No they posted his name so his identity was verified, they were just not sure about his motivations." Let’s check that quote
My name is Aaron Bushnell. I am an active-duty member of the US Air Force, and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest — but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.
Free Palestine
Geez this is all so vague, we only heard his name!
Let’s write an article about it not mention anything else from the video!
I mean, him stating a name and his motivations and verifying that it was indeed this man and those were his motives are two different things.
I like journalism that verifies statements. Is there a man by that name and is he deceased? If the answer to those questions had been “no”, it would have been an entirely different story.
Actually, I spent about 5 minutes looking for it earlier but then remembered I don’t really need to expose myself to it. If it had just popped up in front of me, I’d have seen it.
Maybe you don’t use the internet like the average person does, so your experience is different from theirs?
We want journalists to be honest about what they have and haven’t verified. And if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better to be quiet about it, so your quote of “while unverified, we have received some reports of decapitated babies in one of the areas attacked” doesn’t turn into “decapitated babies found in areas attacked by Hamas.”
And yes, I deliberately chose a recent and relevant example of something that actually happened and was used to justify Israel’s response early on.
You open Mastodon or Twitter, type in his name, and it pops up. Not difficult.
The beheaded babies example is particularly bad because it shows how actual journalistic standards go out of the window when israel makes a claim.
There was no video or picture evidence of the beheaded babies
“Journalists” did quote the claims directly
“Journalists” suddenly had no problem using the words “alleged” or “suspected” to cover themselves during a developing story
Relies on the most well known propaganda source in the world
Manufactures consent for israel. which is why it did reach front page of every single newspaper despite being a lie.
Journalists can’t use the “journalistic integrity” cover for everything that is anti-israel while simultaneously barraging us with “IDF says Hamas tunnel network under hospital X” every single day without any evidence.
That is reports of widespread sexual violence in the Hamas attack that started this latest conflict. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, says the U.N. has been too slow to speak out.
GILAD ERDAN: Sadly, the very international bodies that are supposedly the defenders of all women showed that when it comes to Israelis, indifference is acceptable.
You’re cherry-picking stories if that’s how you’re classifying NPRs coverage. I’m on their site now and searched Gaza…1st 2 stories that come up are about the Michigan voters and the potential cease-fire…makes sense as those are the American-centic stories. Then we get into a story about children starving to death that unequivocally states that Israel tanks were shooting aid trucks and groups of civilians trying to get that aid. Then, a story about a nurse with Doctors without borders who was in one of their shelters when Israel opened fire on them. Again, there is no equivocation.
You are cherry picking stories. Even the newest NPR version of this article is propaganda as it uses the word “war” instead of Genocide at the very top of the article, literally twisting Aarons words and lying.
Would you have been happier if they said “a protest against Israel’s ‘genocide’”?
They weren’t quoting him directly in that first sentence, and regardless of how any of us feel about it personally, the ICC said this isn’t genocide. Personally, I also feel it’s a genocide, but if I said that in an article I wrote, it would be an opinion piece because, when it comes to committing crimes, the western world has generally agreed on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we prove that guilt in courts of law.
I noticed you didn’t link to the actual article. I’m assuming at this point, based on your posting history and this interaction, that it was a deliberate choice on your part to use a screenshot instead because 4 sentences later, the same article states, "Leadinf up to the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he ‘will no longer be complicit in genocide.’ Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling “Free Palestine!”’
Makes it seem like you’re not arguing in good faith, which makes me want to disengage with you at this point.
No they posted his name so his identity was verified, they were just not sure about his motivations." Let’s check that quote
Geez this is all so vague, we only heard his name!
Let’s write an article about it not mention anything else from the video!
I mean, him stating a name and his motivations and verifying that it was indeed this man and those were his motives are two different things.
I like journalism that verifies statements. Is there a man by that name and is he deceased? If the answer to those questions had been “no”, it would have been an entirely different story.
He was screaming “Free Palestine” while on fire. On video. A first party source.
There is zero nuance here.
The fact that the last paragraph referenced israeli hostages is the final nail in the coffin fully proving the intentions of this article.
Stop giving these propaganda writers the benefit of the doubt. It’s very clear that consent for genocide is being manufactured.
I can scream Free Palestine and announce that I am the Pope while doing so. That doesn’t make it true.
His motives
Turns out some people aren’t terminally online to see every video before it’s taken down.
Turns out the video was reposted a gazillion times everywhere after being taken down and it was practically impossible to avoid it.
Actually, I spent about 5 minutes looking for it earlier but then remembered I don’t really need to expose myself to it. If it had just popped up in front of me, I’d have seen it.
Maybe you don’t use the internet like the average person does, so your experience is different from theirs?
We want journalists to be honest about what they have and haven’t verified. And if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better to be quiet about it, so your quote of “while unverified, we have received some reports of decapitated babies in one of the areas attacked” doesn’t turn into “decapitated babies found in areas attacked by Hamas.”
And yes, I deliberately chose a recent and relevant example of something that actually happened and was used to justify Israel’s response early on.
You open Mastodon or Twitter, type in his name, and it pops up. Not difficult.
The beheaded babies example is particularly bad because it shows how actual journalistic standards go out of the window when israel makes a claim.
Journalists can’t use the “journalistic integrity” cover for everything that is anti-israel while simultaneously barraging us with “IDF says Hamas tunnel network under hospital X” every single day without any evidence.
Let’s not forget NPR has been heavily pushing IDF propaganda for the last few months as well, directly pushing the Hamas rape story: Israel demands U.N. investigate charges of sexual violence by Hamas fighters
You’re cherry-picking stories if that’s how you’re classifying NPRs coverage. I’m on their site now and searched Gaza…1st 2 stories that come up are about the Michigan voters and the potential cease-fire…makes sense as those are the American-centic stories. Then we get into a story about children starving to death that unequivocally states that Israel tanks were shooting aid trucks and groups of civilians trying to get that aid. Then, a story about a nurse with Doctors without borders who was in one of their shelters when Israel opened fire on them. Again, there is no equivocation.
You are cherry picking stories. Even the newest NPR version of this article is propaganda as it uses the word “war” instead of Genocide at the very top of the article, literally twisting Aarons words and lying.
Would you have been happier if they said “a protest against Israel’s ‘genocide’”?
They weren’t quoting him directly in that first sentence, and regardless of how any of us feel about it personally, the ICC said this isn’t genocide. Personally, I also feel it’s a genocide, but if I said that in an article I wrote, it would be an opinion piece because, when it comes to committing crimes, the western world has generally agreed on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we prove that guilt in courts of law.
I noticed you didn’t link to the actual article. I’m assuming at this point, based on your posting history and this interaction, that it was a deliberate choice on your part to use a screenshot instead because 4 sentences later, the same article states, "Leadinf up to the incident, Bushnell said in the video that he ‘will no longer be complicit in genocide.’ Later, as he burned in front of the Israeli Embassy, Bushnell could be seen on the livestream yelling “Free Palestine!”’
Makes it seem like you’re not arguing in good faith, which makes me want to disengage with you at this point.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/25/1233810136/fire-man-israeli-embassy-washington
Yes.
NPR said that according to Aaron’s social media post this is a “war” not a “Genocide” which is a lie.
If you check the archive.org link you’ll notice that they 100% did not publish the name at that time.
You’ll also notice this bit at the bottom: