33
submitted 4 months ago by Billy@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Literally read the article. Pay attention to the words they use when talking the people and groups.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I'm not a mind reader. What words do you want me to pay attention to in specific?

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 4 months ago

The article included baseless claims such as capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, which the IDF categorically denied.

This is a sentence from the article. If they were neutral towards the subject, they might have written it like this:

controversy surrounded the article, which described the IDF capturing soldiers in Jabaliya, something the Israeli government has denied.

If they were active supporters, it might have sounded like this:

his insightful journalistic work exposed the IDF’s capture of soldiers in Jabaliya, which they continue to deny.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Sorry... you're saying because they say IDF instead of Israeli Government, this article is ridiculously biased and can't be trusted?

Because I see people here using IDF and Israel interchangeably all the time when discussing this war.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, it’s the word choice in the sentence as a whole. “Baseless claims” and “categorically denied” make it seem like the article was nonsense. “Controversy” acknowledges that there are different accounts of what happened, but doesn’t pick a side and “denied” feels like the most neutral choice to me, but I’m a layperson and there are entire classes in journalism programs dedicated to neutral phrasing. Calling the article “insightful journalism” is obviously biased and saying “continues to deny” sounds even more supportive of the journalist’s claims, because it implies that people are continuously asking Israel about it, which further implies that multiple people are unsatisfied with Israel’s account of the events.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I don't mean this in any sort of insulting way, but I think you've put far more analysis into this than the person who was writing on a deadline did into writing it.

Did the author have a bias? Quite possibly. But I think your implication that these were conscious choices is going a bit too far.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 3 points 4 months ago

I have no idea if they decided to write the article in a biased way, but I don’t know if that matters. The people reading it still associate the article with “baseless claims,” which colors their view.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Fair enough. I guess up to now, it seemed to me like people were implying that this was a conscious bias.

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
33 points (66.7% liked)

World News

38837 readers
1786 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

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

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS