this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
332 points (84.3% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9776 readers
188 users here now
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
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"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.
Far too many people only skim the headline and maybe the first paragraph of the article and then assume they don't need to know anything more.
To include the perspective of Israel in a headline purporting to be neutral is instilling a bias in the mind of such readers no matter how many quotation marks and "Israel says" they use and they KNOW IT for a fact.
When it comes to Israel, the NYT has about as much neutrality and journalistic integrity as they do wrt cops: almost none.
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.
No. The first rule of storytelling, whether it be fiction or journalism, is "know your audience". The NYT knows their audience and chooses to deliberately mislead people.
That's not what I'm saying, no. What I'm decrying is their deliberate decision to influence perceptions by including a biased perspective in the headline rather than just a concise summation of what objectively happened.
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.
Yeah, you're fundamentally missing what the article is about. It's about what the IDF has DONE. Or at least it would have been if the NYT weren't failing their profession by acting as stenographers for a genocidal and notoriously dishonest regime.
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. That's just objectively true, and would also be if the version of the story was that of Hamas or even the ones whose side I'm ACTUALLY on: the innocent civilians caught between a terrorist group and a genocidal apartheid regime.
That's the opposite of the truth. To directly quote them in the headline is as naked a bias that they could possibly show, short of the times where they go a step further and don't even treat it as a quote but just unassailable truth. Like in that awful "Screams Without Words" propaganda piece they still haven't retracted.
Putting quotation marks around a quote isn't expressing skepticism. It's the bare minimum of ass covering required to not risk getting sued for repeating the words of others as their own.
Clearly I'm not the one failing to understand anything, and neither are the NYT. If they were completely new to how journalism works and didn't have an editor, like you, I might have considered it an honest mistake.
They AREN'T new, though, and they DO have a (presumably highly skilled and experienced since it's one of the most prestigious jobs in journalism anywhere) editor, though, so there's no way that they aren't aware of what such a headline is and does.
To quote the otherwise completely irrelevant Maude Lebowski: don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.
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?
Dear sweet jesus you did it again? ~~Bud I'm not reading that.~~ So that was lie, I'm reading it in goofy voices to a room full of people. Seriously, have a drink, maybe introspect with some friends, grow as a person. Please.
eeeeeeeedit: Are you okay? No, seriously, with all my heart, are you safe? This isn't coherent.
e^7dit 2:
Yes.
edit 3: Please take a media literacy class. This is absurd. There's no way to engage with you, you cannot tell the difference between when I am insulting you and when I am insulting myself (most/all of the time). You cannot accept any form of criticism. This isn't even a debate, this is just you denying everything, including repeatedly denying my points which are my own self criticism as if they're attacks on you. You're so hungry for validation through conflict, and so deluded about your own intellect, that you cannot even pick up on when your own longwinded comment reiterates the point you claim to refute. This hurts to read. I had to stop mocking you halfway through on request, because everyone I'm here with (including a media literacy professor who's class I will happily sign you in to audit, real offer) described it as "punching down", which I apologize for. You're not deserving of my scorn, you're deserving of my pity and charity.
(also incorporating emoji responses is a source of scorn even on twitter, I mean dude, just... have some self respect...)
oh my god you actually did it. I just lost $5 on you, you absolute madlad.
There it is.
Why, though? I'm not actually resentful here - in my experience, I doubt that we wouldn't get along extremely well in person. Hell, judging by your username its very possible we've met (or are related, though that's really not a flattering thing for me to put on you...). Your doubling down on a position you hold on an internet forum is pretty common; honestly I've just been curious how long it would be before you hit the point that you dispense with pretense and we can actually talk.
Escalating this into a vitriolic spewing of personal attacks and rhetoric is par for the metaphorical course online, but I'd like to harken back to the original issue, before it started getting personal, and point out that this started over my insistence that the specific wording of a NYT article headline isn't as bad as the others. I don't even disagree that they're enabling a genocide or that they're a bunch of ratfucking cop fellating soulless corporate shills - I just think you misunderstood the specific wording in the headline.
The offer of a class audit is sincere, as well. I doubt you'd actually need a media literacy class, but it's a requirement I'm frequently challenged and decried for requiring before getting into my computer science courses. But if you're interested, we have damn good forestry, polysci, marine bio and mathematics courses I'd happily hook you up with. Not even in an editorial or sarcastic way, you just seem intellegent and motivated and people like that can always benefit from an influx of information they have a competent understanding of.
Again, why? I've even hilighted where I've been wrong or unfair to you in my comments, repeatedly, but you continue to attack someone that has been nothing but, at worst, mildly self indulgent in one reply. But you're openly hostile, even when I'm agreeing with you. I doubt you're so jaded you can't even claim victory, but I think you've been so blinded by your hatred that you can't even recognize capitulation or engage with an attempt to start a constructive dialog. So why do you comment on a public forum? What's the root of why you despise me so much?
I'm going to point out that you started this conversation, but I'm really not trying to be churlish by doing so. I just truly think you've thrown an assumption of bad faith onto me, and have approached this whole interaction from that perspective. And while it's easy to characterize someone on the internet as attention seeking, consider that I only have something to gain by having a civil conversation with you.
It's true that it's biased in favor of Israel, but I'd say a biased headline isn't as bad as a misleading one which isn't as bad as a lie.
It's misleading by being biased in favor of the IDF who are notorious for being fundamentally dishonest at all times including this one.
So congratulations, you got your triumvirate of shoddy journalism right here.
I don't think it works that way, it can be at different places on the scale. The other OP headlines are worse than the NYT one because they directly imply the "pre-emptive" claim is true, as opposed to indirectly implying it by choosing to reference the perspective of the IDF.
It does.
That's irrelevant. Things don't magically go from bad to good just because a worse version of the same thing exists.
Only difference is how sneaky they are about it. The bias they're deliberately trying to spread is the same.
Quality of journalism isn't a binary based on whether it is propagandizing for the correct side.
... But they said that. They were reiterating their point.
But that wasn't a strawman argument like you accused them of...? I don't understand why you think you should be able to harass people but then yourself be free from even polite criticism, even in the replies to a comment thread where someone may genuinely not notice your username (sorry) in a connected thread 8 comments away.
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.