Edited footage of protesters chanting "gas the Jews" at a rally outside the Sydney Opera House in October was shared on social media, but NSW Police said an extensive investigation found no evidence of it happening.

Edited footage of protesters chanting “gas the Jews” at a rally outside the Sydney Opera House in October was shared on social media, but NSW Police said an extensive investigation found no evidence of it happening.

  • ABCDE@lemmy.worldEnglish
    146·
    10 months ago

    Israeli investigators say

    There was a very quick narrative formed around the supposed rape of children which shifted the Overton window significantly for even moderates in Israel.

    An investigation isn’t evidence of it. Both links are paywalled by the way.

    • breakfastmtnEnglish
      79·
      10 months ago

      I assume you mean the Times articles (there are 5 links in that post). Edited to add archive links to those two articles.

      An investigation isn’t evidence of it.

      From the large investigation article:

      A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

      Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.

      Photos, videos, GPS data, witnesses, and expert testimony are evidence.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        10 months ago

        No it was fully debunked. The Intercept posted about it recently. Even NYT employees don’t believe it anymore.

        https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-podcast-camera/

        The guys who actually debunked it two months ago are not allowed to be posted here because they’re more pro Russia. All my posts about it got removed back then. They are maximum censored.

        While I don’t agree with their Russia stance their Palestine research has been spot on so far. But here’s a random YouTube video https://youtu.be/paDjsRkhc28

        • breakfastmtnEnglish
          33·
          10 months ago

          Them pausing a podcast to investigate claims isn’t them not believing in it. The Times regularly publishes corrections and have issued one about that article regarding a person’s age. And that’s after further investigation. It’s not surprising that they didn’t air it afterward – it’s a daily podcast that discusses the most important news stories of the previous few days. I listen to that podcast and I can’t recall them ever covering something that was months old.

          The ‘guys’ who “actually debunked it” – an anonymous author publishing at a propaganda outlet – are a bunch of fucking liars, which is why it was banned to begin with. The Times followed up with that family:

          The Times article described the case of Gal Abdush, a mother of two who was killed along with her husband after fleeing the rave, and her family’s anguish over the uncertainty. Based on video of how her body was found, Israeli police officials said they believed she had been raped, and some members of the Abdush family said they feared the same.

          “It seems to me, and I really hope I’m wrong,” said Zvika Alter, a brother-in-law, in early December, “that she was raped.”

          Since the publication of the Times article, a few family members have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed. Critics have also seized on an Instagram comment by Miral Alter, Zvika’s wife and one of Ms. Abdush’s sisters, suggesting that The Times misled the family about the focus of the article.

          Ms. Alter, whom The Times had not interviewed before the article was published, deleted the comment shortly after posting it. But critics circulated images of it to assert falsely that the family had renounced the article.

          Last week, Ms. Alter told the Times that she was upset her post had been used to question whether Hamas sexually assaulted women and that when she made it, she had been “confused about what happened” and was trying to “protect my sister.”

          After this was published, the propaganda outlet corrected “minor typographical errors” but mentioned nothing about the family calling them liars, disputing the thesis and headline of their article. It’s been five days since that story was published. They didn’t mention that she quickly deleted her post to begin with or contact her to ask why. They didn’t mention that she was upset that they had used her comment to help cover up horrific sexual violence. They are exploiting a grieving family to promote a false narrative. Those intrepid, upstanding anonymous reporters at propaganda rags!

          That article is an object lesson in why you shouldn’t fish “news” out of the toilet.

          Archive

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            53·
            10 months ago

            Are you calling The Intercept toilet news?

            Internal critics worry that the article is another “Caliphate”-level journalistic debacle “There seems to be no self-awareness at the top,” said one frustrated Times editorial staffer. “The story deserved more fact-checking and much more reporting. All basic standards applied to countless other stories.”

            critics have highlighted major discrepanciesin the accounts presented in the Times, subsequent public comments from the family of a major subject of the article denouncing it, and comments from a key witness in a new tab seeming to contradict a claim attributed to him in the article.

            New York Times was using ZAKA as evidence, The guys who made up the 40 beheaded babies.

            You prominently feature testimony by Yossi Landau, Southern Commander of the ZAKA organization.

            Were you aware, as (censored site) documented, that Landau’s previous claims of having seen beheaded babies and a fetus cut from a dead woman’s womb on October 7 have been discredited not only by the Israeli newspaper by Haaretz, but by the Biden White House, which retracted the president’s claim that he had seen photographs of beheaded babies? In fact, only one baby is recorded among those killed on October 7, which means any claim to have seen multiple dead babies must be dismissed out of hand.

            Go read the original article debunking NYT. It’s not some random with wild claims. Everything is backed up with links and videos. “Screams without proof”.

            More and more reporters are coming out right now backing it up.

            • breakfastmtnEnglish
              24·
              10 months ago

              I’m calling the propaganda outlet I’m not naming a toilet. Are you even reading my posts?

              The 40 beheaded babies claim is a long-debunked myth and a claim never made by either the Israeli government or the IDF. It began and spread on social media.

              The unsupported claim about dozens of child beheadings gained traction after live news reports from Nicole Zedeck, a correspondent for Israel-based i24NEWS, who was reporting from the scene of an attack near the Israel-Gaza border. In videos the news service posted to X on Oct. 10, Zedeck said Israeli soldiers told her what they witnessed.

              In one clip, she said “about 40 babies at least,” who were dead, according to a commander, “were taken out on gurneys.” In another clip, she said babies had “their heads cut off, they said” – but she never mentioned a number.

              The claim about “40 babies beheaded” appears to be a combination of those two separate details that Zedeck relayed during the live broadcasts. She did not make that claim herself, as the social media video wrongly asserts.

              That Intercept article is hyperbolic and editorializes like crazy. The Daily “going to press” on a single episode with something that could be proven untrue after further investigation is nothing like Caliphate except for it being a podcast. Caliphate was a feature 12-episode documentary series that had serious reporting errors. Comparing those two things is NY Post-level tabloid reporting. It was reasonable for them not to record it but the Times’ follow-up report says that they confirmed their initial reporting and debunked the propaganda article. The only issue left in that article is one witness – and, again, they interviewed 150 people for that investigation – who later said that he couldn’t be sure if it was Hamas or non-Hamas Palestinians who committed sex crimes because civilians crossed over after the military collapsed. He didn’t change his story about what he saw. That doesn’t dramatically change the reporting, let alone “debunk” it.

              Go read the original article debunking NYT.

              I literally just told you why that article is bullshit in the last post. The family that is the focus of that article disputes the article. They DO NOT renounce the article. They DO NOT believe that they were misled. Miral Alter wrote a post because she was confused and wanted to protect her sister. She quickly took it down, a detail the article omitted when they published it anyway. They didn’t contact her to find out why she had removed it because they didn’t care if they were misrepresenting her. She’s upset that they used her to construct a false narrative about sexual violence. In spite of this, they haven’t issued a correction or retraction. The headline and subheading of that article are both the polar opposite of the truth. But they don’t care. The point was constructing that false narrative, not telling the truth. That’s why they have a terrible reputation. That’s why the article was removed whenever it was posted. It’s garbage.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                32·
                10 months ago

                I think you’re talking about the initial Mondoweiss article which purely focused on Miral. That was bad for NYT but not nearly as extensive.

                Around a week after that “Lies without proof” dropped which NUKED The New York Times article proving many key “witnesses” were lying ZAKA style. Another example:

                You describe a 24-year-old accountant identified as “Sapir” as “one of the Israeli police’s key witnesses.”

                Yet one of Sapir’s key claims undermines the rest of her testimony. According to the Times, “she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.”

                Given that no record exists of women being beheaded on October 7, why did you include this claim from Sapir? Does such an assertion not undermine her credibility and raise doubts about the rest of her testimony? And why, at minimum, did you not mention that there is no forensic evidence to support Sapir’s claim?

                I urge you to read the Lies without proof article. It’s damning for NYT.

                • breakfastmtnEnglish
                  22·
                  10 months ago

                  That is from a source even worse than the first. They are liars and propagandists. That’s the reason no one credible is reporting it. They’re known for publishing propaganda, conspiracies, and fraudulent claims.

                  Everyone “debunking” this has a reputation for publishing lies. But you don’t seem to draw any conclusions from the fact that every place you find this “proof” turns out to be a toilet. You don’t believe it because they’re credible people making credible claims but because they’re telling you what you want to hear.

                  If there were credible claims they would be EVERYWHERE. It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writing for the New York fucking Times. The story would be bigger than the original. Look up the Jayson Blair scandal. Dozens of news organizations were still talking about it more than a decade later.

                  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    32·
                    10 months ago

                    Nice you didn’t address any of the posted evidence debunking NYT. Even quoted some for you. But you quickly ignored it.

                    Quick dodge on that one. Result to the classic adhom.

                    Even people working at NYT are less in denial than you.

                    Their podcast gets broadcasted nationwide on radio, it’s a pretty big deal if even those people are saying “yeah that rape article was fake”.