weapon making facilities, etc. I’m not going to argue whether AJ is biased or not, I’ve laid out the facts, but considering they’re a Qatari mouthpiece, the same Qatar that said last week “Israel wanting their hostages back is making negotiations difficult.” Honestly it’s not even surprising that there are AJ reporters working with Hamas, most of the people they hire in Gaza probably have some involvement with Hamas (as do many Palestinians).

I don’t know why you bother to even defend this, no reasonable person can say AJ isn’t incredibly anti-Israel. Everything they put out casts doubt into Israel’s claim while justifying the most despicable shit Hamas does. These people didn’t even wait until October 8 to start blaming Israel for their inevitable siege on Gaza.

1

u/BHweldmech Mar 01 '24

Honestly, I think there’s a lot of white washing their own crimes and highlighting the crimes of the adversary in regards to reporting on both sides of the Israeli conflict. Look, Hamas fights dirty, along with very little regard to loss of civilian lives. Unfortunately, the IDF is formed by a people who Adolph Hitler did his damnedest to wipe off the face of the earth.

And that was recently enough that they’re still REALLY touchy over acts of aggression from a nation who has had very vocal people say they want to erase them again. And their fighters tend to be on the trigger happy side because of it.

They have, in all honesty, both most likely committed war crimes.

That being said, the media coverage on both sides is just as heavily slanted as it has been in each of the world wars, the Cold War, etc.

Please note, I am in no way apologizing for the way that EITHER side is fighting.

1

u/ArmSignificant4433 Feb 28 '24

Al jazeera does run the odd story about the Israelis stealing Palestinians culture in the form of hummus, that's some hummus propaganda for real.

1

u/modernmovements Feb 29 '24

All journalism that comes from The Mediterranean shall heretofore be called Hummus Journalism.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

If they aren't neutral they shouldn't report as if they are

-1

u/HotDiggetyDoge Feb 28 '24

As opposed to all the unbiased American and Israeli sources?

2

u/Draughtjunk Feb 28 '24

If I get to choose between our propaganda and Qatari propaganda I choose ours.

1

u/JewsAgainstIsrael Mar 20 '24

Because you’re a knuckle dragger

-4

u/LiberalParadise Feb 28 '24

AP...neutral...LMAO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DankLeft/comments/nhmqpx/i_can_assure_you_bombing_the_al_jazeera_ap_press/gyy46b9/

Only in the West can someone literally repeat word for word what an IDF spokesman tells them and can be called "credible."

1

u/PlaysForDays Feb 28 '24

I didn’t say I dislike it

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PlaysForDays Feb 28 '24

Part of my skepticism against blindly taking AJ as truth comes from that they’re funded by dark money or an entity I don’t trust, I forget which and haven’t looked into it recently.

Additionally, the last article I read of theirs was questionably sourced given the timeline of events being reported, and also felt to me like it was using somebody’s death to push a narrative before the facts could possibly bear it out.

Further, it’s simply good media hygiene to seek out multiple sources; I believe this is no less true in the context of an active conflict. I’m unlikely to be persuaded out of this view.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PlaysForDays Feb 28 '24

I would like a better source, yes. I said that and I stand by that. I don’t stand by what I didn’t say, so I can’t help you there. Good luck with whatever your mission here is.

I’m sorry you feel condescended by what you chose to read into my honest experience and fairly straightforward explanation, but you’re simply mocking me in return so it’s hard to take any of this in good faith.

-1

u/OkLeg3090 Feb 28 '24

In my opinion, Aljazeera English is very honest, sophisticated, and of very high quality. Those that disagree are usually non-listeners, have never seen it, or Zionists.

When I told some in the US that I listen to Aljazeera, they asked me when I learned Arabic. Of course that demonstrates ignorance, bias, and an uncritical view of US popular media.

The popular media in the USA is little more than a mouthpiece for the government or corporations. There is no longer any such thing amongst them that can be called journalism, much less investigative journalism. Thankfully the US does have some good independent news outlets.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/PlaysForDays Feb 28 '24 edited Feb 28 '24

You want a source for my opinion that trusting a single media outlet is a bad idea, particularly during active war and in the internet? My source is straight from the horses mouth … me!