Same here: https://lemmy.world/post/43760793
US fighter jets "crashed", " falling from the sky" and "collision". Pure framing bullshit! Like they were out of fuel or something.
Kuwait blasted them! By accident. That was already confirmed and stated.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
1170 points (97.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
11023 readers
2528 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
I know it's very, very cliche to mention Manufacturing Consent these days, but anyone who hasn't read it really should get ahold of a copy and at least read the first 2 or 3 chapters.
Never heard of it. Tell me why?
Like its title suggests, it delves into the ways in which popular consent is manufactured via the media (at the time - 1988 - mostly print, radio, and television). It's thoroughly convincing and is that rare type of book that can discuss research without alienating casual readers. Highly recommended.
Reminds me of a thread on Reddit of photos of Israeli missiles stuck in civilian buildings (apartment blocks). People asking where it was from and not one comment stating it was a Syrian city and where the missiles came from.
Treat everything you see as unconfirmed, no mater if it is for or against your beliefs. Manipulation is everywhere.
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.
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.
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
It's pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".
Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a "claim", whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.
How is it easy to verify claims in Israel when they lockdown areas, censor their own media, and assassinate journalists and their families who report on Israeli genocide? Israel does not have a more free press than Iran does.
Dozens killed in strike on Iranian girl's school.
Then the next line mentions uncertainty as to whether or not it was Israel or the US, but it was clearly one of them.
The NYT can verify that 'dozens were killed' there just as easily as in the other story.
I have no idea why you don't think they have access to Reuters or the AP, who both verified that part quite quickly.
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW953528022026RP1/
Oh hey look, Reuters basically came up with the same headline that I did.
Except that they also attribute blame to Israel.
In summary, you're completely wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".
Would it be quite uncertain?
Yes, it would be more uncertain. It is better to provide less information than wrong information.
Neither Israel nor the US took credit for the strike that hit the school so this could be a matter of genuinely not knowing which of the two was responsible.
The US military's Central Command (Centcom) said it was looking into reports of the incident, while Israel's military said it was "not aware" of any IDF operations in the area.
I know the people in charge are beyond incompetent but I imagine that the US military knows exactly where every last one of their 6-7 figure missiles went. That doesn't mean we ever will.
Someone knows which missile it was. They don't just mix in missiles on the same target, it was either an Israeli strike or an American, and whoever fired it knows.
I hadn't seen those responses yet, but I'd say the gap between those two messages makes it fairly clear this was an American missile.
Looking at the comments here, even here in the Fediverse, it's quite easy to understand how the US regime is possible despite its completely obvious depravity.
load more comments
(20 replies)
They don't need to be when they have the support of the moneyed interests all they care about is profit.
Look we don't know if we're evil but we are very certain that Iran is incredibly based
What this reads like to me
Iran doesn't allow any information out of the country besides their own state controlled media.
There are lots of reporters in Israel from all over the world that can verify or falsify stuff happening there.
Not to say there isn't any farming happening, but this example doesn't work for showing that.
But but but MBFC rates them as highly factual and left-center bias!! How could they ever do a war hawk??
-the most credulous jackasses on the planet
It may well have been their own faulty missile falling back to the ground.
I wouldn't put it past them for a second to claim that.
‘What if the school kids killed themselves’? Calm down, there aren’t any board positions on the NYT open now.
I've seen that claimed along with a picture.
With AI bullshit and propaganda machines how they are, that's probably bollocks, and in any case it doesn't make a hundred kids any less dead.
Especially with how fond of AI altered images and videos this US regime is.
Where’s my Lemming who wants to argue all the information is in the article and if people only focus on the headline they’re stupid?
view more: next ›