The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
That was her mistake - the comment was too vague, so the media jumped on it, skewed the narrative, took that skewed narrative and grossly exaggerated it further, and denounced her as pro-Hamas. It’s obvious to see with even a little bit of reading and it’s both frightening and disgusting.
There is absolutely ambiguity, it just doesn’t suit your worldview (or similar) so you lie. It’s your right to lie, but just know that anyone who isn’t dogmatic knows you’re lying.
It really is a choice to claim someone said something which they did not actually say at all.
Saying “they said x and I think they meant y” is entirely different from claiming “they said y” while knowing they in fact said x.
This is not controversial. Interpretations are fine, actively crafting disinformation is not.
That was her mistake - the comment was too vague, so the media jumped on it, skewed the narrative, took that skewed narrative and grossly exaggerated it further, and denounced her as pro-Hamas. It’s obvious to see with even a little bit of reading and it’s both frightening and disgusting.
Uhh, no. It was not her mistake that biased media outlets with an agenda say she said something while not actually reporting the exact thing she said.
It’s bad journalism, but I don’t think anyone expects reputable journalists to take this matter seriously.
Yeah, I see your point and I agree.
No, that one comment was not vague, the only active “fighters” to be called “freedom fighters” were Hamas.
There is no ambiguity, no vagueness.
There is absolutely ambiguity, it just doesn’t suit your worldview (or similar) so you lie. It’s your right to lie, but just know that anyone who isn’t dogmatic knows you’re lying.
Lol, this is such horse shit.