Look at the NYTs coverage of the genocide in gaza ("boohoo poor israel, self defense") and general media coverage Bernie Sanders (doesnt exist until he has no chance of winning something, pretending hes more outspoken now even though he's been saying the same thing for the last 60 years)
The IDF will bomb a hospital and kill 200 people
NYT article will say something like "200 Dead after bombs drop near a place, according to the Hamas-run health ministry."
They phrase everything so carefully.
Like the bombs were some sort of natural disaster and not an intentional military strike on civilians.
They always append "Hamas run health ministry", to imply the information can't be reliable, because it's from a US-designated terrorist organisation
The Israeli media will say "We killed 300 Palestinians"
Wasn't the bomb in this case from a Hamas fired rocket?
Wouldn't you want the news to not rush to conclusions?
They aren't talking about a particular instance because of how many times the IDF have bombed Palestinian hospitals
Is there another case with over +200 plus killed?
I'm all for hypotheticals, but the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion lead to millions of people having this exact conversation about media bias, so when you associate the death toll in this context, I am reminded of all those people who fell for blatant misinformation and critize good journalism.
The OC's comment reflects the context around the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion exactly. I would think it is naive to have not made the connection, but I also followed the war moderately close.
200 was an arbitrary number
It was not of any significance to the point I was trying to make
Got it, thanks for clarifying. I got the wrong impression.
It’s cute you think that event, which happened over a year ago now, is the only example of a hospital being blown up in Gaza.
The IDF literally bombed a cancer center last week. With patients in it. And took credit.
Like how the fuck is this even a question anymore
Why do you think I only know of singular hospital attacks? You made it up and judged me for it, because I corrected misinformation.
And isn't the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion the only alleged hospital attack with 200+ killed in a single strike? Any reasonable person would connect the above hypothetical with that important awful event.
Misinformation must be corrected. That shouldn't only apply to your enemies.
Use a VPN. On the American side try to find any signs of bad past news on Trump. Now do it from another country on the VPN. See the difference before your very eyes. You can also do this on TikTok and probably get similar results.
You're going to have to be more specific. There is no network-level filtering of content at the network delivery layer in the US and US can access any international hosts if the host permits it.
Search engines do have regional awareness (that can basically always be changed as a setting) to deliver more local results. I suspect this on social media platforms is what you're referring to. It's not exactly censorship, but they definitely promote with an agenda.
Don't get me wrong, Trump and Republicans are fascists who deserve the worst fate and would gladly setup this kind of system, but it's not like there's a network component to censorship like you see in China and some other dictatorships (yet).
Source: I'm always traveling and on VPNs from all regions of the Earth
So far most of the American censorship happens at Layer 7 (or Layer 8 - the meat layer), not Layer 3.
Use a VPN.
Do not recommend people to use random free VPN’s. You should pick your VPN provider carefully as all your traffic will flow through their servers.
There was an article out there about how protests this year have been consistently twice as many as in 2017. Show him that and then ask him if he's seen it covered in the news.
I think you might be tackling this the wrong way.
You can't really provide hard evidence that "the news is censored" to someone who doesn't want to believe that, because the term "censored" is subjective.
As in, reasonable evidence would be a peer reviewed study of media bias, of which there are many, but a "skeptic" can reject that evidence on the grounds that it doesn't meet their definition of censorship.
A more meaningful conversation would be to ask whether news sources have bias, and which are more biased than others and in which way.
The term "censorship" implies a big secret not being told, which isn't my impression of what's happening. Rather, there's a constant conservative spin on everything that happens.
Sadly, I suspect you might be about to discover that you can't change your partner's political alignment. I'm in my 40s, and in my age group you're either lucky enough to share political views with your partner, or you ignore the issues you disagree on, or you separate.
ask him if he's heard about the latest CEO shooting, and point out how it ISN"T Brian Thompson's cathartic death
I haven't even heard this one
Same
case and point
On the off chance that you're like me and would prefer to know, the phrase is typically "case in point".
I should of looked at that before I wrote "should of".
Do you mean Chip Terhune, CEO of SAIF?
Shit I live near this incident and heard nothing about it.
Seems kind of different though. This is a state run non-profit for workers comp?
Imma need a link for this please. Who?
What is 50501
Appears also recently a lemmy instance appeared for it. 50501.chat or something like that.
checks OP’s name
You don’t say?
lol I am dumb
E.S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent is a great place to start. You can skip most of the book honestly, (it's out of date), but the "5 Filters" part is like a decoder ring for American Legacy Media.
It's free to read online
Step 1: Make a new account on Reddit or Twitter...
Maybe teach him about passive voice, and then show examples of it in news media?
Not sure if something like this will do, but it is really concerning.
Great suggestion.
Maybe look for coverage of a topic or event from a few major US media sites/papers, and then at the same event from somewhere outside the US.
Etc.
I wonder if he’s open minded enough to accept information he wasn’t expecting, or one of those people for whom no proof will ever be good enough.
One of the easiest ways might be to have him take a look at an app like GroundNews, which displays biases of publications and shows blindspots in the media according to political lean. The biases and differences in headlines, presentation, language used, and what stories get reported at all by any given publication become very apparent.
Edit: Maybe reading Chomsky would be better. Ground News has problems.
Words to watch out for are things like "attacked", "bashed" or "slammed" instead of "criticised"; "forced" instead of "chose", eg "company forced to cut jobs"; "muzzled" or "gagged" instead of perhaps "censored". The implied violence charges the story emotionally, it's the most common form of news manipulation. They're trying to make you feel - usually fear or anger - rather than think.
I’m so sick of seeing “slammed” in news.
Damn, OP BLASTED the news outlets!
My only complaint about Ground News (and most media bias meters in general) is that factual papers will almost always be listed as left-leaning. Because the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that cold hard facts presented exactly as they happened with zero spin now has a left-wing bias.
Yes, but he has to read a book. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
What exactly do you mean by "news is censored"? Are you saying that certain stories aren't getting the kinds of traction you think they should be getting? Or, are you saying that major events are not being covered at all because the government is threatening news organizations that cover them?
If he's into documentaries, see if he might like the Adam Curtis documentary HyperNormalisation.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!