Major western news outlets manufacture consent for Genocide : aboringdystopia

[+] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 68 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What is the lie? These headlines are not edited in any way. Writing suggestive or misleading headlines and/or articles is a key component in manufacturing consent as headlines are by far the most important part of an article which decide even whether people will click on it.

The most consistent theme we find is that Palestinians keep being "found dead" instead of having being killed.

None of them use "killed" when talking about the little girl. I presume that's because she survived the first Israeli attack (hence being on the phone for three hours), was assumed to be alive, and probably died of exposure as far as I can find.

That means she died of natural causes and israel was not responsible?

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows

Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7.

One typical headline from the New York Times, in a mid-November story about the October 7 attack, reads, “They Ran Into a Bomb Shelter for Safety. Instead, They Were Slaughtered.” Compare this with the Times’s most sympathetic profile of Palestinian deaths in Gaza from November 18: “The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children.” Here “graveyard” is a quote from the United Nations and the killing itself is in passive voice. In its own editorial voice, the Times story on deaths in Gaza uses no emotive terms comparable to the ones in its story about the October 7 attack.

[+] Afx@lemm.ee 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

If you don't need to worry about it why are they consistently using different language for israelis and Palestinians being killed?

Surely if it doesn't affect public opinion there would be no need for that.

[-] Hikermick@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

So did the WP story

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Encode1307@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago

If they wanted to "manufacture consent for genocide" they wouldn't have reported the story at all

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

These days it's done in a way more subtle way than that because people can just discover those things via social media and if they see it as not being reported they suspect the newsmedia for not doing it.

The manipulation (as exemplified above) is in the consistent use of language with different emotional charge and even the passive or active mode depending on the side (i.e. "the terrorists of Hamas killed x people" when the Hamas does the deed versus "x people died when a building was hit" when the IDF does the deed, this latter being very visibly in the example given here) as well as different levels of implied trust for each side (for example, consistently reporting "such has happenned" when the source is the IDF whilst reporting "the spokesperson of X said that such has happenned" when the source is Hamas).

If you're paying attention you will see this shit all over whenever a Newspaper or News Channel is activelly engaged in "opinion forming" as they use the very same differentiated treatment for controlling emotional impact techniques for just about everything, including local politics.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

That would make them seem too biased. They did that in the past but right now that's becoming too difficult as everyone is reporting on these massive stories.

There is a fine line to walk on "reporting on the Palestinian side" while using selective language.

You must have the feeling that you are informed without actually being informed.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

Killed if Ukrainian, Died if Palestinian

[-] uriel238 24 points 9 months ago

Headlines matter.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

By an amazing coincidence all of the 4 "major" Western news outlets cited are from nations whose governments have proclaimed "unwavering support for Israel" and where the locals have the least trust in the Press, in the World.

Maybe all those things are linked....

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

All war is murder

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

I mean, people have a right to defend themselves. I would just say all coercive violence is wrong, no matter what form it takes.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

No, the purpose of society is to supercede the laws of the jungle. If we cannot adhere to civility our chances of self-erradication significantly increase each year. Ask Yemen how their right to self-defence has served them this past decade. The same can now be said for Palestine, and if Republicans get what they want, Ukraine, too.

War was given mantle as a horseman of the apocolypse with good reason. It won't be the plagues, famines, and multitudes of death that wipe us out. The last two men on Earth will die in a fist fight between each other.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

Ask Yemen how their right to self-defence has served them this past decade. The same can now be said for Palestine, and if Republicans get what they want, Ukraine, too.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with Yemen's situation, but the suggestion that Palestinians would be doing better if they rejected violent resistance is frankly ridiculous.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Israelis would also have to reject violence. Its not that this is obtainable today, but this is the mindset we should be implanting in new generations of people. War should be taboo.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Israelis are the only violent side refusing any semblance of peace. The West Bank is irrefutable evidence of this.

There is no "also".

[-] BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

This is a hard line to tow, this is not a conflict with a 'good guy'.

The Hamas charter that they were founded on is publicly accessible, anyone can read it. It directly calls for Jihad as the only answer, and directly say that negotiation is not an option. There is also a line referencing that judgement will not come until the Jews are killed. Israel is doing bad things but don't let that lead you to the conclusion that Hamas is okay. It's really rough.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is a hard line to tow, this is not a conflict with a ‘good guy’.

None of the single violent resistances against apartheid and oppression ever had a "good guy".

If you believe all those people that were willing to risk their lives to stand up against oppression in the past were super nice and educated about the whole situation you're in for a big treat.

The IRA and the ANC are not the nice guys you think they were which only targeted military and politicians. And don't google what the Haitians did during their rebellion against slavery.

Hamas is very much on the lower end of civilian casualty rates for a resistance group.

[-] BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

None of the single violent resistances...

It's hard line to tow, but if you are going to say they're open to peace, you got to stick to it.

If you believe all those people that were willing to risk their lives to stand up against oppression in the past were super nice and educated about the whole situation you’re in for a big treat.
The IRA and the ANC are not the nice guys you think they were which only targeted military and politicians. And don’t google what the Haitians did during their rebellion against slavery.

No one is interested in bringing any of this into the conversation.

Hamas is very much on the lower end of civilian casualty rates for a resistance group.

This is where I have a problem, you're framing 'lower end of civilian casualty' as a good statistic to look at and a sign that one side is somehow 'noble'. People are trying really hard to frame it as a battle of good vs evil, where in reality it's just a battle of evil vs evil, but one side is dramatically less effective and has less resources. The wikipedia article on suicide bombings Hamas has claimed credit for isn't small and that's just covering one type of terrorism.

It's horrible for the Palestinian civilians, but Hamas has built their entire government on the idea of perpetual war and specifically not negotiating a solution. I hope I'm wrong, but I personally don't see a peaceful solution here where both sides are still around.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

It’s hard line to tow, but if you are going to say they’re open to peace, you got to stick to it

What does this even mean? They have been open to peace and tried to negotiate peacefully far before October 7.

Israel keeps breaking all its deals which leaves violent resistance as the only option they have left for peace.

You've watched a few too many Disney movies where "the good guy "keep getting punched in the face and never hit anyone that oppose them because 'they're above that and that would make them just as evil as the other guy!".

This is where I have a problem, you’re framing ‘lower end of civilian casualty’ as a good statistic to look at and a sign that one side is somehow ‘noble’.

Yes intentionally avoiding killing many civilians and especially children is objectively better than indiscriminately massacring every single child you can find like israel does and like many other resistance groups have done in the past.

A reminder that in total EIGHT children under 10 died on october 7. israel kills more than that every single day.

People are so far brainwashed that if they hear "khamas evil evil evil" enough times they magically believe that they are actually worse than israel which is literally trying to wipe out every single Palestinian from the face of the earth and are dreaming of having the 2/3 civilian casualty rate Hamas has

Hamas's government is built upon israel never accepting any peaceful deal or keeping their promises, something which israel has proven many times over the past 75 years.

You'd be out there saying that the Jews should have just negotiated with Adolf Hitler instead of fighting back as if that's even an option.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There is an also, because they must, too, reject violence. The Israelis could have taken to the streets enraged as their leader failed to act on the information given to him about the Oct 7 attack. He chose violence instead, and those people, forgetting their previous emotions of hatred toward their leader, sided with their government. They chose violence. Do you see how individuals and their consent creates a vicious cycle?

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Only israel must reject violence as the other side has always been open to peace.

Palestinians would not resort to violence if there was any other option.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Hamas is made up of Palestinians. It may seem strange, but those who were forced to live in what was bragged as an "open air prison" also resorted to violence on Oct 7.

The purpose of my words is not who is at fault. I am saying that for humanity to have peace they have to choose it every time. If people ever want to be free of war, warfare must become taboo. That won't happen, and the warmonger at the head of Israel will probably get most of what he wants. But that is what it will take if anyone ever truly wants world peace. The People must refuse to fight.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is some "the bullied kid fights back so both are at fault" level shit. Victim blaming level maximum.

Palestinians in the West Bank don't fight back and they still get genocided by israel.

I will repeat; only one side is at fault and it is israel.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah just ignore the literal hundreds of years of conflict between israelites and Palestinians. And thr fact the Palestinians elected Hamas. Its eyes for eyes all around

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

I mean sure but then you're not saying much. "Both sides should settle things peacefully" I mean yes we'd all love that to happen but it's not possible today and the side being oppressed giving up on violence never goes well unless they have some non-violent way of gaining leverage.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 13 points 9 months ago

I'm not sure if it's manufactured consent or outright propaganda, at least for CNN:

They include tight restrictions on quoting Hamas and reporting other Palestinian perspectives while Israel government statements are taken at face value. In addition, every story on the conflict must be cleared by the Jerusalem bureau before broadcast or publication.

Imagine if every broadcast or publication about the war in Ukraine had to be cleared first with the Kremlin. It has a different ring to it when I put it like that, which means I have internalized some of the propaganda myself.

[-] Hikermick@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

I subscribe to the WP so I looked up the article about Hind Rajab. The app won't let me copy/paste it but if you read the rest of the paragraph it definitely does say was killed as were two rescue workers

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The Twitter post definitely excludes every single mention of her and her family being killed by israel.

The website article makes zero mention of Hind being killed. It goes as far as excluding her from being killed and then saying "she was found dead".

Israeli troops were firing on the car, the teen said in terrified calls to relatives and emergency services. Everyone in the vehicle was killed except her and her 5-year-old female cousin, Hind, she said.

The family car was found as well with six bodies, including Layan’s and Hind’s.

it definitely does say was killed as were two rescue workers

This is also factually incorrect nowhere do they use the word killed for the ambulance personnel.

On Saturday, 12 days later, the ambulance was discovered, blackened and destroyed. The two medics were dead.

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

They always report the facts but frame them emotionally starting with the headline. They don't need totalitarian control of the media, they only need to convince 5-10% to get total control. That's how propaganda and corruption works in democratic countries.

[-] Shenanigore@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

You'd almost think someone runs the media

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Almost.

If only we had the data to back it up

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

2/3 civilians killed is what Hamas did on October 7, 373 military to 695 civilians. I recall the BBC describing that as "indiscriminate slaughter".

The IDF civilian casualty rate is FAR HIGHER than 2/3. They kill 2/3 women and children and count every man as a "terrorist" because israel is a racist terrorist Nazi state.

Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

This is why I'm attempting to remain impartial and critical of both sides, to avoid spreading complete misinformation as you have done here.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

"The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces."

"After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel

"The history of calls for the destruction of Israel is rooted in the prelude to its establishment. Leaders such as Azzam Pasha of the Arab League threatened a "war of extermination" in the event that a Jewish state was established. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, there was a nearly unanimous consensus among Arab nations aimed at the obliteration of Israel.[7] Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser reiterated calls for the annulment of Israel's existence in the lead-up to the war. Contemporary discourse from political figures in Iran, including leaders like Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to advocate for Israel's destruction, accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial.[8] Islamist Palestinian organizations like Hamas[9] and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad[9] consistently promote the goal of Israel's elimination, as evidenced by their charters, statements, and actions, such as the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel."

I have many, many more examples if you wish to continue spreading misinformation.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

After the Zionists decided to steal Palestine and terrorize the Palestinians, the Palestinians found that not okay and resisted

Wow such a two sided affair. Someone comes into their land and decides to violently steal it. And then the other side fights back. This must mean that both sides are at fault. Another amazing analysis.

Israel terrorizes and colonizes the west bank, and the people there fight back. This must mean both sides are at fault!

A very nuanced analysis thank you for your input once again.

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

steal Palestine

Again, this is misinformation. It's particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

"After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

"The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by "stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands"."

Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

I mean yes. Israel has been from the get go, ever since the planning stage, a settler colonialist Apartheid state. The sales pitch has always been "Let's steal Palestinian lands and make them second class citizens".

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?

Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?

Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?

Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?

Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?

Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

I'm not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.

Everything since 1917 was with the intention of creating a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. Palestine that's, for obvious reasons, populated with Palestinians basically everywhere. You can't have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it's just not physically possible. And then you had a "Jewish state" with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible. Does that sound like the blueprint for an egalitarian state?

load more comments (10 replies)

A Boring Dystopia