@macfranc@poliversity.it @iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net
It's so dramatically biased that the UN Secretary's spokesperson was careful to distance the UN from the horrific position this person took. If you find it normal, go on with that. There must be no "but" after condemning violence against journalists, whatever stance they take, IMVHO. https://x.com/UNWatch/status/1996334560041410647?t=qzQYhCSRlCvhpZ0cwA01rg&s=19
@carlopiana@mastodon.uno Let's avoid manipulating the facts, please!
The spokesperson simply reiterated what Francesca Albanese herself has said dozens of times.
The statements of the GS spokesperson are simply a ritual statement to prevent manipulators from twisting the narrative to their advantage.
I would also add that it would be appropriate to avoid inventing the facts: there was no attack on journalists. The newspaper's offices were empty at the time. EMPTY! It's truly incredible that so much importance is given to an act of vandalism, when not only is the extermination of human beings of all ages currently underway ignored, but it is justified in the most despicable ways.
@iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net
@macfranc@poliversity.it @iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net i object to this way of discussing. I am not here to be accused of fact manipulation, this is offensive and not a good way of discussing.
@carlopiana@mastodon.uno There's nothing offensive about calling a spade a spade. Talking about an attack on journalists when it was a serious act of vandalism, but limited to newsroom property, is a manipulation of the facts. It's equally manipulative to accuse a woman like Francesca Albanese of supporting this act of vandalism, a woman who is now the target of a very serious and disproportionate personal attack by the United States, which is now exploiting its dominance over international organizations to target her personally, even before her work.
@iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net
@macfranc@poliversity.it @iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net
Thank you for the unproductive discussion, I leave you with your convictions. Goodbye.
@carlopiana@mastodon.uno I don't want this to be an unproductive discussion. I respect your beliefs, but I'd just like you to correct a few things you said. In particular:
1) The attack by a group of protesters on the La Stampa headquarters is not an attack on journalists, but on an empty editorial office. I can agree that it's an attack on journalism, but it's not an attack on journalists.
2) The spokesperson for the UN Secretary General didn't distance himself from "the horrific position taken" by Francesca Albanese, but simply condemned the attack against the La Stampa editorial office. A condemnation expressed by Francesca Albanese herself.
3) It's not true that "She basically said that now they know better how to report. This reads like approving fascist methods," but that Francesca Albanese merely linked (and didn't justify) the attack by a group of protesters to the Turin newspaper's unworthy editorial line. Do we agree that La Stampa's editorial line was unworthy of honest journalism?
Can we agree on these three points?
@iju@mastodon.social @QudsNen@mastodon.neometropolis.net
Carlo Piana 😼
macfranc