The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.
The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.
It’s understandable, in an environment where they don’t control all the information that readers have access to, propagandists have to use framing techniques from PR, Marketing and Politics to push out a certain impression of trustworthiness and maximizing empathy towards one side, since they can’t just use outright lies without getting caught like propagandists in places like Russia can (mind you, the NYT has definitelly been caught repeating IDF lies).
At least this time around they didn’t use the trick of the Passive Voice (for example: “Massive strikes land in Lebanon”).
That propaganda trick is a pretty common one in the “reporting” of these news sources when they talk about Israeli bombings of civilians in Gaza (which are generally reported as “deaths in Gaza” as if they were just due to natural causes rather than being murders).
Mind you the “verbatum” and undisputed quoting of IDF claims on the title as exemplified here is also a pretty commonly used propaganda techniques by these newsmedia outlets.
IDK, NYT has it’s issues but I don’t see anything wrong with their headline on this. They’re pretty explicit (possibly even skeptical given the other coverage of this…) that that’s what israel is calling these strikes. What else should they have said?
Oh wait hang on, “Israel assures west that IDF are ‘working closely’ with amrrican appointed DEI council to ensure no demographic group is unfairly left out of genocidal campaign”. They probably could have gone with that. Fucking hell, the only thing that makes my blood boil more than this limpwristed edit: wrist slap-y journalistic coverage is the literal cauldron of blood the IDF keeps scooting out of frame every time biden facetimes them…
“Casting attacks as” implies they are reporting on what the IDF is claiming though, and doesn’t confer additional editorial meaning beyond that. Of those four it’s the only one with a semblance of journalistic integrity.
You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though. If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence, you’re either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.
Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable, regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias. It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF, and even reflects reasonable skepticism on the statements made by the IDF. If you don’t understand that, it’s not really their fault.
Clearly I’m not the one failing to understand anything
Pretty ironic that you would accuse me of constructing a strawman in the same sentence wherein you just constructed one yourself, however hypothetical you might have dressed it up.
Yes, that was me discrediting my own argument with self deprecating humor, a common literary device used to highlight the doubt I have in my own outlandish claim and imply that a less hyperbolic take is probably correct. Look, I’m going to be honest here: a huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith - it’s basically just a Gish-gallop. I read through everything, but you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.
My opinion, while clear to anyone paying attention, has nothing to do with the fact that including the official IDF version of events in the headline shows clear bias.
It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF
The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism. You keep demonstrating that, in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it’s somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap, you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another. To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless, and I am quite sure you’re aware of that. You are not attempting to influence me, you’re just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold, and that is tedious.
And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here, doubtlessly doing nothing but to drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions, so perhaps presenting your own words in a new light will get through to you:
I don’t think it works that way
It does.
… Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone?
I’m not sure if you’ve genuinely misunderstood me, or if you are commenting to pick a fight. Assuming good faith: Casting is not a vague term, although you are correct that it does not imply they are quoting the IDF (who they are not quoting here. Yes, you can use the same words as someone you’re referring to without quoting them). It’s meaning is quite explicit in this context. That people may not understand is more the fault of the dire state of literacy in this country than it is of the person who wrote this fairly reasonable headline. I would prefer the headline be more critical, but it disappointingly isnt. That is my issue with it.
While I acknowledge that the MBFC does have some right wing bias, I think it serves its purpose. Aka to flag literal propaganda “news” sites.
The titles are literally accurate in the image. Israel is (unethically) launching preemptive strikes.
If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.
I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist just so the bot will be dropped and it will be easier for them to normalize things like Russia Today outside of .ml spaces.
The requirements of quality, fairness, honesty, transparency and bias-minimization of their process for a “trust gatekeeper” such as MBFC claims to be should be far higher that those for mere newspapers, not the other way around - the former wants to control your interpretation of everything you read on the Internet whilst the latter only controls what you read in their site.
One thing is when a guy you’ve seen a lot in your local pub asks you to “lend me a fiver”, a whole different thing is when a some random guy down the pub whom you don’t really know well keeps unpromptedly telling you “go talk to this guy, he is a great investment advisor” and then the second guys asks you to “give me all your life savings and I’ll make sure you’ll be rich”.
Not only is the level of proof any half way intelligent would demand to trust somebody with “a fiver” totally different from that to trust somebody with all of one’s life savings, but the second setup even stinks of funny business due to the whole hard-push by a 3rd party whom I don’t even know well enough to trust.
Just because you’re seeing more of the “complete total bollocks” style of propaganda from places like Russia and China in communities without MBFC doesn’t mean what you see in those that have MBFC is not propaganda-heavy: I actually lived in Britain for over a decade and also in other countries in Europe (and speak those languages so can follow their news) and certainly the BBC and The Guardian systematically - as exemplified here - spin their reporting, a far more subtle style of propaganda which is based in Marketing, PR and Politics methods to shape people’s impressions of specific actors (unlike the outright lying of the newsmedia from authoritarian countries) and which is especially common in Anglo-Saxon countries.
They’re just as much out to make up your mind for you rather than merely inform you (and at least the guys at The Guardian have very openly stated they’re “opinion formers”) as the Russian and Chinese media - they just use different techniques for their manipulation of people’s opinions.
MBFC activelly re-inforces the “spin” style of propaganda of very specific news outlets with specific politican biases by claiming they are highly trustworthy and even (laughably) left-of-center, and yet compared to the newsmedia from many European non-English Speaking countries this stuff is clearly and consistently massaged to manipulate the reader into feeling in a certain way towards one side and a different way towards another side.
News reporting using the same kind of techniques to manipulate people as Car Adverts, Investing Scams and Politicians isn’t Journalism.
Had I grown up reading and watching on TV all my life this kind of spin portrayed as “news”, I would have trouble noticing it, but I was born in Southern Europe and beyond Britain also lived in Northern Europe, so this style of spin used for “opinion forming” in most mainstream newsmedia in the English-speaking World really stands out for me because it’s always “loaded” in the same direction.
Why do I need MBFC to do this when I can just read someone in the comments who claims “This was posted by a Russian bot farm”?
If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.
I don’t see any of that on their local front page. In fact, most of lemmy.ml’s front page is reposts from lemmy.world. The only other sources I see are the BBC, BoingBoing.Net, and TheConversation.Com.
I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist
The agent flags virtually every mainstream news source as Left or Center-Left. The AP, the Guardian, Reuters, CNN, you name it. The very concept of Left/Right seems to boil down to “Do American Conservatives hate you?” If they’re Zionist on top of that, it’s likely only because these corporate media outlets tend to track with the American foreign policy position of any given moment.
But don’t actually bother to ask why mainstream news gets consistently flagged as “Left Wing” despite mapping neatly to a right-wing government’s enthusiastic endorsement of various fascist middle eastern state leaders. Hell, don’t ask why mainstream news habitually runs gushy positive news stories about Saudi monarchs and North African military dictatorships.
To even raise the question… you must be getting your news from all the Russia Today articles on lemmy.ml.
that’s quite the theory… does the bot somehow prevent posts from those places? were there more instances of popular posts from those places before the bot?
I wouldn’t say it’s a theory. Just my thoughts / speculation. I would speculate that people who are pushing out RT / Alex Jones level content would be more hesitant to do so if there would be a big “this is not a reliable news source” sticker next to it.
I would speculate that people who point Alex Jones / RT stuff just hope people read the article without thinking about where it comes from.
The Intercept collected more than 1,000 articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times about Israel’s war on Gaza and tallied up the usages of certain key terms and the context in which they were used. The tallies reveal a gross imbalance in the way Israelis and pro-Israel figures are covered versus Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices — with usages that favor Israeli narratives over Palestinian ones.
The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.
Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word “children” related to Gazan children. In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group.
Overall, Israel’s killings in Gaza are not given proportionate coverage in either scope or emotional weight as the deaths of Israelis on October 7. These killings are mostly presented as arbitrarily high, abstract figures. Nor are the killings described using emotive language like “massacre,” “slaughter,” or “horrific.” Hamas’s killings of Israeli civilians are consistently portrayed as part of the group’s strategy, whereas Palestinian civilian killings are covered almost as if they were a series of one-off mistakes, made thousands of times, despite numerous points of evidence indicating Israel’s intent to harm civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.
Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.
Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.
As I’ve explained above, reliably giving prominence to the quotes of one source promotes that one source and those quotes as it subconsciously it makes it seem more important to the reader.
This is a technique used for Propaganda when the propagandist doesn’t control the information space of the reader: since outright lies would easily be caught when readers have easy access to other newsmedia, the promotion of one side over the other by the propagandist is instead done by portraying it as more important by quoting it more often, giving more prominence to those quotes and never challenging them.
It’s interesting the number of concerned posters popping out if the woodwork here repeating the pretty old falacy commonly harped by such news media that “they are stating those are quotes hence they’re giving fair coverage” which is an obvious oversimplification of how impressions are made on others and hence of how opinions are made by even the most junior professional in PR, Marketing or Politics.
Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.
Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.
No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.
No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.
Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
–Be a Decent Human Being
–Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.
The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.
it has been said many times before, but, remember the USS Liberty
https://youtu.be/glfrvlv5Sog
I never saw “pre-emptive” as an absolving term. You just decided to strike first: it’s relatively free from any connotations of propriety in my mind.
Yup, kind of like when we torture people and they call it ‘enhanced interrogation’.
Give something a sanitized term and people will run with it.
It’s understandable, in an environment where they don’t control all the information that readers have access to, propagandists have to use framing techniques from PR, Marketing and Politics to push out a certain impression of trustworthiness and maximizing empathy towards one side, since they can’t just use outright lies without getting caught like propagandists in places like Russia can (mind you, the NYT has definitelly been caught repeating IDF lies).
At least this time around they didn’t use the trick of the Passive Voice (for example: “Massive strikes land in Lebanon”).
That propaganda trick is a pretty common one in the “reporting” of these news sources when they talk about Israeli bombings of civilians in Gaza (which are generally reported as “deaths in Gaza” as if they were just due to natural causes rather than being murders).
Mind you the “verbatum” and undisputed quoting of IDF claims on the title as exemplified here is also a pretty commonly used propaganda techniques by these newsmedia outlets.
IDK, NYT has it’s issues but I don’t see anything wrong with their headline on this. They’re pretty explicit (possibly even skeptical given the other coverage of this…) that that’s what israel is calling these strikes. What else should they have said?
Oh wait hang on, “Israel assures west that IDF are ‘working closely’ with amrrican appointed DEI council to ensure no demographic group is unfairly left out of genocidal campaign”. They probably could have gone with that. Fucking hell, the only thing that makes my blood boil more than this
limpwristededit: wrist slap-y journalistic coverage is the literal cauldron of blood the IDF keeps scooting out of frame every time biden facetimes them…The word pre-emptive implies self-defense.
Israel is “preemptively attacking” the entire region.
“Casting attacks as” implies they are reporting on what the IDF is claiming though, and doesn’t confer additional editorial meaning beyond that. Of those four it’s the only one with a semblance of journalistic integrity.
removed by mod
You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though. If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence, you’re either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.
Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable, regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias. It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF, and even reflects reasonable skepticism on the statements made by the IDF. If you don’t understand that, it’s not really their fault.
removed by mod
Yes, that was me discrediting my own argument with self deprecating humor, a common literary device used to highlight the doubt I have in my own outlandish claim and imply that a less hyperbolic take is probably correct. Look, I’m going to be honest here: a huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith - it’s basically just a Gish-gallop. I read through everything, but you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.
The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism. You keep demonstrating that, in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it’s somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap, you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another. To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless, and I am quite sure you’re aware of that. You are not attempting to influence me, you’re just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold, and that is tedious.
And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here, doubtlessly doing nothing but to drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions, so perhaps presenting your own words in a new light will get through to you:
… Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone?
removed by mod
deleted by creator
I’m not sure if you’ve genuinely misunderstood me, or if you are commenting to pick a fight. Assuming good faith: Casting is not a vague term, although you are correct that it does not imply they are quoting the IDF (who they are not quoting here. Yes, you can use the same words as someone you’re referring to without quoting them). It’s meaning is quite explicit in this context. That people may not understand is more the fault of the dire state of literacy in this country than it is of the person who wrote this fairly reasonable headline. I would prefer the headline be more critical, but it disappointingly isnt. That is my issue with it.
My comment was a bit poorly worded i’m taking the L on this one. NYT did indeed have a small disclaimer.
While I acknowledge that the MBFC does have some right wing bias, I think it serves its purpose. Aka to flag literal propaganda “news” sites.
The titles are literally accurate in the image. Israel is (unethically) launching preemptive strikes.
If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.
I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist just so the bot will be dropped and it will be easier for them to normalize things like Russia Today outside of .ml spaces.
The requirements of quality, fairness, honesty, transparency and bias-minimization of their process for a “trust gatekeeper” such as MBFC claims to be should be far higher that those for mere newspapers, not the other way around - the former wants to control your interpretation of everything you read on the Internet whilst the latter only controls what you read in their site.
One thing is when a guy you’ve seen a lot in your local pub asks you to “lend me a fiver”, a whole different thing is when a some random guy down the pub whom you don’t really know well keeps unpromptedly telling you “go talk to this guy, he is a great investment advisor” and then the second guys asks you to “give me all your life savings and I’ll make sure you’ll be rich”.
Not only is the level of proof any half way intelligent would demand to trust somebody with “a fiver” totally different from that to trust somebody with all of one’s life savings, but the second setup even stinks of funny business due to the whole hard-push by a 3rd party whom I don’t even know well enough to trust.
Just because you’re seeing more of the “complete total bollocks” style of propaganda from places like Russia and China in communities without MBFC doesn’t mean what you see in those that have MBFC is not propaganda-heavy: I actually lived in Britain for over a decade and also in other countries in Europe (and speak those languages so can follow their news) and certainly the BBC and The Guardian systematically - as exemplified here - spin their reporting, a far more subtle style of propaganda which is based in Marketing, PR and Politics methods to shape people’s impressions of specific actors (unlike the outright lying of the newsmedia from authoritarian countries) and which is especially common in Anglo-Saxon countries.
They’re just as much out to make up your mind for you rather than merely inform you (and at least the guys at The Guardian have very openly stated they’re “opinion formers”) as the Russian and Chinese media - they just use different techniques for their manipulation of people’s opinions.
MBFC activelly re-inforces the “spin” style of propaganda of very specific news outlets with specific politican biases by claiming they are highly trustworthy and even (laughably) left-of-center, and yet compared to the newsmedia from many European non-English Speaking countries this stuff is clearly and consistently massaged to manipulate the reader into feeling in a certain way towards one side and a different way towards another side.
News reporting using the same kind of techniques to manipulate people as Car Adverts, Investing Scams and Politicians isn’t Journalism.
Had I grown up reading and watching on TV all my life this kind of spin portrayed as “news”, I would have trouble noticing it, but I was born in Southern Europe and beyond Britain also lived in Northern Europe, so this style of spin used for “opinion forming” in most mainstream newsmedia in the English-speaking World really stands out for me because it’s always “loaded” in the same direction.
Why do I need MBFC to do this when I can just read someone in the comments who claims “This was posted by a Russian bot farm”?
https://lemmy.ml/
I don’t see any of that on their local front page. In fact, most of lemmy.ml’s front page is reposts from lemmy.world. The only other sources I see are the BBC, BoingBoing.Net, and TheConversation.Com.
The agent flags virtually every mainstream news source as Left or Center-Left. The AP, the Guardian, Reuters, CNN, you name it. The very concept of Left/Right seems to boil down to “Do American Conservatives hate you?” If they’re Zionist on top of that, it’s likely only because these corporate media outlets tend to track with the American foreign policy position of any given moment.
But don’t actually bother to ask why mainstream news gets consistently flagged as “Left Wing” despite mapping neatly to a right-wing government’s enthusiastic endorsement of various fascist middle eastern state leaders. Hell, don’t ask why mainstream news habitually runs gushy positive news stories about Saudi monarchs and North African military dictatorships.
To even raise the question… you must be getting your news from all the Russia Today articles on lemmy.ml.
MBFC is ran by Zionists and rates Zionist propaganda outlets as accurate.
Example: https://unwatch.org/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/
that’s quite the theory… does the bot somehow prevent posts from those places? were there more instances of popular posts from those places before the bot?
I wouldn’t say it’s a theory. Just my thoughts / speculation. I would speculate that people who are pushing out RT / Alex Jones level content would be more hesitant to do so if there would be a big “this is not a reliable news source” sticker next to it.
I would speculate that people who point Alex Jones / RT stuff just hope people read the article without thinking about where it comes from.
Since a lot of users don’t seem to have caught on yet:
Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.
Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.
Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.
As I’ve explained above, reliably giving prominence to the quotes of one source promotes that one source and those quotes as it subconsciously it makes it seem more important to the reader.
This is a technique used for Propaganda when the propagandist doesn’t control the information space of the reader: since outright lies would easily be caught when readers have easy access to other newsmedia, the promotion of one side over the other by the propagandist is instead done by portraying it as more important by quoting it more often, giving more prominence to those quotes and never challenging them.
It’s interesting the number of concerned posters popping out if the woodwork here repeating the pretty old falacy commonly harped by such news media that “they are stating those are quotes hence they’re giving fair coverage” which is an obvious oversimplification of how impressions are made on others and hence of how opinions are made by even the most junior professional in PR, Marketing or Politics.
Why is Hezbollah not defending themselves against a large scale israeli attack?
Why is Hezbollah not launching a “pre-emptive” attack?
Why is Hezbollah not "launching rockets ‘in self defense’?
Because loaded language is used in favor of israel, not against it.
Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.
Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.
No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.
No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.
Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.