There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

RunawayFixer ,

The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.

The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.

Turbonics ,

“Hamas ‘pre-emptively’ raids Israeli border towns ‘in self defense’. Targets military bases”

RunawayFixer ,

Yep, this is a good example of what actual inaccurate/deceitful reporting would be like. Unlike the headlines in the post of the op, your made up title is reporting things that didn’t happened, and your quotes are not things that Hamas’ spokespeople have said. It is vaguely based on things that have happened, but it’s mostly just made up and thus completely inaccurate and deceitful.

Aceticon , (edited )

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.

nonailsleft ,

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

Aceticon ,

“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.

nonailsleft ,

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

Aceticon ,

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.

nonailsleft ,

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?

Aceticon ,

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.

nonailsleft ,

‘My side’?

This is a religious conflict in which both sides are wrong and evil.

Reading your posts I think it’s pretty clear that it’s you that’s picked a side here that you want to defend. You want to defend it so badly you can’t look at a normal title of a news article anymore without getting angry that it’s not spinned how you’d want it.

exu ,

Same with the Guardian. “in self-defense” is quoted, something Israel is saying

Noel_Skum ,

The strikes - whether you agree with them or not and regardless of your political posture - are genuinely seen as militarily preemptive. Israel apparently expected a large Hezbollah attack and tried to get in there first. They “preempted” any such attack. The Guardian employs actual speech marks - so it’s not an opinion but a quote. Newspapers can report what people say, even if the editorial policy is contrary to what gets reported. Linguistically the headli(n)es are correct. (I haven’t taken sides in the Israel-Gaza conflict as I know both sides are currently led by scum who have no qualms about slaughtering innocent people for their own personal gain and have no interest in any meaningful peace.)

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first. TheGuardian quotes IDF propaganda but Hezbollah just “fires rockets”.

I haven’t taken sides in the Israel-Gaza conflict

…

Noel_Skum ,

Can I borrow your “white-nationalism glasses” and reread my OED? Perhaps the text will read differently… Whilst I applaud your passion and presumably heartfelt desire for this conflict to stop you can’t just redefine words on a whim. Language doesn’t generally work like that.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

If you haven’t picked a side after 10 months of Genocide I can understand you’re not very passionate about the conflict. For more info see

Noel_Skum ,

To reiterate: both sides are led/ruled by murderous scum. I “picked my side” over twenty years ago when I traveled with an NGO in the area. The side I picked back then? The civilians. Both Israeli and Palestinian. Forget you and your holier than though attitude. If you think genocide has only been going on for ten months then you are so out of the loop regarding the entire region that your opinion has now become worthless.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Every party wants a peace solution except israel for the past 75 years. You’re talking like a school director which gets mad at the bullied kid when he finally fights back against the bully. While doing nothing while the kid was being bullied.

The West Bank has been trying to do peace with israel for many years. Even Hamas has stated they are open to a 2 state solution. Who isn’t open to peace? Only israel.

Noel_Skum ,

“While doing nothing while the kid was being bullied.”? Uh… not exactly. I’ve lost friends and colleagues to both sides and you have the fucking audacity to accuse me of taking the Zionist point of view? You’re just pissed-off that your bullshit making up meanings to pre-existing words was called out. That’s all I did. I made a simple linguistic observation and without you having any idea who I am, who I’ve worked with, where I’m from and where my family are from you’ve jumped to the most inaccurate assumption you could have. Well done, genius. Round of applause for you, you absolute doughnut.

Spzi ,

The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.

I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that’s right.

To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected “pre-emptive” to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked “first” (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true ‘first’ origin).

Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.

In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.

Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn’t say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who’s right.

You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it’s adversary from doing so by striking first.

The idf assasinated top general Fuad Shukr in Beirut, far from the Lebanese border.

This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

Spzi ,

This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.

Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.

In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.

If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Words like “defense” are used for israel. Words like “attack” are used for people defending themselves against israel.

This is because “defense” looks noble and “attack” looks violent and is associated with the aggressor of a conflict. Our media purposely chooses these words to subconsciously brainwash people. It is no coincidence these words are never swapped.

There’s a good reason the “ministry of War” is called the “ministry of Defense” now.

Of course these propaganda outlets also regularly make up lies for israel and let IDF soldiers write articles for them.

Aceticon ,

A fair take by the newsmedia would have been to use the word “retaliatory” for Hezbollah’s attack just like they used “preemptive” for Israel’s.

Both attacks have causes, so if one is mentioning the causes for one set of attacks (which makes it seem less senseless) one should also mention the causes for the other set of attacks.

The manipulativeness here is not the use of “pre-emptive” for Israel’s attacks, it’s in the systematic framing of Israel’s attacks as having “a reason” (in this case pre-emption) whilst the other side’s attacks are portrayed without mentioning the reason and hence sound senseless to anybody less well informed.

What they’re doing here is called “spin” or “framing” and it’s a Propaganda technique meant to project a more favorable impression about one of the parties involved.

Spzi ,

Quality comment, well said.

I’m not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That’s what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.

nonailsleft ,

You can turn that around as well, as the attack Hezbollah was retaliating for was, in itself, retaliatory. Only calling Hezbollah’s attack would imply that they were retailating for a first strike attack (which, as we know from the playground, is the difference between right and wrong).

The idea that each and every article, let alone the title, should encompass the entire conflict and, why not, the history of the Earth is very dumb and it just sounds like you want to see your own propaganda injected into what is basically normal and balanced journalism

Aceticon ,

Nice strawman you have there.

You sure did trash the argument I never made.

nonailsleft ,

Do you think the situation would have been better if Hezbollah didn’t restart the border conflict back in October?

MouseKeyboard ,

The rocket attacks Hezbollah did launch shortly afterwards lends a lot of credibility to Israel’s claim it was preemptive.

Aceticon , (edited )

About as much as you punching somebody on the face could, after they punched tyouback, be claimed by you to be a preemptive punching of their face: i.e. it’s complete total bullshit.

And here we have the press from nations with heavily pro-Zionist governments and power elites spinning that bullshit into their stories whilst !World moderator’s beloved “trust gatekeeper” has their own bot telling readers they’re totally trustworthy and even in some cases that those media sources spinning the-ethno-Fascists-are-the-real-victims-here takes on their stories were they’re the ones initiating violence, are lefties.

I’m not quite sure what’s the bullshit power in this, but it’s at least square.

PS: It’s funny how me and somebody else seem to have independently come up with the same metaphor, even if I worded it in a reversed way so as not to come out as aggressive.

givesomefucks ,

If I walked up and started punching you in the face because I said you looked like you were about to punch me…

Would you just let me beat you up to prove you weren’t gonna punch me?

Especially knowing there’s no one that would stop me from beating you up if you didn’t defend yourself?

MouseKeyboard ,

What if after the fight I said I punched you for something you did last week?

givesomefucks ,

I’d think what would have worked best was an immediate response, which is what you’re criticizing Hezbollah for doing…

But it sounds like you didn’t understand who was who in that metaphor

RunawayFixer ,

Hezbollah counter-attacking after being attacked by Israel, does not mean that Hezbollah would have attacked if they had not been attacked first. If your neighbour is a bully, then it’s probably best to not be a pushover.

What does lend the “pre-emptive” claim credibility, is that afterwards Hezbollah said that they had retaliated for the murder of one of their commanders in Beirut. So the Hezbollah attack was not a counter-attack, but rather an attack that they had been preparing for weeks already.

Madison420 ,

If attacked they attack, that’s shitty evidence because they would have struck back anyway.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

If Hezbollah rockets had fired first, would this have meant they were responding pre-emptively to Israeli airstrikes?

nonailsleft ,

If they knew of an impending Israeli airstrike, and they fired the rockets at the aircraft or airfields, would you not call it a pre-emptive strike??

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

They do know and they did that.

needanke ,

Nyt and Guardian seem fine, (in)directly quoting the idf.

Sundial ,

The problem isn’t them quoting it. The problem is passing along the blatant misinformation as truth. Why are you using their words when it’s very clearly wrong?

nonailsleft ,

I’m reading this thread in awe, as I can’t see what this ‘blatant misinformation’ is that everyone sees so clearly

Hezbollah planned a large rocket attack and Israel attacked them first… How is this disputed?

Sundial ,

The misinformation is that Israel is claiming they were forced to attack first due to Hezbollahs aggression. When in fact Israel is directly responsible for escalating this conflict for several months now, and Hezbollah has been showing a lot of restraint.

nonailsleft ,

Are you denying Hezbollah was planning, and executed, a large rocket strike?

Sundial ,

Where did I say that?

nonailsleft ,

What would you do if you knew some group of religious nuts was going to fire a barrage of rockets at you?

Sundial ,

Maybe not antagonize them for months by firing rockets at them?

nonailsleft ,

You do realize that it was Hezbollah that started firing over the border back in October?

Sundial ,

Got a source for that?

nonailsleft ,

Sure

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/19/1219748268/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-hamas-iran-war

After the Gaza war started, Hezbollah responded by attacking Israeli targets in northern Israel.

Hezbollah insists it did not know in advance of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. It has traded attacks with Israel in a relatively narrow zone across Israel’s northern border in an effort to tie up Israeli military resources that would otherwise be deployed in Gaza.

Sundial ,

Those 2 have been trading rockets for a lot longer than since October.

nonailsleft ,

Why would you state Israel was the one responsible for the escalation of hostilities in recent months and Hezbollah as the one showing restraint if you don’t really care who started?

Sundial ,

There’s a difference between what they regularly do and what Israel has been doing the past few months. They’ve regularly hit populated areas, assassinated key members, etc. The US had to even talk them down from attacking Hezbollah a few months ago. It’s clear Israel is the one escalating the conflict.

nonailsleft ,

Are you saying that (before October?) Hezbollah was ‘regularly’ attacking Israel and Israel would refrain from retaliating? Do you have a source to back this up?

(Even then, your idea that the side starting such hostilities is the one showing restraint and the one responding is the one escalating is pretty messed up)

Sundial ,

When did I say Israel was refraining from retaliating?

nonailsleft ,

Well you said there’s a difference with what they used to do ‘regularly’ in these situations

So if them now retaliating after Hezbollah attacks is what makes it different, that would suggest you’re implying that they weren’t doing that in the past

Sundial ,

The norm is small rocket fires between them close to the border. The difference is now Israel is attacking populated areas and performing assassinations.

nonailsleft ,

But the ‘assassination in a populated area’ that you’re referring to was in itself a retaliation for a rocket strike on a populated area (that killed 12 kids)

By your own logic, wouldn’t that mean it was Hezbollah that started the escalation by targeting those children?

Sundial ,

Hezbollah has literally denied involvement in that:

aljazeera.com/…/israel-says-10-killed-in-rocket-a…

I know you’re going to sit there and ask me “Why would you believe them?”. I believe them because they would never be hesitant to admit they hit Israel. Besides, it’s not their style. Just look at the most recent attack, they attacked the military base and avoided civilian areas:

aljazeera.com/…/five-key-takeaways-from-nasrallah…

Israel on the other hand has shown no hesitation attacking children and civilians and there’s decades of events to point to to prove this statement.

So my question to you is this: Why are you so intent on dismissing the actions of Israel? You seem to be putting a lot of effort into it.

nonailsleft ,

You believe Hezbollah would gladly claim they killed some kids playing soccer? I guess you also believe that rocket materialized out of thin air right above them

Which actions of Israel do you think I am dismissing?

Sundial ,

When has Hezbollah ever been shy about hating and attacking Israel?

This entire comment thread is you refusing to see how Israel is escalating the conflict. Instead you choose to intentionally miss how Israel is “pre-emptively” (I’m using this term ironically, don’t believe for a second I believe it to be true) attacking other nations, assassinating key figures and antagonizing their neighbors. Instead you seem intent on buying into the narrative that what Israel is doing is 100% necessary and not antagonistic. You’re putting a lot of effort into not seeing the “blatant misinformation is that everyone sees so clearly” as you put it in your original comment to me. These attacks aren’t necessary or justified, no matter how Israel decides to spin the narrative and have media outlets carry it as if it were the truth. If Hezbollah wanted to go to war they would have. What Israel is doing in Gaza is more than enough reason for anyone to declare war and move in. Don’t believe me? Just ask the ICC.

nonailsleft ,

Hezbollah is just as keen as Israel to keep their PR story straight wrt civilian victims.

If you don’t ‘for a second’ believe the Israeli strike on Sunday was ‘pre-emptive’, what would you call it? Hezbollah planned a big rocket strike and Israeli jets tried bombing their launch sites half an hour before. As far as strikes go, it doesn’t really get more textbook ‘pre-emptive’ than that.

If you believe Israel’s reactions aren’t necessary or justified, how would you suggest they react to Hezbollah firing rockets at them? Should they act like these rockets don’t exist? Do you think that if Israel never struck back, Hezbollah would just get tired of it over time and stop?

Sundial ,

Really? They’re afraid of looking bad compared to Israel? They’d have to do a lot to get there. Given what Israel is doing in Lebanon, no one would blame them if Hezbollah returned in kind. But instead they clearly state when they have actually attacked Israel. And it’s not civilian areas. You can choose to not believe that. But of the 2 groups one of them has a proven track record of attacking civilians and children and it’s not Hezbollah.

Your entire argument is like if a bully says “I had to attack this person, they were about charge me” and then completely ignore the fact that the bully has been doing nothing but provoking and attacking that person for months. It’s crying victim when you’re in fact the perpetrator. If you want to just ignore all that and say these attacks are justified then that’s your evil you choose to believe. You’re either intentionally being ignorant or just a troll. Either way, I’m done responding to you. I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who tries to defending a genocidal and warmongering nation as being justified in their actions.

nonailsleft ,

Fair enough

I just think you’re so angry about Israel, you don’t really care about the truth anymore

Sundial ,

You know what? I am angry. I am very angry.

I’m angry that a colonial state hellbent on eradicating the native population not only exists but is defended and funded by the most powerful nations on earth. I’m angry that this state has shepherded the entire native population into the worlds biggest open-air prison in history. I’m angry that they have that entire population dehumanized to the point where everyday civilians go out of their war to harass, starve, attack, and even kill these people. I’m angry that for decades the military has been killing these people on a regular basis that makes the violence in America against Black people look minor. I’m angry that for decades the whole native population has been displaced all to appease some kind of religious regime that is based on cruelty and pain. I’m angry that this government has an acceptable civilian to enemy combatant kill ratio of 1000:1. I’m angry that several school busses of children get slaughtered everyday and the people capable of putting a stop to this just shrug their shoulders. I’m angry that this same state routinely executes journalists and aid workers to cover up their atrocious actions. I’m angry that this state routinely attacks their neighbors simply because they can. I’m angry that the man in charge of this state is someone who is afraid of letting go of power to save himself from retribution and instead proceeds to double down on the modern days most brutal war as well as sabotage peace talks. I’m angry that we literally know all this is happening and let it. Say what you want about the Germans in WWII but at least the majority didn’t know just how bad things were in those camps. We do.

But that’s not all that makes me angry. You know what else makes me angry?

You. People like you who just sit there and go on a thread calling this state for their BS and go “Hurr durr of course they’re going to retaliate! What did you expect?” People like you who are very clearly aware of what’s happening but choose to be morally correct when it suits you. People like you who choose to go on these threads in an attempt to de-rail the whole conversations for either some misguided sense of self-righteousness or because they’re paid to. People like you who want to sit there and claim that someone attacked this state based on what this state says even though this state has a proven track record of outright lying and manipulating the truth. So yeah, I’m more inclined to believe Hezbollah, who very rarely denies attacking Israel, if they do. I’m angry that I actually have several people like you replying to my comments regularly trying to deflect all of this and that I have to defend and justify my words. I’m angry that you didn’t even take a moment to say something like “Yeah I don’t condone what Israel is doing either but if Hezbollah did target children than I don’t condone that as well”. You could have just said that and we could have moved on. And I’m really angry that after all this you have the audacity to sit there and tell me that I don’t care about the truth. I do care, I care too much. That’s my problem. Yours is that you don’t care enough. If you did you would have acknowledged what we were really talking about in this thread and provided your input and moved on.

nonailsleft , (edited )

Well let me start by saying that your take on the conflict is, again, very one sided. It’s history and how we got to this point is a lot more nuanced. That is a different discussion than the initial one but of course related.

My take on that, in brief, comes down to both Arab nationalists/islamists and zionists/jews seeing around 1920 that it would eventually come to an armed conflict between the two religious sides, and both moving their mindset to remove the other from the territory. And it did come to an armed conflict, which one side won and the other lost.

But even then, there is a lot of nuance as there was and is a spectrum between extremists and people who want to live in peace. Over time, violence from both sides has shifted that spectrum. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that it was not always like this, but up until the first intifada, someone from Gaza could just go visit their friends in the Kibbutz next door.

And you can say that the blame for all this falls squarely on the zionists for slowly moving towards their goal, but I would counter that it also falls on the islamists: instead of a two-state solution, they chose to fight and lost. (Whether they were right to do this is yet another discussion.) But after they lost the military conflict(s), they then chose to never give up and continue to, as you say, antagonize Israel until the end of time. The friendly peaceful rocket attacks from Hezbollah are part of this. And the prospect of this neverending violence has greatly shifted and hardened the mindset on the moderate Israelis as well, which spiralled into the current situation.

People like you who choose to go on these threads in an attempt to de-rail the whole conversations

That’s because you (and a lot of other lemmings) expect these ‘converstations’ to be warm and simplistic, circlejerking how Israel is bad. Am I ‘derailing’ the conversation by stating the OP’s collage is idiotic? Their take that a strike cannot be called pre-emptive because they don’t like the side that did it is just very, very idiotic. And when I call people out for this idiocy, the argument shifts towards an even more idiotic one : “Hezbollah never planned an attack, that’s an Israeli lie”. When I point out that stupidity by refering to the chief of Hezbollah proudly proclaiming they executed an attack after they had planned it for a month, the conversation is derailed back towards the argument “why would you defend Israel?”.

I don’t defend Israel, I’m defending the truth about the events from Sunday. I worry that people like yourself think it’s ok to lie about clear facts because they (probably) think it will make the world better.

oberstoffensichtlich ,
@oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

Hezbollah is the one who started firing missiles into Israel because of the war in Gaza. They could you know just not attack Israel. Then nothing would happen.

Sundial ,

One look at your account and it’s clear you’re some kind of paid troll. 2 weeks old, 22 posts, 92 comments. A lot of it is pro-Israel and Zionism. Not even going to bother entertaining your comment.

oberstoffensichtlich ,
@oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

I wish I was paid.

Someone with a different perspective than me must be a paid troll, is of course easier than actually engaging and learning something.

Sundial ,

Then start applying buddy. You definitely got the engagement and looking the other way down. I don’t have a problem engaging in conversation. I have a problem when people try to deflect the issue at hand.

technocrit ,

It’s “strange” how imperial propaganda is always quoting the IDF but never the resistance.

Furball ,

I see a lot of articles quote the Gaza health ministry about casualty statistics

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

He said the resistance not the doctors.

Furball ,

The Gaza health ministry is run by the government of Gaza

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

The israeli ministry of health is ran by israel.

EatATaco ,

Wait…did you just completely miss the point?

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

There was no point to miss.

EatATaco ,

There was a very clear and simple point. I’m not sure how it’s possible, but the fact that you don’t think there was not just means you did, and continue to, miss it.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

What is the point in claiming that Palestinian doctors are valid military targets for the IDF to murder?

EatATaco ,

Wow, this is just a disgustingly blatant lie about what was said. At no point did they even come close to saying anything about valid military targets, let alone doctors being one.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

You’re welcome to explain what he meant if it’s not ‘doctors are part of the resistance’.

Furball ,

I meant that the Gaza ministry of health is a part of the government of Gaza, which is what I assumed you meant by the resistance. Not every part of a government is a valid military target. Bombing doctors is a war crime and a part of genocide.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

It’s “strange” how imperial propaganda is always quoting the IDF but never the resistance.

Your reply;

I see a lot of articles quote the Gaza health ministry about casualty statistics

WldFyre ,

You’re so smart

Furball ,

Good job, you figured out how to quote comments

Viking_Hippie ,

Officially. In reality, the vast majority of the Gazan hospitals* from where they count the dead are controlled by the UN through UNRWA.

*Of which there’s none fully functional, which is why we haven’t gotten up to date counts for at least a couple months. Which is 50% of the reason why the IDF specifically targets hospitals and healthcare workers, of course.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Israel attacks Lebanon is the correct headline.

Anything else is propaganda.

ArbitraryValue ,

“Pre-emptive” and “self-defense” are objectively true here. Hezbollah initiated its current conflict with Israel and continues to launch attacks; Israel is fighting defensively and destruction of Hezbollah assets prevents future attacks on Israel.

(You might believe that Hezbollah is justified in attacking Israel, but it’s still the attacker and Israel is still the defender.)

Transporter_Room_3 ,
@Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website avatar

You cannot “pre-emptively” defend yourself, an attack to head off a suspected attack is still an attack.

Other than that semantic nitpick, personally I’m there with you… However, you cannot seriously be pointing this out without also recognizing that Israel is very much the initial offender in any conflict that arises as direct result of their actions in gaza.

If I let a bully sucker punch me so I have an excuse to beat up all the people around them, and then someone else close by hits me, I can’t honestly say I am the one who is defending myself.

ArbitraryValue ,

I think the purpose of the word “pre-emptive” is to describe a situation where one side appears to attack first but that side is actually acting to prevent an attack against itself. Consider a less controversial situation: Ukraine launched drones into Russia in order to blow up glide bombs in storage at Russian airbases. I suppose that could be described as a “pre-emptive attack” but I still see it as an act of self-defense.

With regard to your second point: Hezbollah has agency. They weren’t just helplessly carried along by events in Gaza; they chose to get involved. Their choice was predictable, but it was still theirs. One could argue that it was justified (and Hezbollah would certainly argue that it was justified) but justification is a matter of opinion and even if an attack is considered justified, the defender is still, well, defending.

oberstoffensichtlich ,
@oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

Of course pre-emptive defense is possible. If someone waves a weapon at me and repeatedly threatens to kille me, self defense is warranted. Especially if that attacker has a history of violently attacking me.

You can shoot someone in self defense before you get shot yourself.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Israel attacked Lebanon first not the other way around.

oberstoffensichtlich ,
@oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

Do you live under a rock? Hezbollah has fired rockets at Israel starting on October 7th and hasn’t stopped since.

hoch ,

Right? They’ve been cruisin’ for a bruisin’ for a long time. I really don’t care what happens to them.

Viking_Hippie ,

“Pre-emptive” and “self-defense” are objectively true here.

Is it opposite day already? Better get my festive sash!

Hezbollah initiated its current conflict with Israel

According to the IDF and American intelligence who came to the conclusion within an hour arter the attack, have shown no proof to support the claim and both have a history of false conclusions and outright fabrications when it suits their pro-Israel narrative.

Israel is fighting defensively

Nope. There’s no defensive way to bomb civilian targets. That’s not how the word or indeed the world works.

destruction of Hezbollah assets prevents future attacks on Israel.

On the contrary: Hezbollah is a terrorist group.

Just like with Hamas in Gaza, every Lebanese civilian murdered by the IDF makes Hezbollah more influential and thus more powerful as the number of people radicalized by the murder of their loved ones rises.

You can’t bomb a terrorist organization out of existence any more than you can make your neighbors like you by killing their parents.

You might believe that Hezbollah is justified in attacking Israel

Nope. Not at all.

Israel is still the defender

Also no, though. Their actions and their unconditional US support is the number one cause of political instability and violence in the Middle East.

nonailsleft ,

According to the IDF and American intelligence who came to the conclusion within an hour arter the attack, have shown no proof to support the claim and both have a history of false conclusions and outright fabrications when it suits their pro-Israel narrative.

Uh no, according to Hezbollah themselves. Unless of course you believe the Hezbollah leadership are all Mossad plants

Nope. There’s no defensive way to bomb civilian targets. That’s not how the word or indeed the world works.

There were 3 deaths on the Lebanese side: 2 Hezbollah fighters and 1 from an associated

Viking_Hippie ,

Uh no, according to Hezbollah themselves

Gonna need a source on that.

There were 3 deaths on the Lebanese side: 2 Hezbollah fighters and 1 from an associated

Sounds EXTREMELY unlike how the IDF tends to operate. Gonna need a reliable source on that one too.

nonailsleft ,

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-says-when-time-comes-any-action-we-will-carry-it-out-2023-10-13/

Hezbollah deputy chief Naim Qassem said on Friday that the group would not be swayed by calls for it to stay on the sidelines of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, saying the party was “fully ready” to contribute to the fighting.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-hezbollah-targets-lebanon-military-says-2024-08-25/

Hezbollah said the strikes killed two of its fighters in al-Tiri. The Hezbollah-allied Shi’ite Muslim group Amal said a strike on Khiam killed one of its fighters.

Viking_Hippie ,

fully ready

How on earth can you take “we’re prepared” to mean claiming that they DID the thing? 🤦

As for the other one, it’s very vague. There’s no indication of whether or not there’s uncounted civilians, only casualties of the official participants with their source being the notorious massacrer of innocents and burier of truth IDF…

nonailsleft ,

I think you have a very, very onesided view on this

You can find plenty of articles from October where Hezbollah is proud to declare they were attacking Israel to support Gaza and tie up some of Israel’s forces

You can find plenty of articles about how almost all civilians in Southern Lebanon have been evacuated.

There’s no indication of whether or not there’s uncounted civilians, only casualties of the official participants with their source being the notorious massacrer of innocents and burier of truth IDF…

The information you’re disputing is not coming from the IDF but directly from Hezbollah themselves, on both these issues

Viking_Hippie ,

I think you have a very, very onesided view on this

Yeah, I do. Because some things aren’t about sides but about whether or not something is factually accurate.

I’m on the “side” of not doing free PR for known liars whether they be Israel claiming they never did anything wrong, or terrorists bragging without evidence.

almost all civilians in Southern Lebanon have been evacuated.

Guess what? Forced relocation is in itself a war crime. Forcing people out of their homes so that needlessly bombing them to rubble won’t look as bad as it otherwise would is NOT a kindness.

The information you’re disputing is not coming from the IDF but directly from Hezbollah themselves, on both these issues

So you keep claiming without any source except “trust me, dude” 🙄

nonailsleft ,

So you keep claiming without any source except “trust me, dude” 🙄

It’s quite interesting, you asked for sources so I gave you some a couple posts up, but your reaction just comes down to “well yeah everyone is always lying so why would I believe that?”

Viking_Hippie ,

you asked for sources so I gave you some a couple posts up,

Sources that don’t support any of your claims. You could have given me links to TMZ and it would have proven your claims just as well.

nonailsleft ,

If Reuters citing the Lebanese army, UNIFIL and Hezbollah themselves isn’t enough for you, then my early impression seems to have been correct : you are far gone

Viking_Hippie ,

They cite them saying “we’re ready to respond”. You’re claiming that they’re citing them saying “we did that”.

The quality of your source doesn’t matter when you blatantly misrepresent the content of the message.

you are far gone

This you?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bb6866-c7f2-42e4-8b32-060f6ef178d0.jpeg

nonailsleft ,

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-lebanon-after-hezbollah-hits-shebaa-farms-2023-10-08/

Hezbollah on Sunday said it had launched guided rockets and artillery onto three posts in the Shebaa Farms “in solidarity” with the Palestinian people.

The Lebanese army said shells and rockets had been launched from southern Lebanon onto “occupied Lebanese territory,” without saying who was responsible, and that returning Israeli fire had left several people wounded.

The United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, said it had “detected several rockets fired from southeast Lebanon toward Israeli-occupied territory” as well as artillery fire from Israel into Lebanon in response.

Maybe you can share your sources that led you to believe they are all lying?

timestatic ,

I share your opinion. I don’t think its worth continuing to debate that guy as you’ll never come to a conclusion. It doesn’t really matter what one thinks of the civilian tragedy in Gaza when it comes to whether or not Israel is fighting Hezbollah defensively. In support of Hamas they started sending more bombs in the northern border of Israel so the IDF followed suite to prevent Hezbollah.

brianary ,

This is some George W Bush doublespeak.

qarbone ,

I never saw “pre-emptive” as an absolving term. You just decided to strike first: it’s relatively free from any connotations of propriety in my mind.

yournamehere ,

fuck hamas

mholiv ,

While I acknowledge that the MBFC does have some right wing bias, I think it serves its purpose. Aka to flag literal propaganda “news” sites.

The titles are literally accurate in the image. Israel is (unethically) launching preemptive strikes.

If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.

I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist just so the bot will be dropped and it will be easier for them to normalize things like Russia Today outside of .ml spaces.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

MBFC is ran by Zionists and rates Zionist propaganda outlets as accurate.

Example: unwatch.org

mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

jorp ,

that’s quite the theory… does the bot somehow prevent posts from those places? were there more instances of popular posts from those places before the bot?

mholiv ,

I wouldn’t say it’s a theory. Just my thoughts / speculation. I would speculate that people who are pushing out RT / Alex Jones level content would be more hesitant to do so if there would be a big “this is not a reliable news source” sticker next to it.

I would speculate that people who point Alex Jones / RT stuff just hope people read the article without thinking about where it comes from.

Aceticon , (edited )

The requirements of quality, fairness, honesty, transparency and bias-minimization of their process for a “trust gatekeeper” such as MBFC claims to be should be far higher that those for mere newspapers, not the other way around - the former wants to control your interpretation of everything you read on the Internet whilst the latter only controls what you read in their site.

One thing is when a guy you’ve seen a lot in your local pub asks you to “lend me a fiver”, a whole different thing is when a some random guy down the pub whom you don’t really know well keeps unpromptedly telling you “go talk to this guy, he is a great investment advisor” and then the second guys asks you to “give me all your life savings and I’ll make sure you’ll be rich”.

Not only is the level of proof any half way intelligent would demand to trust somebody with “a fiver” totally different from that to trust somebody with all of one’s life savings, but the second setup even stinks of funny business due to the whole hard-push by a 3rd party whom I don’t even know well enough to trust.

Just because you’re seeing more of the “complete total bollocks” style of propaganda from places like Russia and China in communities without MBFC doesn’t mean what you see in those that have MBFC is not propaganda-heavy: I actually lived in Britain for over a decade and also in other countries in Europe (and speak those languages so can follow their news) and certainly the BBC and The Guardian systematically - as exemplified here - spin their reporting, a far more subtle style of propaganda which is based in Marketing, PR and Politics methods to shape people’s impressions of specific actors (unlike the outright lying of the newsmedia from authoritarian countries) and which is especially common in Anglo-Saxon countries.

They’re just as much out to make up your mind for you rather than merely inform you (and at least the guys at The Guardian have very openly stated they’re “opinion formers”) as the Russian and Chinese media - they just use different techniques for their manipulation of people’s opinions.

MBFC activelly re-inforces the “spin” style of propaganda of very specific news outlets with specific politican biases by claiming they are highly trustworthy and even (laughably) left-of-center, and yet compared to the newsmedia from many European non-English Speaking countries this stuff is clearly and consistently massaged to manipulate the reader into feeling in a certain way towards one side and a different way towards another side.

News reporting using the same kind of techniques to manipulate people as Car Adverts, Investing Scams and Politicians isn’t Journalism.

Had I grown up reading and watching on TV all my life this kind of spin portrayed as “news”, I would have trouble noticing it, but I was born in Southern Europe and beyond Britain also lived in Northern Europe, so this style of spin used for “opinion forming” in most mainstream newsmedia in the English-speaking World really stands out for me because it’s always “loaded” in the same direction.

UnderpantsWeevil , (edited )
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Aka to flag literal propaganda “news” sites.

Why do I need MBFC to do this when I can just read someone in the comments who claims “This was posted by a Russian bot farm”?

If you look at the .ml news communities that don’t use MBFC you will see that way too many news stories are from literally Russia Today, Southern China Morning Post, and other extremely biased to a very particular agenda publications.

lemmy.ml

I don’t see any of that on their local front page. In fact, most of lemmy.ml’s front page is reposts from lemmy.world. The only other sources I see are the BBC, BoingBoing.Net, and TheConversation.Com.

I think people are trying to tie MBFC to being Zionist

The agent flags virtually every mainstream news source as Left or Center-Left. The AP, the Guardian, Reuters, CNN, you name it. The very concept of Left/Right seems to boil down to “Do American Conservatives hate you?” If they’re Zionist on top of that, it’s likely only because these corporate media outlets tend to track with the American foreign policy position of any given moment.

But don’t actually bother to ask why mainstream news gets consistently flagged as “Left Wing” despite mapping neatly to a right-wing government’s enthusiastic endorsement of various fascist middle eastern state leaders. Hell, don’t ask why mainstream news habitually runs gushy positive news stories about Saudi monarchs and North African military dictatorships.

To even raise the question… you must be getting your news from all the Russia Today articles on lemmy.ml.

Aceticon ,

It’s understandable, in an environment where they don’t control all the information that readers have access to, propagandists have to use framing techniques from PR, Marketing and Politics to push out a certain impression of trustworthiness and maximizing empathy towards one side, since they can’t just use outright lies without getting caught like propagandists in places like Russia can (mind you, the NYT has definitelly been caught repeating IDF lies).

At least this time around they didn’t use the trick of the Passive Voice (for example: “Massive strikes land in Lebanon”).

That propaganda trick is a pretty common one in the “reporting” of these news sources when they talk about Israeli bombings of civilians in Gaza (which are generally reported as “deaths in Gaza” as if they were just due to natural causes rather than being murders).

Mind you the “verbatum” and undisputed quoting of IDF claims on the title as exemplified here is also a pretty commonly used propaganda techniques by these newsmedia outlets.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Since a lot of users don’t seem to have caught on yet:

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows

The Intercept collected more than 1,000 articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times about Israel’s war on Gaza and tallied up the usages of certain key terms and the context in which they were used. The tallies reveal a gross imbalance in the way Israelis and pro-Israel figures are covered versus Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices — with usages that favor Israeli narratives over Palestinian ones.

The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.

Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word “children” related to Gazan children. In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group.

Overall, Israel’s killings in Gaza are not given proportionate coverage in either scope or emotional weight as the deaths of Israelis on October 7. These killings are mostly presented as arbitrarily high, abstract figures. Nor are the killings described using emotive language like “massacre,” “slaughter,” or “horrific.” Hamas’s killings of Israeli civilians are consistently portrayed as part of the group’s strategy, whereas Palestinian civilian killings are covered almost as if they were a series of one-off mistakes, made thousands of times, despite numerous points of evidence indicating Israel’s intent to harm civilians and civilian infrastructure.

RunawayFixer ,

Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.

Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.

Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.

Why is Hezbollah not defending themselves against a large scale israeli attack?

Why is Hezbollah not launching a “pre-emptive” attack?

Why is Hezbollah not "launching rockets ‘in self defense’?

Because loaded language is used in favor of israel, not against it.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0029bc7b-6702-4643-af64-fdf19a5c47d0.png

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/764e32a0-c37b-47c5-abb3-270920787456.png

RunawayFixer ,

Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.

Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.

No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.

No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.

Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.

Aceticon ,

As I’ve explained above, reliably giving prominence to the quotes of one source promotes that one source and those quotes as it subconsciously it makes it seem more important to the reader.

This is a technique used for Propaganda when the propagandist doesn’t control the information space of the reader: since outright lies would easily be caught when readers have easy access to other newsmedia, the promotion of one side over the other by the propagandist is instead done by portraying it as more important by quoting it more often, giving more prominence to those quotes and never challenging them.

It’s interesting the number of concerned posters popping out if the woodwork here repeating the pretty old falacy commonly harped by such news media that “they are stating those are quotes hence they’re giving fair coverage” which is an obvious oversimplification of how impressions are made on others and hence of how opinions are made by even the most junior professional in PR, Marketing or Politics.

Warl0k3 , (edited )

IDK, NYT has it’s issues but I don’t see anything wrong with their headline on this. They’re pretty explicit (possibly even skeptical given the other coverage of this…) that that’s what israel is calling these strikes. What else should they have said?

Oh wait hang on, “Israel assures west that IDF are ‘working closely’ with amrrican appointed DEI council to ensure no demographic group is unfairly left out of genocidal campaign”. They probably could have gone with that. Fucking hell, the only thing that makes my blood boil more than this limpwristed edit: wrist slap-y journalistic coverage is the literal cauldron of blood the IDF keeps scooting out of frame every time biden facetimes them…

SteveFromMySpace ,

limpwristed

Might need to sunset that term dude.

Warl0k3 ,

If referring to a male, having effeminate qualities or characteristics perceived to be homosexual in nature.

Oh for… thanks. I’ve been using that one to mean ‘weakly slapped’ for the better part of my life.

luciferofastora ,

Another one for the list of “Wait, that’s a slur?” “Always has been”

Oily Josh, why are so many idioms based in bigotry?

feedum_sneedson ,

Can you sunset the term sunset also please.

technocrit ,

Yikes who’s upvoting this homophobic racist? Zero surprise they’re defending genocidal propaganda. Fash support fash.

Warl0k3 , (edited )

Homophobic I get (sorry, did not know about ‘limpwristed’, was genuinely unintentional) but racist?

Antmz22 ,

Don’t you know? You are officially Hamas and wish genocide on all Jews because you don’t blindly support Israel.

Prepare to be placed in the bombing list of their lavender “AI targetting” machine.

Noel_Skum ,

A homophonic racist fascist? Wow. How can somebody be that stoopid? You misused a phrase that you assumed meant weak - and let’s be honest - I can see how you could arrive at that conclusion. For all I know English could be your fourth language… then you had the absolute audacity to think there’s any complexity at all to a generations long war; and not a simple one-size-fits-all approach to geopolitical crises. You brought it on yourself, blud. Ignore the prOpAGanDa and BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT INTERNET STRANGER HAS TOLD YOU. Ffs. Smh. /s

Warl0k3 ,

I cherish you.

Noel_Skum ,

Right back at ya, babe.

EatATaco ,

Anything to avoid addressing their actual point. This is a perfect example of an ad hominem.

feedum_sneedson ,

Straight people can have flimsy wrists.

EatATaco ,

The irony is that the tweet is the exact type of propaganda it’s claiming to call out. They just want to undermine faith in Western media because if you can’t trust them - and despite having some obvious failures they have proven to be the most consistently reliable sources - then they are free to feed you emotional manipulation to push their own agenda.

masterofn001 ,

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.

~ George Orwell (Not from a book, this is his actual experience after fighting alongside the Spanish against fasciscm.)

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

This post clearly highlighting how unreliable Western media is, is actually propaganda. Do not believe your eyes it’s <their own agenda>!

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

The word pre-emptive implies self-defense.

Israel is “preemptively attacking” the entire region.

Warl0k3 ,

“Casting attacks as” implies they are reporting on what the IDF is claiming though, and doesn’t confer additional editorial meaning beyond that. Of those four it’s the only one with a semblance of journalistic integrity.

Linkerbaan OP ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    Warl0k3 , (edited )

    I’m not sure if you’ve genuinely misunderstood me, or if you are commenting to pick a fight. Assuming good faith: Casting is not a vague term, although you are correct that it does not imply they are quoting the IDF (who they are not quoting here. Yes, you can use the same words as someone you’re referring to without quoting them). It’s meaning is quite explicit in this context. That people may not understand is more the fault of the dire state of literacy in this country than it is of the person who wrote this fairly reasonable headline. I would prefer the headline be more critical, but it disappointingly isnt. That is my issue with it.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    My comment was a bit poorly worded i’m taking the L on this one. NYT did indeed have a small disclaimer.

    Viking_Hippie , (edited )

    Far too many people only skim the headline and maybe the first paragraph of the article and then assume they don’t need to know anything more.

    To include the perspective of Israel in a headline purporting to be neutral is instilling a bias in the mind of such readers no matter how many quotation marks and “Israel says” they use and they KNOW IT for a fact.

    When it comes to Israel, the NYT has about as much neutrality and journalistic integrity as they do wrt cops: almost none.

    Warl0k3 , (edited )

    You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though. If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence, you’re either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.

    Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable, regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias. It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF, and even reflects reasonable skepticism on the statements made by the IDF. If you don’t understand that, it’s not really their fault.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though

    No. The first rule of storytelling, whether it be fiction or journalism, is “know your audience”. The NYT knows their audience and chooses to deliberately mislead people.

    If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence

    That’s not what I’m saying, no. What I’m decrying is their deliberate decision to influence perceptions by including a biased perspective in the headline rather than just a concise summation of what objectively happened.

    you’re either an absolutely incredible writier, not their target audience or a straw man made up to illustrate my disagreement with your point.

    Pretty ironic that you would accuse me of constructing a strawman in the same sentence wherein you just constructed one yourself, however hypothetical you might have dressed it up.

    Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable

    Yeah, you’re fundamentally missing what the article is about. It’s about what the IDF has DONE. Or at least it would have been if the NYT weren’t failing their profession by acting as stenographers for a genocidal and notoriously dishonest regime.

    regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias

    My opinion, while clear to anyone paying attention, has nothing to do with the fact that including the official IDF version of events in the headline shows clear bias. That’s just objectively true, and would also be if the version of the story was that of Hamas or even the ones whose side I’m ACTUALLY on: the innocent civilians caught between a terrorist group and a genocidal apartheid regime.

    It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF

    That’s the opposite of the truth. To directly quote them in the headline is as naked a bias that they could possibly show, short of the times where they go a step further and don’t even treat it as a quote but just unassailable truth. Like in that awful “Screams Without Words” propaganda piece they still haven’t retracted.

    and even reflects reasonable skepticism

    Putting quotation marks around a quote isn’t expressing skepticism. It’s the bare minimum of ass covering required to not risk getting sued for repeating the words of others as their own.

    If you don’t understand that

    Clearly I’m not the one failing to understand anything, and neither are the NYT. If they were completely new to how journalism works and didn’t have an editor, like you, I might have considered it an honest mistake.

    They AREN’T new, though, and they DO have a (presumably highly skilled and experienced since it’s one of the most prestigious jobs in journalism anywhere) editor, though, so there’s no way that they aren’t aware of what such a headline is and does.

    To quote the otherwise completely irrelevant Maude Lebowski: don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.

    Warl0k3 , (edited )

    Clearly I’m not the one failing to understand anything

    Pretty ironic that you would accuse me of constructing a strawman in the same sentence wherein you just constructed one yourself, however hypothetical you might have dressed it up.

    Yes, that was me discrediting my own argument with self deprecating humor, a common literary device used to highlight the doubt I have in my own outlandish claim and imply that a less hyperbolic take is probably correct. Look, I’m going to be honest here: a huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith - it’s basically just a Gish-gallop. I read through everything, but you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.

    My opinion, while clear to anyone paying attention, has nothing to do with the fact that including the official IDF version of events in the headline shows clear bias.

    It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, is the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF

    The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism. You keep demonstrating that, in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it’s somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap, you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another. To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless, and I am quite sure you’re aware of that. You are not attempting to influence me, you’re just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold, and that is tedious.

    And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here, doubtlessly doing nothing but to drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions, so perhaps presenting your own words in a new light will get through to you:

    I don’t think it works that way

    It does.

    … Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone?

    Viking_Hippie ,

    I’m going to be honest here

    Whatever follows that saying is usually either dishonest or otherwise factually wrong. Let’s see if you buck the trend…

    huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith

    Nope. You didn’t.

    The reason I break it up point by point is to make it clear to what I’m referring at what time and also a tool to help myself keep on topic rather than just ramble on in generalities.

    It being long is simply because there’s a lot to adress. In this case you being wrong about a lot of separate things.

    That you consider that a sign of bad faith says a lot about you and the usual quality of your statements and nothing about me .

    it’s basically just a Gish-gallop

    On the contrary. A gish gallop is exactly what I’m avoiding by sticking to a format of addressing your points directly, rather than just veer off on stream of consciousness tangents that are impossible to fully address in a spoken conversation. The latter is what a gish gallop ACTUALLY is.

    I read through everything,

    Doubtful that you understood it though, based on your string of mischaracterizations.

    you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.

    That’s just patently false. And also rich coming from someone who’s claiming that using a common format suitable for staying on topic is not sign of bad faith 🙄

    That including the claim of one side involved in a conflict in the headline is a way of inviting bias in favor of that side isn’t my opinion or “my lived experience” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean in the context of journalism 🤷). It’s just how the language of implied support works.

    The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism

    That’s not a truth, simple or not. For exsmple I am painfully aware of how the NYT uses the passive voice (Palestinian children were killed) when the IDF commits atrocities and the active voice (Hamas killed x amount of people in attack) when someone whose side they’re NOT on does.

    in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it’s somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap

    Holy projection, Batman! 🤦

    you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another.

    Putting aside for a moment your persistent confusion regarding the difference between matters of opinion (which is doubtlessly what you want me to change about myself) and objectively leading rhetoric in headlines, what do you propose I do about misleading headlines other than point them out in a public forum meant for that kind of thing?

    Write a letter to them pointing out the errors of their ways? Try to get hired there? Run for office on a platform of instituting a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine?

    Other than the first obe, which would be fruitless, those things are not possible for me to do, so I’m doing what I CAN do. All I have within my power to do is what you’re criticizing me for, so kindly stow that suggestion where the sun doesn’t shine.

    And I suspect that you’re going to go all Texas Sharpshooter fallacy on me and use that single discourteous remark to invalidate all of my salient points but I don’t care.

    It’s a ridiculous bad faith argument that is used often as a deflection by those who are unable or unwilling to argue the substance rather than the medium.

    To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless

    There’s that projection you love so dearly 🙄

    and I am quite sure you’re aware of that

    Well that makes one of us who’s self-aware, at least 🤷

    You are not attempting to influence me, you’re just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold

    You’re actually partially right for once: since I’ve long since discovered that you’re not susceptible to logic and can as such not be convinced, I’m not trying to do so. I am merely correcting your misconceptions for the sake of any third party that might read them and be fooled.

    As for the “point counter to the one you hold”, you’re once again confusing subjective opinion with objective reality. You could make a “point” counter to the fact that Donald Trump is a notorious liar, and I’d refute that as well.

    Factual reality doesn’t care whether or not you agree.

    that is tedious.

    Again, I’m not refuting your misconceptions to annoy you. I’m setting the record straight to counter your constant gish gallop (yes, you are projecting on that too) of misinformation and misconceptions. It’s a tedious job, but someone has to do it 🤷

    And yes, I am aware that my words aren’t going to sway you here

    Given that you’re fundamentally wrong about everything else, you’d be correct in this case, yes. Strawmen and other fallacies don’t tend to convince me that my simple and objectively true point is false 🤷

    drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions

    This you?

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/dcb5b00e-2245-4e3b-b7fa-ebd82028699c.jpeg

    I don’t think it works that way

    It does.

    … Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone

    It’s nothing more than a simple statement of facts, delivered concisely to indicate that there’s no doubt about it, no elaboration necessary except in case of you relentlessly pushing your misconceptions.

    If you said “I don’t think Donald Trump lies a lot”, you would be equally wrong, and “he does” would be a sufficient reply to reflect objective reality.

    Anyway, I grow tired of repeating the obvious and being met with “that’s just your opinion, man” and a flurry of fallacies and false accusations, so let’s end this here rather than continue aggravating each other and getting nowhere. Have the day you deserve.

    Warl0k3 , (edited )

    Dear sweet jesus you did it again? Bud I’m not reading that. So that was lie, I’m reading it in goofy voices to a room full of people. Seriously, have a drink, maybe introspect with some friends, grow as a person. Please.

    eeeeeeeedit: Are you okay? No, seriously, with all my heart, are you safe? This isn’t coherent.

    e^7dit 2:

    this you

    Yes.

    edit 3: Please take a media literacy class. This is absurd. There’s no way to engage with you, you cannot tell the difference between when I am insulting you and when I am insulting myself (most/all of the time). You cannot accept any form of criticism. This isn’t even a debate, this is just you denying everything, including repeatedly denying my points which are my own self criticism as if they’re attacks on you. You’re so hungry for validation through conflict, and so deluded about your own intellect, that you cannot even pick up on when your own longwinded comment reiterates the point you claim to refute. This hurts to read. I had to stop mocking you halfway through on request, because everyone I’m here with (including a media literacy professor who’s class I will happily sign you in to audit, real offer) described it as “punching down”, which I apologize for. You’re not deserving of my scorn, you’re deserving of my pity and charity.

    (also incorporating emoji responses is a source of scorn even on twitter, I mean dude, just… have some self respect…)

    Viking_Hippie ,

    🙄🤫

    Warl0k3 ,

    oh my god you actually did it. I just lost $5 on you, you absolute madlad.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    Just fuck off already.

    Warl0k3 , (edited )

    There it is.

    Why, though? I’m not actually resentful here - in my experience, I doubt that we wouldn’t get along extremely well in person. Hell, judging by your username its very possible we’ve met (or are related, though that’s really not a flattering thing for me to put on you…). Your doubling down on a position you hold on an internet forum is pretty common; honestly I’ve just been curious how long it would be before you hit the point that you dispense with pretense and we can actually talk.

    Escalating this into a vitriolic spewing of personal attacks and rhetoric is par for the metaphorical course online, but I’d like to harken back to the original issue, before it started getting personal, and point out that this started over my insistence that the specific wording of a NYT article headline isn’t as bad as the others. I don’t even disagree that they’re enabling a genocide or that they’re a bunch of ratfucking cop fellating soulless corporate shills - I just think you misunderstood the specific wording in the headline.

    The offer of a class audit is sincere, as well. I doubt you’d actually need a media literacy class, but it’s a requirement I’m frequently challenged and decried for requiring before getting into my computer science courses. But if you’re interested, we have damn good forestry, polysci, marine bio and mathematics courses I’d happily hook you up with. Not even in an editorial or sarcastic way, you just seem intellegent and motivated and people like that can always benefit from an influx of information they have a competent understanding of.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    Why, though? I’m not actually resentful here

    Nope, just stubbornly wrong and resorting to mocking what you don’t understand. I don’t want to waste any more time on your bad faith bullshit and before telling you to fuck off, I tried telling you more or less politely and still you persist.

    Just LEAVE. ME. ALONE.

    Warl0k3 ,

    Again, why? I’ve even hilighted where I’ve been wrong or unfair to you in my comments, repeatedly, but you continue to attack someone that has been nothing but, at worst, mildly self indulgent in one reply. But you’re openly hostile, even when I’m agreeing with you. I doubt you’re so jaded you can’t even claim victory, but I think you’ve been so blinded by your hatred that you can’t even recognize capitulation or engage with an attempt to start a constructive dialog. So why do you comment on a public forum? What’s the root of why you despise me so much?

    Viking_Hippie ,

    I don’t hate or despise you, I’m just annoyed and exasperated by your histrionics and stubborn insistence. Go bother someone else.

    Warl0k3 ,

    I’m going to point out that you started this conversation, but I’m really not trying to be churlish by doing so. I just truly think you’ve thrown an assumption of bad faith onto me, and have approached this whole interaction from that perspective. And while it’s easy to characterize someone on the internet as attention seeking, consider that I only have something to gain by having a civil conversation with you.

    chicken ,

    It’s true that it’s biased in favor of Israel, but I’d say a biased headline isn’t as bad as a misleading one which isn’t as bad as a lie.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    It’s misleading by being biased in favor of the IDF who are notorious for being fundamentally dishonest at all times including this one.

    So congratulations, you got your triumvirate of shoddy journalism right here.

    chicken ,

    I don’t think it works that way, it can be at different places on the scale. The other OP headlines are worse than the NYT one because they directly imply the “pre-emptive” claim is true, as opposed to indirectly implying it by choosing to reference the perspective of the IDF.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    I don’t think it works that way

    It does.

    The other OP headlines are worse

    That’s irrelevant. Things don’t magically go from bad to good just because a worse version of the same thing exists.

    they directly imply the “pre-emptive” claim is true, as opposed to indirectly implying it by choosing to reference the perspective of the IDF.

    Only difference is how sneaky they are about it. The bias they’re deliberately trying to spread is the same.

    chicken ,

    Quality of journalism isn’t a binary based on whether it is propagandizing for the correct side.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    Yet another thing I never said or even implied. If you want anyone to take you seriously, it would behoove you to put away the strawmen.

    Warl0k3 ,

    … But they said that. They were reiterating their point.

    Viking_Hippie ,

    Their incorrect point. Now leave me alone like I told you several times already.

    Warl0k3 ,

    But that wasn’t a strawman argument like you accused them of…? I don’t understand why you think you should be able to harass people but then yourself be free from even polite criticism, even in the replies to a comment thread where someone may genuinely not notice your username (sorry) in a connected thread 8 comments away.

    oberstoffensichtlich ,
    @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

    Hezbollah started firing missiles at Israel on October 7th and hasn’t stopped since. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself against these and attack their infrastructure.

    Do you want Israel to just accept incoming rocket fire from Lebanon?

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    israel was bombing Lebanon and Gaza far before October 7 where history magically starts.

    Furthermore israel assasinated a Hezbollah top leader in Beirut. That was an escalating attack. Lebanon is defending itself right now.

    oberstoffensichtlich ,
    @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

    The only reason ever for Israel to fight in Lebanon was, that it was attacked from its territory. Hezbollah has prepared for this war for over a decade. Destroying Israel is pretty much the only purpose of Hezbollah.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    Defensing against israel is the only purpose of Hezbollah.

    Hezbollah was created as a response to israel terrorism.

    Spzi ,

    You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

    Because, the enemy “is defending itself”?

    I’d love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    I expect headlines to say “israel strikes Lebanon”. Not “israel pre-emptively self defences in Lebanon”.

    You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

    I’d expect israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza which is a condition given by Iran and Hezbollah to prevent retaliation. That is, if israel wanted to achieve peace. Which it doesn’t.

    Noel_Skum ,

    No. No it doesn’t. Preemption - in the military sense - could be used both offensively and defensively. If you are about to invade a country you could preemptively attack their parliament and barracks’ to make your invasion easier.

    prettydarknwild ,
    @prettydarknwild@lemmy.world avatar

    it has been said many times before, but, remember the USS Liberty

    oberstoffensichtlich ,
    @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

    Miscommunication and and mistakes happen in every war.

    Linkerbaan OP , (edited )
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    oberstoffensichtlich ,
    @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org avatar

    It was a chaotic situation during a war In a war zone, which are usually chaotic.

    If it is as you say, why didn’t Israel sink the ship?

    Why do I even ask. For people like you Israel is always the devil regardless of facts.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    If it is as you say, why didn’t Israel sink the ship?

    Because they did.

    It’s pretty obvious you’re just here to defend israel without knowing what you’re talking about. If you want to learn something there’s a video in my previous comment.

    givesomefucks ,

    You just linked to YouTube’s homepage, and a claim like that really needs a good source.

    Cuz like, to be a false flag, they’d have had to try and blame it on someone else…

    Israel didn’t try to hide the fact they did it, or blame it on anyone else. They just said they thought it was Egypt’s and tried to destroy it.

    That’s just not a false flag

    Linkerbaan OP , (edited )
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    givesomefucks ,

    Corrected the video.

    Bruh…

    Look at the title of the video, a fucking 4chan meme popped up as the thumbnail even…

    That’s not a good enough source for a claim like that. It’s just shitty YouTube videos some random person made. And as bad as Israel is, you still have to be careful because lots of people dislike Israel because they dislike people who are Jewish, they don’t have a problem with the genocide of Muslims.

    I’m not comfortable leaving those video links up, because it seems like that’s the type of people that made them.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    Look at the title of the video, a fucking 4chan meme popped up as the thumbnail even…

    Yes it’s called making a Youtube video. Thumbnails and Memes get people to click on video. Not "History review

    The video is filled to the brim with direct quotes from people involved in the matter. Such as the CIA Director Richard Helms

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/52a461da-7730-4b77-94ad-1c2c1cac4eaa.png

    givesomefucks ,

    The video is filled to the brim with direct quotes from people involved in the matter. Such as the CIA Director Richard Helms

    And if you linked to a decent article or direct source with that information, that would be better.

    But Israel would have still have needed to try and blame it on someone else for it to be a false flag.

    Israel intentionally attacking an American ship isn’t a false flag. It’s fucked up, but that’s not what “false flag” is.

    A screenshot of a YouTube video that has a screen shot of an unsourced document ain’t proof of anything.

    Linkerbaan OP ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    All documents presented in the video are quoted and attributed properly. No article does a better job at presenting the facts than the video I linked. Its sourcing is top tier.

    There’s plenty of fragmented articles such as

    ‘But Sir, It’s an American Ship.’ ‘Never Mind, Hit Her!’ When Israel Attacked USS Liberty

    But they don’t piece the whole story together nearly as neatly.

    mlg ,
    @mlg@lemmy.world avatar

    youtu.be/glfrvlv5Sog

    hector ,

    The Guardian is clearly quoting. Judging an article by its title is like judging a book by its cover: clearly misguided.

    WldFyre ,

    So is the NYT title

    ZombiFrancis ,

    Is a ‘massive strike’ bigger or smaller than a ‘large-scale attack’?

    FlashMobOfOne ,
    @FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world avatar

    Yup, kind of like when we torture people and they call it ‘enhanced interrogation’.

    Give something a sanitized term and people will run with it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •