Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?
Sensationalists claims stop being sensationalist when they are confirmed with objectively verifiable facts. That’s when claims should be accepted. Until then, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.
Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.
So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.
I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?
Does this cut both ways? Because I agree with what you: we should not reflexively believe sensationalist claims because they reinforce our preferred view of the world.
But under the exact same logic, we also should avoid dismissing sensationalist claims because they contradict our preferred view of the world.
Being aware of the manipulation you mentioned, and the fact that forces are trying to manipulate you in both directions on this issue… do you have any credible reason to dismiss testimony by Greta Thunberg to a Swedish diplomat regarding the treatment she experienced?
Sensationalists claims stop being sensationalist when they are confirmed with objectively verifiable facts. That’s when claims should be accepted. Until then, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
So where does this fall for you?
Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.
Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.
So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.
I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?