I'm not sure where they ever implied that news from the US can be trusted, that seems like a bias from you. To me this looks like someone frustrated with all news and media, just simply talking about Israel and Palestine because it's current. Or is that the problem? If there is additional context that I'm missing, please tell me.
I really don't understand this... To me they seem like someone who believes all media can't be trusted and is telling lies, now responding to idk what, likely a post about Israel lying. Just venting their belief that all media can't be trusted. Doesn't seem to me to be defending either lies or taking a particular side, or even engaging with the topic at all very much, in fact I could believe they saying this to literally any topic where "media has lied/news are fake".
If not a whattaboutism, it belies a brainworm that media is inherently untrustworthy because they've been subjected to western MSM their whole life. It's like how many burgers are against "big government" because they're used to being fucked raw by the US government and think that's a quality shared by all governments as opposed to theirs specifically. It just does not compute for some people that media exists that isn't simply lying though their teeth.
Is there a government/media outlet that does not try to consciously or unconsciously influence stories/news to be more positive towards their beliefs?
Of course there is a difference between "lying through your teeth" and "trying to make something sound better than they are", but I feel like both is lying. You mention "western MSM" and that it's "simply lying through their teeth", but is that really all they're doing? From what I experienced, no, there are some things of course that are straight up complete fabrication, but most of the stuff they put out is real in some way, just in varying degrees of warped to make themselves look better. They can't always, not even most of the time, get away with straight fabrication. Depends on the organization of course.
I'm just genuinely wondering if "non-western MSM" is really better? Which one? I'm from Europe, not the US, so of course I see one-sided coverage a lot as well, but I'm not completely blinded by Murdoch news or whatever. I'm not consuming much, if any, news media in general, most often trying to learn about topics through Wikipedia or academic books on the topic, which obviously can be biased as well.
They'll all acknowledge that both sides politically bad, but at the end of the day, they're leaning on one side of the political fence or another, regardless if it isn't in the mainstream political binary as of now, because the same person would most likely use this response on mostly one side, while "coincidentally" sharing most of their political views on the other opposing side
In short, liberal 'neutrality' self-superiority and political equivocation....
I don't think self-superiority is a feature of being liberal or anything, I see plenty of that everywhere, also here. That's just a human thing.
And yeah, I guess I understand that people do have a political leaning and naturally try to argue that even covertly/unconsciously, however I really didn't see it in this particular screenshot, that's why I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something.
So in the end, that means he's accusing me of being a typical redditor, trying to make "a reddit" out of Lemmy?
I'm not sure I know what that means, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. As far as I know, I don't have a particular agenda, especially not trying to change Lemmy, I'm just trying to participate in what I see. I'm interested in what I see here, however with my current understanding, it seems like I'm just not seeing what everyone else seems to be seeing.
In the most direct terms I can give you, Israel lies more often and is the greater aggressor. To equate them is to make Israel seem better than they are, even if the exact words you're saying is "both sides are lying." It's a false equivalency that trivializes the bad guys and muddles the whole situation. It's punching down.
It's similar to saying all lives matter in response to black lives matters. It's an otherwise harmless statement that in context expresses a malicious political leaning. In this case, saying one cannot trust Israel nor Palestine is ignoring Israel's historical context and the struggle of Palestinians.
Imagine if I said both slaves and slave owners are spreading unreliable narratives about slavery. That would be malicious, wouldn't it?
It's because this is the excuse and cop-out you see thousands of times when you're a communist dealing with liberals. When liberals are eventually forced to confront that their sources lie about a particular topic, they don't admit they were wrong and adjust their behavior to think critically about those sources in the future. They throw their hands up and go "Draw game. If my source is wrong then yours can't be right. You didn't win. Everybody has a bias, you can't trust any government." and then 2 weeks later they'll send you the same source to tell you why China bad.
In that sense I understand. I didn't get this exact vibe from this post, but with context I see how it could be. I just wouldn't assume by default that that's what the person that made this post is about, though it's definitely possible.
I'm not sure where they ever implied that news from the US can be trusted, that seems like a bias from you. To me this looks like someone frustrated with all news and media, just simply talking about Israel and Palestine because it's current. Or is that the problem? If there is additional context that I'm missing, please tell me.
When they say this in response to Israel and the US lying they are in fact defending those lies.
“Whataboutism” gets thrown around a lot but this here is pure whatabout ism.
Israel and the US caught obviously and repeatedly lying on a massive scale? THIS PROVES YOU CANT TRUST PALESTINE EITHER.
Good bot
I love that this bot was designed for defederation, and now it's just us triggering it ironically.
Whataboutism
I really don't understand this... To me they seem like someone who believes all media can't be trusted and is telling lies, now responding to idk what, likely a post about Israel lying. Just venting their belief that all media can't be trusted. Doesn't seem to me to be defending either lies or taking a particular side, or even engaging with the topic at all very much, in fact I could believe they saying this to literally any topic where "media has lied/news are fake".
If not a whattaboutism, it belies a brainworm that media is inherently untrustworthy because they've been subjected to western MSM their whole life. It's like how many burgers are against "big government" because they're used to being fucked raw by the US government and think that's a quality shared by all governments as opposed to theirs specifically. It just does not compute for some people that media exists that isn't simply lying though their teeth.
Is there a government/media outlet that does not try to consciously or unconsciously influence stories/news to be more positive towards their beliefs?
Of course there is a difference between "lying through your teeth" and "trying to make something sound better than they are", but I feel like both is lying. You mention "western MSM" and that it's "simply lying through their teeth", but is that really all they're doing? From what I experienced, no, there are some things of course that are straight up complete fabrication, but most of the stuff they put out is real in some way, just in varying degrees of warped to make themselves look better. They can't always, not even most of the time, get away with straight fabrication. Depends on the organization of course.
I'm just genuinely wondering if "non-western MSM" is really better? Which one? I'm from Europe, not the US, so of course I see one-sided coverage a lot as well, but I'm not completely blinded by Murdoch news or whatever. I'm not consuming much, if any, news media in general, most often trying to learn about topics through Wikipedia or academic books on the topic, which obviously can be biased as well.
They'll all acknowledge that both sides politically bad, but at the end of the day, they're leaning on one side of the political fence or another, regardless if it isn't in the mainstream political binary as of now, because the same person would most likely use this response on mostly one side, while "coincidentally" sharing most of their political views on the other opposing side
In short, liberal 'neutrality' self-superiority and political equivocation....
I don't think self-superiority is a feature of being liberal or anything, I see plenty of that everywhere, also here. That's just a human thing.
And yeah, I guess I understand that people do have a political leaning and naturally try to argue that even covertly/unconsciously, however I really didn't see it in this particular screenshot, that's why I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something.
I guess it depends on who the poster mostly repeats "all news are biased" to.
oppa gangnam style
Op, op, op, op
?
I'm not familiar with Hexbears images, how they are used and what they mean.
Lemmy + Redditor (Usually democrat-aligned, but also somewhat orientalist and hawkish in a modern sense)
We use this to refer to Lemmy.world, who tries to make a new Reddit out of Lemmy, a Marxist Leninist-adjacent federation of communities...
So in the end, that means he's accusing me of being a typical redditor, trying to make "a reddit" out of Lemmy?
I'm not sure I know what that means, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. As far as I know, I don't have a particular agenda, especially not trying to change Lemmy, I'm just trying to participate in what I see. I'm interested in what I see here, however with my current understanding, it seems like I'm just not seeing what everyone else seems to be seeing.
In the most direct terms I can give you, Israel lies more often and is the greater aggressor. To equate them is to make Israel seem better than they are, even if the exact words you're saying is "both sides are lying." It's a false equivalency that trivializes the bad guys and muddles the whole situation. It's punching down.
It's similar to saying all lives matter in response to black lives matters. It's an otherwise harmless statement that in context expresses a malicious political leaning. In this case, saying one cannot trust Israel nor Palestine is ignoring Israel's historical context and the struggle of Palestinians.
Imagine if I said both slaves and slave owners are spreading unreliable narratives about slavery. That would be malicious, wouldn't it?
Now I understand, thank you :)
No prob. Feel free to ask us anything in good faith
It's because this is the excuse and cop-out you see thousands of times when you're a communist dealing with liberals. When liberals are eventually forced to confront that their sources lie about a particular topic, they don't admit they were wrong and adjust their behavior to think critically about those sources in the future. They throw their hands up and go "Draw game. If my source is wrong then yours can't be right. You didn't win. Everybody has a bias, you can't trust any government." and then 2 weeks later they'll send you the same source to tell you why China bad.
In that sense I understand. I didn't get this exact vibe from this post, but with context I see how it could be. I just wouldn't assume by default that that's what the person that made this post is about, though it's definitely possible.