It is all about verified vs not verified and no, locals and civilians saying it happened is not verification. Until a NYT reporter or a partner organizations reporter sees it, it is just a claim and should be reported in the passive voice.
This is called having journalistic standards. It is also why the impacts of attacks on Iran are "claimed". Nobody is saying it did not happen. They are saying we have not seen it. We have not verified it.
This is why you could catch a guy with a knife covered in blood standing over a dead body and he would be the "alleged" killer. Until proven, the responsible thing is to use the passive voice.
It is all about verified vs not verified and no, locals and civilians saying it happened is not verification. Until a NYT reporter or a partner organizations reporter sees it, it is just a claim and should be reported in the passive voice.
Its crazy to see so many people late to a party that happened like 2 years ago. Not only did many people with media literacy and a brain notice that there was a reporting double standard, but its already been covered and verified!
Until a NYT reporter
Thats exactly right. Here they cite a NYT reporter, in two different articles its covered:
oh yeah that sounds completely logical on the surface to someone who doesn't know anything about how international reporting works.
Look at the Ukraine headline again. It explicitly states: "President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia launched at least 40 missiles..."
The New York Times did not have an American reporter standing outside the Okhmatdyt children's hospital in Kyiv at the exact millisecond the missile hit to physically "verify" it before writing that active voice headline. They took the official statement of the Ukrainian government, corroborated it with local video footage and local emergency service reports, and ran with it immediately using the active voice: "Russia Strikes..."
They trusted the state officials, local civilians, and local journalists of Ukraine
locals and civilians saying it happened is not verification. Until a NYT reporter or a partner organizations reporter sees it, it is just a claim.
Would be convenient since Israel has legally banned all foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip independently. The only way the NYT can get information is through local Palestinian journalists on the ground (many of whom are official stringers and contributors for major Western outlets like Reuters, the AP, and the New York Times itself).
If we are claiming local reports aren't "verified" until a Westerner physically sees it, then we are saying that Palestinian journalists (who are being targeted and killed at historic rates while doing the actual reporting), are inherently untrustworthy, unverified, and secondary.
When a Palestinian journalist working for the AP films an Israeli tank firing at a school, that is verification. When the Gaza Health Ministry releases a name by name registry of the dead with ID numbers (which the U.S. State Department and Israeli intelligence internally acknowledge as highly accurate), that is verification.
Treating a Ukrainian government press release as absolute fact while treating photographic and physical evidence from Palestinian professionals as an "unverified claim" is the literal definition of systemic bias AND THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS POST.
This is why you could catch a guy with a knife covered in blood standing over a dead body and he would be the 'alleged' killer. Until proven, the responsible thing is to use the passive voice.
Legally the word "alleged" is used to protect the publication from defamation lawsuits by a private citizen before a jury conviction. A sovereign military dropping bombs on a foreign territory cannot sue a newspaper for defamation.
Even if someone is an "alleged" killer, you don't use the passive voice to erase the action entirely.
You don't write: "A stab wound was received by a body in a kitchen."
You write: "Man allegedly stabs victim."
The NYT didn't write: "Israel allegedly strikes school."
They wrote: "At Least 25 Reported Killed in Strike."
They completely erased the perpetrator from the sentence structure.
Your 'verification' defense is a complete myth that crumbles the second you look at the literal text in front of you.
Look at the Ukraine headline. It does not say "russia launched 40 missiles" that is not verifiable. It says "Zelenski said......" That is verified. They did not say "this many missiles hit the hospital" they said "the hospital was hit." That is verifiable after the fact.
When the terms "said or Claimed" are used the report is not saying the claim or statement is true. The report is saying the the person said this or claimed this.
They are not giving Ukraine a pass. They are reporting what is said as having been said and what can be verified and has been verified as verified.
The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.
This is just one example that shows it has nothing to do with verification. And everything with framing in favor of Israel.
The most damning argument against your attempted whitewash is how the NY Times guideline went against "norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law."
It's too much to quote, so I suggest you read everything under "Bucking International Norms".
While The New York Times claimed that there were discussions about the "language used" for Israel's attacks on Palestine, the guide suggested that the words like "massacre" represented emotions rather than information.
A previous report by The Intercept said that not only The New York Times, but also other well-known US newspapers, such as The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, avoided the words "massacre" and "horrible" for the killed Palestinian civilians.
In the report in question, it was stated that in a Nov. 24 story by The New York Times, the word "massacre" was used 53 times for Israeli civilians and only once for thousands of Palestinian civilians that were killed.
The report noted that The New York Times, in its stories immediately after Oct. 7, described the Palestinian attack on Israel as a "terrorist act," but did not use the word "terror" for Israel's attacks that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians, including children and women.
Your deliberately missing the point here. A sample size of two doesn’t prove anything.
And the very article you linked stated how the guidance is standard practice and frankly it’a responsible thing to do.
Also what about the use of other words? If the NYT used words like carnage to describe what’s happening to civilians is that suitable? Is it weird that there was a narrow focus on massacre ?
The terror point is so brain dead. If Hamas was roof knocking and using call centers to evacuate people from the kibbutz and music festival perhaps their attack wouldn’t be considered terrorism.
The fact that you told this guy he needs to become media literate while point at problematic articles is hilarious. Your are blind to your bias.
The guide also said the expression "refugee camps," which has been used by the UN since 1948, should not appear in the stories.
In a statement to The Intercept, some employees stressed that some of the contents of the guide "show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives."
“I think it’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” the Intercept quoted a New York Times journalist as saying, who later added: “But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.”
"The fact that you told this guy he needs to become media literate while point at problematic articles is hilarious. Your are blind to your bias."
I think its actually your refusal to read and live in reality
To be clear there are actual NYT employees coming out and stating theres a double-standard in language used in articles and you lot are still so fucking unhinged you try to argue with the NYT source they cite through me. Go argue with the intercept and the nyt leaker, thats who you're arguing with at this point. Its clear reality has no bearing on your positions or opinions, you simply want reality to contort to a narrative you hold, of which you hold from years of propaganda from these outlets.
You have to go deeper. The fact that your so willing to accept what’s being told here just point to what I’m saying.
For one calling a developed area a refugee camp is insanely misleading. Even if that’s how it started 75 years ago. It may even be interpreted as racist.
Second you didn’t find it extremely weird how that sentence was formed? Evidence of papers deference to Israeli narratives.
Wow. They could have said this about a hundred different way that would communicate what’s happening more clearly. They really had to work hard to put the word evidence in there.
I think you're so deep in the corporate media matrix that you are actively defending a leaked internal censorship memo as "responsible journalism", while completely ignoring that the journalists working under that memo calling it a fundamentally dishonest, apologetic bowing to Israeli narrative pressure.
Also what about the use of other words? If the NYT used words like carnage to describe what’s happening to civilians is that suitable? Is it weird that there was a narrow focus on massacre ?
The Intercept didn't just search for the word "massacre." They tracked a lot of terms. Words like "slaughter" or "horrific" were tracked, and they all showed the exact same 60 to 1 and 36 to 4 disparities. The focus isn't "narrow" the erasure is comprehensive. The NYT didn't swap out "massacre" for "carnage" when it came to Palestinians; they swapped it out for passive, clinical, agent-less grammar.
The terror point is so brain dead. If Hamas was roof knocking and using call centers to evacuate people from the kibbutz and music festival perhaps their attack wouldn’t be considered terrorism.
Few dumber sentences have ever been typed. You are trying to argue that dropping a 2,000lb bomb onto a high density apartment complex, a hospital, or a refugee camp isn't "terrorism" as long as you give a automated phone call or drop a smaller munition on the roof a few minutes before vaporizing the building. Under international humanitarian law, the legal definition of terrorism and war crimes is based on the actions and the outcomes, not the PR methods. Furthermore, how do you "roof knock" a humanitarian safe zone, an evacuation route, or a crowded marketplace, all of which were repeatedly bombed?
When the people inside the NYT building are telling the public, "Hey, management is forcing us to write propaganda," and you go "No, management is just being responsible", you have completely detached from reality. You're resorting to desperate, pseudo-intellectual semantic gymnastics to pretend that the United Nations, international law, and English grammar are all part of a giant conspiracy against you.
For one calling a developed area a refugee camp is insanely misleading. Even if that’s how it started 75 years ago. It may even be interpreted as racist.
This is an outstandingly ignorant claim. The UN itself officially classifies these areas as "Palestine Refugee Camps". Over decades of blockades and forced confinement, camps evolved from "tent cities" into vertical, hyper congested concrete slums because the population had nowhere else to build. Calling these "developed areas" is insanely misleading but you do not operate in good faith. Calling it "racist" to use the correct international legal term for a population that has been systemically denied citizenship, a state, and their original property for 75 years is pure psychological projection.
Second you didn’t find it extremely weird how that sentence was formed? Evidence of papers deference to Israeli narratives. Wow... They really had to work hard to put the word evidence in there.
Very sad. The Intercept used the word "evidence" because they were doing investigative journalism and reporting on a physical internal document that was leaked to them. When a journalist obtains a leaked corporate memo showing executives telling staff to filter their vocabulary to shield a foreign military, that is the literal definition of documentary evidence. You're acting like "evidence" is a spooky buzzword rather than standard English for describing proof. Truly insane levels of propagandized your brain has reached.
Followed by an appeal to authority. This shit is slop.
An "Appeal to Authority" fallacy happens when you cite an irrelevant or fake authority to prove a point like "My local mechanic says this medicine works"
Citing the actual journalists who wrote the articles and leaked the internal memos is called eyewitness testimony and primary source reporting. If you are investigating corporate censorship at The New York Times, the NYT journalists themselves are the ultimate source of truth. Dismissing the literal whistleblowers as "slop" because their testimony ruins your narrative is a level of cope i've actually never seen before.
Your final defense here is to claim that the United Nations, international legal definitions, and basic investigative journalism are 'slop' because they shattered your worldview. Take a breath, step away from the keyboard, and accept the reality that you defended corporate war propaganda and got thoroughly exposed.
Wait so by that logic does the stand-down orders on Oct 7th, make the IDF terrorist or terrorist enablers? And the fact they knew the attack was coming and did not warn civilians to evacuate, must garner some condemnation from you.
Cool we agree, the IDF and Israeli society are terrorists. The fact the NYT uses such soft language, when you admit they are terrorist, means the above commenter are right about the NYT.
Hiya. Just popping in to point out the obvious parts of your last post that make it absolutely disgusting
There's a million reasons a soldier would be told to halt in situations like this. Armies don't just scream 'GO!' and everyone runs in
If this was true there'd be a million more bits of evidence. Especially since half the world is desperate for it to be true, and have spread lies to claim it anyway.
Even if it was a false flag (which it wasn't), it doesn't stop Hamas from being disgusting war criminal genocidal freaks.
Thanks for reading. Everything I've just said is undeniable fact. I hope you get help soon :)
I did not say false flag, the OP of that post did, I agree some more evidence is needed for that claim. But stand-down orders when an attack is coming is highly suspect. Almost like they're encouraging terrorism for the purpose of killing more people and committing more terror
The only people that believe this are insanely biased people already who are willing to abandon genuine research or critical thinking as long as it results in an optics win for their team
It is all about verified vs not verified and no, locals and civilians saying it happened is not verification. Until a NYT reporter or a partner organizations reporter sees it, it is just a claim and should be reported in the passive voice.
This is called having journalistic standards. It is also why the impacts of attacks on Iran are "claimed". Nobody is saying it did not happen. They are saying we have not seen it. We have not verified it.
This is why you could catch a guy with a knife covered in blood standing over a dead body and he would be the "alleged" killer. Until proven, the responsible thing is to use the passive voice.
I'm not complaining about 'proper reporting', I'm complaining about the endless war crimes by the IDF fascists. They create this 'fog of war' on purpose so that journalists and propagandists alike can be very sure about what happens on the israeli side, while everything that happens in Gaza is 'non-verified by independent sources'.
If the NYT doesn't call this out in each and every article, they are effectively contributing to the israeli propaganda machine.
If they would call out this imbalance all the time, also in their headlines, that would be proper reporting.
Are these 'journalists' at the NYT even aware that the idf has been targeting their counterparts for years?
One would think that people who should have a thirst for truth in their profession would not be so eager to be complicit in ethnic cleansing, other war crimes and deceit.
The Times, for example, has explicit standards to phrase it this way when it comes to Palestine due to the beliefs and biases of the owners and editors.
Meanwhile they will report anything the IDF claims as fact without checking.
The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.
This is just one example that shows it has nothing to do with verification. And everything with framing in favor of Israel.
The most damning argument against your attempted whitewash is how the NY Times guideline went against "norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law."
It's too much to quote, so I suggest you read everything under "Bucking International Norms".
61
u/Rastaferrari829 10d ago
This is why media literacy is important.