725
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 23 Feb 2026
725 points (100.0% liked)
World News
54313 readers
3796 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The protests are good and justified, all power to the Iranian people. Iran deserves a second revolution, after the first one was taken over by the Mullahs for their own goals.
But it's genuinely disheartening how readily nominally progressive spaces are jumping abord the manufactured consent for an imperialist military intervention by Israel and the US.
How, exactly, will bombing Iranian cities help their liberation? Or even if they succeed with deposing the Mullah regime, is anyone really expecting self determination by the Iranian people afterwards? We're seen how the Shar's son is pushed as the next US puppet government by US- and Israeli media (and their European allies).
The Iranian people, not just the current regime, are supportive of Palestine, and Israel and the US absolutely cannot accept that. Don't cheer for imperialist intervention.
at this point I'm don't understand it but I can see it as a possible future for a lot of Latin America
we are watching in real time how Venezuela is transforming into a US colony
right now Fidel's grandson is allegedly making deals with the US gov (while the US asks Mexico to stop any deals involving gas with Cuba)
and here in Mexico the state is so corrupt and the US propaganda is running strong for an intervention like the one in Venezuela (and what happened yesterday just made it worse)
The american savages are drooling at the prospect of colonizing Latin America as part of their future war effort with china. They will plant propaganda everywhere to steal from the global south as the death throes of their crumbling empire.
Same way that kidnapping Maduro liberates Venezuela. And embargoing gasoline liberates Cuba. And sending ground troops into Denmark liberates Greenland.
Under Shah Reza Pahlavi, they will crush Hamas and Hezbollah, defeat ISIS, and end Woke Gay Iranian Antifa once and for all.
Please provide evidence where this generally left-of-centre british reporting is "manufacturing consent". Which text lines do you think are trying to make us readers agree to that kind of action by these two states?
From the Wikipedia article of Atrocity Propaganda (I added emphasis):
Nice wiki quote. Now show me, where this applies to the article.
From the text in the post, I've added emphasis:
There is literally not one paragraph in the post text without atrocity propaganda, some paragraphs with several cases. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
They are spreading details about the crimes committed by the enemy, whether factual or not, and this can serve to justify a casus belli. It's literally the definition of atrocity propaganda.
You'd need to show how this is more than simply reporting events and the POV of participants. You'd have to show how the intention is propaganda, how the article manipulates the reader, etc. You'd need to show how this differs from the reporting of ICE crimes, for example.
And then you'd need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.
I feel like so many on this post just think we should cease all reporting about Bad Things because the reporting could be used as propaganda to those who lack the ability to think critically.
Smh so many slow people around today.
Reporting ICE crimes is also atrocity propaganda. Propaganda doesn't mean it's bad, it just means you're swaying public opinion. I believe that spreading anti-ICE propaganda is good because ICE are a bunch of fascist pigs, I believe that propagating anti-Iran propaganda in the context of the military buildup against Iran is bad because it serves to justify the casus belli and the upcoming military invasion.
How exactly is this article doing this?
Propaganda is communication that is primaroly used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda. Methods to do so would be using selective facts, loaded language, etc so the audience does not come to a rational conclusion but a fabricated one.
Which facts does the article leave out, where does the article use loaded language, which effects do these parts have and how does that make me, a european, want the US go to war on Iran?
That's not how propaganda works, propaganda explicitly can be true information as explained to you before using the Wikipedia article. I literally quoted it to you, it can be factual information.
Mentioning atrocities in every single paragraph is the biggest case of atrocity propaganda, and if you are purposefully obtuse enough not to see it, just drop this conversation.
Where did I state the information used for propaganda can't be true? In the sentence you quoted I talk about the audience's conclusion, not the presented information.
You repeatedly fail to show where the concepts you present are applicable to the article. You keep deflecting, moving goalposts around and dodging the actual questions.
Disengage.
You, as a european, are not the target demographic.
Who is, according to you?
It should be obvious that the target demographic for atrocity propaganda about an enemy of the US is US Americans.
Why should US citizens be the target audience for a british medium?
430k Guardian subscribers are American, compared to 529k from the UK. A significant number of their articles are produced specifically for a US audience.
Having some basic media literacy and asking why a story is being told and who it's for doesn't make me a tankie or whatever box you've likely already put me in. I'm not even disputing the facts in the article. Propaganda can be truthful and still be propaganda. Atrocity propaganda often is, and even when it is exaggerated tends to be based on a kernel of truth.
So? US-based subscribers make up sixty percent compared to european readers, but this is definitely targeting US-americans and no way I, as a european, am part of the target audience?
You are, like the others I had the dubious pleasure to discuss under this post, not providing any evidence for all the bogus claims you are making.
Obviously you're part of the target audience - the entire western world is - but the primary target demographic is US Americans. There has been an increase in selective reporting on the political situation in Iran in order to manufacture consent for military intervention and ultimately regime change by the US. Western media has been known to do this in the past such as during the leadup to the Iraq war, and they're doing the same thing now with Iran. They make certain editorial choices to play up the emotional impact and imply that US intervention is justified or even invited by Iranians, and because they don't (usually) outright lie about what's happening they have plausible deniability about their intent, which is why it can't be proven.
The guardian.
I'm not sure you know what it means to be left of centre.
Are they even accusing the article itself of manufacturing consent? The way I read that, it was talking about online spaces and communities falling for the manufactured consent. Which is not coming from the reporting, but from propagandists, who use the reporting to help them manufacture consent.
No, I don't think so. But that also comes from arguments I had with the user before and other users in this thread claming this article was manufacturing consent.
Insane that people believe this even exists
The Guardian is TERF central
I think most people are hoping for an attack on military targets like last year. No-one is calling for "bombing cities". That's a tankie fantasy. A fantankasy
People said the exact same thing about Libya in 2011. ‘Just military targets.’ ‘Just a no-fly zone.’ It's genuinely impressive how the same script can be rolled out over and over.
What it actually meant was destroying Libya’s air defenses and command systems. Once that was done, NATO pushed regime change, the state collapsed, and the country was handed over to militias, foreign powers, and jihadist groups. That’s the model.
When people say ‘only military targets,’ they’re repeating the same script. You don’t bomb a country’s defenses unless your goal is to weaken it. Once that happens, it’s open season: invasion, proxy forces, destabilization. These strikes are never isolated. They’re step one.
Well you're partly correct, in that you seem to agree that it is, indeed, possible to limit yourself to target military targets... Instead of it being a cover for 'bombing cities' which is what was claimed here.
But that's separate from what happens in the vacuum later.
You can look at the support for the Kurds in Syria as a good counter example - arming them and giving them intel and air support helped them defeat IS. Or working together with the résistance in WW2 to defeat the nazi's.
Syria? The country currently controlled by terrorists massacring minorities is a good example of what you want? Also the USSR did 90% of the work of defeating the Nazis while America continued to trade with and fund them through ford IBM and other enterprises. I think the US should just stop intervening but they never will as the massive violence and immiseration is necessary to sustain their empire.
I think you don't have the slightest idea of what life would be like under the boot of IS (pretty comparable to Iran in most regards, imo) or even what life was like under Assad. Can you let me know how the current Syrian government is 'massacring minorities'? Because that seems like quite the overstatement. Sure they're islamists but Turkey seems to have the leash on pretty tight.
Funny tangent you're going on in the second half. USSR kickstarted German conquests allying with them at the start of WW2. And when they were inevitably stabbed in the back they had to call on the US to supply them so they had a bit more than their bare hands to fight back. I'm sure you ~~can't~~ see the resemblance to the situation the Iranian people find themselves in.
Ah you're one of these people. Ok conversation with you will not be productive. Continue believing what you want all the best.
Hey as I'm currently enjoying some WW2 flight sim, here's a relevant fun fact to close with :-)
What plane did the top USSR ace use to kill most of his nazi's?
Do you think the plane would have been able to do it without him in it?
The biggest death toll in the Iraq war didn't come from the US explicitly bombing civilians, it came from the US destroying the infrastructure and military of Iraq, leading to a failed state which melted the economy, led millions to destitute poverty, and created the conditions for the appearance of ISIS.
The US doesn't need to bomb civilians to murder them, they already murder half a million civilians worldwide every single year through economic sanctions, in which Iran is plastered.
Well no. The biggest death toll in the Iraq Adventure (r) came from the civil war that erupted between (mainly) Sunni and Shia militias. Instead of singing kumbaya and rebuilding the country together they started murdering eachother to settle old scores and try to grab power. Which is to be expected, and was expected, actually.
But that doesn't mean that should be the final argument in the question of how you help a people liberate themselves from their oppressors, as that would just mean you accept the status quo and the fact the oppressors won.