[_DeadFred_]

Your Al Jazeera link goes to a page that now states at 'least 95 Palestinians killed' but when I click the link next to that stat it takes me to an article that gives no numbers, no sources for numbers. I'm not sure why you would expect the BBC to publish something like that or why you hold that up to be good journalism?

[tareqak]

I also find these live blog style news pages confusing. Scrolling down, I find the following

> Gaza death toll hits 95 as Khan Younis attack casualties rise

> At least 95 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israeli attacks since dawn, hospital sources in Gaza tell Al Jazeera.

> According to Nasser Hospital in the southern part of the enclave, the death toll of the Israeli attack on the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis that we reported on earlier has increased to seven people.

then there is this tweet that is Arabic and contains a video > https://twitter.com/AJA_Palestine/status/1942671277883273250

with the following translation

> Translation: A Palestinian boy injured in an Israeli bombing asks his sister for food as he is starving while he waits to receive treatment.

My reply still stands in that BBC still has made no visible attempt to report a story with any casualty figures for Gaza this day even though they did publish 3 other pieces of news concerning the conflict. Therefore, the "relevancy bias" does not apply to the BBC here because the BBC considers the conflict relevant enough to report on 3 times within 24 hours.

Why does the BBC not consider the daily toll of casualties in this very same conflict sufficiently relevant to report on?

No "preliminary estimates on this breaking story"?

No "unconfirmed reports at this time"?

Nothing.

[tareqak]

Looks like we reached the message reply limit, so I am replying here.

Pasting again

> At least 95 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israeli attacks since dawn, hospital sources in Gaza tell Al Jazeera.

> According to Nasser Hospital in the southern part of the enclave, the death toll of the Israeli attack on the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis that we reported on earlier has increased to seven people.

We will have to agree to disagree if hospital sources and the Nasser Hospital are not sufficient.

What source would be sufficient?

This approach towards determining relevancy is what I meant by “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, then does it make a sound” earlier.

Update:

> Dr Mohammed Saqr, the director of nursing at Gaza’s Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, said he had personally witnessed countless mass casualty incidents in recent weeks.

> “The scenes are truly shocking – they resemble the horrors of judgment day. Sometimes within just half an hour we receive over 100 to 150 cases, ranging from severe injuries to deaths … About 95% of these injuries and deaths come from food distribution centres – what are referred to as the ‘American food distribution centres’,” Saqr said.

> On Wednesday, between 20 and 44 people were killed, according to officials in Gaza.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/09/gaza-aid-worke...

[_DeadFred_]

'doctors say hundreds' isn't a reportable real number though. That isn't an official number from a hospital. The reportable real numbers are from the Gaza Ministry of Health but those are cumulative numbers, not from the incident. This is basic journalism stuff that applies to every conflict, not BBC bias.

[_DeadFred_]

I mean you still haven't established that there is a source that this story you want published could accurately report on.