this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
11 points (67.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26995 readers
1276 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I started to notice a trend on Mastodon and Lemmy where the person criticize a news source for writing a minimally biased headline.

Sometimes, I even notice a person posting a article on Mastodon to provide commentary, and in the replies you would find a person criticizing the headline for not using loaded words.

Is there is any specific reason for people doing this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

sources? Sounds like leading a lead into leading... an issue without an issue for a subscription

[–] Joker 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't want to look in Mastodon for the posts I saw doing this as it would take some time, but here is an example from my experience on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's more of a case of trying to control the narrative then using a non-inflammatory headline. "Pro-Palestine" creates an implicit bias for a conflict and you'll read it in a certain way depending on your viewpoints on the conflict. The media does this a lot especially for a topic as loaded as this. That ones a really good example of it since the Israelis in Amsterdam were doing a lot of bad shit that prompted a response but all headlines just labeled them as "soccer fans" while they labeled the other side as things like "rioters". It's not about being inflammatory, it's more about trying your best to remove these implicit biases.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I saw the source and thought the same thing. The link isn't as bad as some I've seen, so I think the complainer was out of line in that specific instance, but some are worth pointing out.

In American News, white people "protest" and black people "loot and riot". They could be doing the same thing, but that's what we call it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Personally, I don't think the commenter was wrong to point it out. This isn't an even conflict and Israel is not only attacking Hamas. "Pro-Palestine" implies you're choosing a side in this conflict and allows people to form a bias. Anti-genocide showcases exactly why the majority of people are against the war.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But I don't think it paints anyone in an unfair light. Now, if they called them antisemitic, anti-Israel, or anti Jewish rioters, that would be painting them in an unfair negative light, but when you get a relatively neutral term even though you would prefer an edgier one, that's not the journalists fault.

I would've rather been known as "Heroic defender of the marginalized and downtrodden", but I guess I'm ok with just "Democrat" in the headlines.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I see where you're coming from but at the end of the day "Pro-Palestine" implies that these people are only protesting it for Palestine, and not the genocide. If the situation were reversed where Palestine was committing a genocide against the Israeli people then these people would not be "Pro-Palestine". Remember, a lot of people around the world think that Palestinians want to ethnically cleanse the Jews (which is 100% not true). They use this as an excuse to justify what Israel is currently doing. This is what I meant by saying it has an implicit bias. It's a very polarizing situation and the media is making it worse by labelling everyone either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine. We're meant to believe that by picking a side you forsake the other. Which is not the case for a lot of people.

load more comments (4 replies)