• 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And more importantly, ignoring the validity of the claims. It’s not a court, you can’t get it thrown out on a technicality; either the claim is valid or it’s not and, although the way the claim is conveyed can be worth mentioning, ignoring the claim itself and only assessing the conveyance method is just useless. @mykhaylo@fosstodon.org

  • @yogthos 5. Use of emotionally charged language: The words like ‘hysteria’, ‘atrocities’, ‘rampages’ play with the emotions of the readers, leading them to take sides without looking into the facts.

    Such manipulation could be intended to steer readers towards a particular point of view on these complex geopolitical issues.

    • 🔻Sleepless One🔻@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Use of emotionally charged language: The words like ‘hysteria’, ‘atrocities’, ‘rampages’ play with the emotions of the readers, leading them to take sides without looking into the facts.

      This applies 10 fold to virtually all western media coverage of the Ukraine war.

    • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Writing “objectively” is also biased, it just supports the status quo. I actually think it’s more deceitful to try and hide support of the status quo behind so called “objective language”, yog makes no effort to hide that he’s a communist and that is his bias.

      For instance, the status quo opinion is that Israel is 100% justified in genocidng Palestinians. Couching our language to “let people come to their own conclusions” directly supports that genocide