Neither Israel nor the US took credit for the strike that hit the school so this could be a matter of genuinely not knowing which of the two was responsible.
The US military’s Central Command (Centcom) said it was looking into reports of the incident, while Israel’s military said it was “not aware” of any IDF operations in the area.
But but but MBFC rates them as highly factual and left-center bias!! How could they ever do a war hawk??
-the most credulous jackasses on the planet
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.
apnews.com/…/all-girls-school-in-iran-struck-by-u…
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.
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. Note Reuters state “Eyewitness video released on Saturday (February 28) showed black smoke billowing from a destroyed school building in the Iranian town of Minab, where at least 40 people were killed in an Israeli airstrike, state media said. Reuters could not independently confirm the reports.” - Reuters have chosen to copy the claim from Iranian state med but have put a major disclaimer.
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:
and the headline would be quite uncertain to state “either American or Israeli”.
Would it be quite uncertain?
Iran doesn’t allow any information out of the country besides their own state controlled media.
There are lots of reporters in Israel from all over the world that can verify or falsify stuff happening there.
Not to say there isn’t any farming happening, but this example doesn’t work for showing that.
It may well have been their own faulty missile falling back to the ground.
I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to claim that.
just in case anyone here doesn’t already know, the death toll from the US bombing of the elementary girl’s school is currently at 164 with dozens more wounded. Victims are mostly little girls aged 9-12.
For some reason our western media seems reluctant to spread this basic factual information…
Has there been any official statement as to why it was targetted?
Did they mistake it for something else, bad intelligence?
Did the missile malfunction?
I mean, I can imagine them doing it on purpose for some fucked up reason but they have to have an excuse, no?
It aligns with that the US and Israel are terrorist states. Aiming for targets which spreads the most fear and despair seems to be a part of their plan. Making parents reluctant to send their kids to school is an efficient way of imobolizing people.
It’s an illegal war in the first place, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a continuous stream of war crimes going forward.
The criticism raises a legitimate issue, but the cause is usually structural rather than intentional. News outlets often use phrases like “X says” when they cannot independently verify the information. That situation is more common with casualty reports from states where they have limited access. When the outlet has confirmation from sources it considers reliable, it will report the deaths directly. This creates a pattern that looks biased even though it often comes from verification constraints instead of design.
Iran’s reports are frequently treated with caution because the state tightly controls information, foreign journalists have restricted access, and strike sites cannot be independently examined. Casualty figures released by Iranian authorities have also been revised or withheld in past events. These conditions lower outside confidence in the accuracy of initial statements.
The first headline uses “Iran says” because the newspaper likely could not verify the reported casualties inside Iran, especially during a breaking event. The second headline states the deaths as fact because the information from Israel was independently confirmed. The result may look like a double standard, but it generally reflects what reporters can confirm at the time rather than an intentional bias.
The concern about a persistent pattern is understandable, and it is true that Western media often display asymmetries in how they frame casualty reports from different states. However, the consistency of the pattern does not automatically imply intentional bias. It usually stems from the same structural constraints repeating themselves across many events.
Verification works unevenly across countries. Israel, for example, allows extensive access to foreign journalists, has numerous independent local outlets, and provides casualty figures that can often be corroborated through hospitals, international observers, or on-the-ground reporting. Because multiple independent channels confirm the information, newsrooms feel justified presenting it as established fact.
Iran, by contrast, restricts foreign reporters, tightly controls internal media, and limits access to strike sites. Independent verification is much more difficult. That constraint shows up every time there is a major event inside the country. Reporters default to “Iran says” not because of a conscious editorial decision to cast doubt, but because they cannot authenticate the numbers through independent means. When this dynamic recurs across decades, the headlines reflect that repetition.
This does not mean the outcome is neutral. The effect can resemble a double standard, and journalists should be aware of how repeated verification asymmetries shape public perception. But the underlying cause tends to be logistical rather than ideological. The pattern persists because the same structural limitations persist, not because editors are intentionally trying to signal doubt toward one side and certainty toward the other.
The cause in this case is almost certainly intentional. The NYT has a documented history of publishing Israeli state propaganda as fact without any independent verification.
theintercept.com/…/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-o…
It’s also not like Israel allows the press to operate freely. They actively suppress and censor reporters.
cpj.org/…/under-the-radar-israel-steps-up-censors…
Worse, if they can’t censor a journalist then they’ll simply assassinate them and often murder their entire family.
un.org/…/un-human-rights-office-condemns-targetin…
For the NYT, reporting an Israeli claim as fact in this way is journalistic malpractice. But what can we really expect from a paper that has been convincing US liberals that American war crimes are actually a good thing? They were even publishing articles in support of this war once it became clear what Trump’s intentions were.
Look we don’t know if we’re evil but we are very certain that Iran is incredibly based
What this reads like to me
I’ve never read the Parenti book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Pretty heartbreaking about Chomsky and Epstein. But, you’re right about Manufacturing Consent. Actually, Chomsky wasn’t much more than an editor. All of the key concepts and the methodology were Herman’s. Sure, the book wouldn’t have been so popular without Chomsky’s participation, but Herman could have written the book on his own, no question.
Same here: lemmy.world/post/43760793
US fighter jets “crashed”, " falling from the sky" and “collision”. Pure framing bullshit! Like they were out of fuel or something.
Kuwait blasted them! By accident. That was already confirmed and stated.
I really appreciate people who notice things like these and bring it to light for everyone else.
Thank you.
not_IO
cogitase
Catoblepas
sp3ctr4l
Blackmist
Pyr
kingshrubb
Bamboodpanda
crypt0cler1c
mathemachristian [he/him]
BlueFootedPetey