just in case anyone here doesn't already know, the death toll from the US-Israel bombing of the elementary girls 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...
*edited US to US-Israel so that it's super duper accurate
Because the administration involved in killing 100+ little girls are also involved in covering up a sex trafficking ring raping and molesting 100+ little girls.
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.
I haven't looked into it too much but I believe the school was near a military base and the rocket malfunctioned and went off course and hit the wrong target.
It's pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".
Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a "claim", whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.
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.
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:
How is it easy to verify claims in Israel when they lockdown areas, censor their own media, and assassinate journalists and their families who report on Israeli genocide? Israel does not have a more free press than Iran does.
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.
I know the people in charge are beyond incompetent but I imagine that the US military knows exactly where every last one of their 6-7 figure missiles went. That doesn't mean we ever will.
Someone knows which missile it was. They don't just mix in missiles on the same target, it was either an Israeli strike or an American, and whoever fired it knows.
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 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.
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.
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 point was to use plausible sounding word vomit to distract and “to be faiiiiiir”. How did I not address that? I guess I could have been more aggressive and called the person I’m replying to either willfully genocidal or just a useful idiot.
Given the loss of trust in media, if they want readers to give them the benefit of the doubt, they would need to cite their sources. I haven't ready either of these paywalled articles, but generally, they don't.
It's "quite easy to understand" because that's how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you're talking about.
it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT's coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You're trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it's baffling.
"Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we're talking about, because I actually don't care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created."
Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who's whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.
So, to recap, this thread started with a passive-aggressive accusation, you backed it up with another passive-aggressive comment, somebody responded to you, and then you got mad at them for being angry about the wrong thing (without, y'know, actually saying what they should be mad about!)
Why not just state your opinion? Why all this beating around the bush?
We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.
The top comment outlines some very reasonable explanations for the difference in phrasing between the two headlines. If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.
Right?! It’s so uncivil and making unfair assumptions to point out that the newspaper with a history of war hawking and downplaying fascism dating literally back to Hitler isn’t trustworthy on the subject of war and fascism 😢
The idea that somebody else might not take the same, obviously bad faith interpretation of a pair of headlines worked you up into that much of a lather?
I know it's very, very cliche to mention Manufacturing Consent these days, but anyone who hasn't read it really should get ahold of a copy and at least read the first 2 or 3 chapters.
Like its title suggests, it delves into the ways in which popular consent is manufactured via the media (at the time - 1988 - mostly print, radio, and television). It's thoroughly convincing and is that rare type of book that can discuss research without alienating casual readers. Highly recommended.
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.
wait wut, the nyt (or any of our media rags) is a fucking propaganda pos? Is their a pikachu were he looks at you like you are fucking dumbass and he can believe you didnt know?
Reminds me of a thread on Reddit of photos of Israeli missiles stuck in civilian buildings (apartment blocks). People asking where it was from and not one comment stating it was a Syrian city and where the missiles came from.
Treat everything you see as unconfirmed, no mater if it is for or against your beliefs. Manipulation is everywhere.
71 Comments
flamingleg@lemmy.ml · 176 pts · 207d
just in case anyone here doesn't already know, the death toll from the US-Israel bombing of the elementary girls 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...
*edited US to US-Israel so that it's super duper accurate
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 207d
Because the administration involved in killing 100+ little girls are also involved in covering up a sex trafficking ring raping and molesting 100+ little girls.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 206d
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?
waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 206d
Schools and hospitals seem to be the factory default target for Israeli missiles
OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 206d
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.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 206d
Israel is using the "they have underground facilities there, trust us" tactic again
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 206d
To "break their spirit", same as the Nazis tried when they bombed British cities?!
DeepSeaString@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 205d
I haven't looked into it too much but I believe the school was near a military base and the rocket malfunctioned and went off course and hit the wrong target.
xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 205d
Despite being the least upvoted response, this is the actual answer - the school was directly next door to a military base
kingshrubb@lemmy.ml · 78 pts · 207d
paranoia@feddit.dk · 66 pts · 207d
It's pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".
Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a "claim", whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 88 pts · 207d
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.
paranoia@feddit.dk · -3 pts · 207d
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.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 52 pts · 207d
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
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 207d
Would it be quite uncertain?
paranoia@feddit.dk · -1 pts · 207d
Yes, it would be more uncertain. It is better to provide less information than wrong information.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 206d
How is it easy to verify claims in Israel when they lockdown areas, censor their own media, and assassinate journalists and their families who report on Israeli genocide? Israel does not have a more free press than Iran does.
cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 40 pts · 207d
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.
Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 207d
I know the people in charge are beyond incompetent but I imagine that the US military knows exactly where every last one of their 6-7 figure missiles went. That doesn't mean we ever will.
yeather@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 207d
The US Military as a whole might, but Captain Mediatrained they have answering questions might not know or might not be able to get thag info.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 206d
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
paranoia@feddit.dk · 15 pts · 207d
I hadn't seen those responses yet, but I'd say the gap between those two messages makes it fairly clear this was an American missile.
FireRetardant@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 207d
Someone knows which missile it was. They don't just mix in missiles on the same target, it was either an Israeli strike or an American, and whoever fired it knows.
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 206d
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.
cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml · 35 pts · 206d
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.
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
It’s also not like Israel allows the press to operate freely. They actively suppress and censor reporters.
https://cpj.org/2025/12/under-the-radar-israel-steps-up-censorship-and-suppression-of-independent-reporting/
Worse, if they can’t censor a journalist then they’ll simply assassinate them and often murder their entire family.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-human-rights-office-condemns-targeting-journalists-and-attacks-on-hospitals/
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.
atcorebcor@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 206d
Wasn’t Israel the country that has killed the most journalists in the world?
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 206d
Maybe if it was a one-off instead of a consistent pattern for 30+ years.
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 206d
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.
crypt0cler1c@infosec.pub · -2 pts · 206d
You completely missed the point
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 206d
The point was to use plausible sounding word vomit to distract and “to be faiiiiiir”. How did I not address that? I guess I could have been more aggressive and called the person I’m replying to either willfully genocidal or just a useful idiot.
crypt0cler1c@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 206d
You've lost all nuance and rationality
Wilson@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 206d
Given the loss of trust in media, if they want readers to give them the benefit of the doubt, they would need to cite their sources. I haven't ready either of these paywalled articles, but generally, they don't.
AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 206d
In this case, both attacks were verified by the same means: video and Google maps.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 206d
The existence of the attacks were, but not the details.
AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 206d
How did they verify the details according to the articles?
DandomRude@piefed.social · 29 pts · 207d
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 207d
It's "quite easy to understand" because that's how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you're talking about.
DandomRude@piefed.social · 15 pts · 207d
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 207d
The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT's coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You're trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it's baffling.
DandomRude@piefed.social · 4 pts · 207d
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 207d
"Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we're talking about, because I actually don't care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created."
Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who's whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 206d
So, to recap, this thread started with a passive-aggressive accusation, you backed it up with another passive-aggressive comment, somebody responded to you, and then you got mad at them for being angry about the wrong thing (without, y'know, actually saying what they should be mad about!)
Why not just state your opinion? Why all this beating around the bush?
starik@lemmy.zip · -9 pts · 207d
We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.
The top comment outlines some very reasonable explanations for the difference in phrasing between the two headlines. If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 40 pts · 207d
I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · -14 pts · 207d
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 25 pts · 207d
Right?! It’s so uncivil and making unfair assumptions to point out that the newspaper with a history of war hawking and downplaying fascism dating literally back to Hitler isn’t trustworthy on the subject of war and fascism 😢
monkeyjoe@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 206d
The poor innocent independent newspaper that promoted illegal wars before, look they said they changed. Just don't ask if it was for the better.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 207d
When it comes to corporate news sewers, you’re barking in the wrong toilet.
Jhex@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 207d
said as if the government has ever been held accountable...
apologists are never taken seriously
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 206d
You're talking about motivations? Seriously? These mother fuckers have done so much worse than this and it's us that shouldn't be taken seriously?
Why don't you crawl up that ass of yours a little more.
What case? When have you cowards have held your government responsible for any of unprovoked attacks, invasion, regime changes, massacre abroad?
That boot must taste really good, huh?
starik@lemmy.zip · -6 pts · 206d
The idea that somebody else might not take the same, obviously bad faith interpretation of a pair of headlines worked you up into that much of a lather?
DandomRude@piefed.social · 7 pts · 207d
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 206d
What are you doing to stop fascism in your country?
DandomRude@piefed.social · 5 pts · 206d
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 206d
Says the person who screams and insults, "Do something!" all while probably not even a US citizen and gives no advice.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -2 pts · 207d
How dare you run defense for the imperialist americans?
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 18 pts · 207d
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
denaggels@feddit.org · 13 pts · 207d
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.
fif-t@fedia.io · 11 pts · 206d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 207d
They don't need to be when they have the support of the moneyed interests all they care about is profit.
chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 206d
I know it's very, very cliche to mention Manufacturing Consent these days, but anyone who hasn't read it really should get ahold of a copy and at least read the first 2 or 3 chapters.
Stormy@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 206d
Never heard of it. Tell me why?
chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 206d
Like its title suggests, it delves into the ways in which popular consent is manufactured via the media (at the time - 1988 - mostly print, radio, and television). It's thoroughly convincing and is that rare type of book that can discuss research without alienating casual readers. Highly recommended.
Riverside@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 205d
chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 205d
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.
kittykillinit@lemy.lol · 6 pts · 205d
I really appreciate people who notice things like these and bring it to light for everyone else.
Thank you.
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 205d
wait wut, the nyt (or any of our media rags) is a fucking propaganda pos? Is their a pikachu were he looks at you like you are fucking dumbass and he can believe you didnt know?
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 205d
Today's lucky 10,000 would still benefit from learning about the media like this.
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 206d
Reminds me of a thread on Reddit of photos of Israeli missiles stuck in civilian buildings (apartment blocks). People asking where it was from and not one comment stating it was a Syrian city and where the missiles came from.
Treat everything you see as unconfirmed, no mater if it is for or against your beliefs. Manipulation is everywhere.
MrSulu@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 205d
Whilst NYT might not be Nazi, this is just how they worked the majority of the German population at that time. It starts light.
raker@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 206d
Same here: https://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.
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 205d
It must be in their style guide that Israel is always good lol
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 206d
What this reads like to me
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 207d
Where’s my Lemming who wants to argue all the information is in the article and if people only focus on the headline they’re stupid?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 207d
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.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 207d
‘What if the school kids killed themselves’? Calm down, there aren’t any board positions on the NYT open now.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 207d
I've seen that claimed along with a picture.
With AI bullshit and propaganda machines how they are, that's probably bollocks, and in any case it doesn't make a hundred kids any less dead.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 206d
Especially with how fond of AI altered images and videos this US regime is.