I see nobody here is linking the actual article, now titled: “Energy Facilities Attacked in Iran and Qatar, Sending Prices Soaring”.
The very first line of the article is:
Iran and Qatar on Wednesday accused Israel of attacking a giant offshore natural gas field that the two countries share, sending the prices of oil and natural gas soaring on what would be a sharp escalation of strikes on energy infrastructure in the war against Iran.
There appears to be no definitive evidence that it was Israel, and thus the Times responsibly doesn’t accuse a party in the headline but describes the accusations upfront in the article body. The Associated Press uses a similar headline, namely: “Reported attack hits South Pars natural gas field, an energy lifeline for Iran”.
They even link at the end of that article to another article from last year where there was definitive evidence of Israel’s involvement, which is headlined: “Israel Expands Attack to Include Iran’s Oil and Gas Industry”.
But it doesn’t seem like anyone here has taken any effort whatsoever to examine the facts beyond the headline itself divorced from its context.
Why are all of these links about MBFC when 1) it was never brought up and 2) both participants in this conversation think MBFC is a joke? I can probably go back c. a year and find 20 different comments I made lambasting a MBFC bot when [email protected] (?) started rolling it out.
Genuinely what does you disbelieving multiple women who’ve come forward with accusations of being raped as chlidren by Cesar Chavez have to do with whether MBFC’s assessments of news outlets are credible? Chavez was one of the most important labor leaders in US history and even, less prominently, championed veganism, causes I believe in deeply; apparently unlike you, that has no bearing on whether I’m going to believe testimonies of women who say they were raped by him.
This is the investigation article, so we’re on the same page, because I don’t necessarily trust you’ve read it. These interviews are not all anonymous. They name Ana Murguia, Debra Rojas, and – I hope you recognize this one – Dolores Huerta as victims. The investigation additionally states:
The findings are based on interviews with more than 60 people, including his top aides at the time, his relatives and former members of the U.F.W., which he co-founded with Ms. Huerta and Gilbert Padilla. The Times reviewed hundreds of pages of union records, confidential emails and photographs, as well as hours of audio recordings from U.F.W. board meetings.
The accounts of abuse from Ms. Murguia and Ms. Rojas were independently verified through interviews with those they confided in decades ago and in more recent years.
The NYT has a track record for fact-checking in their investigative journalism, but let’s even completely set that aside and assume – for absolutely no sane reason but to form a steelman argument for your (what you shy away from calling because you know it’s not socially acceptable) disbelief of these women’s stories – that their review of records is totally fabricated and can be ignored. Do you seriously think that these three women or the other people they claim to have spoken with haven’t seen this article? And that they wouldn’t be speaking out and mounting the easiest libel lawsuit in history if the Times were distorting the facts?
Axios didn’t have a problem naming the perpetrators. And there’s really not much to guess.
Sure it can occasionally, but the passive voice is used much more frequently when opponents of the empire are the victim of the attack. It’s moreso a pattern than calling NYT out on a one-off.
Again, link to the article if you’re going to cite/discuss its headline, please. Axios names a culprit in the headline because their source isn’t just the word of the governments of Iran and Qatar. First line of the article:
The Israeli Air Force struck a natural gas processing facility in southwestern Iran, two senior Israeli officials said.
Followed later by:
Two Israeli and U.S. officials said the strike on the gas facility was coordinated between the Israeli prime minister’s office and the White House.
“The U.S. was aware, but was not part of the attack”, a third source said.
Insiders taking responsibility for an attack combined with an accusation from the victims is a much stronger green light to name a culprit in the headline.
Edit (incidental): This is what the WSJ is reporting as a live update: more from US officials about the US’ support of Israel’s attack.
News like this is chaotic, so I appreciate organizations only reporting what they can confirm.
So anyone with even minimal knowledge of the conflict can assume that Israel did this but that doesn’t mean one can report it without knowing.
But that should be motivation to write a headline that more accurately captures the situation. I do feel using a passive voice here is intentional and it’s not hard to write a headline that captures the fact that Iran and Qatar believe Israel to be responsible.
NYT plays defense for imperialism and empire all the time though so this is just another example of that.
A huge amount of people don’t read past the headline. They will never read anything in the article, they only read the headline. This is why leaving key information out of the headlines (and frequently burying it far below the first sentence) is so damaging.
I see nobody here is linking the actual article, now titled: “Energy Facilities Attacked in Iran and Qatar, Sending Prices Soaring”.
The very first line of the article is:
There appears to be no definitive evidence that it was Israel, and thus the Times responsibly doesn’t accuse a party in the headline but describes the accusations upfront in the article body. The Associated Press uses a similar headline, namely: “Reported attack hits South Pars natural gas field, an energy lifeline for Iran”.
They even link at the end of that article to another article from last year where there was definitive evidence of Israel’s involvement, which is headlined: “Israel Expands Attack to Include Iran’s Oil and Gas Industry”.
But it doesn’t seem like anyone here has taken any effort whatsoever to examine the facts beyond the headline itself divorced from its context.
Very funny. If I cared to waste my time on you at all, I’d make the same meme but replace this with you and a recently exposed serial rapist.
Your media literacy is just as keen as the Epstein class wants it to be, and no more[1][2][3].
Why are all of these links about MBFC when 1) it was never brought up and 2) both participants in this conversation think MBFC is a joke? I can probably go back c. a year and find 20 different comments I made lambasting a MBFC bot when [email protected] (?) started rolling it out.
Genuinely what does you disbelieving multiple women who’ve come forward with accusations of being raped as chlidren by Cesar Chavez have to do with whether MBFC’s assessments of news outlets are credible? Chavez was one of the most important labor leaders in US history and even, less prominently, championed veganism, causes I believe in deeply; apparently unlike you, that has no bearing on whether I’m going to believe testimonies of women who say they were raped by him.
I didn’t say I don’t believe them, I said I’ll withhold judgement, given the NYT’s track record. It may well turn out to be true. We’ll see.
This is the investigation article, so we’re on the same page, because I don’t necessarily trust you’ve read it. These interviews are not all anonymous. They name Ana Murguia, Debra Rojas, and – I hope you recognize this one – Dolores Huerta as victims. The investigation additionally states:
The NYT has a track record for fact-checking in their investigative journalism, but let’s even completely set that aside and assume – for absolutely no sane reason but to form a steelman argument for your (what you shy away from calling because you know it’s not socially acceptable) disbelief of these women’s stories – that their review of records is totally fabricated and can be ignored. Do you seriously think that these three women or the other people they claim to have spoken with haven’t seen this article? And that they wouldn’t be speaking out and mounting the easiest libel lawsuit in history if the Times were distorting the facts?
They specifically quoted these women, so either you disbelieve their stories or you believe they’re too stupid to, if not initiate a slam-dunk libel lawsuit, publicly speak out against the Times’ reporting. Instead, Huerta put out a statement actively confirming what she’d said to the Times.
Axios didn’t have a problem naming the perpetrators. And there’s really not much to guess.
Sure it can occasionally, but the passive voice is used much more frequently when opponents of the empire are the victim of the attack. It’s moreso a pattern than calling NYT out on a one-off.
Again, link to the article if you’re going to cite/discuss its headline, please. Axios names a culprit in the headline because their source isn’t just the word of the governments of Iran and Qatar. First line of the article:
Followed later by:
Insiders taking responsibility for an attack combined with an accusation from the victims is a much stronger green light to name a culprit in the headline.
Edit (incidental): This is what the WSJ is reporting as a live update: more from US officials about the US’ support of Israel’s attack.
News like this is chaotic, so I appreciate organizations only reporting what they can confirm.
So anyone with even minimal knowledge of the conflict can assume that Israel did this but that doesn’t mean one can report it without knowing.
But that should be motivation to write a headline that more accurately captures the situation. I do feel using a passive voice here is intentional and it’s not hard to write a headline that captures the fact that Iran and Qatar believe Israel to be responsible.
NYT plays defense for imperialism and empire all the time though so this is just another example of that.
A huge amount of people don’t read past the headline. They will never read anything in the article, they only read the headline. This is why leaving key information out of the headlines (and frequently burying it far below the first sentence) is so damaging.
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/social-media-users-probably-wont-read-beyond-headline-researchers-say
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/09/study-confirms-most-people-share-articles-based-only-on-headlines/
Good luck: this guy always, always capes for corporate media. He could easily fill in for u/jordanlund.
Honestly, I think that prioritizing first-to-press over accuracy is part of what’s gotten us where we are now.