You must log in or # to comment.
Looking at the comments here, even here in the Fediverse, it’s quite easy to understand how the US regime is possible despite its completely obvious depravity.
We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.
The top comment outlines some very reasonable explanations for the difference in phrasing between the two headlines. If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
When it comes to corporate news sewers, you’re barking in the wrong toilet.
I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.
It’s “quite easy to understand” because that’s how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you’re talking about.
Yes, I’m simplistic when it comes to this: I wouldn’t accept being ruled by organized crime that covers up its heinous crimes by starting a war. But hey, it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT’s coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You’re trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it’s baffling.
Please explain it to me. And by that I don’t mean a general explanation of how journalism works, because I probably know a whole lot more about that than you do, but an explanation of why you believe that the US, together with Israel, should not be held responsible for the murder of innocent children. And then I would also like to know what your motivation is for defending the current US regime, because I don’t understand it.
“Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we’re talking about, because I actually don’t care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created.”
Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who’s whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.
The criticism raises a legitimate issue, but the cause is usually structural rather than intentional. News outlets often use phrases like “X says” when they cannot independently verify the information. That situation is more common with casualty reports from states where they have limited access. When the outlet has confirmation from sources it considers reliable, it will report the deaths directly. This creates a pattern that looks biased even though it often comes from verification constraints instead of design.
Iran’s reports are frequently treated with caution because the state tightly controls information, foreign journalists have restricted access, and strike sites cannot be independently examined. Casualty figures released by Iranian authorities have also been revised or withheld in past events. These conditions lower outside confidence in the accuracy of initial statements.
The first headline uses “Iran says” because the newspaper likely could not verify the reported casualties inside Iran, especially during a breaking event. The second headline states the deaths as fact because the information from Israel was independently confirmed. The result may look like a double standard, but it generally reflects what reporters can confirm at the time rather than an intentional bias.
Maybe if it was a one-off instead of a consistent pattern for 30+ years.
You completely missed the point
The point was to use plausible sounding word vomit to distract and “to be faiiiiiir”. How did I not address that? I guess I could have been more aggressive and called the person I’m replying to either willfully genocidal or just a useful idiot.
You’ve lost all nuance and rationality
Neither Israel nor the US took credit for the strike that hit the school so this could be a matter of genuinely not knowing which of the two was responsible.
The US military’s Central Command (Centcom) said it was looking into reports of the incident, while Israel’s military said it was “not aware” of any IDF operations in the area.
I know the people in charge are beyond incompetent but I imagine that the US military knows exactly where every last one of their 6-7 figure missiles went. That doesn’t mean we ever will.
It may well have been their own faulty missile falling back to the ground.
I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to claim that.
‘What if the school kids killed themselves’? Calm down, there aren’t any board positions on the NYT open now.
