this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
339 points (97.7% liked)
Inventing Reality
759 readers
85 users here now
When the media decides who you are rooting for.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not really what the guardian is saying though. They label her controversial not because they are the node determining what is and isn't controversial, but because controversiality is determined by the wider world's attitude towards it.
I would guess that Ms Rachel is unpopular with the right because even if a right winger agrees with 1 or 2 of her points, they may consider her work to be performative, too much a compendium of various left wing attitude for their palate.
As we all know but seem to be loathe to admit, the world is not simply left-wing people who oppose Zionist tyranny. The part of the world that doesn't completely fit that description, many of them will not like Ms Rachel.
Therefore Ms Rachel is, by definition, controversial. Nowhere in the headline does it pass a judgement onto the statement of "stop killing kids." She is more than that statement.
No media use controversial to inject opinions on the topic as if it is ok to agree or disagree about objectively morally good positions
It might be objectively moral, but people simply don't accept or realise that Israel is, objectively, genociding kids - that's one way the controversy comes into it. Yeah those people are living under a rock, but it does mean that Rachel publically denouncing Israel, and how she chooses to do so (using her platform of the kids show), can make some people go "irk!"
I do not think the guardian is injecting their own opinion in here and I don't think it helps at all for them to avoid that in their headline. I presume you think they should say "here is our interview with Ms Rachel the absolute saint our holy martyr of the Palestinian children " but that's like... less balanced? Also people know about her because she is controversial and just saying "Ms Rachel the Controversial" saves print space while also signalling to people who like her "it's the tv woman you like!" And to people who don't, "it's the TV woman you don't like!"
Part of the reason of platforming her is the possibility of some readers realising they like her more than they thought. But those readers will not read the article if it approaches from the standpoint of "she's already perfect and objectively correct' - you get no convincing done that way, and the same applies for the Palestine issue in general.
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).
I would say the former 2 are used for nationstates and the other 3 are used for "rogue nations" or terrorist groups, though Russia probably gets given the latter 3 verbs for their actions
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
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
I would also argue that the entire fact they're platforming her with that article, the selection of portrait for the article, and the context that they're always bolstering figures considered "radical" with the exact same format of:
All those three things taken together suggest that the guardian is supportive of Ms Rachel. i.e this is the formula they use for bolstering figures they believe to be unfairly attacked by other MSM outlets.
Olympic levels of mental gymnastics on display. You'd be right at home with people arguing that nazis were socialists actually.
I don't think it's good debating practice to just hurl unrelated (unfounded) accusations at people.
Obviously nothing i talk about even touches on nazism, classifying governments, or justifying evil deeds. I'll have to assume any people up-voting that comment didn't read any of what I said, perhaps lacking the mental stamina for multiple paragraphs.
Wow! Stupid and smug!
That's not very non confrontational of you
Everything i have said is correct, you're just uncomfortable that someone isn't playing your game. Childish slogans do not capture hearts and minds like pure reason does.
Everything you've said is incorrect, lmfao. That's what I meant when I called you stupid. Hope this clears up your confusion!