17 ms·

These are the sources I know of https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://tw

These are the sources I know of https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579 https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770 https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770 https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625 https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625 https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450 https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450 There are probably more, but atrocities such as these are rarely widely publicized.

zepto 5y ago
Ok, so tweets, not ‘the BBC’
- jjulius 5y ago
  OP said "bbc reporters", not "the BBC", and the first Tweet is from a BBC reporter.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. The fact remains that these are just tweets and there is no fact checked reporting of it by the BBC or any other journalistic outlet that I can find.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment. >The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
        samvega_ 5y ago
        Your argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-MSM for such reports for the most part.
        zepto 5y ago
        My argument is that these are unverified tweets, and nothing more. It holds water perfectly. Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.
        samvega_ 5y ago
        No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. However, that only makes sense if the BBC did make attempts to verify it and would publicize it if true. The fact is that BBC and western MSM hardly if ever cover such news. There's nothing conspiratorial about my argument, it's a simple, practical application of Bayes' rule in probability. In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.
        zepto 5y ago
        > No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. Yes, a series of unverified tweets are not very credible as news. If you think tweets should be taken as credible without verification, that certainly isn’t unusual in the population, but I don’t recommend it. > because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this. No - that’s your position. The false narrative is your claim that what you are calling ”Nato war crimes” are ignored for some reason by western media. That’s clearly false. Today for example, New York Times posted an analysis of how the drone attack against isis-k probably just killed the wrong target, and the BBC picked the story up and reported it too. Your argument rests solely on completely unverified tweets, and your conspiratorial claim that the media isn’t interested in the story. It’s more likely that the story just isn’t substantiated.

zepto 5y ago

Ok, so tweets, not ‘the BBC’

jjulius 5y ago
OP said "bbc reporters", not "the BBC", and the first Tweet is from a BBC reporter.
- zepto 5y ago
  Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. The fact remains that these are just tweets and there is no fact checked reporting of it by the BBC or any other journalistic outlet that I can find.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment. >The BBC being mentioned here is misleading. Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
      - samvega_ 5y ago
        Your argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-MSM for such reports for the most part.
        zepto 5y ago
        My argument is that these are unverified tweets, and nothing more. It holds water perfectly. Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.
        samvega_ 5y ago
        No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. However, that only makes sense if the BBC did make attempts to verify it and would publicize it if true. The fact is that BBC and western MSM hardly if ever cover such news. There's nothing conspiratorial about my argument, it's a simple, practical application of Bayes' rule in probability. In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.
        zepto 5y ago
        > No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. Yes, a series of unverified tweets are not very credible as news. If you think tweets should be taken as credible without verification, that certainly isn’t unusual in the population, but I don’t recommend it. > because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this. No - that’s your position. The false narrative is your claim that what you are calling ”Nato war crimes” are ignored for some reason by western media. That’s clearly false. Today for example, New York Times posted an analysis of how the drone attack against isis-k probably just killed the wrong target, and the BBC picked the story up and reported it too. Your argument rests solely on completely unverified tweets, and your conspiratorial claim that the media isn’t interested in the story. It’s more likely that the story just isn’t substantiated.