I started to notice a trend on Mastodon and Lemmy where the person criticize a news source for writing a minimally biased headline.
Sometimes, I even notice a person posting a article on Mastodon to provide commentary, and in the replies you would find a person criticizing the headline for not using loaded words.
Is there is any specific reason for people doing this?
I’ve mostly seen the exact opposite on lemmy, people (rightfully) calling out clickbait headlines.
I also observed the same thing as you in non-political communities .
Sadly, I had never seen it happen in any political community here…
Some people want too politicalize everything. They see it as a war. They see having a right side and a wrong side, and the truth is just inconvenient. It’s better to persuade people than communicate truth.
Ideologues on a mission to evangelize.
sources? Sounds like leading a lead into leading… an issue without an issue for a subscription
I don’t want to look in Mastodon for the posts I saw doing this as it would take some time, but here is an example from my experience on Lemmy.
That’s more of a case of trying to control the narrative then using a non-inflammatory headline. “Pro-Palestine” creates an implicit bias for a conflict and you’ll read it in a certain way depending on your viewpoints on the conflict. The media does this a lot especially for a topic as loaded as this. That ones a really good example of it since the Israelis in Amsterdam were doing a lot of bad shit that prompted a response but all headlines just labeled them as “soccer fans” while they labeled the other side as things like “rioters”. It’s not about being inflammatory, it’s more about trying your best to remove these implicit biases.
I saw the source and thought the same thing. The link isn’t as bad as some I’ve seen, so I think the complainer was out of line in that specific instance, but some are worth pointing out.
In American News, white people “protest” and black people “loot and riot”. They could be doing the same thing, but that’s what we call it.
Personally, I don’t think the commenter was wrong to point it out. This isn’t an even conflict and Israel is not only attacking Hamas. “Pro-Palestine” implies you’re choosing a side in this conflict and allows people to form a bias. Anti-genocide showcases exactly why the majority of people are against the war.
But I don’t think it paints anyone in an unfair light. Now, if they called them antisemitic, anti-Israel, or anti Jewish rioters, that would be painting them in an unfair negative light, but when you get a relatively neutral term even though you would prefer an edgier one, that’s not the journalists fault.
I would’ve rather been known as “Heroic defender of the marginalized and downtrodden”, but I guess I’m ok with just “Democrat” in the headlines.
I see where you’re coming from but at the end of the day “Pro-Palestine” implies that these people are only protesting it for Palestine, and not the genocide. If the situation were reversed where Palestine was committing a genocide against the Israeli people then these people would not be “Pro-Palestine”. Remember, a lot of people around the world think that Palestinians want to ethnically cleanse the Jews (which is 100% not true). They use this as an excuse to justify what Israel is currently doing. This is what I meant by saying it has an implicit bias. It’s a very polarizing situation and the media is making it worse by labelling everyone either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine. We’re meant to believe that by picking a side you forsake the other. Which is not the case for a lot of people.
For using or not using loaded words? Generally, It’s easier to criticize some words than to write down a long and nuanced opinion. You literally don’t even need to read the attached article. And it’s emotionally more rewarding to pick on things than write a comment that you agree. Also politics is an easy target for arguments and strong opinions. Try the same with gardening or the life of Johan Sebastian Bach and you’ll see the same dynamics don’t apply to some other topics. Unless someone writes something obviously wrong facts, that’s going to be pointed out immediately.
Because passive language can be biased to.
Say someone speeds, ignores a red light and runs over a cyclist, which headline is more biased?
Fatal crash at xy intersection, collision between car and bicycle.
Irresponsible driver kills cyclist at xy intersection.
Irresponsible driver kills cyclist at xy intersection.
And you read the article and it’s a ambulance with it’s sirens on, going through a a green light that the cyclist was running.
The reason unbiased/factual headlines are preferred is because there can always be context we miss at the reporting time.
