Comment on Putin pressure
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
To be pedantic, one is a simple news messgae, the other seems to be the headline of a longer article or opinion piece. I bet you can find a simple news message of Russia closing news stations.
If it was a one-off you would be right. But newspapers consistently leave out negatively loaded words for israel while (correctly) using them for Russia.
It’s even more preposterous because israel doesn’t control the West Bank. They are illegally colonizing it and preventing Aljazeera from covering their war-crimes. If this isn’t blatant repression of press freedom I don’t know what is.
Bro, read some Chomsky ffs.
This is why buddy said they’re being pedantic.
For example, if I found and posted a plain statement of fact headline for Russia, would that be evidence that manufactured consent isn’t a thing? No. Of course not.
To look at these kinds of things, you can’t just cherry pick. These concepts are laid bare as a result of aggregating reporting. It’s a statistical thing.
So while this is an example, for the reasons posted, it’s not a great one. And you could take that feedback and post a better one. You could understand the argument. You’re completely right, so why not choose examples that don’t leave yourself vulnerable to valid criticism of your specific choices?
Chomsky and fair.org and many other people do statistical analysis. It’s not a mystery at all. Here’s a top search result for example:
I’m entirely unconvinced you read what I wrote
PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
True, but that also speaks to the effort NYT is willing to put into reporting on allied/adversarial media suppression.
Just another day vs. this is clearly a Very Bad Thing.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No it doesn’t, it speaks to the effort that went into this screenshot of a twitter meme. I’m not defending the NYT or decrying them, just pointing out that your statement does not at all seem to stem from the conclusion of the comment that you’ve agreed with.