▲ 307 ▼ Ms Rachel: "Stop killing kids." The Guardian: "that's controversial" (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 month ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml 34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice. Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time. You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago* With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body. It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time. Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability. They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism permalink fedilink source parent [–] tehciolo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago That's like saying The human effect on climate change is controversial Sure, you can argue that, technically But at the same time, giving it any time in the spotlight is a choice Given that one of the sides in that debate is objectively wrong and the point of the guardian is having journalists employed there presumably permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Senal@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice. Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time. You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago* With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body. It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time. Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability. They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism permalink fedilink source parent
[+] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago* With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body. It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time. Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability. They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago* With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body. It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time. Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability. They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tehciolo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago That's like saying The human effect on climate change is controversial Sure, you can argue that, technically But at the same time, giving it any time in the spotlight is a choice Given that one of the sides in that debate is objectively wrong and the point of the guardian is having journalists employed there presumably permalink fedilink source parent
