|
Reflections85 posted:I feel like I'm not following here. I think, previously you said you wanted to treat this evolutionarily, not revolutionarily. But we can delineate things even if we treat them as evolutionary. I'm not the OP, but it seems like the main point is just that a bright line distinction doesn't make a lot of sense in this case or others - the same author can publish the same story on Twitter, Facebook, and the NYT at the same time, or subtly different articles in two different opinion sections, or whatever other combination - insofar as there has been a meaningful change, it has primarily been an increase in the number of uniquely-named sources an average person is exposed to, leading to much more difficulty establishing a given source as "reliable" as compared to in earlier eras. I believe someone mentioned earlier in the thread how a frequent elementary-school shortcut for source reliability was ".gov and .org are more reliable sources than .com or .net", but not only is that a bad heuristic for the obvious reasons, but the advent of custom top-level domains has made this even less applicable than it already was! However, it makes more sense to understand this as an pre-existing issue that has been exacerbated by the frequency of interactions than some brand-new problem - the issue is less that the heuristics were previously GOOD and more than you are more likely to run into conflicting sources or viewpoints that make you recognize that your heuristic wasn't working. Anyway, to pull away from the old derail and provide new content, the current situation in Israel and Palestine has been a great source of media literacy fuckery. A friend pointed out the initial change a few days ago, but the article kept getting changed and the follow-up articles have been just as bad: https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1391786657536483330?s=20 The actual text of the article frames it as "both police and civilians injured" rather than doing anything to explain why the raid happened, and the following praragraph doesn't address the fact that East Jerusalem, where settlers have been using the Israeli legal system to displace inhabitants, is part of Palestine and not Israel to begin with - how do the police and courts claim jurisdiction there? They simply disregard the existence of the borders and act with impunity quote:The issue became a rallying cry for Palestinians, who saw the moves as ethnic cleansing and illegal, and right-wing Israeli Jews, who said they were fighting for their property as landowners while also attempting to ensure Jewish control over East Jerusalem. You have to scroll to the 23rd paragraph to get even an acknowledgement that the claim is disputed: quote:The march on Jerusalem Day, an annual event to mark the capture of East Jerusalem during the Arab-Israeli war in 1967, is seen by Palestinians as a provocation. Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. Israel annexed it after 1967, a claim most of the world does not recognize https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1392267814635982854?s=20 https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1392267826287816704?s=20 The NYT change tracker bot shows how coverage of the issue has gone from "Israel is instigating" to "causalities on both sides" by obscuring how disproportionately the deaths have been distributed in the title and abstract of their reporting. This has been a consistent trend across US reporting on I/P conflicts going way back, and is a notable reason why the US is basically the only major country that refuses to condemn Israel. It's worth noting that the original event, the attack by the IDF on congregants at a mosque on the final day of Ramadan, has been completely removed from the story to make it into a "rockets and air strikes" narrative rather than actually addressing the steps of escalation. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 12, 2021 |
#
¿
May 12, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Silver2195 posted:What baffles me is the role of the headline writers. To begin with, their work gets read by a lot more people than the actual news stories, but they are, so far as I know, anonymous or at least obscure at most outlets. Has anyone ever actually written a plausible defense of this practice? Would the journalists writing the actual stories really do such a worse job of writing headlines? In at least some of the cases above it matches a general "breaking news" practice of adding more details to the same story as things develop in the same day (sticking to the habits from their paper publications, they generally make a new article for developments on subsequent days). I imagine there's some practical or institutional limit to the length of headlines or abstracts, so the argument is basically that the newest information is often the most newsworthy and therefore needs to be added to the headline and abstract as more paragraphs are added to the article itself. Of course, when that conveniently removes important contextual information like "who started it", or "which side are the deaths on" they aren't held accountable because there's no one reviewing these decisions for systematic bias or anything, it's just "practical" to use the version of the headline that gets the most engagement
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
moths posted:NYT had a push notification about the trampling in Israel that implied it was comparable to a Palestinian attack in scale. That's pretty close to the total number killed in rocket attacks between 2004 and 2014. Or similarly, the total deaths of one of the recent "wars" was something like 60 on the Israeli side to over 1000 on the Palestinian side. That sort of ratio should bring to mind some of the world's worst atrocities, and for good reason Edit: was phone-posting, but circling back around with some of the actual numbers - 2008-9 Gaza "war": 13 Israeli deaths (4 from friendly fire), over 1000 Palestinian deaths including several hundred civilians 2014 "war": 73 Israeli deaths, over 2000 Palestinian deaths with the UN estimating 65% of those being civilians BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:56 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 16:50
|
|