Comment on MBFC Credibility - High
RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoYep, 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@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
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 one 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 bu llshit 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.
nonailsleft@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
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@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“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@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
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