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…
The irony is that the tweet is the exact type of propaganda it’s claiming to call out. They just want to undermine faith in Western media because if you can’t trust them - and despite having some obvious failures they have proven to be the most consistently reliable sources - then they are free to feed you emotional manipulation to push their own agenda.
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.
~ George Orwell
(Not from a book, this is his actual experience after fighting alongside the Spanish against fasciscm.)
“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.
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.
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?
Whatever follows that saying is usually either dishonest or otherwise factually wrong. Let’s see if you buck the trend…
huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith
Nope. You didn’t.
The reason I break it up point by point is to make it clear to what I’m referring at what time and also a tool to help myself keep on topic rather than just ramble on in generalities.
It being long is simply because there’s a lot to adress. In this case you being wrong about a lot of separate things.
That you consider that a sign of bad faith says a lot about you and the usual quality of your statements and nothing about me .
it’s basically just a Gish-gallop
On the contrary. A gish gallop is exactly what I’m avoiding by sticking to a format of addressing your points directly, rather than just veer off on stream of consciousness tangents that are impossible to fully address in a spoken conversation. The latter is what a gish gallop ACTUALLY is.
I read through everything,
Doubtful that you understood it though, based on your string of mischaracterizations.
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.
That’s just patently false. And also rich coming from someone who’s claiming that using a common format suitable for staying on topic is not sign of bad faith 🙄
That including the claim of one side involved in a conflict in the headline is a way of inviting bias in favor of that side isn’t my opinion or “my lived experience” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean in the context of journalism 🤷). It’s just how the language of implied support works.
The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism
That’s not a truth, simple or not. For exsmple I am painfully aware of how the NYT uses the passive voice (Palestinian children were killed) when the IDF commits atrocities and the active voice (Hamas killed x amount of people in attack) when someone whose side they’re NOT on does.
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
Holy projection, Batman! 🤦
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.
Putting aside for a moment your persistent confusion regarding the difference between matters of opinion (which is doubtlessly what you want me to change about myself) and objectively leading rhetoric in headlines, what do you propose I do about misleading headlines other than point them out in a public forum meant for that kind of thing?
Write a letter to them pointing out the errors of their ways? Try to get hired there? Run for office on a platform of instituting a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine?
Other than the first obe, which would be fruitless, those things are not possible for me to do, so I’m doing what I CAN do. All I have within my power to do is what you’re criticizing me for, so kindly stow that suggestion where the sun doesn’t shine.
And I suspect that you’re going to go all Texas Sharpshooter fallacy on me and use that single discourteous remark to invalidate all of my salient points but I don’t care.
It’s a ridiculous bad faith argument that is used often as a deflection by those who are unable or unwilling to argue the substance rather than the medium.
To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless
There’s that projection you love so dearly 🙄
and I am quite sure you’re aware of that
Well that makes one of us who’s self-aware, at least 🤷
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
You’re actually partially right for once: since I’ve long since discovered that you’re not susceptible to logic and can as such not be convinced, I’m not trying to do so. I am merely correcting your misconceptions for the sake of any third party that might read them and be fooled.
As for the “point counter to the one you hold”, you’re once again confusing subjective opinion with objective reality. You could make a “point” counter to the fact that Donald Trump is a notorious liar, and I’d refute that as well.
Factual reality doesn’t care whether or not you agree.
that is tedious.
Again, I’m not refuting your misconceptions to annoy you. I’m setting the record straight to counter your constant gish gallop (yes, you are projecting on that too) of misinformation and misconceptions. It’s a tedious job, but someone has to do it 🤷
And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here
Given that you’re fundamentally wrong about everything else, you’d be correct in this case, yes. Strawmen and other fallacies don’t tend to convince me that my simple and objectively true point is false 🤷
drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions
This 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
It’s nothing more than a simple statement of facts, delivered concisely to indicate that there’s no doubt about it, no elaboration necessary except in case of you relentlessly pushing your misconceptions.
If you said “I don’t think Donald Trump lies a lot”, you would be equally wrong, and “he does” would be a sufficient reply to reflect objective reality.
Anyway, I grow tired of repeating the obvious and being met with “that’s just your opinion, man” and a flurry of fallacies and false accusations, so let’s end this here rather than continue aggravating each other and getting nowhere. Have the day you deserve.
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:
this you
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…)
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.
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.
No. No it doesn’t. Preemption - in the military sense - could be used both offensively and defensively. If you are about to invade a country you could preemptively attack their parliament and barracks’ to make your invasion easier.
You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?
Because, the enemy “is defending itself”?
I’d love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.
I expect headlines to say “israel strikes Lebanon”. Not “israel pre-emptively self defences in Lebanon”.
You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?
I’d expect israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza which is a condition given by Iran and Hezbollah to prevent retaliation. That is, if israel wanted to achieve peace. Which it doesn’t.
A homophonic racist fascist? Wow. How can somebody be that stoopid? You misused a phrase that you assumed meant weak - and let’s be honest - I can see how you could arrive at that conclusion. For all I know English could be your fourth language… then you had the absolute audacity to think there’s any complexity at all to a generations long war; and not a simple one-size-fits-all approach to geopolitical crises. You brought it on yourself, blud. Ignore the prOpAGanDa and BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT INTERNET STRANGER HAS TOLD YOU. Ffs. Smh. /s
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…deleted by creator
Oh for… thanks. I’ve been using that one to mean ‘weakly slapped’ for the better part of my life.
Another one for the list of “Wait, that’s a slur?” “Always has been”
Oily Josh, why are so many idioms based in bigotry?
Can you sunset the term sunset also please.
The irony is that the tweet is the exact type of propaganda it’s claiming to call out. They just want to undermine faith in Western media because if you can’t trust them - and despite having some obvious failures they have proven to be the most consistently reliable sources - then they are free to feed you emotional manipulation to push their own agenda.
~ George Orwell (Not from a book, this is his actual experience after fighting alongside the Spanish against fasciscm.)
This post clearly highlighting how unreliable Western media is, is actually propaganda. Do not believe your eyes it’s <their own agenda>!
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.
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?
Whatever follows that saying is usually either dishonest or otherwise factually wrong. Let’s see if you buck the trend…
Nope. You didn’t.
The reason I break it up point by point is to make it clear to what I’m referring at what time and also a tool to help myself keep on topic rather than just ramble on in generalities.
It being long is simply because there’s a lot to adress. In this case you being wrong about a lot of separate things.
That you consider that a sign of bad faith says a lot about you and the usual quality of your statements and nothing about me .
On the contrary. A gish gallop is exactly what I’m avoiding by sticking to a format of addressing your points directly, rather than just veer off on stream of consciousness tangents that are impossible to fully address in a spoken conversation. The latter is what a gish gallop ACTUALLY is.
Doubtful that you understood it though, based on your string of mischaracterizations.
That’s just patently false. And also rich coming from someone who’s claiming that using a common format suitable for staying on topic is not sign of bad faith 🙄
That including the claim of one side involved in a conflict in the headline is a way of inviting bias in favor of that side isn’t my opinion or “my lived experience” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean in the context of journalism 🤷). It’s just how the language of implied support works.
That’s not a truth, simple or not. For exsmple I am painfully aware of how the NYT uses the passive voice (Palestinian children were killed) when the IDF commits atrocities and the active voice (Hamas killed x amount of people in attack) when someone whose side they’re NOT on does.
Holy projection, Batman! 🤦
Putting aside for a moment your persistent confusion regarding the difference between matters of opinion (which is doubtlessly what you want me to change about myself) and objectively leading rhetoric in headlines, what do you propose I do about misleading headlines other than point them out in a public forum meant for that kind of thing?
Write a letter to them pointing out the errors of their ways? Try to get hired there? Run for office on a platform of instituting a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine?
Other than the first obe, which would be fruitless, those things are not possible for me to do, so I’m doing what I CAN do. All I have within my power to do is what you’re criticizing me for, so kindly stow that suggestion where the sun doesn’t shine.
And I suspect that you’re going to go all Texas Sharpshooter fallacy on me and use that single discourteous remark to invalidate all of my salient points but I don’t care.
It’s a ridiculous bad faith argument that is used often as a deflection by those who are unable or unwilling to argue the substance rather than the medium.
There’s that projection you love so dearly 🙄
Well that makes one of us who’s self-aware, at least 🤷
You’re actually partially right for once: since I’ve long since discovered that you’re not susceptible to logic and can as such not be convinced, I’m not trying to do so. I am merely correcting your misconceptions for the sake of any third party that might read them and be fooled.
As for the “point counter to the one you hold”, you’re once again confusing subjective opinion with objective reality. You could make a “point” counter to the fact that Donald Trump is a notorious liar, and I’d refute that as well.
Factual reality doesn’t care whether or not you agree.
Again, I’m not refuting your misconceptions to annoy you. I’m setting the record straight to counter your constant gish gallop (yes, you are projecting on that too) of misinformation and misconceptions. It’s a tedious job, but someone has to do it 🤷
Given that you’re fundamentally wrong about everything else, you’d be correct in this case, yes. Strawmen and other fallacies don’t tend to convince me that my simple and objectively true point is false 🤷
This you?
It’s nothing more than a simple statement of facts, delivered concisely to indicate that there’s no doubt about it, no elaboration necessary except in case of you relentlessly pushing your misconceptions.
If you said “I don’t think Donald Trump lies a lot”, you would be equally wrong, and “he does” would be a sufficient reply to reflect objective reality.
Anyway, I grow tired of repeating the obvious and being met with “that’s just your opinion, man” and a flurry of fallacies and false accusations, so let’s end this here rather than continue aggravating each other and getting nowhere. Have the day you deserve.
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…)
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.
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.
No. No it doesn’t. Preemption - in the military sense - could be used both offensively and defensively. If you are about to invade a country you could preemptively attack their parliament and barracks’ to make your invasion easier.
Removed by mod
israel was bombing Lebanon and Gaza far before October 7 where history magically starts.
Furthermore israel assasinated a Hezbollah top leader in Beirut. That was an escalating attack. Lebanon is defending itself right now.
You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?
Because, the enemy “is defending itself”?
I’d love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.
I expect headlines to say “israel strikes Lebanon”. Not “israel pre-emptively self defences in Lebanon”.
I’d expect israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza which is a condition given by Iran and Hezbollah to prevent retaliation. That is, if israel wanted to achieve peace. Which it doesn’t.
Removed by mod
Defensing against israel is the only purpose of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was created as a response to israel terrorism.
Yikes who’s upvoting this homophobic racist? Zero surprise they’re defending genocidal propaganda. Fash support fash.
Homophobic I get (sorry, did not know about ‘limpwristed’, was genuinely unintentional) but racist?
deleted by creator
A homophonic racist fascist? Wow. How can somebody be that stoopid? You misused a phrase that you assumed meant weak - and let’s be honest - I can see how you could arrive at that conclusion. For all I know English could be your fourth language… then you had the absolute audacity to think there’s any complexity at all to a generations long war; and not a simple one-size-fits-all approach to geopolitical crises. You brought it on yourself, blud. Ignore the prOpAGanDa and BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT INTERNET STRANGER HAS TOLD YOU. Ffs. Smh. /s
I cherish you.
Right back at ya, babe.
Removed by mod
Straight people can have flimsy wrists.