this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
1277 points (97.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
11028 readers
1488 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The criticism raises a legitimate issue, but the cause is usually structural rather than intentional. News outlets often use phrases like “X says” when they cannot independently verify the information. That situation is more common with casualty reports from states where they have limited access. When the outlet has confirmation from sources it considers reliable, it will report the deaths directly. This creates a pattern that looks biased even though it often comes from verification constraints instead of design.
Iran’s reports are frequently treated with caution because the state tightly controls information, foreign journalists have restricted access, and strike sites cannot be independently examined. Casualty figures released by Iranian authorities have also been revised or withheld in past events. These conditions lower outside confidence in the accuracy of initial statements.
The first headline uses “Iran says” because the newspaper likely could not verify the reported casualties inside Iran, especially during a breaking event. The second headline states the deaths as fact because the information from Israel was independently confirmed. The result may look like a double standard, but it generally reflects what reporters can confirm at the time rather than an intentional bias.
Maybe if it was a one-off instead of a consistent pattern for 30+ years.
The concern about a persistent pattern is understandable, and it is true that Western media often display asymmetries in how they frame casualty reports from different states. However, the consistency of the pattern does not automatically imply intentional bias. It usually stems from the same structural constraints repeating themselves across many events.
Verification works unevenly across countries. Israel, for example, allows extensive access to foreign journalists, has numerous independent local outlets, and provides casualty figures that can often be corroborated through hospitals, international observers, or on-the-ground reporting. Because multiple independent channels confirm the information, newsrooms feel justified presenting it as established fact.
Iran, by contrast, restricts foreign reporters, tightly controls internal media, and limits access to strike sites. Independent verification is much more difficult. That constraint shows up every time there is a major event inside the country. Reporters default to “Iran says” not because of a conscious editorial decision to cast doubt, but because they cannot authenticate the numbers through independent means. When this dynamic recurs across decades, the headlines reflect that repetition.
This does not mean the outcome is neutral. The effect can resemble a double standard, and journalists should be aware of how repeated verification asymmetries shape public perception. But the underlying cause tends to be logistical rather than ideological. The pattern persists because the same structural limitations persist, not because editors are intentionally trying to signal doubt toward one side and certainty toward the other.
You completely missed the point
The point was to use plausible sounding word vomit to distract and “to be faiiiiiir”. How did I not address that? I guess I could have been more aggressive and called the person I’m replying to either willfully genocidal or just a useful idiot.
You've lost all nuance and rationality
Given the loss of trust in media, if they want readers to give them the benefit of the doubt, they would need to cite their sources. I haven't ready either of these paywalled articles, but generally, they don't.