324

"As the president of the United States, you have power to change the course of history, and the responsibility to save lives right now," the staffers wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 186 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Taking from my comment on the other community where you posted this:

Biden asked for one and reported Netanyahu said no.

The headline sounds like he’s just dismissing his staffers

[-] Gormadt 120 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You mean the headline is intentionally misleading to the point of misinforming people?

It's straight up journalistic malpractice the way they phrased it

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because you misinterpret the headline doesn’t make it wrong.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 year ago

It doesn't matter what the intent is here, the headline is misleading, which is poor journalist integrity. Both malice and ignorance can sink a ship.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Intent is irrelevant. Biden’s comment and the staffer’s letter correlate (A relationship or connection between two things based on co-occurrence or pattern of change). It is implied (To make evident indirectly) that Biden is disregarding the wishes of the staffers. If you can’t comprehend this, I can’t help you read gooderer.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

It is implied

Someone did the implying, and that's bad practice. You are correct that intent is irrelevant, yet you take issue with the headline being accused of intentional misinformation.

The thing about implications is that they exists regardless of your intent or your audience's comprehension. It doesn't matter if the headline is technically correct, if a significant portion of the audience leaves misinformed, that's poor jounalism. The extent to which this happens here edges into malpractice, either from ignorance or malice.

Since you take issue with the accusation, you either disagree with the claim of malice or the claim of misinformation; as you reject the former you must disagree that a headline that gives a drastically different interpretation of reality is misinformation. Am I wrong?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s called grammar. I didn’t make the rules.

As as a conjunction

The conjunction “as” has several different meanings. We use “as” when one event happens while another is in progress (‘during the time that’). In this case the verb after is often in the continuous form:

“They arrived as we were leaving. (time conjunction meaning ‘while’ or ‘when’)

So I don’t see it as malice or misinformation. I had no no trouble with the headline.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

An implication doesn't need to be directly conveyed, especially in a situation so small as a headline. Implication is often used in headlines to convey more information that explicitly stating everything, and especially to save on word count.

For example: "TITANIC SINKS, 1500 DIE" Purely by literal meaning: A big boat sank, and somewhere at somepoint, many people died of something. Odd to include that people have died before, that's just a fact of life, but the Titanic was carrying a lot of people, did they survive? Too bad the headline didn't say, I guess they don't know yet.

We could look even deeper and conclude that Biden rejected the possibility of a ceasefire specifically because the former staffers demands. I don't think he's that spiteful, so it would be an odd interpretation, but it would be fully grammatical correct. Sorry, I didn't make the rules.

As, because and since are conjunctions. As, because and since all introduce subordinate clauses. They connect the result of something with its reason.

As you were out, I left a message.

She may need some help as she's new.

So I don't see how a single definition rules out others, as several exist.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So, you didn’t like, or understand the headline, and that’s the author’s fault. Fair point. It doesn’t make it grammatically incorrect though. Email the writer and let them know, if it means that much to you.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

So they were grammatically correct with their intentionally misleading headline. Glad everyone reached a consensus.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Because it’s grammatically correct it’s not intentionally misleading. “As” is the keyword. Run has 645 meanings. Just because people interpret a phrase differently doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or malicious.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Except that it is obviously both wrong and malicious.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I proved that it is not grammatically wrong, can you prove that it is malicious?

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

It leaves out context, intentionally. If this was a fox news headline, I'd say the same thing, and you'd agree.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The context is in the article. It could be argued that it is in the headline too, but some obviously have interpreted it differently.

Edit: Replace “as” with “while” and maybe you’ll understand.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Indeed.

Edit: You are just being condescending and not pointing out anything meaningful.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I’m not trying to be condescending. I’m just incapable of explaining this in a satisfactory way. Those criticizing the headline are not pointing out anything meaningful. The information in the article correlates with the headline. Biden has the ability to endorse a ceasefire, “while” his former staffers are urging him to do so.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are incapable of explaining it because it is an incredibly common and recognizable representation of a bad faith headline.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Summarizing an article and writing a headline isn’t easy. I know from experience. It may be in bad faith, it doesn’t appear that way to me. It doesn’t detract from the relevant information in the article.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

FWIW I think the administration could, should, and (unfortunately) probably won't do more to support a cease fire.

I just don't think my opinion justifies misrepresenting what actually occurred in a headline intentionally.

And the author of the headline did. They knew. And if you have experience, you know they knew.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 year ago

"Ok then stop sending bombs and using reaper drones to help them perform mass killings"

"No can do chief, Bibi told me I need to keep doing all that."

[-] daftwerder@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago

Considering the power that the US has over Israel, he pretty much is just dismissing his staffers.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

And that’s the headline. Thanks.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Even if IDF stops shooting, what really makes people believe Hamas will stop? I want an end to the violence as much as anyone else but I really don't see a cease fire doing anything but giving Hamas time to rearm and plan their next massacre.

[-] SkyeStarfall 18 points 1 year ago

And if IDF doesn't stop shooting like they do now, will the continued escalation make less people flock to anti-israel organization like Hamas? Because all I can see happening is that, while Israel may take over some land, they are just strengthening the support of terrorists.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 15 points 1 year ago

It's almost like the US isn't technically a combatant here.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I assumed people could read past the headline.

[-] Daxter101 63 points 1 year ago

I mean... Isn't the point of the headline to concisely represent the article? That's the entire reason clickbait is considered bad.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the information in the article is unimportant because the headline is cumbersome. /s

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] howsetheraven@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Username TokenBoomer acts full of themselves. Who would have thought?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Username howsetheraven is a scavenger and eats carrion. Who would have thought?

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Maybe I would be logical if people would stop criticizing the headline and read the fucking article. Wait until they notice the glaring grammatical error in paragraph 3.

[-] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

And that is a reason to make the headline misleading?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don’t read the article and remain ignorant then. This is a distraction from the contents.

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That makes me feel better, but I wish he would put some weight behind it.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
324 points (100.0% liked)

World News

45757 readers
2485 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS