229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
229 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
22153 readers
526 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
i was providing evidence why the NYT is agenda driven. As for how they hide it, i already recommended you to read "Manufacturing Consent" where this is analyzed in detail.
Now you are moving goal posts and ignoring the fundamental problem. Also you selectively focus on the intercept, when multiple media outlets have investigated the NYT piece and found severe problems.
There is a substantial difference between factual reporting on sexual violence and letting a "former" intelligence officer who calls for genocide to completely fabricate cases and become unhinged in her claims. This also amounted to psychological violence against victims and family members who had to come out and deny the fabrications made by the New York Times. Imagine your family member is being murdered and a ruthless "former" intelligence officer is spreading inventions to make it more gruesome than it was and people being bullied to lie about it in order to support the governments propaganda efforts.
Again, i feel like the gravity of it cannot be understated. This piece was clearly a propaganda piece to help Israel maintain its image as the ICJ demanded measures to be taken by Israel to prevent committing genocide against Palestinians. Even as the evidence came in, the NYT doubled down, despite full well knowing who and what it does propaganda for with this piece.
The fact that the NYT occasionally lets Palestinian voices be heard only serves as a veil to create the idea of being unbiased. Again this is something that is well analyzed in "Manufacturing consent" and it isn't exclusive to the NYT. Most corporate media acts in similar fashion.
The United Nations special representative Pramila Patten released her full report on sexual assaults on October 7.
https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf
She concluded that sexual violence did indeed take place. The NYT didn't publish anything false.
The fact Hamas committed bad thing doesn't mean the NYT vilified Palestinians.
The NYT told the story of a Palestinian grandmother who refuses to leave her home in Gaza during bombardments because she already lost her home once, in 1948:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/world/middleeast/gaza-diaspora-families.html
The NYT wrote stories about a Palestinian child orphaned by the air strike that killed dozens of her family members :
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/world/middleeast/gaza-children-israel.html
There's no story that is more fiercely contested than Israel-Palestine drama , more mired in competing zero-sum narratives. It is nearly impossible to produce fair, accurate coverage without making all sides angry.