480
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
480 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8355 readers
234 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Is the claim that Western media isn't covering his arrest or the way he was released?
If it's the first then, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/16/nevada-arrest-israeli-official
It does say he's on out on bail and back in Israel though.
Crimes against children sting" instead of Pedophelia
"Back in Israel" instead of fled.
Because pedophilia is a condition, not a crime. They name the actual crime someone is being investigated for.
"Back in Israel" is Ynet's wording and the article is clear that it is reporting that. The Guardian's own wording is consistently "released and returned to Israel", which seems better than "fled" since it does not imply a lack of culpability of those releasing him
Hell the Ynet headline in your post doesn’t say anything about what Alexandrovich was questioned over
"Released and returned" is just a description of what happened, but "fled" implies guilt. It's certainly not a neutral word.
I'm not saying "fled" is neutral, I'm saying it implies things that do not appear to be true based on what information is available. "Fled" implies that Alexandrovich returned to Israel against the will/efforts of American law enforcement, not that he was literally just let go (as appears to have happened)
He was released on bail which means that he'd have to return for his court case. I doubt he's coming back.
The reason I couldn't even find the guardian article is because the term 'Israeli arrested pedophelia' returned nothing except the Israeli articles. TheGuardian is deliberately avoiding words and replacing them with vague terms.
Yeah, that's certainly another way to interpret it - "fled" also makes the US appear to be incompetent, rather than complicit.
Cyber security "experts" get caught while doing illegal things on the internet. I guess he won't add it on his CV
print media is always the exception since it's the part of legacy media with a smallest audience (besides radio) to give legacy media the pass it needs to maintain enough legitimacy while helping dispel the reality that it's fully captured.
primetime network tv is the real measure and colbert's late night time slot is already too large of an audience for the ruling class; that's why he is losing his platform.
the fact that this news story is nowhere near primetime network tv at the same time the epstein scandal is in the forefront of our collective attention is a clear sign given that the relevance would undoubtedly pump viewership raitings and lead to greater profit, but they've decided not to pursue that profit in the interest of class solidarity.