7 ms·

The best part is when it comes from our own "newspaper of record" i.e. with the extraordinarily dubious "mass rape" article the NYT published. They finally dism

The best part is when it comes from our own "newspaper of record" i.e. with the extraordinarily dubious "mass rape" article the NYT published. They finally dismissed the one Israel-connected reporter who had liked tweets calling for a brutal response against Gaza, but that of course has seen about one billionth the attention that her original claims continue to receive. You also get stuff like the POTUS repeating lies like "40 beheaded babies" and "a mother and child had kerosene poured on them" with none of the usual media freakout you usually see over "misinformation."

gotoeleven 2y ago
[flagged]
nerdjon 2y ago
I have struggled to even look at my News app anymore. Next to articles about the protests or other things, there are the articles about the hostages or something else that just feels like a propaganda piece aimed at one thing. And that is just the headlines.
- LeoNatan25 2y ago
  [flagged]
- segasaturn 2y ago
  The wiki article on Media Coverage of the Iraq War[0] is an enlightening read. Most of the same tactics for manufacturing consent that the mainstream media used during the Iraq War are still being used in today's conflicts. > An investigation by the New York Times discovered that top Pentagon officials met with news analysts where they gave the analysts 'special information' and then tried to convince them to speak favorably about the Iraq war. The discovery was based on 8000 pages of secret information that had been revealed to The New York Times through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The article states that top Pentagon officials would invite news analysts to secret meetings, and urge the analysts to speak positively of the war. Often, the US would give "classified information," trips, and contracts to the news analysts. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War
mupuff1234 2y ago
[flagged]
- drpossum 2y ago
  "Getting stuff wrong" by not corroborating facts using reliable sources is not acceptable for a news organization.
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    You're right, but just want to dispute the claim that NYTimes is somehow Israeli propaganda - I think it's clearly not.
    - Sporktacular 2y ago
      The claim has some merit: https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/ https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide...
      - mupuff1234 2y ago
        They were told to not used those words because they are disputed and not consider facts, pretty sure they can and still use those words in opinion pieces. Innocent until proven guilty etc.
      - rcpt 2y ago
        > The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000. You could copy this paragraph verbatim into Manufacturing Consent and it would fit in perfectly.
    - drpossum 2y ago
      Spouting off someone's talking points without verification makes you propaganda. It's just a question on if it's due to an agenda or incompetence. It's one of those.
nsguy 2y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The real problem here isn't the POTUS repeating some rumour that was going around. It wasn't “a rumor going around”, it was Israeli state propaganda which both started and continued for a long timw to be pushed by Israeli state organs (official sources like the Foreign Ministry, not just proxies.)
  - nsguy 2y ago
    [flagged]
megous 2y ago
> You also get stuff like the POTUS repeating lies like "40 beheaded babies" and "a mother and child had kerosene poured on them" with none of the usual media freakout you usually see over "misinformation." Yeah. The politicians who repeated this also never apologized for inflaming tensions without any evidence or investigation whatsoever. But anything Israel is accused of, requires thorough investigation by Israel (or sometimes independently - without ever mentioning Israel will not allow independent investigators into Gaza), before we can even think about trusting the people they're killing currently, regardless of affiliation. Then you read https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social... And you see that 20 children 15 and younger were killed in total, and out of them 10 by rockets, which starts to paint very different picture. So militants killed 20-36 children depending on how you wish to define a child, out of 1200 people in total. So that's 1.7-3% of killed victims. On the other hand, you get at least 16 000 killed children by Israel in just the last 8 months. 60 a day at least. https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ And you can see 10-5 a day individually just scrolling through video posts on telegram https://t.me/eyeonpal/ https://t.me/eyeonpal/ And we're supposed to think that Hamas are child killing monsters and Israel is not and somehow uniquely righteous. Yeah, right. Just the math alone on this doesn't compute for me, at all.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
mupuff1234 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-detention-base.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-g... That is currently the NYT headline - How can you call it Israeli propaganda is beyond me.
- cempaka 2y ago
  What if I told you modern forms of propaganda are more sophisticated than the mere blunt force repetition of a single obvious and consistent message? When is the NYT willing to stretch truth and credulity, and when is it not? What is the likely net effect of a world-weary, cynical (and false) both-sidesism as applied to the Israel/Palestine war?
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    Ah yes, a public company is somehow conducting a super sophisticated and secretive propaganda campaign. I guess you're not a fan of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation here seems pretty straightforward, and no, it doesn't involve some NYT conspiratorial behavior.

gotoeleven 2y ago

[flagged]

nerdjon 2y ago

I have struggled to even look at my News app anymore. Next to articles about the protests or other things, there are the articles about the hostages or something else that just feels like a propaganda piece aimed at one thing. And that is just the headlines.

LeoNatan25 2y ago
[flagged]
segasaturn 2y ago
The wiki article on Media Coverage of the Iraq War[0] is an enlightening read. Most of the same tactics for manufacturing consent that the mainstream media used during the Iraq War are still being used in today's conflicts. > An investigation by the New York Times discovered that top Pentagon officials met with news analysts where they gave the analysts 'special information' and then tried to convince them to speak favorably about the Iraq war. The discovery was based on 8000 pages of secret information that had been revealed to The New York Times through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The article states that top Pentagon officials would invite news analysts to secret meetings, and urge the analysts to speak positively of the war. Often, the US would give "classified information," trips, and contracts to the news analysts. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War

mupuff1234 2y ago

[flagged]

drpossum 2y ago
"Getting stuff wrong" by not corroborating facts using reliable sources is not acceptable for a news organization.
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  You're right, but just want to dispute the claim that NYTimes is somehow Israeli propaganda - I think it's clearly not.
  - Sporktacular 2y ago
    The claim has some merit: https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/ https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide...
    - mupuff1234 2y ago
      They were told to not used those words because they are disputed and not consider facts, pretty sure they can and still use those words in opinion pieces. Innocent until proven guilty etc.
    - rcpt 2y ago
      > The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000. You could copy this paragraph verbatim into Manufacturing Consent and it would fit in perfectly.
  - drpossum 2y ago
    Spouting off someone's talking points without verification makes you propaganda. It's just a question on if it's due to an agenda or incompetence. It's one of those.

nsguy 2y ago

[flagged]

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The real problem here isn't the POTUS repeating some rumour that was going around. It wasn't “a rumor going around”, it was Israeli state propaganda which both started and continued for a long timw to be pushed by Israeli state organs (official sources like the Foreign Ministry, not just proxies.)
- nsguy 2y ago
  [flagged]

megous 2y ago

> You also get stuff like the POTUS repeating lies like "40 beheaded babies" and "a mother and child had kerosene poured on them" with none of the usual media freakout you usually see over "misinformation." Yeah. The politicians who repeated this also never apologized for inflaming tensions without any evidence or investigation whatsoever. But anything Israel is accused of, requires thorough investigation by Israel (or sometimes independently - without ever mentioning Israel will not allow independent investigators into Gaza), before we can even think about trusting the people they're killing currently, regardless of affiliation. Then you read https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social... And you see that 20 children 15 and younger were killed in total, and out of them 10 by rockets, which starts to paint very different picture. So militants killed 20-36 children depending on how you wish to define a child, out of 1200 people in total. So that's 1.7-3% of killed victims. On the other hand, you get at least 16 000 killed children by Israel in just the last 8 months. 60 a day at least. https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ And you can see 10-5 a day individually just scrolling through video posts on telegram https://t.me/eyeonpal/ https://t.me/eyeonpal/ And we're supposed to think that Hamas are child killing monsters and Israel is not and somehow uniquely righteous. Yeah, right. Just the math alone on this doesn't compute for me, at all.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

mupuff1234 2y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-detention-base.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-g... That is currently the NYT headline - How can you call it Israeli propaganda is beyond me.

cempaka 2y ago
What if I told you modern forms of propaganda are more sophisticated than the mere blunt force repetition of a single obvious and consistent message? When is the NYT willing to stretch truth and credulity, and when is it not? What is the likely net effect of a world-weary, cynical (and false) both-sidesism as applied to the Israel/Palestine war?
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  Ah yes, a public company is somehow conducting a super sophisticated and secretive propaganda campaign. I guess you're not a fan of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation here seems pretty straightforward, and no, it doesn't involve some NYT conspiratorial behavior.