chukyrlaw
21911
708
22
Mar 4, 2026 6:44 PM
chukyrlaw
21911
708
22
OleDoxieDad
US starts WWIII and blames Antifa for threatening peaceful protests.
RigidGristle
ArgentXero
Regime = Government
Dictator = President
Propaganda = Advertising/Advocacy
emu314159127001
I am shocked, shocked that the oligarchs that own them have them slant things
Harbltron
Understanding the use of passive vs. active language and how it's used to frame topics is a very important part of media literacy.
ToSisPoS
Mansoor68729
That's from Alan McLeod: https://x.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/2029250506582012129?s=20
a1b3117
Invade means to enter with intent to subjugate or occupy, so in this case they're right. Did they make their intent clear through words or actions?
This one is going around, spread by nitwits who don't understand, well, much of anything.
Ih8thisSoMuch
I'm in my late 50s and have been therefore reading US headlines re Israel since the 1970s - even as a kid I couldn't help but notice that anything Palestine did was always referred to as an "attack" and everything Israel did was referred to as a "retaliation"
I also noticed a difference in the language w/ civilian casualties; somehow Palestinians were "caught in the blast" while Israelis were "targets/victims of deadly bombing"
calenti
It's not a war crime if you win.
Sonicmaster293
The difference:
One (Israel) is a stanch ally and tool for the West attacking a historic enemy of the US with a vastly different culture that many in the West have difficulty relating to, along with the majority pop. being non-White.
The other (Russia) is a historic enemy of the West and potential threat attacking a resource-rich nation that is willing to be Western-aligned, with a somewhat similar culture to the West, and the majority pop. is the same race as most of the Western world.
Sonicmaster293
Yes I'm saying the difference is most likely racism tied with economic interests. If Israel grows, that's more oil and such for the West so they don't have to rely on Russia! Same with Ukraine, it is a resource-rich country, part of the many reasons for the Russo-Ukrainian War. Anything to weaken their enemies.
thebreadhatcat
Well russia intends occupation.
bitemark
Yeah I'm not backing Israel's play here, but they've done this before. Usually they know where the Hezbollah strongholds are, they go in, clean them out, and leave, so they're not getting hammered from beyond the border.
ElorYosnak
uh... Dawg you have a severe misunderstanding of how Israel's activities in Lebanon have gone historically.
What happens is they go in, get Shit on because the IDF can't fight anyone who isn't unarmed children, and then they say "oh uh uh oh we uh we didn't mean to say we were staging an invasion we uh well we it was just like a patrol yeah"
Also Hezbollah is one of the few groups resisting against an active genocide. "cleaning them out" is still an unacceptable act.
Freyja33
jbrightmans
Post some headlines from Al Jazeera
BeachsideBarghest
What about Al Jazeera?
WillWasThere
Bbc got in trouble for basically admitting to always painting isreal in a good light. Fucking stupid that they are still doing it.
WillWasThere
nalmeth
To be fair... If they're just passing through or Lebanon said they can... Then it's not invading. Although, the first scenario is definitely not okay. Things like that do happen, but more usually with airspace. If the nation can't detect or defend against aircraft passing through, nations that can exploit that, usually do.
ElorYosnak
If Russia sends troops into the US, and they're "just passing through" without consulting the US, and they're rolling tanks and ground troops through towns, What would you call that?
nalmeth
Well, odd choice of example, but let's go with it...
Are they staying? Or truly passing through and leaving the territory on the other side? Leaving? No. Not invasion. Staying? Invasion.
ElorYosnak
Howabout they say they're coming in to kill all the Black Panthers, and they say they'll leave once they've done that. Should we respond? Even if they don't say that, do we let them roll tanks and troops through american towns? Seriously?
RoboUnicornFishBalls
I like to offer thoughts on why and when media do this but for this wording, it feels very very clear on bias here however, it was verified and stated it was war in 2024 but I'm not giving them that as an excuse here, it is an expansion of the war sending more troops.
It's usually worded differently when media doesn't have verifiable and credible information from the ground ala BBC in Iran, they have nothing to verify so they have to use he said she said terminology.
I hate it all.
Rhythmaster
It drives me nuts, Israel has bombed AND invaded the capital city of Lebanon, AGAIN. Civilians have been killed, thousands of people displaced, And all the legacy news can do is parrot IDF talking points and interview Israeli spokespeople. What does the Lebanese government think? Who knows? They ain't gonna ask them...
Eyeetsass
They don’t have to. Word choice is deliberate. It’s their profession. They have partisan private owners. Their job is to instruct you on how to feel. It’s propaganda. As long as the media uses soothing tones the children will sleep. They do it because it works.
rossimus
What a second you're using rational thought I thought we were supposed to instinctively overreact to provocative propaganda on social media?
Madchant
No, they do this stuff all the time, and it's not because of a lack of verification. 18 and 19yo IDF soldiers are called 'Israeli teens' in reporting, not IDF soldiers, but dead Gazan children under 10yo are called 'casualties'. Casualty doesn't even mean dead, btw...a person killed or injured in an accident, war, or disaster, or anything else damaged/lost in such events. It denies the cause, the outcome, and the innocence of the victims.
You are wrong. It isn't editorial constraint, it's bias.
Scahrossar
All of this. They do the same with cops. "Officer involved shooting" my ass.
b0stark
Reuters is one of the extremely few news sources I trust when it comes to international news. They at least remain factual, mostly unbiased and reliable.
urusername2
They're international, not US, so they are more unbiased.
daannii
Not anymore
WarmMachineDD7
*Extremely loud incorrect buzzer sound*
b0stark
Both are still true. Israel did say that. The targeted attack is also true, but that's not something they could directly prove.
WarmMachineDD7
"but that's not something they could directly prove."
They literally killed him, bro. It is not possible to be more targeted.
WarmMachineDD7
Another.
WarmMachineDD7
A Reuters journalist even quit her job for their complicity in killing her fellow journalists: /gallery/journalist-resigns-from-reuters-its-betrayal-of-journalists-gaza-culpability-assassination-of-245-of-colleagues-a620XeA
b0stark
Both are true. "War criminal" is true, but embellish the title and is more click-baity. The "plan to move" is what has been officially stated, so that's also true. Ethnic cleansing is what they (Trump) will be doing and is situationally implied, but that isn't what has been officially stated.
WarmMachineDD7
"War criminal" is the exact truth. Omitting that FACT, diminishes the reality of his standing, which is their intention.
Another aspect of news media bias is that they have no qualms repeating unverifiable Israeli lies "Israel says... [insert blatant lie here]", but never what Reuters has been able to prove. Or the proof is simply relegated to the bottom of the article where most people won't see it. Meanwhile Israel's lie is front and center for everyone to see.
ElorYosnak
Hello Good People of Places that Might Not Know the Right Places to Go
Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera English are your friends. Both have english language commentary and are quite good about having actual reporting on the actual situations. (at least much better)
To go real hard, consider following Quds News Network, which is a Palestinian news org. Their professionalism is less, but their reporting can be much quicker and more... shall we say Oriented away from Nazis.
ICantBelieveThisNeedsToBeSaid
What a joke. Al Jazeera is the propaganda arm of Qatar and is widely banned across the Middle East and has even been barred in the West Bank by the PLO.
Quds News Network is a sham affiliate of Hamas/Islamic Jihad and spews the most blatant nonsense, and it has also been repeatedly banned for disseminating false information including by, again, the PLO in the West Bank.
You might as well just recommend that people get their news from Der Stürmer or from a read of the Protocols. What garbage
ElorYosnak
Oh you mean the PLO that is responsible for the Palestinian Authority, an Israeli puppet regime?
Yes, Al Jazeera has occasional problems. It is, however, widely considered to be quite accurate comparatively to american news outlets.
Quds is a student org, and is frequently temporarily inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt. You might notice that I said "their professionalism is less..."
Howabout you give me some alternatives? I'm always open to suggestions.
ICantBelieveThisNeedsToBeSaid
AP and NPR are each fiercely attacked by both sides of the Middle East conflict as being biased against them and each have high rating of credibility by independent fact checkers. When you're pissing everyone off you're probably doing something right.
ElorYosnak
Look, I'm sorry, but if you're pissing off genociders and not pissing off... The other people, I feel that is much better.
That said, Yes, Associated Press is pretty good. NPR is also decent, but lacks range.
I do appreciate those additions!