#the media

[politijohn]

Source

Source

[eretzyisrael]

Source

[thenib]

Joey Alison Sayers.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Daniel Greenfield

The Associated Press recently made headlines by falsely claiming that the Israeli campaign against Hamas “sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history” and was even worse than “the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II”.

The Washington Post argued that “Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars in Gaza” while The Wall Street Journal contended that it was “generating destruction comparable in scale to the most devastating urban warfare in the modern record.”

That’s all the more impressive since even accepting the Hamas casualty figures (tainted and inflated numbers in which there are no terrorists, only civilians, and fighting age men are really children) as the media does, this is still probably one of the least violent conflicts in the region.

In 2016, the Washington Post described the Syrian Civil War, with a possible 250,000 deaths, as “the most destructive conflict in the region”. In 2020, the UN had called the Yemeni Civil War, with 150,000 deaths, “the most destructive conflict since the end of the Cold War”.

And then there’s the current phase of the war in Sudan (which the media is currently uninterested in) in which 15,000 people have been killed over the course of last year, as part of a larger conflict that may have claimed as many as 2 million lives.

The Tigray War in Ethiopia over the last three years (which you may have missed because the media chose not to hysterically cover every single bomb dropped and protesters stayed home knitting instead of blocking traffic) may have cost the lives of between 80,000 to 600,000 people.

(El Pais, Spain’s newspaper, which did report on Ethiopia’s civil war, described it as “the deadliest of the 21st century” and then had to pivot to argue later that Israel was worse in, “25,000 deaths in Gaza: Why the destruction of this war exceeds that of other major conflicts”.)

In reality, every significant war and civil war in the region had a much higher death toll than the Hamas war: including the Iraq-Iran War with an estimated 500,000 to 2 million deaths. And in nearby Africa, the Congo War has been blamed for 6 million deaths since 1996.

How does the media justify arguing that 25,000 is more than 2 million?

There are plenty of statistical gimmicks available to anyone who wants to argue that 2 + 2 is really 5. Media “analyses” that claim that Israel’s campaign against Hamas is the deadliest and most destructive, and might even be worse than WWII, adjust their claims accordingly.

As the author of every dubious research study knows, to get the results you want, you manipulate your parameters. Media analyses selectively compare Israel’s campaign to battles, rather than wars, they narrowly focus on very specific timetables, they try to estimate per capita rather than gross figures. But drawing a circle around a particular area and going per capita works both ways. The Hamas attack of Oct 7 killed 10% of the population of Kibbutz Be’eri making it far worse per capita than anything in Israel’s response to those atrocities.

But statistical fudging is all in where the line is drawn to achieve a particular agenda.

For example, the New York Times declares that, “Gaza Deaths Surpass Any Arab Loss in Wars With Israel in Past 40 Years”. Of course the last major Arab-Israeli war took place 50 years ago.

The 40 year figure is based on the Lebanon War, but the actual numbers for that war vary wildly from the thousands according to Israel, 10,000 according to the CIA, 18,000 according to Lebanon and 30,000 according to Arafat and the PLO.

While the media at the time emphasized the highest estimates, in order to criticize the Israeli campaign against the PLO, they now use lower estimates to attack the Gaza campaign.

[uboat53]

Oof, The Onion's going hard today.

Source

[aci25]

How The Media Controls The Masses

Dissemination of information is susceptible to manipulation when financial motivations are the primary driver.

[norclop]

The Nanny. Old sitcom, good sitcom, but old nevertheless.

Currently watching it with my mom and I started doing that fourth dimension thinking and wondering that fangirls as myself tend to do.

Here's the thing. Fran has so far been living with the Sheffields for three years or so (Season 4) and has had many appearances on tv and dated a whole lot of important people at least once. What would the media say about this nana who somehow became good friends with the president's brother? A nana who has Maxwell Sheffield, an up and coming Broadway productor, clearly wrapped around her finger?

I mean, this girl was on several front pages, she dated a weapons dealer and several rich, famous men. How many entries and links does her Wikipedia page even have?

Honestly, if I were the media I'd just follow her around. Between her crazy family, attractiveness and magnet like powers towards anything mildly interesting, you're bound to find a bunch of scandals sooner or later. Also, there'd be a special section to tell the reader how crazy Maxwell and Fran are driving them.

Ps: In the end there'd be a column about good comebacks to your worst enemy, courtesy of niles.

[genx3791]

[not-safe-for-democracy]

Now obviously both newspapers slant the story according to their own leanings, but the Times headline seems especially misleading as there are also Republicans on the Jan. 6 committee, not just Democrats as the headline implies.

It's interesting too that what the committee has done is simply present the evidence in the form of actual video, emails, texts, and witness testimony (mostly from other conservatives/Republicans) and laid bare the machinations behind the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. capitol. And the Times criticism is that they presented the evidence in primetime?

[forgottenbones]

The Day Today (Episode 05) - Magnificent

[eretzyisrael]

Source

[jasper-and-the-forty-servants]

The Media | Denry Klin, Editor in Chief

We've previously discussed five Servants, five demonic family heads, and New Capenna. Consider that mandatory reading for this post.

The second Servant I assigned a card to was the Media as Denry Klin. In the words of canon:

Nothing is sacred in New Capenna anymore, not since the angels left. No story — real or imagined — is off limits if it means moving ink and paper. What matters to the newsman is that the news, warts and all, gets to the eyes of the people, and that his paper gets the news to them first. For the working people of the Caldaia and the Mezzio, it might be the labor reports, boxing recaps, and bridge announcements. For the socialites and playboys of Park Heights, it may be the society pages, the gossip columns, and the stock numbers. For the five families, it might be the obituaries, the classifieds, or what passes for the crime beat: the broadsheets of New Capenna are as much at war over readership as the five families are over Halo. This is a war that Denry Klin is determined to win. Born into the gray guild of reporters, Denry Klin knows the news. His ascension to the role of editor in chief of the Capenna Herald was no less brutal for its bloodless achievement. In his mind, the warring papers of New Capenna — the Caldaia Union-Post, the Mezzio Star-Times, the Park Heights Zenith, the New Capenna Vanguard, and his own Capenna Herald — are the "sixth family" of the city. What they lack in enforcers and muscle they replace with beat reporters, gossip columnists, and photographers; though they might not stack bodies, they shine a light on those who do — unless the killer is willing to pay to kill the story as well.

I mean...come on. It couldn't be more obvious if it tried. The Media shows us how to get the word out about things that are important to us and reminds us of the power of propaganda - both good and bad. The keywords of this Servant are disinformation, hype, publicity, advertising, promotion, spin, half-truths, falsehoods, deception, dishonesty, insincere, disingenuous, sly, propaganda, and public relations.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

The centrality of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Jewish nation is well documented and has been historically and globally recognized for millennia by people of all faiths.  

For example, a 1924 English-language tourist guide to the Temple Mount put out by the Supreme Moslem Council, entitled “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif” stated:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple [built by the Jewish/Israelite King Solomon] is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David [King David was Solomon’s father and predecessor] built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings."

But Muslim acknowledgement of the historic, religious and emotional bonds of Jews to their holiest site changed when Jerusalem came under Israel’s control in the 1967 war. Palestinian and Muslim leaders began to revise history in order to expunge the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, and indeed all of Israel. During the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David, Yasir Arafat refused to acknowledge Jewish ties to the Temple Mount, claiming the Jewish Temple never existed there. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denies that Jewish Temples ever existed on the Temple Mount, much less that it is Judaism’s holiest site. Palestinian and Muslim religious, political and academic leaders have followed suit, weighing in to describe Jewish history in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount as “delusional,” “fictitious,” and “imaginary.”

In recent years, the Palestinian Authority upped its efforts to change the narrative about Jerusalem.  It turned to international bodies and the Western media to help efface Jewish history and the validity of Jewish claims to Judaism’s holiest city and sites.  Multiple resolutions were introduced in UNESCO challenging the Temple Mount’s Jewish history and declaring “Muslims’ full right over the historical and religious site.” The Palestinians also initiated and succeeded in having the UN Security Council adopt a controversial resolution (UNSC 2334) that labelled all of eastern Jerusalem captured by Israel in 1967 ― which includes the Temple Mount, Western Wall, Old City, Jewish quarter and Jewish holy sites ― “Palestinian territory.”

In 2014, the Palestinian Authority sent out an advisory to journalists, telling them to replace the term “Temple Mount” with “Al Aqsa” compound. This was followed by a broader directive to journalists in 2015, warning them to emphasize that “the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is under Israeli Occupation just as the rest of East Jerusalem,” that “Israel has effectively changed Al-Aqsa’s Status Quo,” and that Israel was “in violation of international law” – all false propaganda.

Media Downgrades Jewish Claims

The Western media has increasingly abetted these Palestinian propaganda efforts. Far too many journalists today accept the historic revisionism and political falsehoods put out by Palestinian activists and leaders and promote it with a new journalistic stylebook. These journalists adopt the “Al-Aqsa” terminology in precedence over the more established “Temple Mount” name, although the area for the longest time was known as the Temple Mount. Identifying the site with the Jewish Temples that were at the center of the Jewish world long predated the erection of the Al Aqsa mosque on their ruins.

Journalists derogate the Jewish claim in other ways, as well.

[the-football-chick]

Reporters constantly ask questions just to start some sh// where there is no sh//. Stop messing with Jimmy G!!

[mychampagne-mybubbles]

Louis Tomlinson • INROCK mag • 14.04.2023

INROCK mag what a collection of gems

[visionsofthefu]

They are going all out to paint Russell Brand as a 'sex predator' with voices that some people are going to deem highly credible but I find rather dubious. It feels set-up to me, after all these years when everyone knew how sexually promiscuous he was in his younger days, how easy would it be to take him down, to paint a picture of him in a gnarly way and for everyone to believe it? With his opinions of late against the establishment and against the whole litgamy of people like Rupert Murdoch and those in power, many will see this as an attempt to villify him in a way that gets him wrongly imprisoned.