“Three U.S. C-130 cargo planes dropped 66 total bundles, equating to about 38,000 pork-free meals, into the territory on Saturday morning. The bundles were split between three planes, the official said.”
“The airdrop is expected to be the first of many announced by President Joe Biden on Friday. The aid will be coordinated with Jordan, which has also conducted airdrops to deliver food to Gaza.”
How is quoting someone/thing “uncritically accepting their narrative”? They’re telling you what Israel said. It’s up to you to believe it or not, but it’s journalistic malpractice to just not report the alleged justification from one of the parties involved. What are you asking for, exactly?
Because it doesn’t include the other widely reported quotes about 80% of victims being injured by gunfire not crush injuries.
Selection and omission of quotes is absolutely a form of bias.
If it isn’t evidenced it’s not a fact. If it’s not a fact you’re editorialising.
There are sometimes reasons not to evidence a statement. But a disputed statement is not something which should get included in a news article.
I mean, I’m with you that omitting context on this developing situation is inappropriate, but that’s not what we were discussing. You’re right, the statement is disputed, but it is a fact that it is the statement they have made. Journalists have a responsibility to report the facts to you, and that’s what we currently have from one of the major parties involved. And your last take regarding disputed statements not being covered just makes no sense. Literally all political coverage would be unethical under that framework. I have a right to know the batshit insane things powerful people are saying and it’s up to me to draw my own conclusions from the facts and perspectives provided.