feddit.org

2 points

27 days ago

The point being made is that they’ll harp unconditionally any old bullshit coming from Israel, putting it in a position of prominence, but not any old bullshit from other sources - even when they say the quote cones from sources in the Israeli government, merely choosing that for prominent position is already promoting it and that source.

Selectivelly and reliably quoting just the one side or always giving more prominence to what is said by just the one side says is an old Propaganda trick for when the Propagandist does not have full information control, and works by the same principle as exploited by lots of far-right populists to rise on saying controversial bullshit and on the criticism of their adversaries: anything given prominence and more attention is internalized by readers/viewers a being more important.

Actual Journalism would treat both sources equally.

Unlike plain-old-lies, such Propaganda Techniques can only be confirmed as such by measuring lots of articles from a news outlet and statistically analysing the words they choose and where they use them by comparison to other outlets, as pointed out in Linkerbaan’s post.

report

[ - ]

nonailsleft@lemm.ee

1 point

26 days ago

Would you be happier with a title such as “Israeli airstrikes tried to ‘prevent’ a ‘well planned and succesfully executed’ rocket strike from Hezbollah” ?

That just sounds like you want a stupid paper for stupid people, with longer titles

report

[ - ]

1 point

26 days ago

“Expecting retaliatory Hezbolah attacks, Israel preemptivelly strikes Hezbolah positions.”

Of those 4 examples, only the NYT has a shorter title.

The absurdity of your example is entirelly of your own making.

report

[ - ]

nonailsleft@lemm.ee

1 point

26 days ago

Yeah but your own contribution fits right in there with the 4 examples in the OP. Remember: you can’t use ‘pre-emptive’. That’s a manipulation & narrative control term

report

[ - ]

1 point

26 days ago

You’re claiming I said something I never said.

The manipulation and narrative control is in:

Portraying one side as having justification for their acts and the other as acting without reason.
Systematically quoting without confirmation the justifications given by one side, not the other.

The Propaganda technique called “framing” is, quite self-explanatorily, framing (a.k.a. decorating) what is being reported about one side’s actions in one way and what is being reported about the other side differently - the core content which are the events are described the same but only one side’s views on the why for those event are reported.

It’s a far more subtle technique than outright telling the readers “these are the good guys” or using nicer words for the same actions if executed by one side than for the same kind of action when executed by the other side (mind you, at least 3 of these 4 examples will also use this latter technique, which is about “portraying” rather than “framing”)

My contribution frames both sides equally thus both actors seem equally rational in their actions and the justifications for their actions given by both are there with equal prominence. It gives both sides’ justifications to the readers and leaves it to the readers to decide who to believe and which justifications they found valid. That’s how actual Journalism aims to report: giving what they have to the readers and leaving it up to the readers to decide who to believe.

Framing is not a technique from Journalism.

report

[ - ]

nonailsleft@lemm.ee

1 point

25 days ago

The reason the Israeli airstrikes were cited as pre-emptive is that that adds important information, as in they were aimed at the sites that were about to launch the rockets

Adding that the rocket attack was called retaliatory does not nearly add the same level of information, as everyone already knows what the strike was for and, at the very least, that nearly every strike in this conflict would be called ‘retaliatory’. Again, you’re pleading for stupid news for stupid people.

Should they have added that it was Hezbollah that restarted this bloody back and forth in each and every title as well?

report

[ - ]

1 point

25 days ago

Saying that what they were trying to prevent was a retaliatory attack also adds important information.

In all you comments here you have consistently displayed the underlying logic in your attempts at “arguments” that your side getting its viewpoint and arguments aired should happen whilst the other side getting its viewpoints and arguments aired has all manner of vaguelly defined problems like the “title gets too long” or “imagine if we did this all the way to infinity”, which are “problems” that also apply to your side’s viewpoints (literally dropping “premptive” would make the title shorter and most of those titles are actually unusually long).

You literally apply two different standards for the same kind of information depending on which side it’s helpful for. You might as well just come out and say “I’m with Israel no matter what and I’ll always make excuses up for stopping the enemies of Israel being portrayed as human”.

I see no point in continuing to engage with such a dishonest tribalist since such people are not rational, and in this specific case the side you chose is child mass murderers, which is the most abhorrent faction imaginable for a human being to side with.

report