Top Tweets for #journalisticmalpractice
@BrianCox_RLTW @Ostrov_A @SpencerGuard @HausdorffMedia @willchamberlain @EVKontorovich @kikas6652 @CotlerWunsh @MarkGoldfeder @ElliotMalin @Deb4Empowerment I would like to see such a clean evisceration of #journalisticmalpractice every single time it pops up. It's lovely to behold. Alas, there are only so many hours in a day lol.
Do yourself a favor & set aside 3 minutes (when you get a chance) to watch this insightful clip from @Erin_Molan on rampant #journalisticmalpractice following the Al-Ahli hospital "massacre" in #Gaza on Oct 17, 2023.
Why now, nearly 3 years later? Simple. Because the widespread, systemic failures of MSM when covering content related to armed conflict - ESPECIALLY that conflict - continue to plague news coverage still today.
And IF the media took our standards & practices seriously, IF we were honest with ourselves & our audiences about our role as a source of information for the public good in democratic (Western) society, IF we were worthy of our audience's trust, THIS incident would have inspired a reckoning across the media as an industry.
HOW could we have gotten this coverage so wrong? HOW could we fail so miserably at implementing our own standards & practices (by whichever name a particular outlet uses to refer to those)? WHAT was the impact of our failures on our audience's understanding of the events that transpired, AND on the military organization (@IDF) that took the blame for the "massacre"?
Perhaps most importantly of all, WHAT can we do - individually as journalists & as a profession in general - to earn our audience's trust back AND take measures to ensure we don't continue making these same mistakes over & over & over & over again?
Here's the thing. That reckoning ... never happened. Still to this day.
That's what Erin explains - with precision - in this clip, and that's why you should take the time to watch AND to carry her message with you.
Folks who have been engaged with my content irl & here @X may recall I covered this incident quite comprehensively on Lawfire @DukeLawNatSec back in Dec 2023. That post (in 2 parts) focuses on how the language of international law is misrepresented & distorted to influence public opinion in a specific direction - here, to stigmatize @Israel in order to build (geo)political pressure for an arms embargo by traditionally the closest partners/allies of ๐ฎ๐ฑ.
Sound familiar? It should. That same global #legaldisinformation campaign is still being waged to this day. And the primary vector now, as it was then, is misguided news media coverage.
That's why I was moved to highlight Erin's clip from earlier today @HonestReporting tonight (local). Yes, we're still talking about a "massacre" that occurred well over 2 years ago now. But the systemic failures that led to rampant journalist malpractice then still have not been addressed (as Erin points out), AND the gap in knowledge related to international law involving armed conflict that so colossally led MSM astray on that incident still hasn't been corrected.
In essence, we're still living in the same feedback loop of incident, misinformed media coverage, misguided "analysis" from "expert" sources, and the resulting widespread distortions in public opinion still today.
I suggested back then (Dec 2023) that law - rather than the truth - is now the first casualty of war. That is an observation I stand behind still today - more fervently if anything.
We still have much to learn & study & correct when it comes to how public perception is shaped, distorted & manipulated by incompetent (eg @nytimes @washingtonpost @CNN @BBCWorld etc) & even nefarious (looking at you @AJEnglish @DropSiteNews @MiddleEastEye @zeteo_news @SkyNews etc) news coverage of armed conflict - especially when int'l law is involved and ESPECIALLY when ๐ฎ๐ฑ is as well.
H/t to Erin Molan & Honest Reporting for maintaining focus on the moment of reckoning in coverage of Gaza that ... wasn't, and for continuing to hold the MEDIA to account as we imagine (incorrectly) that we're doing our job in holding POWER to account. ๐ฉ๐
Today, information moves faster than verification. Claims turn into headlines. Headlines turn into global narratives. And by the time the facts actually come outโฆ most people have already scrolled past, shared the clip, or made up their minds. Itโs a pattern that repeatedly fuels anti-Israel narratives.ย
A prime example?
The Gaza hospital explosion in October 2023 may be the clearest case of how misinformation about Israel doesnโt just spread โ it becomes the truth.
Major outlets blamed Israel for the Al-Ahli Hospital blast within minutes. Hamas sources were quoted instantly. The correction? A misfired Islamic Jihad rocket, confirmed within hours.
The false story reached over 100 million people. The truth lagged far behind.
This is how narratives are built and how accusations of genocide are fueled. First reports rarely wait for facts. Corrections often never catch up.
Watch how it happened, and why it still matters.
Presenter: @Erin_Molan
@BrianCox_RLTW @Mr_Andrew_Fox @AlexCrawfordSky @HonestReporting Ooft! Nice job Brian.
โThe net effect of all this #journalisticmalpractice is that you're going out of your way to spin anti-Israel, pro-terrorist sentiment in your reporting - all the while claiming what you're doing is "news."โ
@DataRepublican Hey @jonkarl - why didnโt you ask @donnabrazile about this this morning??? #doyourjob #journalisticmalpractice
More #journalisticmalpractice covering int'l law involving armed conflict, this time @Reuters by Pesha Magid (@PMagid, reporting) & Philippa Fletcher (editing).
So much wrong in just news story, but let's start here:
@hrw says under #LOAC "use of airburst white phosphorus over populated areas is unlawful."
Two things to point out here.
First, this is false. Use of white phosphorus is not unlawful pursuant to LOAC, even if it is "over populated areas." More about why that is below.
Second, any time a news story starts a sentence with "Human Rights Watch says..." and doesn't immediately contradict what HRW said, you know you're being misled. Just like in this story.
Ok. How do we know this "Willy Pete is unlawful" narrative is false? And that HRW is misleading the journalist, who is misleading the editor, who is misleading the audience?
Easy. In fact, the answer is right there IN the article.
Specifically, let's consider this passage from the story:
"White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon โunder Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use โof Certain โ Conventional Weapons."
Nope. But don't just take my word for it - and whatever you do don't take HRW word for it either. It's easy enough to find CCW, Protocol III on incendiary weapons with a simple Google search.
If you do, you'll find that Article 1 contains definitions. What does - and does not - qualify as an incendiary weapon?
As you can see from pic 1, it is a weapon or munition that is PRIMARILY DESIGNED to set fire to objects or cause burn injuries (red highlight). Para 1a then gives helpful examples.
Uh oh. Then para 1b gives examples of what is NOT an incendiary weapon. For example, "Munitions which may have INCIDENTAL incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems."
So why did I put PRIMARILY DESIGNED from 1a & INCIDENTAL from 1b in all caps? That's right!
Because Willy Pete's incendiary effects are incidental & it's not primarily designed to set fire or cause burn injuries. As you can see from pic 2, DoD Law of War Manual reaches the same conclusion for the same reason.
Ok, so what was that claim from our "trusted" news source again?
WP "is considered an incendiary weapon โunder" Prot. III, CCW.
Wrong. And the article actually points out that @Israel hasn't ratified Prot. III. So if @IDF is supposedly dropping Willy Pete, why are we even covering Prot. III of the CCW?
It's not necessarily customary, so it doesn't represent "the" int'l law. It doesn't apply as a matter of conventional law if ๐ฎ๐ฑ hasn't ratified.
Even so, if we're going to cover text of a treaty (even if it's not directly relevant) - ffs AT LEAST we should report it correctly to begin with.
Now let's circle back to what we get in this article from HRW.
First is a statement from Lebanon researcher Ramzi Kaiss:
"The incendiary effects of white phosphorus can cause death or cruel injuries that result in lifelong suffering," said @kaiss_ramzi.
Sure can. When it's used against personnel, it can cause death, injuries or suffering. Just like any weapon.
Then later we encounter HRW says under LOAC "use of airburst white phosphorus over populated areas is unlawful."
Well there isn't a general prohibition to that effect, so maybe they're referring to Prot. III, CCW? It's not directly applicable, but let's check anyway.
"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered INCENDIARY WEAPONS" (pic 3).
Why all caps here? You betcha. WP doesn't qualify as an incendiary weapon. And it's not uncommon to use them against enemy personnel ON PURPOSE (pic 4).
So remember. Whatever "HRW says" involving LOAC, you're safe to reflexively believe the opposite.
And if it shows up like this in a news story? You're being misled - by the reporter(s), editor(s), AND the media outlet that uncritically ran #legaldisinformation from the likes of HRW.
Human Rights Watch says that Israel has been illegally using white phosphorus in Lebanon https://t.co/KA0eRgYanL https://t.co/KA0eRgYanL
More #journalisticmalpractice covering int'l law in armed conflict, this time @ABC by @BocciaChris & @LMartinezABC.
Hot tip for media. If a source (Brian Finucane + @rachelv12) doesn't acknowledge declaring war is separate from #LOAC compliance, they're not "expert" at all. โคต๏ธ
The sinking of an Iranian warship Tuesday by a U.S. submarine thousands of miles from the war zone in international waters raises questions about whether the attack was legal under the rules of war.
Read more: https://t.co/Igt6EkdCNR
Pseudo-legal experts will point to misleading media coverage because it supports an angle they endorse. Actual international law experts engage in a critical analysis of #legaldisinformation + #journalisticmalpractice behind the news instead. โคต๏ธ
https://t.co/P4ViRs7lNT
Anyone trying to understand why news media as a profession seems broken, this one line @guardian by "legal" affairs correspondent @Haroon_Siddique sums it up well.
I don't doubt "there was a consensus among legal experts the Guardian spoke to" that attacks by ๐บ๐ธ & ๐ฎ๐ฑ against ๐ฎ๐ท are "illegal." But this tells us more about editorial bias at The Guardian & incompetence in the profession writ large than it does about actual legality of the attacks.
Notice at the outset Siddique sets up the issue by describing these as INITIAL strikes against ๐ฎ๐ท (pic 1). If you've been paying attention to my TL - or if you check my current pinned tweet - you'll notice the problem here right away.
That's right! These were NOT "initial attacks." Ops Roaring Lion (๐ฎ๐ฑ) & Epic Fury (๐บ๐ธ) are part of an ONGOING armed conflict between @Israel & #Iran that has existed since AT LEAST 10/7 (pic 2).
Now, did any of these "experts" to whom Siddique spoke - including Susan Breau (@Breau55 ?), Victor Kattan here, or Phillipe Sands - acknowledge or account for this dynamic? No, of course not.
This reveals quite a bit about their level of knowledge & expertise. But for now, we should be more interested in what it reveals about narratives that are curated in news media & spoon fed to the masses by the vaunted Fourth Estate.
For that, let's revisit the opening line after the lede: There was CONSENSUS among legal experts the Guardian spoke to...
This indicates three important factors that often lead to journalistic malpractice, as reflected in this story:
1) Media bias. Do you think Siddique here sought out (actual) experts who will tell him the truth: that these attacks don't implicate art. 51 @UN Charter since there is an ONGOING armed conflict? No, because this would contradict the narrative he wants to push through his article to the audience that the attacks are unlawful.
2) Lack of subject matter expertise. Journalists aren't generally expected to have extensive knowledge or experience in topics we cover. We address that gap by seeking sources to provide commentary in our stories. Regarding our bias selecting them, see #1 above. But that also means we don't necessarily have knowledge or experience necessary to understand when our EXPERTS are...well, full of ๐ฉ. Failure of these "experts" to account for the fact that this is an ONGOING armed conflict is necessary to support the (preferred) narrative that these attacks are "illegal." But even if Siddique here didn't want to push a particular narrative by contacting these "experts," his own lack of expertise likely prevented him from understanding that his sources were misleading him - and his audience - along the way.
3) Sensationalism sells. This is a problem that afflicts media today across the board. I won't go into detail, but it's an issue I'm dealing with in a news story I'm working on literally at this very minute. There's a push to find tension or urgency or drama in a story - even if we have to make it up ourselves - in order to capture the audience's attention. Why? Because attention drives clicks and/or subscriptions, and these drive revenue. Think a noble, audience-funded media outlet such as The Guardian is immune from that pressure? Wrong. That (annoyingly populist) plea for donations at the bottom of EVERY FREAKIN ARTICLE indicates money drives content, even if it comes from the audience rather than a corporate owner or gov't or whatever. The Guardian has expenses to cover too, right? In a competitive market those expenses are covered, in part, by highlighting or even creating drama in content. Would you click on the story if the main point were: attacks on Iran are totally legal? No, because sensationalism sells.
So, think of this one line & remember these points next time you get frustrated with rampant #legaldisinformation in news media. In a way, we just can't help ourselves. Deficiencies that lead to #journalisticmalpractice are part & parcel of the profession of journalism today.
@ivyrosefem "A child who was playing on the monkey barsย in the park saw Mart holding her penis and wiggling it at her..."
Yes, "her penis"
smfh.
The name for this abomination is #JournalisticMalpractice
He's "unfactcheckable" that's what you're proud of writing?! ๐คก you and your colleagues are why he's unfactcheckable. #JournalisticMalpractice
This is what I wrote 10 years ago today about Donald Trump's first campaign announcement. https://t.co/82VDB0OEp9
@AvivaKlompas And of course, this will get the "allegedly" and "unable to independently confirm" treatment that is absent when Hamas says something. #JournalisticMalpractice
Iโve never before witnessed such profuse journalistic perversion. @jaketapper @AlexThomp @axios @politico @CNN @nytimes @washingtonpost @MSNBC #JournalisticMalpractice
@jaketapper This is journalistic malpractice. This is why I havenโt watched @CNN for years. @AlexThomp @axios #JournalisticMalpractice
@LambertNolen @SusanInDelaware @BarbaraHoff52 @AlexThomp @kwelkernbc Reporting on Biden makes him great while trump controls this event, 60 minutes, and media ranted about Biden & let Trump slide in with his project 25. But let's celebrate real journalism by honoring someone who nailed Biden.
Sickening. #JournalisticMalpractice
@cspan @AlexThomp We are actually living under the chaotic authoritarian regime of Trump, while American media responds with, โBut, Bidenโs declineโฆโ
Democracy dies when the fourth estate fails its duties. #AlexThomp #Axios #CNN #WHCD #nerdprom #JournalisticMalpractice @axios @CNN
@rachaelmbade You must be the new stenographer for the Trump Administration. #JournalisticMalpractice @politico
Jake Sherman became a MAGA Republican operative. Donโt be like Jake. @MSNBC @NBCNews #FireJakeSherman @PunchbowlNews #MSNBC #NBCNews #JournalisticMalpractice
โ๏ธAM: SCHUMER'S TWO OPTIONS AS A SHUTDOWN NEARS
With Schumer saying he will not allow Republicans to proceed to the House-passed funding bill, there are two things that can happen now.
1) Democrats can allow Republicans to proceed on the condition that they get a vote on the 28-day CR.
This is pure theater because the 28-day CR won't pass. the idea is to give Rs and Ds more time to negotiate. But the truth is they were negotiating for 3 mo and it was going nowhere. Plus, no way @SpeakerJohnson would do an omni.
This could scratch an itch for some yearning for a fight. But people may be disappointed because the underlying CR -- the GOP CR -- would pass under this scenario.
2) Dems could do a shutdown.
A shutdown is a tactic that is sometimes used to bring the other party to the table. it's not always successful. it's quite damaging. and there's no guarantee Rs would come to the table.
Plus, Trump W.H. believes a shutdown would benefit them politically. they'd make it very, very painful.
https://t.co/nTdjzl6C1r
@JakeSherman REPUBLICANS ARE IN CONTROL, YOU ABSOLUTE CLOWN! @MSNBC @NBCNews @SenateDems @SenSchumer #JournalisticMalpractice
@AarghhhhT @lifeonmara @simonmontefiore I wonder who can make a doc in Italy without Fratelli d'Italiaโs involvement.
Why are #MurdochGutterMedia consumers simply such brain-dead worms? ๐คก๐คก๐คก
#journalisticmalpractice #mediabias #nonstory #TimesofLondon #UK
Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe
2doc
Seen from Chile
blacked
Seen from United Kingdom
momson()filter:media
cewekngentot
Seen from Indonesia
DeepCleanHorror
Seen from United States
็้
Seen from United States
quipements
Seen from Korea
nsfw()**** filter:videos
Seen from Spain
ุชุญุฑุฑ_ูู
ูู
nolimit momson filter:native_video
Seen from Argentina
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.2M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.4M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.3M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.8M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.3M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.5M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers