Killed if Ukrainian, Died if Palestinian
deleted by creator
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?
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.
It’s not all people lying, plenty of it is LLMs spreading propaganda. The Kremlin is absolutely thrilled about the anti-Israel protests.
deleted by creator
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.
So did the WP story
Also it was the leading story on their TV channel where they made it very very clear that both she and the paramedics trying to get to her were killed by fire from Iranian tanks.
If they wanted to “manufacture consent for genocide” they wouldn’t have reported the story at all
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Even better, if they don’t report it, then people who read stuff from alternative sources will find that they can’t confirm the reporting in mainstream sources and decide that it probably didn’t happen, at least the way they read it.
deleted by creator
Exactly. Some other person tried posting this same nonsense earlier today. It was removed.
Headlines matter.
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…
I’m not sure if it’s manufactured consent or outright propaganda, at least for CNN:
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.
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
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.
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.
Killed if Ukrainian, Died if Palestinian
All war is murder
I mean, people have a right to defend themselves. I would just say all coercive violence is wrong, no matter what form it takes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Israelis are the only violent side refusing any semblance of peace. The West Bank is irrefutable evidence of this.
There is no “also”.
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?
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.
No one is ever rejecting violence for any reason. And you’re immoral for demanding it.
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.
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.
No that’s NOT the purpose of society 🤣, the purpose of society is to meet our needs, and no amount of arguing from you is going to change that.
Human society has succeeded for thousands of years despite violence within its walls and will keep doing so because humans are selfish, evil little goblins who only care about shoveling McDonald’s into their mouths.
There’s no outrage like manufactured outrage.
You’d almost think someone runs the media
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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?
