I’m trying compile (for instructional use) a set of very vivid/egregious/horrifying examples of consent manufacturing in the Western media. Stuff like this:

Got any good examples like this? Post 'em!

    • x87_floatingpoint [he/him, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
      29·
      1 month ago

      I think that it’s from a bot that tracks title changes to New York Times article titles (or perhaps it’s the content, not the title? my memory is bad). So original was:

      The police entered the compound and fired rubber-tipped bullets. Anger was already building in response to the looming expulsion of several Palestinian families from their homes in the city.

      And then they edited it to:

      Gaza militants fired rockets toward Jerusalem and the Israeli police fought with Palestinian protesters in an escalation of violence after a week of increasing changes.

      You can see how much that changes what is actually being said.

        • JimmycrackcrackEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Are they web articles and they’re changing them on the fly based on shifting winds of what gets clicks? If its evidence of an agenda, I’m confused why the first edition of the article was ever out in the public eye to begin with, or even written for that matter if editorial makes it clear what kind of work needs to be produced at that publication.

          • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            No, it’s their own writing. The assignment is to explain some scientific result in simple language. The first pass is usually full of academic-speak, so we then talk about ways to simplify and shorten while enhancing clarity. By the time they get to the last draft, it’s in plain language with just the core of the idea.