World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Please provide evidence where this generally left-of-centre british reporting is "manufacturing consent". Which text lines do you think are trying to make us readers agree to that kind of action by these two states?
From the Wikipedia article of Atrocity Propaganda (I added emphasis):
Nice wiki quote. Now show me, where this applies to the article.
From the text in the post, I've added emphasis:
There is literally not one paragraph in the post text without atrocity propaganda, some paragraphs with several cases. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
They are spreading details about the crimes committed by the enemy, whether factual or not, and this can serve to justify a casus belli. It's literally the definition of atrocity propaganda.
You'd need to show how this is more than simply reporting events and the POV of participants. You'd have to show how the intention is propaganda, how the article manipulates the reader, etc. You'd need to show how this differs from the reporting of ICE crimes, for example.
And then you'd need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.
I feel like so many on this post just think we should cease all reporting about Bad Things because the reporting could be used as propaganda to those who lack the ability to think critically.
Smh so many slow people around today.
You, as a european, are not the target demographic.
Who is, according to you?
It should be obvious that the target demographic for atrocity propaganda about an enemy of the US is US Americans.
Why should US citizens be the target audience for a british medium?
Reporting ICE crimes is also atrocity propaganda. Propaganda doesn't mean it's bad, it just means you're swaying public opinion. I believe that spreading anti-ICE propaganda is good because ICE are a bunch of fascist pigs, I believe that propagating anti-Iran propaganda in the context of the military buildup against Iran is bad because it serves to justify the casus belli and the upcoming military invasion.
How exactly is this article doing this?
Propaganda is communication that is primaroly used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda. Methods to do so would be using selective facts, loaded language, etc so the audience does not come to a rational conclusion but a fabricated one.
Which facts does the article leave out, where does the article use loaded language, which effects do these parts have and how does that make me, a european, want the US go to war on Iran?
That's not how propaganda works, propaganda explicitly can be true information as explained to you before using the Wikipedia article. I literally quoted it to you, it can be factual information.
Mentioning atrocities in every single paragraph is the biggest case of atrocity propaganda, and if you are purposefully obtuse enough not to see it, just drop this conversation.
Where did I state the information used for propaganda can't be true? In the sentence you quoted I talk about the audience's conclusion, not the presented information.
You repeatedly fail to show where the concepts you present are applicable to the article. You keep deflecting, moving goalposts around and dodging the actual questions.
Disengage.
I applaud your patience. "obtuse" is such a mild term to what's deserving.
I find it hard to engage with these people without using ableist terms, I've settled on "purposefully obtuse" because it's clear and neutral enough I believe. Thanks for reading anyway