this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
332 points (84.3% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9788 readers
190 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

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--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
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
332
MBFC Credibility - High (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
164 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though

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.

If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence

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.

you're either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.

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.

Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable

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.

regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias

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.

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

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.

and even reflects reasonable skepticism

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.

If you don't understand that

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.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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?