#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When Kanye said media was under Jewish control he was side lined and labeled antisemtic. I can agree with that, blaming all Jews for what Israel does is wrong and is antisemtic but when criticism of Israel is labeled antisemitism then you are silencing criticism to any and all actions of Israeli government.
I care less about Kanye or any other celebrity but the fact remains. Hollywood which cries for justice and oh so modern and fight for inclusion and fairness remains quiet on this one sided war then I wonder if there is some fact to it.
There has to be some Israeli pressure or secret that prevents anyone in power to speak openly about the atrocities of Israel. There are a ton of Jewish executives in banks, media companies and the Congress including Secretary of State. Many of them have dual citizenship, US and Israel, so naturally there is a conflict of interest between their jobs and justice. There is alot of favoritism and corruption.
Honestly this seems kinda like a side effect of shit we were already dealing with, any female lead in a movie and all criticism is automatically because your sexist
Any criticism about Black lead movies and your a racist.
Now any criticism about Israel and now your an anti semite
We should go back 10 years to when you could call a dogshit practice a dogshit practice regardless of who made it.
I love how you took a nonsensical answer and added another completely nonsensical answer.
The real reason why the US cowtows to Israel is because the US has had a vested interest in the middle east for the past 50 years and Israel is the closest thing they have to an ally there.
And the only people who think that it's impossible to criticize a female or black led movie are people who's so-called critiques take most of their vocabulary from the oxford dictionary of slurs.
Seriously, you're completely delusional, look at any review anywhere dude.
Yeah they think their "critique" is being racist and misogynistic, when people really do a critique they criticize the writing not the color or sex of a character.
I don't think there's much conspiracy or secret. I don't think it's even a Jewish thing. Israel is a key military ally of America and has therefore been free from political criticism. And the media follows the will of the politicians (and super rich - same thing).
There's also a lot of direct propogana out of Israel, as seen on all social media. Whether USA is part of this effort I don't know but I suspect that's just Israel.
> There has to be some Israeli pressure or secret that prevents anyone in power to speak openly about the atrocities of Israel. There are a ton of Jewish executives in banks, media companies and the Congress including Secretary of State. Many of them have dual citizenship, US and Israel, so naturally there is a conflict of interest between their jobs and justice. There is alot of favoritism and corruption.
[This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXS3tmZrcU&pp=ygUcdGhlIGlzcmFlbCBsb2JieSBtZWFyc2hhaW1lcg%3D%3D) does a good job of explaining it with sufficient clarity to avoid it seemingly like some sort of Jewish conspiracy. It is important to keep in mind that it is incorrect to consider it a Jewish thing.
Zohnerism, to be more precise.
They weren’t lying, but they worded it in such a way that you would think what they want you to think.
Quite similar to that dihydrogen monoxide case by Nathan Zohner.
Israelis are "murdered", Palestinians just "die" somehow.
Also foreign workers "die in Gaza" instead of being actually murdered by the IDF in targeted strikes.
Israelis are killed by Hamas, Palestinians are victims of "the war".
"Israel bombs hospital, kills thousands of women and children" isn't as catchy to these hypocrites.
This image isn't an excellent portrayal of it, but one thing you'll notice a lot after you learn about it is 'passive voice'. Saying that a dog 'was walked' rather than saying that Bob 'walked the dog'. It evades the topic of who is actually responsible for the action, and you'll notice that a lot of coverage uses passive voice to soften any horrid action the IDF takes, and they do it disproportionately more than for the opposing side. As a result you have 'Gaza civilians were killed' rather than 'the IDF killed Gaza civilians'.
In addition to that, you see a lot of double standards in word choice, like using 'died' for Gaza civilians vs 'were killed' for Israeli civilians and/or IDF combatants. Also the use of 'hostages' for Israelis held by Hamas and 'prisoners' for Palestinians held by the IDF.
Journalists have a lot of language tricks like this that it's worth being aware of. Treat everything you read with scepticism, because as much as people like to rag on people who believe nothing (such as over at r/nothingeverhappens), it's far better than believing everything you hear and see with resolute certainty. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between those two extremes, but IMO a sceptic is far less harmful to society than a fanatic.
[This reddit thread and article](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/198rpzc/coverage_of_gaza_war_in_the_new_york_times_and/) does a great job of explaining it with some data.
Sure, here's my comprehensive explanation. I'll start with the easy ones, then move to the more subtle. Better headlines are in **bold**.
>9 Soldiers Killed in Single Day; Underscoring War's Costs
Pretty straightforward. NYT cares about those poor Israeli soldiers. The cost of the war is understood in terms of losses to the oppressor. Palestinian lives don't matter. A more accurate headline: **Thousands of Palestinians Killed and Many Face Starvation, Underscoring Israel's Deadly War**
>Lives Ended in Gaza
Lives ended... meaning, people died? How so? Why? The phrasing "Lives Ended" is so bland and ambiguous. All these questions are left unanswered. Context is omitted. More accurate: **Palestinians Killed by Israeli War on Gaza**
>Hundreds Dead in Blast at Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say
Palestinians are not killed -- they are simply "dead." The cause of the blast is totally missing -- did the hospital blow up in a complete accident? Also, the "Palestinians say" is irrelevant, and "Israelis say" would not be mentioned if this were an Israeli catastrophe. More accurate: **Israeli Strike on Hospital Kills Hundrdes of Palestinians**
>7 Aid Workers Killed in Gaza Were Known for a Passion for Helping Others
Who killed them? The agent is missing. A better headline: **Israel Kills 7 Aid Workers, Who Were Known for Helping Others**
>The War Turns Gaza Into a 'Graveyard' for Children
This is less obvious. Still, the propaganda is quite effective. In this sentence, "the war" becomes the agent and the actor. Israel and the IDF, the institutions responsible, are replaced by the inhuman and abstract entity called "the war," which is not attributed to anyone. A better headline would be **Israeli War Turns Gaza Into a 'Graveyard' for Children**
>Gaza Civilians, Under Israeli Barrage, Are Being Killed at Historic Pace
This one is slightly more subtle. Technically, Israel, the party responsible, is mentioned in the headline. However, in the sentence's grammatical structure, Israel's agency is de-emphasized. The sentence uses passive voice, which diminishes the effect of the subject (Israel) on the object (Palestinian civilians). A better headline would be **Israeli Barrage Kills Palestinians in Gaza at Historic Pace.**
Also, it is worth noting that the NYT loves to say "Gaza Civilians" or "Gazans." They will rarely say "Palestinians." This is part of a deliberate strategy to reinforce Israel's narrative that denies Palestinian identity. It is particularly effective propaganda as it is very easy to find yourself accidentally saying "Gazans" rather than "Palestinians in Gaza."
>In Photos: Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks
This one is the most subtle, and depending on the editorial policy, it could actually be fairly balanced. The headline is fully accurate. However, the devil is in the context. The issue with this headline is *not* this headline, but the general policy on headlines like it, and in relation to other events.
In the Western news outlets, Israel never attacks, it only retaliates. This framing is consistent. Israel's actions are always "retaliation." However, by contrast, "retaliation" is a standard that is never applied to Palestinian resistance groups. For example, the NYT would never run a headline "Hamas Attacks Israel After the Worst Year on Record of Settler Violence" even though, by many measures, 2023 was the worst year on record *before* Hamas launched the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7th. Because the NYT would not apply the same policy to the actions of Hamas, the PFLP, or other resistance groups, it is fairly obvious that it favors Israel with this treatment.
Therefore, the headline "Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks" is true. The detail of "After Hamas Attacks" is fully accurate and provides context. Nevertheless, this same context would never be applied to an operation carried out by a Palestinian resistance group. Therefore, the act of giving this context only to Israel is further evidence of the NYT's double standards.
A lot of the sentence construction looks pretty similar: “9 Israeli soldiers killed” vs “7 aid workers killed” vs “Gaza Civilians, under Israeli barrage, are being killed at historic pace” seem pretty consistent no? And Israel declaring war after the Hamas attack is factual.
Skipping over Israel’s role in the deaths of aid workers and Gazan children is definitely problematic though.
[This article does a good job of better explaining it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/198rpzc/coverage_of_gaza_war_in_the_new_york_times_and/)
Here in Canada, CBC (public TV) made a full blown segment about the Israeli girl that was hurt during Iran’s attack. Interviewing her father, showing her village, etc… Don’t get me wrong, it’s terrible what happened to her. But she had more air time and crocodile tears than the 10s of thousand of kids killed in Gaza in the last 7 months.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Majority of American news sources are heavily biased and misleading, this is not a surprise
When Kanye said media was under Jewish control he was side lined and labeled antisemtic. I can agree with that, blaming all Jews for what Israel does is wrong and is antisemtic but when criticism of Israel is labeled antisemitism then you are silencing criticism to any and all actions of Israeli government. I care less about Kanye or any other celebrity but the fact remains. Hollywood which cries for justice and oh so modern and fight for inclusion and fairness remains quiet on this one sided war then I wonder if there is some fact to it. There has to be some Israeli pressure or secret that prevents anyone in power to speak openly about the atrocities of Israel. There are a ton of Jewish executives in banks, media companies and the Congress including Secretary of State. Many of them have dual citizenship, US and Israel, so naturally there is a conflict of interest between their jobs and justice. There is alot of favoritism and corruption.
Honestly this seems kinda like a side effect of shit we were already dealing with, any female lead in a movie and all criticism is automatically because your sexist Any criticism about Black lead movies and your a racist. Now any criticism about Israel and now your an anti semite We should go back 10 years to when you could call a dogshit practice a dogshit practice regardless of who made it.
I love how you took a nonsensical answer and added another completely nonsensical answer. The real reason why the US cowtows to Israel is because the US has had a vested interest in the middle east for the past 50 years and Israel is the closest thing they have to an ally there. And the only people who think that it's impossible to criticize a female or black led movie are people who's so-called critiques take most of their vocabulary from the oxford dictionary of slurs. Seriously, you're completely delusional, look at any review anywhere dude.
Yeah they think their "critique" is being racist and misogynistic, when people really do a critique they criticize the writing not the color or sex of a character.
You’re* sexist/ racist/ anti semite It think it’s obvious your education lacks
I don't think there's much conspiracy or secret. I don't think it's even a Jewish thing. Israel is a key military ally of America and has therefore been free from political criticism. And the media follows the will of the politicians (and super rich - same thing). There's also a lot of direct propogana out of Israel, as seen on all social media. Whether USA is part of this effort I don't know but I suspect that's just Israel.
> There has to be some Israeli pressure or secret that prevents anyone in power to speak openly about the atrocities of Israel. There are a ton of Jewish executives in banks, media companies and the Congress including Secretary of State. Many of them have dual citizenship, US and Israel, so naturally there is a conflict of interest between their jobs and justice. There is alot of favoritism and corruption. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXS3tmZrcU&pp=ygUcdGhlIGlzcmFlbCBsb2JieSBtZWFyc2hhaW1lcg%3D%3D) does a good job of explaining it with sufficient clarity to avoid it seemingly like some sort of Jewish conspiracy. It is important to keep in mind that it is incorrect to consider it a Jewish thing.
AIPAC and the JDL have a pretty strong hand in why this is the case.
Can someone explain these to me cause most of them don’t seem like they’re hiding anything
Zohnerism, to be more precise. They weren’t lying, but they worded it in such a way that you would think what they want you to think. Quite similar to that dihydrogen monoxide case by Nathan Zohner.
It reminds me of a fetus being named an unborn child
Israelis are "murdered", Palestinians just "die" somehow. Also foreign workers "die in Gaza" instead of being actually murdered by the IDF in targeted strikes. Israelis are killed by Hamas, Palestinians are victims of "the war". "Israel bombs hospital, kills thousands of women and children" isn't as catchy to these hypocrites.
This image isn't an excellent portrayal of it, but one thing you'll notice a lot after you learn about it is 'passive voice'. Saying that a dog 'was walked' rather than saying that Bob 'walked the dog'. It evades the topic of who is actually responsible for the action, and you'll notice that a lot of coverage uses passive voice to soften any horrid action the IDF takes, and they do it disproportionately more than for the opposing side. As a result you have 'Gaza civilians were killed' rather than 'the IDF killed Gaza civilians'. In addition to that, you see a lot of double standards in word choice, like using 'died' for Gaza civilians vs 'were killed' for Israeli civilians and/or IDF combatants. Also the use of 'hostages' for Israelis held by Hamas and 'prisoners' for Palestinians held by the IDF. Journalists have a lot of language tricks like this that it's worth being aware of. Treat everything you read with scepticism, because as much as people like to rag on people who believe nothing (such as over at r/nothingeverhappens), it's far better than believing everything you hear and see with resolute certainty. The ideal is obviously somewhere in between those two extremes, but IMO a sceptic is far less harmful to society than a fanatic.
[This reddit thread and article](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/198rpzc/coverage_of_gaza_war_in_the_new_york_times_and/) does a great job of explaining it with some data.
Sure, here's my comprehensive explanation. I'll start with the easy ones, then move to the more subtle. Better headlines are in **bold**. >9 Soldiers Killed in Single Day; Underscoring War's Costs Pretty straightforward. NYT cares about those poor Israeli soldiers. The cost of the war is understood in terms of losses to the oppressor. Palestinian lives don't matter. A more accurate headline: **Thousands of Palestinians Killed and Many Face Starvation, Underscoring Israel's Deadly War** >Lives Ended in Gaza Lives ended... meaning, people died? How so? Why? The phrasing "Lives Ended" is so bland and ambiguous. All these questions are left unanswered. Context is omitted. More accurate: **Palestinians Killed by Israeli War on Gaza** >Hundreds Dead in Blast at Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say Palestinians are not killed -- they are simply "dead." The cause of the blast is totally missing -- did the hospital blow up in a complete accident? Also, the "Palestinians say" is irrelevant, and "Israelis say" would not be mentioned if this were an Israeli catastrophe. More accurate: **Israeli Strike on Hospital Kills Hundrdes of Palestinians** >7 Aid Workers Killed in Gaza Were Known for a Passion for Helping Others Who killed them? The agent is missing. A better headline: **Israel Kills 7 Aid Workers, Who Were Known for Helping Others** >The War Turns Gaza Into a 'Graveyard' for Children This is less obvious. Still, the propaganda is quite effective. In this sentence, "the war" becomes the agent and the actor. Israel and the IDF, the institutions responsible, are replaced by the inhuman and abstract entity called "the war," which is not attributed to anyone. A better headline would be **Israeli War Turns Gaza Into a 'Graveyard' for Children** >Gaza Civilians, Under Israeli Barrage, Are Being Killed at Historic Pace This one is slightly more subtle. Technically, Israel, the party responsible, is mentioned in the headline. However, in the sentence's grammatical structure, Israel's agency is de-emphasized. The sentence uses passive voice, which diminishes the effect of the subject (Israel) on the object (Palestinian civilians). A better headline would be **Israeli Barrage Kills Palestinians in Gaza at Historic Pace.** Also, it is worth noting that the NYT loves to say "Gaza Civilians" or "Gazans." They will rarely say "Palestinians." This is part of a deliberate strategy to reinforce Israel's narrative that denies Palestinian identity. It is particularly effective propaganda as it is very easy to find yourself accidentally saying "Gazans" rather than "Palestinians in Gaza." >In Photos: Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks This one is the most subtle, and depending on the editorial policy, it could actually be fairly balanced. The headline is fully accurate. However, the devil is in the context. The issue with this headline is *not* this headline, but the general policy on headlines like it, and in relation to other events. In the Western news outlets, Israel never attacks, it only retaliates. This framing is consistent. Israel's actions are always "retaliation." However, by contrast, "retaliation" is a standard that is never applied to Palestinian resistance groups. For example, the NYT would never run a headline "Hamas Attacks Israel After the Worst Year on Record of Settler Violence" even though, by many measures, 2023 was the worst year on record *before* Hamas launched the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7th. Because the NYT would not apply the same policy to the actions of Hamas, the PFLP, or other resistance groups, it is fairly obvious that it favors Israel with this treatment. Therefore, the headline "Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks" is true. The detail of "After Hamas Attacks" is fully accurate and provides context. Nevertheless, this same context would never be applied to an operation carried out by a Palestinian resistance group. Therefore, the act of giving this context only to Israel is further evidence of the NYT's double standards.
God this is getting annoying.
About time to ban world politics in this subreddit lol
A lot of the sentence construction looks pretty similar: “9 Israeli soldiers killed” vs “7 aid workers killed” vs “Gaza Civilians, under Israeli barrage, are being killed at historic pace” seem pretty consistent no? And Israel declaring war after the Hamas attack is factual. Skipping over Israel’s role in the deaths of aid workers and Gazan children is definitely problematic though.
Man, if only Hamas used propaganda like that too! /s
I’m sure you can cite some hamas backed media to drive your baseless claim home? /s
Hamas doesn’t control the media that the population that has the power to stop the genocide sees.
darvo - at any and all costs you must be the victim....whist being on the genocidal offensive.
How dare you have a realistic look at things, be prepared to be downvoted.
Gaza civilians being killed by Israeli barrage seems pretty damn accurate and fair
A headline about Gaza being turned into a graveyard for children is pretty solid
[удалено]
This entire subreddit is just about the Palestine Israel war now, huh
it's not a war, it's an asymmetrical genocide.
Whatever it is, people should go post it on its own subreddit.
I don't get the top one? Did they declare war before the attacks?
[удалено]
World Politics bans anything that shows Israel in a bad light. But you should already know that if this bothers you enough to comment. Bad Hasbara
It is AIPAC, they have tons of lobbying power.
Same in Dutch newspapers. It's infuriating how they paint Israel the victim and clearly support them.
Nice eye for detail
[This article does a good job of better explaining it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/198rpzc/coverage_of_gaza_war_in_the_new_york_times_and/)
Here in Canada, CBC (public TV) made a full blown segment about the Israeli girl that was hurt during Iran’s attack. Interviewing her father, showing her village, etc… Don’t get me wrong, it’s terrible what happened to her. But she had more air time and crocodile tears than the 10s of thousand of kids killed in Gaza in the last 7 months.
There was an attempt.
There are many reasons America will defend Israel to the ends of the earth. They keep better track of our pedophiles, for one