Would you call the chart strong evidence one way or another? I don't think I would.
Given higher casualty rates inside Gaza are predominantly Palestinian it is arguable textual references should approximate to the ratio of mortality in each community under time. So, the "bias" might be "both sides means 50/50" when actually mortality stats are weighted to gazans.
Yes, the chart looks roughly balanced. And yes, I think it stop making sense when you consider that there have been only a few sparse Israeli deaths after October 7, while the number of Palestinian deaths reached 10, 20 times those of October 7.
The vocabulary seems also skewed, with a different ratio of dead/ killed, more family terms for Israeli deaths (mother/ daughter/ husband/ son), and the most violent terms (murdered, massacred) only reserved for those.
I wonder if bias analysis is even possible in a situation where ground truth itself is unknown.
With Israel/Palestine, the more you know, the less you know. Death estimates vary by 1 order of magnitude on either side. The oppressor changes depending on when you start counting.
It's a sort of black humor, that truthfulness benchmarks have models ranking at an all time high, all while we enter a post truth era.
> Death estimates vary by 1 order of magnitude on either side
This is not actually true. Deaths count is pretty precise on both sides (there is some uncertainty on the number of deaths in Gaza at the moment as the situation is developing, but the overall numbers of the "conflict" are well known). You can check the data here (doesn't include the 2023/24 data): https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
> where ground truth itself is unknown
This is a funny involuntary pun: the ground truth is perfectly known, as Israel is illegally occupying the ground of Palestine, and not the other way around. This is the big picture you need to keep in mind when approaching the issue.
> With Israel/Palestine, the more you know, the less you know
This is also not true, but this impression is always the end goal of denialists, who seek to question every smallest detail and, when cornered, just move to the next one. The well established facts are that Israel is engaged in illegal annexations, occupations and settlements, and (according to the major human rights organisations) has established an apartheid system in the occupied territories, through which it oppresses the native population. The goal is clearly inscribed in the platform of the party that has governed the country for the biggest part of the last three decades:
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable [...] between the Sea and the Jordan [i.e. the whole of Palestine] there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Disclaimer on this tool, this does not appear to be sentiment analysis, but merely text analytics sometimes known as text mining. The interpretations you draw from that are a lot more wishy washy.
9 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 38.5 ms ] threadGiven higher casualty rates inside Gaza are predominantly Palestinian it is arguable textual references should approximate to the ratio of mortality in each community under time. So, the "bias" might be "both sides means 50/50" when actually mortality stats are weighted to gazans.
Is that it?
The vocabulary seems also skewed, with a different ratio of dead/ killed, more family terms for Israeli deaths (mother/ daughter/ husband/ son), and the most violent terms (murdered, massacred) only reserved for those.
"Israelis reject any comparison between the way Hamas kills civilians and the way Palestinian civilians die in their air strikes."
Israelis get killed, Palestinians just... die.
[1] https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/report-finds-pro...
With Israel/Palestine, the more you know, the less you know. Death estimates vary by 1 order of magnitude on either side. The oppressor changes depending on when you start counting.
It's a sort of black humor, that truthfulness benchmarks have models ranking at an all time high, all while we enter a post truth era.
This is not actually true. Deaths count is pretty precise on both sides (there is some uncertainty on the number of deaths in Gaza at the moment as the situation is developing, but the overall numbers of the "conflict" are well known). You can check the data here (doesn't include the 2023/24 data): https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
> where ground truth itself is unknown
This is a funny involuntary pun: the ground truth is perfectly known, as Israel is illegally occupying the ground of Palestine, and not the other way around. This is the big picture you need to keep in mind when approaching the issue.
> With Israel/Palestine, the more you know, the less you know
This is also not true, but this impression is always the end goal of denialists, who seek to question every smallest detail and, when cornered, just move to the next one. The well established facts are that Israel is engaged in illegal annexations, occupations and settlements, and (according to the major human rights organisations) has established an apartheid system in the occupied territories, through which it oppresses the native population. The goal is clearly inscribed in the platform of the party that has governed the country for the biggest part of the last three decades:
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable [...] between the Sea and the Jordan [i.e. the whole of Palestine] there will only be Israeli sovereignty."