Gotta love that passive language making autocracy sound mild.
Even the one on the left is still too soft on Putin.
It’s weird how borders can move around on their own without any action from anyone.
Edit: On a more serious note, where exactly does this type of bias come from? I don’t think of the AP as a highly ideological organization but is there some top-down pressure to frame things in a certain way? Does it come from the outside? Or is it just the prejudices of individual journalists and editors at play?
It is a cherry picked headline. Here is another from the AP that gives a different story: “Middle East latest: Israel plans an extended occupation of Syrian buffer zone”
Why was the cherry there in the first place that it got picked? Stupid headline or article, even if its only one, needs to be called out on
Israel has several lobbying organizations that watch news organizations and lodge complaints with them if coverage isn’t favorable. Check out the ex CNN employee who recently said they literally couldn’t publish without Isreal’s permission.
Insane. Marginally related… I’ve learned the last year or so since I took up a moderator position for a computer game… Some complaints you just gotta disregard no matter how many people whine. Being offended is a you problem. not ours. I’ve had this happen equally amongst people who were percieved as right wing, or lefties.
evidentley the news doesn’t know enough to just laugh at the whining and disregard the complaint.
The problem is they’re a profit seeking organization. And groups like CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) can buy billboards telling people you’re a bad product and influence investors to stay away and invest in other news organizations.
So, “the Jews control the media”, then? Sounds like you have a lot of important things to say that totally aren’t insane.
I’m sorry where did I say that? Going from lobbying organizations that conduct pressure campaigns on specific issues to “controls the media” is one hell of a jump.
The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news “filters,” fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.
Thanks, I’ve been meaning to read this book for a long time. Maybe the time has finally come.
Try Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti too.
Sometimes because the paper is financed/owned by some party that profits off of the colonial & genocidal project, sometimes because the paper gets scoops from 3 letter agencies who make such requests in return for scoops, sometimes it’s racism that the writer might not even aware of, but most often it’s a combination of those.
I guess I was wondering if there’s specific evidence of the way it works in this particular case. The AP is a non-profit, so it doesn’t have the same structure as a privately or publicly owned firm. But of course, there’s still the possibility of leadership imposing views onto its workers, though I think that’s a little more challenging with a nonprofit. But I am curious about them because they are the source of a large amount of news published by other sources, so if they are biased then that bias infects the rest of the media whether they want it or not.
There’s an inherent bias towards treating government statements as fact (whether that’s police, government officials or military spokesmen). When the other side is a ‘terrorist organisation’ or a ‘community leader’, they’re automatically treated as biased and suspicious. It’s a pattern you see with Israel, police shootings, etc.
Obviously when the country in question isn’t aligned with the West (Russia, China, etc), the qualifiers and doubt comes creeping back in, and journalists will include examples of past lies to underscore the point, which you’ll never see in a story about the NYPD or Matthew Miller.
Formal annexation by Russia happened significantly later than occupation of the land. Israel is at the ‘occupation of the land’ stage.
OK but come on, are you really implying that the framing is the same here? And we all knew what Russia planned back then and we know what Israel plans today. Do you think when it’s “official” we’ll see the headline on the left for Israel? I don’t think so.
I think that the important perspective here is the phase of the land grab operation and the perceived statelessness of Syria. When Russian troops walked into Crimea the press wasn’t ready to call it an outright invasion and it certainly didn’t feel like one. Syria currently is not in the situation of enforcing their territorial integrity and the military strikes at military targets in Syria have some kind of international legitimation, independent of if those are valid. Same goes for Turkey. So while it would be appropriate to call out Israel and Turkey for their opportunistic raids into Syria, I can see while the press struggles to name it appropriately. Again, not because it’s right, but because the circumstances are favorable to remain cautious about the language.
Right now one is heavily speculatory and based on ongoing and disputed events (ie the fact that Israel and its allies will lie through their teeth, same as Russia did, about their intentions until the last moment); the other was a pretty firm event quite literally being acknowledged by the perpetrator. Not only that, but outright annexation is not definitely the intention of Israel - it may be that they want more territory to engage in ‘frozen conflict’ style ‘diplomacy’, the same as Russia did with the Donbass for nearly a decade.
For most news sources, it would be reasonable to speculate that there’s a strong pro-Israel bias. AP is generally pretty aggressively anodyne, though. If there’s a pro-Israel bias, it’s likely not a strong one.
While the current events are not great, Israel’s border has changed through military engagements where it was on the defensive/being invaded.
Also, while it could be debated they were in the wrong then too, they did take some land as buffer regions because they were being repeatedly attacked.
That was decades ago and not all the situation here. Israel just took land because Syria couldn’t stop them and no one else will either. Also, being invaded doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing anyway.
Disgusting, these media titans should be held accountable for manufacturing consent on genocide.
Using what laws though? I’m not aware of any actual method that can hold them accountable.
