Murdered vs died.

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social

Shameful! Thanks for sharing.

Another example. Important to recognize and call these out as we see them. Language matters. So do journalistic standards.

One more

Another

Do better BBC.

Well done sky news 🤦🏻‍♀️

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1744414371348902297

@Desertrose2023 "males who may be children". Just wow.

Good that more and more are starting to call out the pseudo language in reference to the description of incidents relating to the conflict

@Puppalicious absolutely.

I do think killed would be better than the passive died.

The UK would not have been justified, no. It’s not a great analogy though - for it to have been the equivalent, the IRA would have had to have killed over 7k people in one day, including brutal rape and the killing of children, and would have to be the governing authority of NI. I would expect that there would be a fairly severe reaction if say an Irish government backed armed force invaded the UK and shot, raped and killed thousands in one day. Attacks of the level of the IRA terrorist acts in the UK would be quite frequent in Israel.

@Desertrose2023
It’s true. And people do notice - however, it can be difficult to articulate the sense that something isn’t right. So it’s great to see that people are writing about it and giving specific examples as this sort of bias needs to be pointed out and recorded so that younger generations can see how they’re being manipulated.

Another example that shows how the media chooses to frame this conflict compared to others.

The issue extends much wider than the BBC. It’s one across all media and it needs to stop. The killing of Palestinians needs to be called out clearly.

The BBC and some of the other media are terrible about the words they use or refuse to use in general when talking about either side.

There have been protests at different times from both pro groups outside the BBC about the words or the way they angle a story. Sometimes it is them trying to keep there own journalists around the world safe. However other times it is definitely an agenda or politics. They are supposed to stay natural but I think depending on who is editing and who the journalist reporting is that angles a story a certain way. Then they are decisions from above that mean they can only use certain words for certain situations.

Just get rid of your watch instantly type TV programme viewing, then you don't need a TV licence. This means you won't be paying the BBC to act like the god of world wide news anymore

This is nasty stuff. We can all see it but it’s helpful to see it articulated so clearly and with dates and names and written records.

It sounds the language might be correct in the end - the Israeli number was murdered. It was a clear intention, person by person, no doubt about the verb here.

The overall number of Gazans died, some of them were killed and some of those were murdered. It is unclear what is the ratio - both from "severity" and from "guilt" point of view.
(I suppose some proportion was murdered by IDF members, but it doesn't make sense to say that about the whole number).

an interesting article on the use of language in the context of Israel and Palestine.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/language-israel-gaza-palestine/

Yeah, and that condition has not been met in regards to Gaza. It is as I mentioned you have to be under current threat of lethal force in order to be able to return fire on a civilian target. HTH.

I don’t think the intent requirement is met nor the level of civilian death that would indicate intent.

The word "murder" is a legal term, with a very specific meaning, and I think it's pretty obvious why the BBC can't just decide to refer to killings in Gaza as "murder". This doesn't mean that I'm "perfectly OK" with innocent children being killed, just because I'm not using the word "murder".

It may well be the case that a number of those killings will, in the fullness of time, be proven to be murders, at which point the BBC will be able to refer to them as such.

@Hellenika

So as per the UN definition in an earlier post genocide means committing acts with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by for example killing members of that group.

Now Russia is firing missiles at Kiev with the intent of killing Ukrainians in part (not all of them) because they are Ukrainians - ie based on their nationality. This meets the UN definition of genocide.

The same logic can be applied against Ukraine attacking Russians civilians in Sevastopol.

But actually it is possible to fool a lot of people, isn’t it? I’m still waiting for all that extra cash for the NHS to arrive on a Brexit bus.

That article actually spells out the conditions under which medical facilities may be made targets:

”The protection to which medical units and transports are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit hostile acts outside of their humanitarian function. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given, setting—whenever appropriate—a reasonable time limit, and after such a warning has remained unheeded.” (Emphasis my own)