this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
187 points (96.5% liked)

You Should Know

40747 readers
171 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Once you start paying attention to this, it can no longer be unseen. If they don't like someone, they'll use a bad picture of them and vice versa. It's a good tell even if the article itself seems neutral.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 7 points 18 hours ago

There was a very high profile case of this when Jill Greenberg bragged about intentionally duping John McCain into standing in unflattering light during a shoot for a profile piece in the Atlantic during his presidential campaign. She lit him from below with hard light to look old and and creepy. His team was clearly not that media savvy.

The atalantic disavowed her actions and I think apologized.

[–] Godnroc@lemmy.world 56 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There's an old trick relating to this; if you want someone to look foolish use a picture with their mouth wide open. If you want then to look dignified, use a picture with their mouth closed or smiling.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 67 points 2 days ago (5 children)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

His supporters think that's a good look.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

This face always makes me think of a kid who just shit himself and he’s so proud that he made a poopy.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 43 points 2 days ago

I mean, some people can't be helped.

[–] MadnessForTsar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Grinch Trump Lol

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago

The reverse is true of pictures of sports folk, who are almost always pictured with their mouths open in celebration.

There used to be a saying here (UK) along the lines of "the back page of a newspaper always has a picture of a man with his mouth open" and that's why. Sports at the back. Almost always men's sports. Main picture was usually some leading point scorer celebrating.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 2 days ago (4 children)

But what if that person is bad and stupid? Is anti-Trump news "biased"? To me (and most of the world) it's just common sense.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 19 hours ago

Biased towards reality.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

Reality has a left bias.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 32 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Anti-anything in journalism is still bias, even if you think it’s common sense. Bias just means the outlet has a consistent slant or preference - it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.

That’s why it’s useful to notice bias. If Fox News and the New York Times - outlets with very different biases - both criticize Trump for the same thing, that convergence makes the criticism harder to dismiss. Recognizing bias doesn’t mean ignoring the point; it helps you weigh it more accurately.

[–] oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the point was more along the lines of "what if the person you're reporting on always looks bad, do you need to go out of your way to achieve 'balance?'"

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

That's definitely part of what I meant. A mistake (not only in my opinion) many European media outlets made wrt far-right populism.

[–] myplacedk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Then represent the person like that, but not worse.

Plenty of people in history is presented as pure bad, but reality is more complex.

For example, we know Adolf Hitler as one of the worst people in history (at least here where I live). But he did a lot of good for Germany. At the time, this is what he was known for, and that is why he was popular enough to be democratically elected.

But if we only know him as a purely bad person, we will not recognize the next Hitler before it's too late. We will see a person doing good stuff, but with signs that too many people will ignore.

There's also the idea that when you do good, you deserve to be recognized for that, no matter what else you've done. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but also to encourage more of that.