It could just be a shitty source.

Saying 'forced to reveal fate' instead of saying what that fate is, coupled with 'sick video' instead of letting viewers decide for themselves make this appear as sensationalism.

It's also an article about a video that doesn't show the video its reporting on.

Instead, we get some guy talking over images. Lol.

There's a reason this isn't AP Or Reuters.

This is what I don't get here. Why the hell do people interpret this as if it's spreading Israeli propaganda?

We know Hamas killed substantial number of innocent people and are keeping hostages.

We know these hostages are kept somewhere in Gaza.

We know Israel is bombing the shit out of Gaza, actively destroying civilian infrastructure.

What we learn from this is that Israel has indeed killed hostages in their indiscriminate bombing, that Hamas seem to be keeping hostages alive when they are not killed by Israeli bombs, and that being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza is still an awful situation to be in.

If this makes Hamas look bad it's because they are bad.

If you think it makes Israel look good you're sick in the head - this is triggered by them intentionally bombing Gaza until there's nothing left.

If you're upset that it makes a Jewish person look human then fuck right off you worthless piece of shit.

It's less trustworthy as a source because they're using loaded terms in the article. The headline calls it a "sick video", labels it as "propagandist". Those are terms intended to provoke a reaction: 'sick' is an attempt to prime your reaction if you watch the video, 'propagandistic' is intended to make you distrust the intent behind the video.

An impartial journalist would've used different language or added sources. If I was writing the article, I would've called it a 'new video' or perhaps a 'newly-released video'. I wouldn't have used 'propagandistic' at all; the speculation on the intent behind it is adequately covered a few paragraphs later. If you were intent on calling it propagandistic, that wording should be credited to a specific person, preferably an Israeli government spokesperson or a high-ranking official.

Using loaded words should only ever be done in clearly labeled opinion columns or letters to the editor (although honestly, I'm against their presence even there); if used in a news article, they should only be used when quoting a person.

Objectively, I know that loaded words are going to be impossible to avoid: even describing someone as a 'Hamas fighter' vs a 'Hamas terrorist' is fraught, and don't get me started on why civilians held by Hamas are 'hostages' while civilians held by Israel are 'prisoners'. But simple, obvious terms designed to tell the reader how to feel about the news should absolutely be avoided.

Unreliable =/= false. Even heavily biased outlets usually get their facts straight, but editorial choices like whom to quote, how to frame events, and what stories to cover can absolutely give a wrong impression. Especially if the audience isn't paying close attention.

You can take a fact like "two hostages were killed in an Israeli airstrike" and frame it as "look how indiscriminate the IDF bombings are" or "look how cowardly Hamas is". Those are two very different stories, but neither are "false".

Genuine fake news is pretty rare, unless the source is a random link from Xtwitter. Go fact check what you consider a heavily biased source and I think you'll be surprised.

It'd be less credible if the IDF wasn't shooting half naked hostages asking for help and waving white flags.

Accidents hardly seem less likely.

And, quite frankly, they're probably better off as bombing collateral damage than a Hamas hostage Israel won't trade for anyways.