1360
not even subtle (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://mastox.eu/@AssalRad/116157304384102524

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 88 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

Dozens killed in strike on Iranian girl's school.

Then the next line mentions uncertainty as to whether or not it was Israel or the US, but it was clearly one of them.

The NYT can verify that 'dozens were killed' there just as easily as in the other story.

I have no idea why you don't think they have access to Reuters or the AP, who both verified that part quite quickly.

https://apnews.com/video/all-girls-school-in-iran-struck-by-us-israeli-strike-over-100-casualties-78cead1fc4ba4ac39d57e8a0f53b0bf2

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW953528022026RP1/

Oh hey look, Reuters basically came up with the same headline that I did.

Except that they also attribute blame to Israel.

In summary, you're completely wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    NYT article was first recorded on wayback machine at 18.29 on Feb 28th.

    AP article posted March 1st

    Unclear what time Reuters video posted, nor if the title was changed at any point. They state it is a claim though, and that it cannot be verified - in my view, same level as NYT.

    It is invalid to compare the NYT and AP articles, as the situation developed rapidly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 52 points 5 months ago

    No, you're missing the point.

    The NYT doesn't have reporters on the ground everywhere, so they use wire services, Reuters, AP, others, who actually do, when something big happens out of their direct coverage network.

    This is extremely common and has been the norm for reporting and journalism for decades, for print services that don't have a televised reporting set up.

    The point remains that it would be very easy to attribute blame in the headline, if they wanted to.

    Because all these outlets know they exist in a world where 95% of people only read headlines.

    The headline is supposed to be the hook.

    A wishy washy, vague headline is an intentionally bad hook.

    Reuters was confident enough in the reports that couldn't be verified to lead with it.

    The NYT on the other hand has basically been continuously shown to be basically just operating under a CIA editorial board 10-20 years after high level employees retire, since basically the 1970s.

    Moreover, the NYT has a literally scholarly documented history of pro-Israeli bias:

    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-bias-shapes-the-news-Zelizer-Park/e21f0e7da584bb44f9d3097c9e3b2535867b0f77

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent