this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024

107 points (89.1% liked)

World News

39380 readers

1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

107

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows (theintercept.com)

submitted 11 months ago by Linkerbaan to c/world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza showed a consistent bias against Palestinians, according to an Intercept analysis of major media coverage.

The print media outlets, which play an influential role in shaping U.S. views of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, paid little attention to the unprecedented impact of Israel’s siege and bombing campaign on both children and journalists in the Gaza Strip.

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. Pro-Palestinian activists have accused major publications of pro-Israel bias, with the New York Times seeing protests Opens in a new tabat its headquarters in Manhattan for its coverage of Gaza –– an accusation supported by our analysis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FlowVoid -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I did read the article. I think the methods are questionable. Making a graph doesn't mean the methods are sound.

For example:

For every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times — or a rate 16 times more per death that of Palestinians.

In other words "There have been 20000 Palestinian deaths and 1000 Israeli deaths" is considered biased, and that sentence should have used the word "Palestinian" twenty times because there were twenty times as many deaths.

[+] StrongHorseWeakNeigh 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] FlowVoid -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The rest of the article is also flawed.

For instance "[the media] mentioned antisemitism more than Islamophobia". This presupposes that antisemitism should not be mentioned more than Islamophobia. But why?

If I said "The media mentioned Islamophobia more than Francophobia" then that's not an example of bias, because Islamophobia has been newsworthy for years and nobody pays attention to the French.

So is antisemitism more newsworthy than Islamophobia? Maybe so, given the Stefanik hearings. Maybe not. But the Intercept hasn't even considered this.

Likewise, they count usage of words like "massacre" and "slaughter". But what is that supposed to prove? The Intercept presupposes an unbiased source would not associate "massacre" with Hamas more than Israelis, but why?

Finally, the Intercept wonders why "children" is not used more often in reporting. Here's one possibility: the media treated dead adults and dead children equally, lumping them together in "total dead". They are not singling groups out in a way that the Intercept would prefer. That's the opposite of bias.

Thought experiment: if the media constantly reported "X deaths, of whom Y were Christians" wouldn't that be kind of creepy? Why does someone's religion even matter when tallying the dead? Well, the same could be said of someone's age.

[–] Linkerbaan 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm unsure what your point is.

This is only in the first six weeks, current bias against Palestinians is even higher.

The Intercept doesn't report on the deaths. It's not a classic "news" site in the way these papers are. They mainly break scandals and leaks such as CNN and the IDF Censor .

[–] FlowVoid 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The Intercept is measuring "bias" by comparing the ratio of Palestinians/Israeli deaths to the ratio of using the words "Palestinian" and "Israeli" in the media.

Which means according to the Intercept, if CNN writes "There have been 20000 Palestinian deaths and 1000 Israeli deaths" then this is another example of bias, because CNN only used "Palestinian" once in that sentence. Which is nonsense.