4 ms·

I think the parent was pointing out that Israel's or USA's claims are usually stated without quotes, such as: Israel invades Lebanon due to risk of Hezbollah a

by tovej 20d ago

I think the parent was pointing out that Israel's or USA's claims are usually stated without quotes, such as: Israel invades Lebanon due to risk of Hezbollah attacks rather than: Israel says "risk of Hezbollah attacks" reason for invasion

frereubu 20d ago
Are there good examples of this from the BBC? Genuine question - no snark intended.
- blitzar 20d ago
  US insists Strait of Hormuz is open as it exchanges strikes with Iran - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo Iran says Strait of Hormuz is 'open' but tracking shows few ships moving - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo
  - wat10000 20d ago
    Those have the same implication even if it's written slightly differently. "US insists" makes it clear that "open" is a claim by the US, not an independent fact. The first one doesn't match the supposed pattern where one side's claims are stated as facts, despite the lack of quotation marks.
    - frereubu 20d ago
      I think it's a fair example given how untruthful the US administration has been about whether the strait is "open" or not compared to the practical reality. Both would work with or without quotes, but the Iranian one is quoted. Still doesn't show systematic bias, but it's what I asked for.
      - wat10000 20d ago
        I'm pretty sure the Iranian one is quoted because they used the word, whereas the US one is not quoted because the statements that the reporting was pulled from never used the actual word "open." I see how it would read as bias if one interprets them as scare quotes, but it really does just mean "this is verbatim" when used here.
sanderjd 20d ago
I'm unconvinced that this is a pattern that is distinguished by the nation being reported on. Headlines vary. Both of your example headlines might appear at different times in the outlets I read. I think this was just a stylistic choice and that this whole thread is a weird tangent.
- 59percentmore 20d ago
  This is a stunning amount of credulity after "looted vs found" and "https://x.com/i/status/1322999903753220099 https://x.com/i/status/1322999903753220099" -style memes.
  - sanderjd 20d ago
    I don't know what your comment means. Can you say more? But generally, yes, I think cynicism has run amok among the very-online.
    - 59percentmore 19d ago
      [flagged]
      - sanderjd 19d ago
        I have no clue what you're talking about.
        59percentmore 14d ago
        That's disheartening. Even the AI got it after some pushing (i.e., it stochastically parroted back my intended meaning in a detailed explanation, which you see above). If you can't understand where even it "could"... Seems like it's a "you" problem.
meowface 20d ago
I am not saying this is necessarily incorrect but is it empirically actually true. Have people compared lots of different articles.
- bandofthehawk 20d ago
  Yes, it's been true for a long time. See the book "Manufacturing Consent" for example, but there's been lots of research since. There are numerous ways that the western media biases news to build support for the objectives of those in power.
  - meowface 20d ago
    It would be nice to see research rather than polemics by far-leftists. Especially when that book is itself written by someone supportive of genocidal dictatorships.
    - tovej 20d ago
      Which genocidal dictatorships is Chomsky in favor of? The Epstein stuff is extremely disappointing of course, but his analysis is still quite sober and valid.
      - meowface 18d ago
        At the very least, was long in denial about their atrocities despite any reasonably knowledgeable person being able to discern what was really happening.
        tovej 12d ago
        Which ones? You still didn't answer.
Cyph0n 20d ago
A few more examples: “40 beheaded babies” and mass/systematic rape propaganda accepted with zero verification (journalism 101) and, once debunked, zero retractions were made Hamas-run, but not Likud-run Condemnation of atrocities by Israel and the US that comes from Israeli and Western voices is given significantly more weight than the same claims coming from Palestinian or Arab voices. After all, the native lacks the capacity to be objective. Israeli gov statements are taken as undeniable fact, while Palestinian (Gaza or West Bank) gov spokespeople or even Palestinian people in general are barely even platformed Over-representation of Zionists in editorial teams of every major newspaper and news channel across all Western countries, which (naturally) led to coordinated suppression of any Palestinian voice internally and externally (started to change only relatively recently). And the list goes on.
- megous 20d ago
  There's a well researched report on this bias: https://cfmm.org.uk/resource/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards/ https://cfmm.org.uk/resource/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-do...
  - Cyph0n 20d ago
    Thanks, haven’t seen this before.
- wat10000 20d ago
  As far as I can find, every mention of beheaded babies in the BBC is explicitly a statement of other people's claims and not a statement of fact.
  - Cyph0n 20d ago
    I was not talking specifically about the BBC. On the BBC specifically, try reading through their articles, especially from early on, and tell me what the editorial slant is. Yes, most of the content is neatly wrapped in quotation marks, but what picture were they trying to paint? On UK media in general: https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-reported-israels-fake-news-as-fact/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-... My point is that both UK and Western media immediately jumped on and recirculated the claim in the first few days without confirmation. This was just enough to sear the image of beheaded babies into the minds of viewers & readers in the West, helping to justify Israel’s campaign to starve out the “human animals” and raze Gaza (a least in the mind of the avg citizen).
omnicognate 20d ago
I don't see anything stated as fact (without quote marks) here solely on the basis of Trump having said it, and I see use of quote marks for things he has said, eg. 'Trump says Iran war will end "immediately" after US midterm elections': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt The BBC's main sin in relation to Trump is sane-washing, treating his bizarre outbursts as if they were reasonable things for a US president to say. Eg. were he to say "I have a solid gold prostate!" they'd have an Anthony Zurcher piece entitled "Is Trump's prostate really made of gold?" with a quote from a doctor saying "while it seems unlikely and would probably be uncomfortable, having a gold prostate would be unlikely to cause any noticeable side effects as the metal is inert" and a discussion of the benefits of replacing a cancer-prone organ with a noble metal.
- jimbokun 20d ago
  There is no way to win that battle. Not reporting on Trump is not an option because his words and actions have huge ramifications for the world. I think in general the press has gotten much better at just straight up saying that Trump is lying or wrong, as opposed to previous policy of only reporting counter claims from other parties.
jimbokun 20d ago
I don't think that's true and would be curious to see evidence otherwise. I believe BBC and other outlets with journalistic standards use quotes when reporting what officials say and only drop the quotes when they have independent verification, like eyewitness reports from one of their own journalists.

by tovej 20d ago

frereubu 20d ago

Are there good examples of this from the BBC? Genuine question - no snark intended.

blitzar 20d ago
US insists Strait of Hormuz is open as it exchanges strikes with Iran - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gkpp0dkeo Iran says Strait of Hormuz is 'open' but tracking shows few ships moving - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydexp39ddo
- wat10000 20d ago
  Those have the same implication even if it's written slightly differently. "US insists" makes it clear that "open" is a claim by the US, not an independent fact. The first one doesn't match the supposed pattern where one side's claims are stated as facts, despite the lack of quotation marks.
  - frereubu 20d ago
    I think it's a fair example given how untruthful the US administration has been about whether the strait is "open" or not compared to the practical reality. Both would work with or without quotes, but the Iranian one is quoted. Still doesn't show systematic bias, but it's what I asked for.
    - wat10000 20d ago
      I'm pretty sure the Iranian one is quoted because they used the word, whereas the US one is not quoted because the statements that the reporting was pulled from never used the actual word "open." I see how it would read as bias if one interprets them as scare quotes, but it really does just mean "this is verbatim" when used here.

sanderjd 20d ago

I'm unconvinced that this is a pattern that is distinguished by the nation being reported on. Headlines vary. Both of your example headlines might appear at different times in the outlets I read. I think this was just a stylistic choice and that this whole thread is a weird tangent.

59percentmore 20d ago
This is a stunning amount of credulity after "looted vs found" and "https://x.com/i/status/1322999903753220099 https://x.com/i/status/1322999903753220099" -style memes.
- sanderjd 20d ago
  I don't know what your comment means. Can you say more? But generally, yes, I think cynicism has run amok among the very-online.
  - 59percentmore 19d ago
    [flagged]
    - sanderjd 19d ago
      I have no clue what you're talking about.
      - 59percentmore 14d ago
        That's disheartening. Even the AI got it after some pushing (i.e., it stochastically parroted back my intended meaning in a detailed explanation, which you see above). If you can't understand where even it "could"... Seems like it's a "you" problem.

meowface 20d ago

I am not saying this is necessarily incorrect but is it empirically actually true. Have people compared lots of different articles.

bandofthehawk 20d ago
Yes, it's been true for a long time. See the book "Manufacturing Consent" for example, but there's been lots of research since. There are numerous ways that the western media biases news to build support for the objectives of those in power.
- meowface 20d ago
  It would be nice to see research rather than polemics by far-leftists. Especially when that book is itself written by someone supportive of genocidal dictatorships.
  - tovej 20d ago
    Which genocidal dictatorships is Chomsky in favor of? The Epstein stuff is extremely disappointing of course, but his analysis is still quite sober and valid.
    - meowface 18d ago
      At the very least, was long in denial about their atrocities despite any reasonably knowledgeable person being able to discern what was really happening.
      - tovej 12d ago
        Which ones? You still didn't answer.

Cyph0n 20d ago

A few more examples: “40 beheaded babies” and mass/systematic rape propaganda accepted with zero verification (journalism 101) and, once debunked, zero retractions were made Hamas-run, but not Likud-run Condemnation of atrocities by Israel and the US that comes from Israeli and Western voices is given significantly more weight than the same claims coming from Palestinian or Arab voices. After all, the native lacks the capacity to be objective. Israeli gov statements are taken as undeniable fact, while Palestinian (Gaza or West Bank) gov spokespeople or even Palestinian people in general are barely even platformed Over-representation of Zionists in editorial teams of every major newspaper and news channel across all Western countries, which (naturally) led to coordinated suppression of any Palestinian voice internally and externally (started to change only relatively recently). And the list goes on.

megous 20d ago
There's a well researched report on this bias: https://cfmm.org.uk/resource/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards/ https://cfmm.org.uk/resource/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-do...
- Cyph0n 20d ago
  Thanks, haven’t seen this before.
wat10000 20d ago
As far as I can find, every mention of beheaded babies in the BBC is explicitly a statement of other people's claims and not a statement of fact.
- Cyph0n 20d ago
  I was not talking specifically about the BBC. On the BBC specifically, try reading through their articles, especially from early on, and tell me what the editorial slant is. Yes, most of the content is neatly wrapped in quotation marks, but what picture were they trying to paint? On UK media in general: https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-reported-israels-fake-news-as-fact/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-... My point is that both UK and Western media immediately jumped on and recirculated the claim in the first few days without confirmation. This was just enough to sear the image of beheaded babies into the minds of viewers & readers in the West, helping to justify Israel’s campaign to starve out the “human animals” and raze Gaza (a least in the mind of the avg citizen).

omnicognate 20d ago

I don't see anything stated as fact (without quote marks) here solely on the basis of Trump having said it, and I see use of quote marks for things he has said, eg. 'Trump says Iran war will end "immediately" after US midterm elections': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2lgt The BBC's main sin in relation to Trump is sane-washing, treating his bizarre outbursts as if they were reasonable things for a US president to say. Eg. were he to say "I have a solid gold prostate!" they'd have an Anthony Zurcher piece entitled "Is Trump's prostate really made of gold?" with a quote from a doctor saying "while it seems unlikely and would probably be uncomfortable, having a gold prostate would be unlikely to cause any noticeable side effects as the metal is inert" and a discussion of the benefits of replacing a cancer-prone organ with a noble metal.

jimbokun 20d ago
There is no way to win that battle. Not reporting on Trump is not an option because his words and actions have huge ramifications for the world. I think in general the press has gotten much better at just straight up saying that Trump is lying or wrong, as opposed to previous policy of only reporting counter claims from other parties.

jimbokun 20d ago

I don't think that's true and would be curious to see evidence otherwise. I believe BBC and other outlets with journalistic standards use quotes when reporting what officials say and only drop the quotes when they have independent verification, like eyewitness reports from one of their own journalists.