Comment on Major western news outlets continue to manufacture consent for israel's Genocide
Encode1307@lemm.ee 8 months ago
If they wanted to “manufacture consent for genocide” they wouldn’t have reported the story at all
That would make them seem too biased. They did that in the past but right now that’s becoming too difficult as everyone is reporting on these massive stories.
There is a fine line to walk on “reporting on the Palestinian side” while using selective language.
You must have the feeling that you are informed without actually being informed.
Exactly. Some other person tried posting this same nonsense earlier today. It was removed.
Even better, if they don’t report it, then people who read stuff from alternative sources will find that they can’t confirm the reporting in mainstream sources and decide that it probably didn’t happen, at least the way they read it.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
These days it’s done in a way more subtle way than that because people can just discover those things via social media and if they see it as not being reported they suspect the newsmedia for not doing it.
The manipulation (as exemplified above) is in the consistent use of language with different emotional charge and even the passive or active mode depending on the side (i.e. “the terrorists of Hamas killed x people” when the Hamas does the deed versus “x people died when a building was hit” when the IDF does the deed) as well as different levels of implied trust for each side (for example, consistently reporting “such has happenned” when the source is the IDF whilst reporting “the spokesperson of X said that such has happenned” when the source is the Hamas).
If you’re paying attention you will see this shit all over whenever a Newspaper or News Channel is biased as they use the very same differentiated treatment for controlling emotional impact techniques for just about everything, including local politics.