What does this mean to you, the news consumer? It means you face an even bigger challenge itelling truth from fiction in the conflict — and, as we know, fiction is a powerful weapon in times of war.
So feel free to share the news outlets you trust. I’m finding that some of the clearest-eyed reporting and commentary is coming from Haaretz, as with their commentary on Benjamin Netanyahu.
I'm still on there, but I'm shifting over to Bluesky. Twitter remains a platform where legitimate news breaks, but you have to wade through so much crap to get to it, I'm losing interest in it.
Thank you for calling out what Xwitter has become, and for pointing the way to Haaretz. Did not know the source, but a review of their editorials tells me they're coming from a place I recognize. Of course the Hamas attacks are tragic and reprehensible, but inevitable, and will empower Netanyahu and his nationalist clique to wage the war they're been asking for. The US, in its own entitled exceptionalism and proud ignorance, has been too quick to join the jingoistic outrage. 😢
It is scary to watch from afar. There is no way to justify attacks on civilians -- from either side. It's like watching a nuclear bomb heading toward an amusement park.
I think that a lot of the online anger I'm seeing is based on an implicit and deep-buried model in which, if A and B are beefing, one of them must be "right." And so when people feel that "their side" is being accused of bad behavior, they respond in outrage that the other side is being justified.
Maybe I am misinterpreting your comment as I had a strong response to it. A friend and her extended family are Israeli and live there. What other than outrage would you expect? (I take issue with "jingoistic outrage" as immediate and genuine outrage is completely appropriate) Also, saying of course the attacks are tragic "BUT" sounds dismissive of what happened to hundreds of civilians, going about their lives, and then were murdered, terrorized and/or kidnapped. It sounds like there are excuses for terrorism. There aren't. Are there issues with Netanyahu's policies? Yes. However, nothing justifies terrorism which is intended to kill and terrorize civilians (children, elderly, everyone). It accomplishes nothing other than carnage and more carnage. We ALL should be quickly outraged at what happened. And that does not preclude us from critically watching what happens next. The innocent civilians in Gaza need protection, too.
Jac, I can try to clarify. By "reprehensible," I mean unacceptable and I do not excuse or justify it. By "but inevitable," I mean it came in response to real events that some Palestinians find equally reprehensible and unbearable. By "jingoistic" I mean irrationally extreme, violent nationalism - and I was referring explicitly to the US, not to Israel. I describe it that way because the primary response I am seeing, especially from our political leaders, is entirely one-sided. These attacks are only one-sided if we ignore the history that preceded them. These terrorist attacks did not come out of nowhere, they came from here: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/10/1204873146/what-is-gaza-strip. As of this morning, the death toll is about 1,000 on each side as Israel begins bombing Gaza into crumbs and lining up its troops; I do not see any protection or exceptions for innocent civilians in Gaza. I also have friends and family with connections to Israel and even to the holocaust; I do not expect them to have a balanced view of this narrative, either.
I think I understand what you are saying. However, terrorist attacks always have history that precedes them. This situation is not unique in that way. The terrorists believe they are justified. While they may have legitimate reasons for wanting to force change, their methods of murdering, torturing, kidnapping, and terrorizing civilians (& even children!) are not ever justified. There aren't really two sides on that. I support that the US should have a clear response to terrorism - that it is not ever okay. Though it's hard to untangle, the denouncement of terrorist acts really should be separate from other issue discussions on the region. The two discussions can happen separately, but really should not be used as justification of the other.
Though it doesn't happen often, first hand, on the ground accounts are helpful. Hearing what they and their neighbors are seeing and experiencing helps me understand a situtation more deeply.
Precisely. Everyone? Thank you for the insight and thank you for sharing your sources. I'm always looking and I don't want to get stagnant in the sources I trust. Sometimes? Sources go south.
Susannah George, Washington Post's gulf bureau chief, also has excellent reporting. She also is sometimes interviewed by NPR. I heard her today, speaking from Jerusalem.
I think that's right, Susan. I also think before people decide how they feel about all of this they should read about the history of the region. I would recommend The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi. Just as a start.
WNYC Radio's show "On the Media" provides "Breaking News Consumer's Handbooks" on a number of issues. This one on terrorism is an excellent guideline for the current situation in the Middle East:
I also read Prof Heather Cox Richardson's letter as well as read a few articles from the NYTimes, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post, and watch some CNN. And of course read here.
There is too much for me to keep track of though so I miss a lot. I have a Twitter account but rarely look at it. Thanks for sharing Haaretz. I'll check it out.
Ok appreciate ABC and David Muir covering both sides of this war. The innocent people in Gaza and fearing for their lives as well and can’t escape. I pray for them all.
Important to know your sources but ask yourself before deleting if you are deleting a source just because you do not like some of the truth they are reporting.
I have found thie site below giving good reports you will not see in MSM.
Not a news outlet per se, but Dartmouth College held a public forum last night that was available to watch on livestream; part two will be at 5 pm tomorrow night (Thurs the 12th). No need to register in advance; go to www.dartmouth.edu and scroll down to find the forum info. They recorded the first part and will hopefully post at some point for viewing.
I continue to rely on Prof. Heather Cox Richardson's daily Letter for a distillation of events and sources.
I still have a Twitter/X account, but this could be the week I finally delete it.
I'm still on there, but I'm shifting over to Bluesky. Twitter remains a platform where legitimate news breaks, but you have to wade through so much crap to get to it, I'm losing interest in it.
The Guardian and Al Jazeera are great sources. NYT is so one-sided pro Israel it’s deplorable WaPo has been reliable up to know
Agree
I find conflict journalist Robert Evans extremely helpful when it comes to assessing and validating information. He doesn't seem to be covering this conflict personally, and I doubt he'll leave the US to do so-- but here's a helpful guide to caution concerning online commentary about Israel/Hamas/Palestine: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-it-could-happen-here-30717896/episode/watching-war-behind-a-screen-125258608/
Oooh, good one.
Thank you for calling out what Xwitter has become, and for pointing the way to Haaretz. Did not know the source, but a review of their editorials tells me they're coming from a place I recognize. Of course the Hamas attacks are tragic and reprehensible, but inevitable, and will empower Netanyahu and his nationalist clique to wage the war they're been asking for. The US, in its own entitled exceptionalism and proud ignorance, has been too quick to join the jingoistic outrage. 😢
It is scary to watch from afar. There is no way to justify attacks on civilians -- from either side. It's like watching a nuclear bomb heading toward an amusement park.
I think that a lot of the online anger I'm seeing is based on an implicit and deep-buried model in which, if A and B are beefing, one of them must be "right." And so when people feel that "their side" is being accused of bad behavior, they respond in outrage that the other side is being justified.
It's exhausting.
Maybe I am misinterpreting your comment as I had a strong response to it. A friend and her extended family are Israeli and live there. What other than outrage would you expect? (I take issue with "jingoistic outrage" as immediate and genuine outrage is completely appropriate) Also, saying of course the attacks are tragic "BUT" sounds dismissive of what happened to hundreds of civilians, going about their lives, and then were murdered, terrorized and/or kidnapped. It sounds like there are excuses for terrorism. There aren't. Are there issues with Netanyahu's policies? Yes. However, nothing justifies terrorism which is intended to kill and terrorize civilians (children, elderly, everyone). It accomplishes nothing other than carnage and more carnage. We ALL should be quickly outraged at what happened. And that does not preclude us from critically watching what happens next. The innocent civilians in Gaza need protection, too.
Jac, I can try to clarify. By "reprehensible," I mean unacceptable and I do not excuse or justify it. By "but inevitable," I mean it came in response to real events that some Palestinians find equally reprehensible and unbearable. By "jingoistic" I mean irrationally extreme, violent nationalism - and I was referring explicitly to the US, not to Israel. I describe it that way because the primary response I am seeing, especially from our political leaders, is entirely one-sided. These attacks are only one-sided if we ignore the history that preceded them. These terrorist attacks did not come out of nowhere, they came from here: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/10/1204873146/what-is-gaza-strip. As of this morning, the death toll is about 1,000 on each side as Israel begins bombing Gaza into crumbs and lining up its troops; I do not see any protection or exceptions for innocent civilians in Gaza. I also have friends and family with connections to Israel and even to the holocaust; I do not expect them to have a balanced view of this narrative, either.
I think I understand what you are saying. However, terrorist attacks always have history that precedes them. This situation is not unique in that way. The terrorists believe they are justified. While they may have legitimate reasons for wanting to force change, their methods of murdering, torturing, kidnapping, and terrorizing civilians (& even children!) are not ever justified. There aren't really two sides on that. I support that the US should have a clear response to terrorism - that it is not ever okay. Though it's hard to untangle, the denouncement of terrorist acts really should be separate from other issue discussions on the region. The two discussions can happen separately, but really should not be used as justification of the other.
I know you aren't saying the attacks were justified. I'm just not on board with two sides when discussing terrorist acts.
Though it doesn't happen often, first hand, on the ground accounts are helpful. Hearing what they and their neighbors are seeing and experiencing helps me understand a situtation more deeply.
Precisely. Everyone? Thank you for the insight and thank you for sharing your sources. I'm always looking and I don't want to get stagnant in the sources I trust. Sometimes? Sources go south.
Susannah George, Washington Post's gulf bureau chief, also has excellent reporting. She also is sometimes interviewed by NPR. I heard her today, speaking from Jerusalem.
Susannah George named gulf bureau chief
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2023/08/28/susannah-george-named-gulf-bureau-chief/
I think that's right, Susan. I also think before people decide how they feel about all of this they should read about the history of the region. I would recommend The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi. Just as a start.
WNYC Radio's show "On the Media" provides "Breaking News Consumer's Handbooks" on a number of issues. This one on terrorism is an excellent guideline for the current situation in the Middle East:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-terrorism-edition
This is really helpful. Thank you.
I also read Prof Heather Cox Richardson's letter as well as read a few articles from the NYTimes, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post, and watch some CNN. And of course read here.
There is too much for me to keep track of though so I miss a lot. I have a Twitter account but rarely look at it. Thanks for sharing Haaretz. I'll check it out.
It looks like you have to subscribe. Darn. I already have more subscriptions than I can handle.
I forgot to mention the Hartford Courant above. I occasionally read that, too.
Ok appreciate ABC and David Muir covering both sides of this war. The innocent people in Gaza and fearing for their lives as well and can’t escape. I pray for them all.
I not “Ok”
Important to know your sources but ask yourself before deleting if you are deleting a source just because you do not like some of the truth they are reporting.
I have found thie site below giving good reports you will not see in MSM.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/un-israel-gaza
"Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman can be heard on some Ct Public radio stations like WESU 88.1FM Middletown Wesleyan University at noon weekdays. Or at
https://m.youtube.com/@DemocracyNow
Ralph Nader Radio Hour and a member of the Advisory board of Veterans for Peace National. Also can be heard on WESU 88.1 FM Middletown
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/proxy-wars-america-run-amok#details
Not a news outlet per se, but Dartmouth College held a public forum last night that was available to watch on livestream; part two will be at 5 pm tomorrow night (Thurs the 12th). No need to register in advance; go to www.dartmouth.edu and scroll down to find the forum info. They recorded the first part and will hopefully post at some point for viewing.
Aren’t you dating Jesus anymore?
Yes. I am. Does that preclude me from following the news?