What goes through editor’s heads on this shit?
That they dont want to be fired by their genocide sympathizing bosses.
Advertising revenue
Indeed, WTF. The Native Americans would view the US westward expansion like AP’s headline about the shitstain Putin.
It’s weird how borders can move around on their own without any action from anyone.
Edit: On a more serious note, where exactly does this type of bias come from? I don’t think of the AP as a highly ideological organization but is there some top-down pressure to frame things in a certain way? Does it come from the outside? Or is it just the prejudices of individual journalists and editors at play?
Israel has several lobbying organizations that watch news organizations and lodge complaints with them if coverage isn’t favorable. Check out the ex CNN employee who recently said they literally couldn’t publish without Isreal’s permission.
It’s not even Israel either, Zionists world wide do it for free.
There was a big leak of a group chat of influential Zionists in Australia a while ago were they planning how to get people fired, coordinate complaints to the media, etc.
Insane. Marginally related… I’ve learned the last year or so since I took up a moderator position for a computer game… Some complaints you just gotta disregard no matter how many people whine. Being offended is a you problem. not ours. I’ve had this happen equally amongst people who were percieved as right wing, or lefties.
evidentley the news doesn’t know enough to just laugh at the whining and disregard the complaint.
The problem is they’re a profit seeking organization. And groups like CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) can buy billboards telling people you’re a bad product and influence investors to stay away and invest in other news organizations.
So, “the Jews control the media”, then? Sounds like you have a lot of important things to say that totally aren’t insane.
It’s the perfect cover /s
Seriously though, you’re the only person who mentioned Jewish people.
I’m sorry where did I say that? Going from lobbying organizations that conduct pressure campaigns on specific issues to “controls the media” is one hell of a jump.
You know better than to try that.
I’m not “trying” anything. This shit is headline news. It has been for a year. Implying that people are racist conspiracy theorists for calling Israel on it’s bullshit isn’t going to do anything but backfire.
“It’s not a crazy conspiracy theory, it just sounds exactly like one of the oldest ones in every way, coincidentally. Look, I have sources from an underfunded public news agency with zero standards and two fringe publications with recent objectivity scandals”
Please take the pills your doctor asked you to and stop posting so much.
I’m sorry which one is underfunded? Intercept, NPR, or Le Monde? And which ones are fringe?
deleted by creator
Zionists supremacists definitely control news media. OP is direct evidence of bias. But having ADL hate group as weekly guests after Oct 7. It’s the total zionist supremacist monopoly on media that normalizes politicians “willing to blow donkey” extreme legislation, and Israel first loyalty oaths.
To deny the obviousness of the media’s role in subjugating the US to Israel first rulership is precisely the tyranny of “not being able to criticize your true supreme rulers”. Calling such criticism anti-semitic is Hasbara evil.
Israel doesn’t actively do anything, they are to be referred to in the passive voice only. Russia is the one who invades, shoots and kills people. Bullets fly into the heads of Palestinians and Israeli borders move, no responsibility here.
The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news “filters,” fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.
Thanks, I’ve been meaning to read this book for a long time. Maybe the time has finally come.
I think they made a video on the topic at one point if that helps ya to start digging into it.
Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance by Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone is also a worthwhile read if you get around to it
Try Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti too.
Sometimes because the paper is financed/owned by some party that profits off of the colonial & genocidal project, sometimes because the paper gets scoops from 3 letter agencies who make such requests in return for scoops, sometimes it’s racism that the writer might not even aware of, but most often it’s a combination of those.
I guess I was wondering if there’s specific evidence of the way it works in this particular case. The AP is a non-profit, so it doesn’t have the same structure as a privately or publicly owned firm. But of course, there’s still the possibility of leadership imposing views onto its workers, though I think that’s a little more challenging with a nonprofit. But I am curious about them because they are the source of a large amount of news published by other sources, so if they are biased then that bias infects the rest of the media whether they want it or not.
I don’t know about AP specifically, but it’s a good question.
They got to the position to write those titles because they’re already west colonizers.
It is a cherry picked headline. Here is another from the AP that gives a different story: “Middle East latest: Israel plans an extended occupation of Syrian buffer zone”
Even that is far too mild. The Syrian “buffer zone” is there to “protect” the Golan Heights, which was also originally pitched as a “buffer zone”. Wonder what the long term plans are for this new “buffer zone”, and which zone will buffer it next?
Why was the cherry there in the first place that it got picked? Stupid headline or article, even if its only one, needs to be called out on
Oh it’s not stupid, it’s an intentional effort to manufacture consent.
by who though? Which person at AP is doing this?
I saw this article posted a few days ago that I hope will answer it for you. It doesn’t really matter who wrote the headline, imo.
There’s an inherent bias towards treating government statements as fact (whether that’s police, government officials or military spokesmen). When the other side is a ‘terrorist organisation’ or a ‘community leader’, they’re automatically treated as biased and suspicious. It’s a pattern you see with Israel, police shootings, etc.
Obviously when the country in question isn’t aligned with the West (Russia, China, etc), the qualifiers and doubt comes creeping back in, and journalists will include examples of past lies to underscore the point, which you’ll never see in a story about the NYPD or Matthew Miller.
Formal annexation by Russia happened significantly later than occupation of the land. Israel is at the ‘occupation of the land’ stage.
OK but come on, are you really implying that the framing is the same here? And we all knew what Russia planned back then and we know what Israel plans today. Do you think when it’s “official” we’ll see the headline on the left for Israel? I don’t think so.
I think that the important perspective here is the phase of the land grab operation and the perceived statelessness of Syria. When Russian troops walked into Crimea the press wasn’t ready to call it an outright invasion and it certainly didn’t feel like one. Syria currently is not in the situation of enforcing their territorial integrity and the military strikes at military targets in Syria have some kind of international legitimation, independent of if those are valid. Same goes for Turkey. So while it would be appropriate to call out Israel and Turkey for their opportunistic raids into Syria, I can see while the press struggles to name it appropriately. Again, not because it’s right, but because the circumstances are favorable to remain cautious about the language.
Right now one is heavily speculatory and based on ongoing and disputed events (ie the fact that Israel and its allies will lie through their teeth, same as Russia did, about their intentions until the last moment); the other was a pretty firm event quite literally being acknowledged by the perpetrator. Not only that, but outright annexation is not definitely the intention of Israel - it may be that they want more territory to engage in ‘frozen conflict’ style ‘diplomacy’, the same as Russia did with the Donbass for nearly a decade.
For most news sources, it would be reasonable to speculate that there’s a strong pro-Israel bias. AP is generally pretty aggressively anodyne, though. If there’s a pro-Israel bias, it’s likely not a strong one.
While the current events are not great, Israel’s border has changed through military engagements where it was on the defensive/being invaded.
Also, while it could be debated they were in the wrong then too, they did take some land as buffer regions because they were being repeatedly attacked.
That was decades ago and not all the situation here. Israel just took land because Syria couldn’t stop them and no one else will either. Also, being invaded doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing anyway.
The article is about Israel’s entire history, not just recent events. Which is why I thought the context mattered.
But you’re right about the current situation.
Gotta love that passive language making autocracy sound mild.
Disgusting, these media titans should be held accountable for manufacturing consent on genocide.
Using what laws though? I’m not aware of any actual method that can hold them accountable.
Laws aren’t static, but the law also isn’t the only way to justice. In this case it clearly isn’t.
Luigi would find a way.
Anonymous needs to do some hacktivism…
Even the one on the left is still too soft on Putin.
It’s an outrage!!! Canada must do everything US demands faster.
Who is going to sign up for that war? (Any war)
To be fair, Israel has also lost territory that they previously stole in large amounts on the Lebanon front.
Most of the land they’ve gained was in Palestine, but the USA and UK probably didn’t recognize the Palestinian statehood anyways.
The pedantic difference here is like the difference between increasing and strictly increasing.
Europe and post soviet block Asia borders have also “shifted through centuries”. Much of pre 2014 Ukrainian territory was gifted by Russia, some by “Poland”, rather than colonized/invaded by Ukraine.
For fucks sake, this is how tankies are born. Fucking stop it!
People should be able to live how they wish. They can be tankies and we can be what we want. If only the human race got way fucking high and chilled out over fighting for lines on a map.
You see, when a biased article about Russia and a biased article about Israel are really happy together…
All news should use neutal language.
If journalist want to express their personal opinions, that’s what editorials are for.
A simple rewrite of the article title on the left to: “Russia annexes formerly Ukrainian territory. Ukraine and NATO declares the act to be unlawful”. Like this is much better, less biased title. Don’t make the claim yourself, tell who is saying it.
Media uses that tactic often, where they always platform the statements by Israel (that are very frequently lies that aren’t challenged at all even though it would be very easy to) but much less frequently from Palestinian sources. This makes it really easy for Israel to spread its narrative while Palestinians remain unheard and misunderstood.
It’s not like left article title is wrong. That’s what Russia is doing, illegally annexing Ukrainian land.
They are correct, I do agree with the claim that the act is illegal. However, I don’t think that’s the job as a journalist. They should tell only the objective truth. Otherwise you get to conflicts lile Israel-Palestine and they start injecting their own biases into that, and try to frame Israel as the “good guys” and demonize Palestinians, even if they aren’t Hamas.
But the objective truth is that Putin has illegally annexed Ukrainian land. It is what is happening in reality, without using any “good guys bad guys” wording.
It seens your issue is more that the same objectivity isn’t used in the second article.
“Annexes” literally means “takes control of illegally.”
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
So, according to your link:
Definition:
Annexation,[1] in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state’s territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory.
Opinion of Internation Law:
In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.
International law says its illegal. The word doesn’t define it being inherently illegal.
The international law also says a lot of other things are illegal, but those acts are not inherently illegal, because the legality isn’t inherent to the word’s definition.
Russia annexes formerly Ukrainian territory. Ukraine and NATO declares the act to be unlawful”
“Formerly Ukraine Oblast/territories referendum results choose joining Russia, with overwhelming celebratory joy. NATO declares democracy only valid when NATO approves of result.”
Edit: Well, as horrifying as it is to see how shallow folks understanding of history is, no one is paying me to be online and screaming against tiktok or whatever isn’t that much fun. G’night y’all!
Unpopular opinion but do folks honestly not understand how those borders shifted? Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives.
If Ukraine kept Kursk, I can’t imagine we’d really be complaining?
Basically, if you launch a surprise war I think you forfeit the right to be surprised or angry when your land gets taken.
Edit: Jesus, are the downvoters confused like the response below and think this is talking about Oct 7 as opposed to say, the repeated wars that actually changed the borders? Does TikTok not cover modern history or what?
Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know there is an option in your settings so you don’t see upvotes or downvotes.
Lemmy (AFAIK) doesn’t even show you your total upvotes (karma… whatever it’s called) by default either. None of these imaginary points fucking matter.
So why don’t you do yourself a favor and uncheck these boxes and not give a fuck what others think about your comment.
I know I have.
(Lemmy is rad as fuck)
Oh neat, thanks for sharing!
I don’t actually care about downvotes or upvotes for comments (for posts, I’m generally trying to make communities laugh, so I do like them there to refine my approach etc.)
I’m more just… Well, it’s Lemmy, some of the replies are, uhhh, impressive and heartbreaking (not because they’re mean, it just makes me wonder about how we win a majority of votes while being associated with some goddamn crazy people.)
Anyway, really appreciate you sharing this, I’ll probably use some of these settings!
“Unpopular opinion but do folks honestly not understand how those borders shifted? Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews” You can’t genuinely be this conceited. How about Israel’s “independence” which was a massive ethnic cleansing done by Jewish terrorists who were all non native from Europe and would avoid native Palestinan Jews because they found them “too weak” David Ben gurion the founder of Israeli was apart of it and was well aware what he was doing was colonisation. The stern gang and lehi group then became Israels army and government, with their teaching still very in place. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine#%3A~%3Atext=The+main+terrorist+groups+were%2CFreedom+of+Israel)%20or%20LHI.)%20or%20LH
https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
It’s ironic how you use this projection about others getting their info from tiktok when come unsourced, arrogant and wrong, it’s impossible not to think you are brainwashed or an awful human being and uneducated. All of this is to say, Israel has a clear greater Israel plan even literally showing a map of Israel pre Oct 7 of them owning west bank and Gaza https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map
So suprise suprise when Israeli leaders talk about “claiming greater Israel” we gotta fight back and dismantle that nation. You and you’re people oppressed the Jews for 2 thousand years, to the middle east in 1930s the Jews were colonisers no different to the Brits acting with imperialist intentions with Israel capitalising on the holocaust to form some special protected minority status no other people on earth have even tho the Jews are ABSOLUTELY not the most victimised people in the planet or even they era of history. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-confirmed-that-the-quest-for-greater-israel-is-real/ https://www.newarab.com/news/israeli-paper-op-ed-claims-south-lebanon-northern-israel?amp
Yeah, you don’t deserve the downvotes (IMO). The article is referencing border changes since Israel’s inception. It’s a lot more complicated than Gaza and Oct. 7th.
I appreciate that! Honestly, it’s a little worrying how little historical context folks seem to have.
Don’t know why I feel compelled to point it out other than being a glutton for punishment.
Anyway, thanks!
It’s just Lemmy and the knee jerk reactions to the mention of Israel. It’s rarely worth engaging on here on that subject.
Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives.
Either your ignoring Israeli history older than the babies shot in Gaza, in which case you should finish your studies, or you think this applies throughout Israeli history, in which case you should start your studies.
What on Earth?
When do you think the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars happened?
This is if you view the Arab states as the aggressor in 1967 even though Israel was the one who initiated the conflict. If you see Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and the yom kipper war as a counter offensive to take back land that Israel had stolen then it becomes less justifiable.
It’s more like Russia keeping the Donbas after it launched a “preemptive strike” because it was afraid Ukraine was gonna team up with nato to attack them. Then 5 years after trump forces Ukraine to make peace they launch an offensive into the donbas to take there land back, only to get repelled again.
Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.
Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.
The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.
It’s been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel’s access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying “if you do this, we consider a war to have begun.”
The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel’s by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)
The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I’ve always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
The fact that they struck first. Closing a maritime route is not a cause for war just because someone says it is, just like Ukraine applying for nato wouldn’t be. Any action done by a country within its own borders is up to them, that’s sovereignty. Saying those acts are a cause for war and invading them for doing so is a violation of that sovereignty.
Almost every invader in history claims their attack was a pre-emptive strike and/or the other countries legitimate peaceful sovereign actions are a cause for war. Japan told the u.s. if it continued its oil embargo that it would be a cause for war. The u.s. continuing that embargo doesn’t make pearl harbor a legitimate response. Poland began massing troops on the border prior to the nazi invasion, that doesn’t make them the agressor.
The Arab states had done nothing that broke the peace prior to the war. They cut off maritime access through a strait completely within their territory and then massed troops on the border of a state that had invaded one of its neighbor a decade ago and was threatening to do so again.
There’s a reason the UN doesn’t recognize preemptive attacks, they’re just excuses for aggressors to invade.
So your position is they should have waited until the massed armies that outnumbered them 2:1 attacked?
That seems like an insane demand to thrust upon a people who had years earlier been murdered on an industrial scale.
You’re assuming they were going to attack when there is no evidence for that. Amassing troops at the border doesn’t mean you’re going to attack, like with Poland in 1939 it could just mean you’re trying to defend yourself from an expansionist nation who is threatening you. Israel a decade before 1967 had invaded Egypt to take the Sinai peninsula with the help of the French. It makes sense if you have a neighbor like that who just made a threat to you for exercising your sovereignty to put troops on the border in case they try to invade again.
Yeah Israel had a gun to its head, but so did the Arab states, it wasn’t as if Israel wasn’t also fully mobilized and ready to attack. International relations, especially in the nuclear age, is a series of guns pointed at the heads of everyone else. With ICBMs and nuclear submarines, any enemy of the u.s. is constantly under the threat of nuclear annihilation. That doesn’t give Iran the right to attack the u.s. because it constantly threatens them and is afraid they will nuke them.
Even ignoring nukes the north Koreans constantly have missiles and artillery pointed at Seoul, ready to level it at any moment, and vice versa for south Korea and the u.s. If either side attacked both could credibley claim they felt threatened, especially the north with the world’s most powerful country on its doorstep, who carried out a near genocidal bombing campaign against the north in the last war. If either side launched a “preemptive strike” they would rightly be called the agressor and should be condemned for breaking the peace. They definitely shouldn’t be rewarded with more land.
And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.
As a lot of Jews died in
IsraelPoland, I’m pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.
At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it’s not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)
Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.
These aren’t standoffs, you think I’m talking about Russia, where yes MAD prevents either from attacking, I’m talking about the people living outside the small group of countries that have nukes. Iran isn’t covered by MAD, the u.s. could nuke Tehran tomorrow and nothing would be done besides severe diplomatic push back. Any “enemy of the u.s.” that doesn’t have nukes is subject to the constant fear of the u.s. war machine, which may not nuke you but will definitely relentlessly bomb your territory with drones. That doesn’t give them the right to attack the u.s. because they feel threatened.
Maybe they did act recklessly, that doesn’t make it right to attack them. Reckless is such a subjective term in that it’s heavily dependent on the party you sympathize with. You sympathize with Israel so you think the Arab states acted recklessly for the above reasons. I sympathize more with the Arab states because they were just blockading a single port to a country which they saw as being a serial bad actor in the region. This wasn’t some existential threat to them, they were still better off than near landlocked Jordan since they have a ton of Mediterranean coast. And again Israel was also fully mobilized, apparently a lot more then the Arab states.
Either way you and I can argue back and forth all day on who behaved more recklessly, just like north Koreans and south Koreans can argue back and forth all day on whose behaving recklessly, they won’t get anywhere because it’s a subjective opinion. This is why “preemptive strikes” are against international law, they always rely on these subjective terms like “threatening” and “reckless” such that any major power with significant sway in the international sphere can use them to justify any attack.
Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives
There’s that then-Israeli PM’s statement about how Israel knew Egypt and Syria weren’t going to start a war and yet attacked anyway, you can look it up.
Last comment didn’t go over well with moderators. To be more polite, I have you tagged as someone with whom it is not worthwhile to engage.
Regards.
Removed by mod
How the fuck can a population that you’re killing and stealing the land from start a SURPRISE war?
I take it you have 0 knowledge of the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars? Which is how the borders in the headlines moved. I mean, heck, a lot of recent maps of Israel show in which war the territory was taken.
I kinda guessed folks were ignorant of the history but come on, this is pretty basic stuff.
The existence of Israel as a settler-colonial entity nullifies any argument that any resistance in the area can be a “surprise”.
It shouldn’t exist. It is all stolen land that they are continuing to steal.
It shouldn’t exist. It is all stolen land that they are continuing to steal.
You’re right, we should give the whole area back to the Romans.
Initially they only had land that they legally bought. When they declared themself as a state, the surrounding countries declared war on them, and they turned the tide in this (initially defensive) war and actually gained territory.
Not defending what they’re doing today, but history shouldn’t be twisted.
I mean, Israel was taken from the Jews way back when so by your logic, aren’t they just taking back their land and thus, apparently according to you, allowed to do whatever?
Lemmy is anti Israel at best and absurdly anti semitic at worst. Palestine is schrodinger’s country. It exists at the 47 borders, despite the inhabitants at the time rejecting those borders and losing several wars about it.
lol at the people downvoting you. While other people in this thread argue that Israel should not exist. With the heavy implication certain people living in that territory should also stop existing.
Then you should work on your reading comprehension. Saying a state shouldn’t exist is different from saying certain people shouldn’t exist. This is not implied at all.
Based on my past conversations about this topic and the kind of people who say that.
“Israel should not exist” begs the following questions.
Who rules the area now? What form of government will be established? Which of the ethnic groups (that hate each other) are going to form that government? What happens to people deemed ‘colonizers’ and other minorities living there?
Who did you have such conversations with? People who hate Israel because they colonised Palestinian territory, or actual anti-semites? In the latter case, I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but in my experience, most people (at least on Lemmy) are part of the first group, who have no intention to kill everyone in Israel.
Regarding the questions, this is something both the Israelis and (more importantly) the Palestinians need to talk about to find the best solution for everyone involved. But they can all be answered without “Kill all the people living in Israel”.
