Guards at Israel’s notorious Sde Teiman torture camp have admitted their colleagues use dogs to rape Palestinian captives there, according to a prominent Israeli analyst.
“geopolitical expert” it says. Here’s his Google scholar page. Seems legit. I mean I guess he is still “a guy on twitter”, in that he has a Twitter account
Obscure self styled human rights organizations are often used to launder information and give it more credibility. This isn’t HRW, Amnesty, or B’Tselem. They aren’t perfect either, but more credible.
Novara Media is a socialist news organization, so they definitely have a bias, but their informational reporting is no less credible than the BBC or Guardian. They have a decently large presence in the UK.
Why would their factual reporting not be reliable? Their core audience is extremely well educated who would not tolerate blatant falsehoods like right-wing tabloid audiences do.
And yet, everybody smashed upvote on this rage bait without reading it. Education and wealth only gets you so far.
TBF they didn’t really make direct factual claims here, they just quoted the sources, so even if it’s not true it’s not a lie. I’m not sure how often Fox News just straight up lies either.
You’re wrong. I’ve been reading/listening to Novara every day for over five years. They are left wing in opinion, and 100% factual in their reporting. They are more responsible about correcting errors than the BBC or the Guardian. As the other response, I would have ditched them at any point if I found them to be dishonest.
“Source I’ve never seen claims someone on Twitter heard something outrageous from an anonymous source”
Did this happen? Maybe. Is this upvoted solely because of people’s pre-existing biases? Yup.
I can offer up a story on it from a British Business magazine, if the Novara source seems biased or uncredible.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/un-report-systematic-sexual-violence-israeli-detention-1792474
Cool, thanks.
One source appears to be the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. It says in the article.
The analyst in “says analyst” was a guy on Twitter.
It is mentioned that PCHR recorded similar testimony from a Palestinian source later on.
Again, maybe, maybe not.
“geopolitical expert” it says. Here’s his Google scholar page. Seems legit. I mean I guess he is still “a guy on twitter”, in that he has a Twitter account
Where did they get the information from?
Obscure self styled human rights organizations are often used to launder information and give it more credibility. This isn’t HRW, Amnesty, or B’Tselem. They aren’t perfect either, but more credible.
They got the information from someone who was raped by a dog. It says in the article.
Honestly, I hope this one is fake. It’s fucked up if real.
Novara Media is a socialist news organization, so they definitely have a bias, but their informational reporting is no less credible than the BBC or Guardian. They have a decently large presence in the UK.
X to doubt.
Why would their factual reporting not be reliable? Their core audience is extremely well educated who would not tolerate blatant falsehoods like right-wing tabloid audiences do.
And yet, everybody smashed upvote on this rage bait without reading it. Education and wealth only gets you so far.
TBF they didn’t really make direct factual claims here, they just quoted the sources, so even if it’s not true it’s not a lie. I’m not sure how often Fox News just straight up lies either.
Fox News lies often. And the BBC does this kind of thing all the time.
You’re wrong. I’ve been reading/listening to Novara every day for over five years. They are left wing in opinion, and 100% factual in their reporting. They are more responsible about correcting errors than the BBC or the Guardian. As the other response, I would have ditched them at any point if I found them to be dishonest.
Ragebait works on everyone. You just need to know what buttons to push.