Comment on MBFC Credibility - High
Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThe 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
Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re claiming I said something I never said.
The manipulation and narrative control is in:
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.
IOt’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 used for the 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 of 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.