Comment

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.

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

source

Sort:hotnew top

Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
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.

source
nonailsleft@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
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

source
- Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Nice strawman you have there.
  
  You sure did trash the argument I never made.
  
  source