They changed the headline from being about class cancellation after counter-protesters attacking to being about the president investigating after protests turned violent.
I have to assume this whiny guy is upset that the counter-protesters (pro-Israeli) were no longer highlighted as the violent side.
I see updated headlines for evolving stories all the time. Headlines are never the whole story and they need to be concise. The story was originally about classes being cancelled, then moved to an investigation. If you read the articles, did they not both talk about who attacked whom?
What does this have to do with manufactured consent? The victims of the violence in the protests now consented?
Did you edit your comment or did I not read after the first sentence?
The protest turned violent after counter-protesters attacked. Was that not reflected in the article after the headline was updated?
Look, I get that you want to see the headline more specific so it’s clear which team was violent, but can you really make a whole vlog about manufactured consent out of this?
Here’s the first paragraph of an LA Times story this morning about the police clearing protestors:
UCLA was rocked by violence when a group of counterprotesters arrived on campus Tuesday night and clashed for hours with students who had set up a pro-Palestinian encampment.
It goes on to be clear who instigated:
During that time, there was a series of attacks on the camp and fights as the pro-Palestinian group tried to defend their space.
Is this pro-corporate propaganda manufacturing consent? What kind of propaganda do I need to read to start using “manufactured consent” as regular parlance?
By not naming the group responsible for the violence but only mentioning it took place “at the protest” LA Times directly implicates the group that was on the receiving end of the violence as being the violent party.
If you cannot see the consent being manufactured here I’m not going to give you an introductory class to media literacy. This is as obvious as it gets.
Overall, 41 percent of Americans report that they watched, read, or heard any in-depth news stories, beyond the headlines, in the last week. Slightly more people, 49 percent, report that they invested additional time to delve deeper and follow up on the last breaking news story they followed.
They changed the headline from being about class cancellation after counter-protesters attacking to being about the president investigating after protests turned violent.
I have to assume this whiny guy is upset that the counter-protesters (pro-Israeli) were no longer highlighted as the violent side.
I see updated headlines for evolving stories all the time. Headlines are never the whole story and they need to be concise. The story was originally about classes being cancelled, then moved to an investigation. If you read the articles, did they not both talk about who attacked whom?
What does this have to do with manufactured consent? The victims of the violence in the protests now consented?
The Zionist counter protesters were the violent side. See https://lemmy.world/post/14940206
The manufactured consent is that the headline implies that the pro-Palestine protesters were violent instead of the Zionist lynch mob.
The first headline was correct. The new headline manufactures consent.
Did you edit your comment or did I not read after the first sentence?
The protest turned violent after counter-protesters attacked. Was that not reflected in the article after the headline was updated?
Look, I get that you want to see the headline more specific so it’s clear which team was violent, but can you really make a whole vlog about manufactured consent out of this?
Here’s the first paragraph of an LA Times story this morning about the police clearing protestors:
It goes on to be clear who instigated:
Is this pro-corporate propaganda manufacturing consent? What kind of propaganda do I need to read to start using “manufactured consent” as regular parlance?
By not naming the group responsible for the violence but only mentioning it took place “at the protest” LA Times directly implicates the group that was on the receiving end of the violence as being the violent party.
If you cannot see the consent being manufactured here I’m not going to give you an introductory class to media literacy. This is as obvious as it gets.
But they put it in the article. So they undermined their own manufacturing?
Americans read headlines. And not much else.
Misinformation often comes in the form of screenshots of article headlines or videos that dont show the whole story.
This post has all the red flags.
And if you look at OP’s post history, most if not all of their posts have these red flags.