31 ms·
> when media still reported "an incident." The difference is wild. The difference is that the media goes to some lengths to make sure the footage they're showi
by Barrin92 2y ago
> when media still reported "an incident." The difference is wild.
The difference is that the media goes to some lengths to make sure the footage they're showing is actually real. Every day on Twitter I see people posting alleged war footage from different conflict zones of the world, and in a non trivial, sometimes majority of cases it turns out the footage is either fake or from some unrelated conflict, or years old but presented as new. The person pointing that out usually has a tenth of the interactions than the original poster.
Twitter is neither providing analysis or news but simply the media equivalent of pornography.
- reducesuffering 2y agoThis. Twitter is providing a deluge of unverified info. Discerning media is also getting this, like you, but they're only going to comment on "an incident" because they're expected to mostly have verified stuff first. So much of that deluge is fake war footage, fake narratives, spread by completely partisan uninformed actors. By the time you've discerned what actually happened and what was garbage, so have NYT, generally.