Eragon
AntanicusYou can't make this shit up. The double standard is unreal.
Pescheria Marechiaro.@antanicus non è un bug è una feature.
SibrosanYou mean that if someone doesn´t say they plan to annex an area, you´d still have to report that they did?
@sibrosan oh but they are indeed planning to:
"I say here definitively … in every room and in every discussion, too: The new Israeli border must be the Litani,” [Smotrich] said, referring to the Litani River, a critical waterway that cuts through southern Lebanon, about 30km (19 miles) from the border with Israel."
The headline is about what the defense minister said. If the finance minister said something else, should that be attributed to the defense minister as well?
unloggedWell, there are times when you merely report someone else's words, and times when you're allowed to tell the truth, right?
CC: @[email protected]
CC: @[email protected]
trademark@unlogged @sibrosan @antanicus much as I hate the actions of both Russia and Israel, it's important to be accurate when you are the weaker party. In the case of Ukraine, Russia's annexation is not a plan, it was in fact done back in 2022, leading me to suspect that one or both headlines are either old or faked. There are no dates on either heading. Can we have links to the original stories?
WesDym@unlogged Media does BOTH. But reporting is only that. That includes reporting bullshit spouted by public figures, even if everyone knows it's bullshit. Different media organs handle this balance differenty. Some mix in counter-statements, for example. Generally, the more 'straight' the news organ, the more they will separate reporting from analysis.
johnny anhedonic@sibrosan okay but you are just making the exact point op is getting at.
the russian minister didn't use the word annexe either, i’d warrant. how come old mate gets taken at his word despite, y’know, all the actions, whereas russians are presumed dastardly without given the opportunity to positively frame their own actions and then have them laundered by the masthead?
@antanicus
OP apparently blocked me, so I can't see the post anymore.
But if I understand you correctly, the issue was that the second headline was factual, but the first one not?
@sibrosan okay, let's start with a socratic definition of terms: framing as a rhetoric device.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I had assumed the issue was with the second headline.
If the Israeli Defence Minister didn't say "annex", is the Times supposed to write that he did?
Of course, if no Russian official spoke of annexation plans, but the Times presents such plans as a fact, it would be a double standard to not twist the words of the Israeli Defence Minister as well.
@thegarbagebird They're not quoting anyone in Russia. That's an assertion of the news organ itself. The second is quoting a public figure. You're trying to compare two different things.
@sibrosan Yes. Does NO ONE in this thread understand media's actual role? Media reports what they know. Often, that's just reporting what various public figures say. But those are not the organ's own assertions of truth. Like it or not, it's newsworthy what even inveterate liars say, if they're in positions of power. There are arms of media that do that, too (media analysis), but reporters only report, even if everyone knows that some person's claim is false or self-serving.
Maybe I don't understand correctly what you're saying, but I have the impression that you are contradicting yourself.
Is, in your opinion, the role of media to accurately report what they *know* (i.e. what they know to be facts)?
Or to misrepresent facts, when it fits better to their perception that e.g. the person they're misquoting is a liar?
Spycrab
Pirates and Emperors - Schoolhouse Rock Parody
RobThe ignorance of this post is breathtaking.
Mastodon MigrationDamn the New York Times
Daniel AJ Sokolov@antanicus Control is different from annexation.
@antanicus If you're the same person who's posted stuff like this before (I don't keep track; I have a life to lead), then you don't understand what you're reading.
The first is a direct assertion -- a claim of fact -- by the organ itself. The second is requoting other people, and makes no assertion of fact.
The first says, "This is what WE say is going on." The second says, "This particular guy is making this particular claim".
Official Kakistocracy Jester 🪓@antanicus The NYT is a silly rag. One of the few things Chump was ever right about was that it was (and is) failing.
Greg@antanicus Why is the capitalisation so different?