

Last company where I faced external suppliers, I had to take a training where they said we couldn’t accept any item worth more than like $20, except food or alcohol during a presentation. But we could accept such items on behalf of the company, and they would be raffled off to a random employee. One time a guy in purchasing got a giant brass horse head from a Chinese supplier. I guess nobody signed up for the raffle, so it became a permanent fixture in the cafeteria.
They should be more neutral in a non-opinion piece. They quote a lot more people saying pro-genocide things than they quote people saying anti-genocide things. They quoted pro-genocide politicians and pro-genocide BBC staff. They did not give the musicians any opportunity to respond to the article.
Let’s consider the two positions mentioned in this paragraph:
Israel should stop committing genocide
Israel should continue committing genocide, and position 1 is antisemitic
The first position is described as “pro-Palestinian”, as if these protesters support the Palestinian military (Hamas) and want them to win. This is incorrect. These people mostly just want the genocide to end.
The second position is a shitty opinion, but also contains an overt falsehood. It’s an objective fact that it’s false, and that fact should be reported in the story, but it isn’t.