• BossDj@lemm.ee
    30·
    2 months ago

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/29/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-censorship.html

    Russia article is about a law passed that made it illegal to discredit the Russian military and lead to thousands of arrests and stamping out protests. It was a months long investigative report

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/world/middleeast/al-jazeera-west-bank-raid.html

    Israel article is a news push from Reuters. However the Reuters article, and the rest of the media that used the piece included the word “raid” in the title. The original Reuters article also was much longer and included Al Jazeera response…

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      10·
      2 months ago

      There’s a lot more whitewashing in the new NYT article

      The raid illustrated that Israeli authorities were prepared to take far-reaching action to undermine the channel, which is based in Qatar press freedom and has provided extensive coverage of Israel’s military operations war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.

      In the early hours of Sunday, a group of Israeli soldiers forcibly entered blew up the front door of Al Jazeera’s office in Ramallah and told ordered Walid al-Omari, the local bureau chief, that he and his staff should leave immediately.

      When Mr. al-Omari asked why the Israeli forces were closing the office, one of the soldiers told him to contact the commander of the Israeli military in the West Bank for more details which were never provided. Al Jazeera broadcast the initial minutes of the raid live.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        7·
        2 months ago

        NYT and other major outlets that carried the same Reuters pull used language of “the channel based in Qatar”. AP said “broadcaster”.

        Actually, Reuters only said “entered”, so NYT added “forcibly”. AP only said raided. BBC also said entered.

  • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    17·
    2 months ago

    To be pedantic, one is a simple news message, the other seems to be the headline of a longer article or opinion piece. I bet you can find a simple news message of Russia closing news stations.

    • PyroNeurosisEnglish
      16·
      2 months ago

      True, but that also speaks to the effort NYT is willing to put into reporting on allied/adversarial media suppression.

      Just another day vs. this is clearly a Very Bad Thing.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        4·
        2 months ago

        No it doesn’t, it speaks to the effort that went into this screenshot of a twitter meme. I’m not defending the NYT or decrying them, just pointing out that your statement does not at all seem to stem from the conclusion of the comment that you have agreed with.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      10·
      2 months ago

      If it was a one-off you would be right. But newspapers consistently leave out negatively loaded words for israel while (correctly) using them for Russia.

      Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory”

      It’s even more preposterous because israel doesn’t control the West Bank. They are illegally colonizing it and preventing Aljazeera from covering their war-crimes. If this isn’t blatant repression of press freedom I don’t know what is.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      2 months ago

      I bet you can find a simple news message of Russia closing news stations.

      I bet you can’t.

      Read some Chomsky ffs. Or at least like fair.org.

      The NYTrash always supports hegemony. USA is fighting russia and supporting zionism, so that’s their slant in a HUGE way. It’s nonstop across all imperial media. It’s hard to imagine that people are blind to this but I guess we’ve all been indoctrinated since birth.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        This is why buddy said they’re being pedantic.

        For example, if I found and posted a plain statement of fact headline for Russia, would that be evidence that manufactured consent isn’t a thing? No. Of course not.

        To look at these kinds of things, you can’t just cherry pick. These concepts are laid bare as a result of aggregating reporting. It’s a statistical thing.

        So while this is an example, for the reasons posted, it’s not a great one. And you could take that feedback and post a better one. You could understand the argument. You’re completely right, so why not choose examples that don’t leave yourself vulnerable to valid criticism of your specific choices?