Comment by DoreenMichele

Comment by DoreenMichele 2 days ago

1 reply

It's extremely hard to say anything meaningful about anything and try to be PC without sounding like you are "lauding" something when you are merely reporting it. Furthermore, journalism isn't what it used to be. Newspapers are dying and can't afford staff writers like they once did and a lot of so-called "journalism" these days is written by some underpaid freelancer who doesn't actually have any particular expertise for that kind of writing and may not even be particularly good at writing diplomatically for an extremely diverse global audience which is quite challenging to do.

The Internet fundamentally changed a lot of things and we still haven't sorted out all the bugs it caused in a system that was never perfect but worked better when your audience was more limited, among other things.

Just stating clearly you see this as terrorism while indicating your sources say Israel is behind it but you can't prove it is a potential legal minefield for the publication, so the writer likely was explicitly told they absolutely could not make both assertions in the same piece.

I took too long to write this and I can no longer post it as a reply to the now flagged dead comment which inspired it.

Edit: it's also a dupe and this headline looks more hn neutral:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580205

nradov 2 days ago

You seem to be confused about the legal issues. For a newspaper to state that they "see" something as terrorism (regardless of whether it really is terrorism) is absolutely a protected opinion under the 1st Amendment, and libel and slander statutes. This is settled law with zero ambiguity. The NY Times gets sued frequently and the editors don't self censor over imaginary concerns about frivolous lawsuits.