• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.

      Is the headline factually wrong?

      Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something.

      idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?

      like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.

      edit: removed a weird bit.