mozz

I probably shouldn’t guess because the truth is I have not even the slightest idea, but I would bet money that it was the Israel side that started the violence and not the protestor side. Among other things, I think if the protestors started the violence, there wouldn’t be any of this passive voice “violence evolved” stuff; we’d be hearing specifically about how they “attacked,” in the active voice.

Sure, let me rephrase: No legitimate reason

I actually do agree that “and then Biden went on Twitter and said some dumb shit about it” is an important addition to make to the story. I just don’t think it is two of the most important nine words that the New York Times would want to communicate about the protest, and I think it’s notable that it forms such a huge feature in the (again 100% accurate) narrative about the Western media doing its thing and lying about Palestine and Palestine protestors.

Actually - I would be pretty confident that a random sampling of all the stories in the media would show most of them simply covering the protest, and that only a small number which then were included in this screenshot featured the word “Biden.” Maybe I am wrong but that would be my guess.

Interesting that you’re concerned about them unanimously editing the narrative to not include the real estate fair or who started the violence (which, 100%, is a bullshit thing for them to do)

But presumably approving of 3/4 of them putting Biden’s name in the headline for as far as I can tell literally no reason at all

That’s what I mean. It’s like they are trying to get at an honest presentation of the facts of the story.

It’s fuckin weird from ANY corporate US news outlet but from those two it’s like bizarro world

It’s a fairly impressive propaganda double dip

DON’T explain the context, beyond “synagogue” and “antisemitism” and some vague language about how violence “evolved” into existence. Thus, anyone who isn’t pro Palestinian sees the story in a very particular way that will reinforce a particular wrong perception of the protestors.

But DO bring Biden’s name into it for literally no reason at all, so that the people who support the protestors and are able to realize that there’s probably more to the story, will have their particular wrong perception, that quite a lot of them probably have, that he’s anti protestor, reinforced.

It’s a rare and cunning story that can simultaneously communicate “look at these scumbag anti semitic protestors” and “look at Biden thinking these protestors are anti semitic scumbags” simultaneously, with each population receiving the message which is exactly appropriate to misleading them and them specifically.

CNN and fucking USA Today have been doing quite a bit of actual complete and honest reporting recently.

I have no idea where it came from, but I’ll take it

If you are attached to whether you’re attracting downvotes or upvotes you are setting yourself for disappointment for no reason. Just say your thing.

I KNEW IT

I don’t want the water you gave me. I want the water I hunted for myself.

I am amazed this is still going on

Yep. It’s a pretty reasonable system, with both sides doing their aggressive best to win and justice as the result, all the way up until the prosecution gets basically unlimited resources and the defendant whether guilty or innocent gets a public defender who read their case and 4 others on the bus on the way to the courthouse. At that point it becomes pretty much not reasonable any more.

A lot of times they don’t like the food source to be near the water source. Sometimes if you put the food bowl and water bowl in different rooms they will become a lot more amenable to the water bowl.

Of course sometimes not, because they are just bein little weirdos