Interesting that you’re concerned about them unanimously editing the narrative to not include the real estate fair or who started the violence (which, 100%, is a bullshit thing for them to do)
But presumably approving of 3/4 of them putting Biden’s name in the headline for as far as I can tell literally no reason at all
I swear this isn’t an ad (though if anyone does want to try I think I have a referral code?) but it’s really nice to be able to just swipe through various publications’ articles on the same subject and compare headlines, etc.
Google News can do the same thing (although you’ll have to do your own reliability ranking) - search for “la protest” or something and you can do the math and take note of how many of them are simply covering that it happened, and how many and which ones are making Biden into a key feature of their headlines.
It was actually a rhetorical question, because I already know the answer. The answer is that the political spectrum is always relative. There’s no such thing as a middle or a center, there’s only left or right relative to some other point. It’s like movements in space, space doesn’t have a north pole or an objective reference point, so you can only say that a particular solar system is a certain distance from our own or some other arbitrary reference point.
Ground News chooses to have an arbitrary reference point, while telling its users that it’s an objective source of understanding bias. This is deceptive. It makes users feel that they’re unbiased, while entrenching them in the particular biases of USA politics. This is very bad for society as a whole. Ground News is brain rot.
I feel like this is a bit extreme. I assume it has an American bias which I already know is inherently more right than I’d normally think. I adjust my mental read of their scores appropriately. Most of their users are probably American.
It’s arbitrary in the same way the current American status quo is.
I actually do agree that “and then Biden went on Twitter and said some dumb shit about it” is an important addition to make to the story. I just don’t think it is two of the most important nine words that the New York Times would want to communicate about the protest, and I think it’s notable that it forms such a huge feature in the (again 100% accurate) narrative about the Western media doing its thing and lying about Palestine and Palestine protestors.
Actually - I would be pretty confident that a random sampling of all the stories in the media would show most of them simply covering the protest, and that only a small number which then were included in this screenshot featured the word “Biden.” Maybe I am wrong but that would be my guess.
Yeah. Most of them are like that - coverage of the protest. Or, some have coverage of the wrong “antisemitism” reaction to the violence, which obviously is relevant, without for some reason singling out only Biden’s rendition of it (e.g. including Newsom or Bass etc).
(Actually - the thing I really wish they would do is report on the “antisemitism” accusation and then break down exactly why it is wrong. Every single Lemmy commenter - or the vast majority of them - can read the coverage and explain why them singling out this synagogue for this protest had nothing to do with Judaism (it was actually in ozma’s story, I think, that the pro-Israel side actually also attacked a rabbi who was trying to break it up). So… why can’t the journalists figure that out?)
Actually, if you take out the New York Times and Forbes, almost no one decided to include Biden front and center in their headline about it.
This is interesting. Look at all those videos. I wish reporters would stop posting on X, though. Is this a good source? Those Twitter accounts? I’m not too familiar with the Cat and the other reporter they mentioned.
Interesting that you’re concerned about them unanimously editing the narrative to not include the real estate fair or who started the violence (which, 100%, is a bullshit thing for them to do)
But presumably approving of 3/4 of them putting Biden’s name in the headline for as far as I can tell literally no reason at all
This is where ground news is really helpful.
I swear this isn’t an ad (though if anyone does want to try I think I have a referral code?) but it’s really nice to be able to just swipe through various publications’ articles on the same subject and compare headlines, etc.
Google News can do the same thing (although you’ll have to do your own reliability ranking) - search for “la protest” or something and you can do the math and take note of how many of them are simply covering that it happened, and how many and which ones are making Biden into a key feature of their headlines.
That’s good to know. Not quite as convenient but at least it’s “free”.
Edit: also I don’t pay enough to get their reliability data
Let’s just say, you don’t pay… with money.
I know, I meant I’m not on the highest Ground News tier
Why are they putting CNN and other capitalist publications on the left hand side of center?
No idea. I take it with a grain of salt. I guess we need to remember just how far right most publications are.
It was actually a rhetorical question, because I already know the answer. The answer is that the political spectrum is always relative. There’s no such thing as a middle or a center, there’s only left or right relative to some other point. It’s like movements in space, space doesn’t have a north pole or an objective reference point, so you can only say that a particular solar system is a certain distance from our own or some other arbitrary reference point.
Ground News chooses to have an arbitrary reference point, while telling its users that it’s an objective source of understanding bias. This is deceptive. It makes users feel that they’re unbiased, while entrenching them in the particular biases of USA politics. This is very bad for society as a whole. Ground News is brain rot.
You might be thinking of the Overton Window.
Yes, Ground News reinforces the overton window, which is very bad
I feel like this is a bit extreme. I assume it has an American bias which I already know is inherently more right than I’d normally think. I adjust my mental read of their scores appropriately. Most of their users are probably American.
It’s arbitrary in the same way the current American status quo is.
This isn’t an anti-Biden post Mozz… The media isn’t saying WHY they showed up to this one location to rightfully protest.
The hell it isn’t.
There’s a reason.
Sure, let me rephrase: No legitimate reason
I actually do agree that “and then Biden went on Twitter and said some dumb shit about it” is an important addition to make to the story. I just don’t think it is two of the most important nine words that the New York Times would want to communicate about the protest, and I think it’s notable that it forms such a huge feature in the (again 100% accurate) narrative about the Western media doing its thing and lying about Palestine and Palestine protestors.
Actually - I would be pretty confident that a random sampling of all the stories in the media would show most of them simply covering the protest, and that only a small number which then were included in this screenshot featured the word “Biden.” Maybe I am wrong but that would be my guess.
Here Mozz… With multiple videos of the incidents
https://westsidetoday.com/2024/06/24/violence-erupts-at-protest-outside-adas-torah-synagogue-in-pico-robertson/
Yeah. Most of them are like that - coverage of the protest. Or, some have coverage of the wrong “antisemitism” reaction to the violence, which obviously is relevant, without for some reason singling out only Biden’s rendition of it (e.g. including Newsom or Bass etc).
(Actually - the thing I really wish they would do is report on the “antisemitism” accusation and then break down exactly why it is wrong. Every single Lemmy commenter - or the vast majority of them - can read the coverage and explain why them singling out this synagogue for this protest had nothing to do with Judaism (it was actually in ozma’s story, I think, that the pro-Israel side actually also attacked a rabbi who was trying to break it up). So… why can’t the journalists figure that out?)
Actually, if you take out the New York Times and Forbes, almost no one decided to include Biden front and center in their headline about it.
So… why didn’t you share this instead?
This is interesting. Look at all those videos. I wish reporters would stop posting on X, though. Is this a good source? Those Twitter accounts? I’m not too familiar with the Cat and the other reporter they mentioned.