this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
336 points (97.7% liked)

Inventing Reality

748 readers
19 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
[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 9 points 4 days ago (1 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).

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

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

[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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

[–] tehciolo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days 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