Well, they’re wrong
They’re not. Murder has a specific definition, what’s happening in gaza is not it.
Brutal, maybe, but it’s a useless word and the editorial guidelines likely provide different words that are more applicable in a reporting context.
Soldiers sniping obviously innocent people (including women going to church, and hostages trying to escape in their underwear waving white flags) is definitely murder.
If a solider is operating on orders when killing civilians, it’s legally not murder. It’s still bad, but they will not charged by the government with murder because it was authorized by the government.
That’s what I’m saying here. There are legal definitions for these words that matter.
Ah, so it’s war crimes. I was worried there for a bit.
/sI mean, yes? Exactly? Words matter. The right words matter. Just because a group is doing something negative does not mean every negative word applies to them. That’s small brain thinking.
When you use the right words to describe a horrible action, it’s accusation and condemnation. When you use the wrong words, it just becomes name calling.
You know what else may be considered small brain thinking? Acting so pedantic over insignificant details like these, all while real people continue to die every day. The end result is the same: a mass slaughter of innocents.
But that’s just my opinion.
So because something bad happened and we’re all emotional, we’re supposed to ignore critical thinking and just go along with whatever people say that makes them feel better about the situation, regardless of if it’s correct or not? There’s a sort of merit in that I suppose, but it’s not for me.
Murder does have a specific definition, you are correct in that.
What’s happening in Gaza meets that definition, so you are wrong in that.
No it doesn’t, the government of Israel is giving the orders, and therefore it’s not murder. Governments can’t murder, there are other words that describe when a government kills people.
governments can’t murder
Funniest shit I read today, thank you
You can’t read full sentences clearly.
Do you prefer the term “war crime”?
CBC has used other words, including war crime. That’s kinda the point.
They have specific journalistic ways of describing things in many different contexts. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/governance/journalistic-standards-and-practices
It sucks that Canada doesn’t have anything like AP News. Like, just give me the facts, don’t tell me how to feel about them.
Like the Canadian Press?
Anything that tells you how to feel about things is no longer news in my view. It’s opinion pieces.
CBC’s issue is that it does not tell you how to feel. That’s the point here. Did you miss that?
And for AP news. We have … The AP.
The language that describes you is connected to the resources you have. A story as old as time.
If Hamas had an Israel-calibre military, I doubt they’d have planned the same attack as what actually occured in October.
Another example of why more and more people have less faith in traditional media.
I’m NDP, I support the CBC, I think everything should be owned and controlled by the public … I’m socially minded and that the world should be more equitable place for everyone regardless of wealth and status.
But to see the CBC dive further into this hole and it makes me wonder if the operators of this public broadcaster are the ones that actively want it to be eroded and eliminated.
If this story occured in any other part of the world with any other country other than Israel … there would be no debate and no confusion as to how to report it.
it makes me wonder if the operators of this public broadcaster are the ones that actively want it to be eroded and eliminated
IIRC, this is largely the case with the BBC and how it’s quality and relevance has diminished over the years: wolves were put in charge of the henhouse.
Eta: my point: it wouldn’t be the first time a formerly respected public broadcaster had it’s reputation undermined and (eventually) ruined. If we want to keep it, we have to get people out to vote: nothing we can do until the next election, but in the meantime, we can point to it and say “you enjoy the CBC? What about the radio version? D’you like knowing that such-and-such is a scam because of a CBC Marketplace piece?” (IIRC marketplace does those types of pieces)" and relate it to people on a personal level.
CBC took a turn many years ago, somebody in charge wanted to treat it like a private company. So they will cater to whomever pays revenue. One example: They had some great new music channels promoting new canadian artists, it got shut down after a long run because the new leader said we don’t know how many listeners we reach, and eveen with podcast downloads we don’t know how many will listen (to ads) we have no way to monetize it, etc They are no longer invested in being a public system that does good for the sake of Canada.
I miss Radio3 so much. Indie music in Canada in the 2000s-2010s was astonishingly good.
I know this is not your point, but it stood out to me with your choice of words: “I’m NDP” and “I support the CBC”
You’re just you and you support the NDP too!
I’m sure that’s what you meant anyway but it’s just interesting the way we use words of identity with political parties. Eventually those words take root and it actually becomes your identity and other people become truly others.
Perhaps “I’m NDP” is a succinct description of how a person leans in the Canadian political landscape that might be informed by decades of voting behaviour, or even personal involvement in the political sphere. Or, perhaps it is a rigid and irrational us/them orientation like how you personally have interpreted it
Regardless of how I interpreted it I’m just remarking that the use of the language stood out to me, next to “I support the CBC” after it.
Makes you think about words and how we use them and how that shapes us.
Anyway, ignore me.
I don’t think the language should have to do with the comfort of the person delivering death
-Jeff Winch, a retired professor at Humber College
Short paraphrased from that guy -remote attacks are a confortable war so it’s fine
Maybe if Hamas didn’t treat their people as expendable human shields that debate wouldn’t need to happen.
