• cmeu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.

    The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.

    So I guess the point I’m trying to make is that you’re admonishing “Western” media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.

    The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I’m pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the “free” press.

      In this case something like “ooohh too bad the court didn’t give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!” while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.

      I can’t read newspapers without getting super angry lol