The first line of the Reuters story read: The Syrian army said an Israeli missile strike had briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of strikes targeting Iran-linked assets.

This was changed to: Deadly missile strikes have briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of attacks by Israel.

Even without analysis, it’s apparent the edit is tougher on Israel. Attribution to the Syrian army is removed, making the claim seem more definitive. The reference to “Iran-linked assets” (meaning the airport), ostensibly the justification for the strikes, is removed.

It seems to me that the Reuters story itself was biased. How is the Damascus international airport "iran linked asset"? Is it because there are flights to Iran there? Why is it OK to target and bomb civilian targets (which an international airport at a capital city is) because they are linked to Iran?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article from last year says "Israel has intensified strikes on Syria’s airports on the grounds that it wants to disrupt Tehran’s increasing use of aerial supply routes to deliver arms to allies in Syria and Lebanon, including Hezbollah, regional diplomatic and intelligence sources told Reuters."

I think the RNZ article was this one from January? In searching, it seems Israel is regularly attacking this airport, and it sounds like they are doing it to try to disrupt the Iranian supply lines bringing military supplies to Syria. In addition to my first link from September and the RNZ one from January, there's also this one from last June.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again. Why is it OK to bomb an international airport because some cargo from Iran is flying through it. Also why is Israel's word that these are arms going to Syria and Lebanon taken at face value? Why doesn't Iran just fly arms to Lebanon if it wants them in Lebanon?

"Regional diplomatic and intelligence sources"? Really? That's all it takes it report something as fact?

To make a broader point. Does Israel have the right to bomb any civilian infrastructure in any country anytime they want by claiming there are "ties to Iran"? Why doesn't Israel just bomb Iran if they want to bomb Iran?

The framing you are being asked to accept as the absolute truth is that

Israel is telling the truth
The claim of Iranian ties justifies Israel bombing any country they want to.

That's absurd and we should really be laying into Reuters for framing the story this way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again. Why is it OK to bomb an international airport because some cargo from Iran is flying through it.

I am not sure that impression is given. The first half of the article comes across as facts, and doesn't to me paint either side as the bad guys, other than identifying Israel as the aggressor.

Also why is Israel’s word that these are arms going to Syria and Lebanon taken at face value?

This seems to have come from intelligence sources, rather than Israel.

Why doesn’t Iran just fly arms to Lebanon if it wants them in Lebanon?

They probably are, but you would need to have lots of different supply routes otherwise you'd risk losing your whole supply in one attack.

“Regional diplomatic and intelligence sources”? Really? That’s all it takes it report something as fact?

Journalists have sources, and it's up to their organisation to verify. It is completely unreasonable to ask journalists to publish their sources given it could put lives at risk, or simply prevent information being available in future. Large media organisations will have processes for verifying information.

I do feel like some parts later in the article imply fact when they comment on intent, such as:

Last year, Israel intensified strikes on Damascus International and other civilian airports to disrupt Tehran's increasing use of aerial supply lines to deliver arms to allies in Syria and Lebanon, including Hezbollah.

I feel like the intent cannot be reported as fact, and in previous articles they cite sources saying this is the intent (so you know it's the opinions of people with inside knowledge), but here they just list it as if it's fact.

But in general, I don't feel the article is biased. It reports facts, but it does not go into enough detail to help the reader decide if they should support or condemn Israel's actions. To me, it comes across as reporting the facts of an event but falls short of providing enough context for the reader to pick a side.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point is that the edits actually removed bias but removing of bias towards Israel is seen as being biased against the west.

If the article wanted to report facts it would say things like "Israel claims two soldiers were killed" instead of stating as fact that two soldiers were killed. It would say "we could not verify those claims" if they were just taking the word of military or intelligence spokespeople who obviously have an agenda to push.

I feel like the intent cannot be reported as fact, and in previous articles they cite sources saying this is the intent (so you know it’s the opinions of people with inside knowledge), but here they just list it as if it’s fact.

You can't rely on the reader having read all previous articles in fact you can rely on them not doing that. You have to be unbiased and accurate in your reporting. In this case Reuters were reporting the story with a very heavy Israeli bias.

Aside from which this article is about the headlines not the story itself. The headline was definitely biased and the edit made it less biased.

I would say the same thing about Donbas. It's true that there was an insurgency/civil war in Donbas before the Russian invasion, the article criticises RNZ for stating this for some odd reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to have to disagree with you again.

The point is that the edits actually removed bias but removing of bias towards Israel is seen as being biased against the west.

I disagree. "Israel says" = Israel said something. "Israel claims" = Israel said something, which is probably not true. It's introducing bias.

If the article wanted to report facts it would say things like “Israel claims two soldiers were killed” instead of stating as fact that two soldiers were killed.

The Syrian army who's soldiers were killed said that, not Israel. "Missiles also hit targets in the south of Damascus, killing two members of the Syrian armed forces and causing some damage, the army said."

You can’t rely on the reader having read all previous articles in fact you can rely on them not doing that. You have to be unbiased and accurate in your reporting. In this case Reuters were reporting the story with a very heavy Israeli bias.

Complex political situations cannot be explained in an article with a length that you can expect the average reader to read. Also when I read the article, it does not give me the impression of Israel being the good guys - I do not get a hint of who is right or wrong. Only that one country is attacking another, that it's part of a longer conflict. Like I mentioned, I do feel some later parts of the article aren't as factual as I'd like, but overall it wouldn't rank highly on a list of biased articles.

I'd almost argue it gives the sense of Israel participating in someone else's war - one that is not their own (again, no indication of if this is good or bad).

Aside from which this article is about the headlines not the story itself. The headline was definitely biased and the edit made it less biased.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. The original headline:

The Syrian army said an Israeli missile strike had briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of strikes targeting Iran-linked assets.

It says "Israel has attacked an airport as part of a wider attack against the Syrian army"

This was changed to:

Deadly missile strikes have briefly put the Damascus International Airport out of service, the latest in a string of attacks by Israel.

It says "Missile attacks on an airport have killed people, and you should blame Israel"

The first headline indicates intent on behalf of Israel, but at least they have sources to back this up. The second headline just implies Israel is the bad guy before you get the the article.

We can argue over whether Israel is the bad guy (actually we probably wouldn't argue), but I just cannot see how the second heading is less biased.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. “Israel says” = Israel said something. “Israel claims” = Israel said something, which is probably not true. It’s introducing bias.

But it is true. Their information is based only on the word of Israel on what happened and why.

Like I mentioned, I do feel some later parts of the article aren’t as factual as I’d like, but overall it wouldn’t rank highly on a list of biased articles.

honestly I don't understand how anybody can read the article and come to this conclusion. It's a very highly biased article which seeks to whitewash what is essentially a war crime. It's illegal to bomb civilian infrastructure which an international airport at the capital city certainly is.

I’d almost argue it gives the sense of Israel participating in someone else’s war - one that is not their own (again, no indication of if this is good or bad).

israel is at a state of war with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen right now. I am of course not counting the apartheid regime in Palestine which could be classified as war or not depending on who you talk to.

It says “Missile attacks on an airport have killed people, and you should blame Israel”

Who else would you blame. Who did the bombing? Who did the killing? The second article is the most accurate with the least spin.

The second headline just implies Israel is the bad guy before you get the the article.

Only if you believe it's bad to bomb an international airport, shut it down and kill people in the process. Is that bad?

We can argue over whether Israel is the bad guy (actually we probably wouldn’t argue), but I just cannot see how the second heading is less biased.

I'll sum up the entire stuff article.

The invasion of Ukraine is immoral and the fight to free Ukraine is just, moral and necessary. Any article which does not sufficiently push this talking point should be condemned and any person responsible for that article should be vilified. Even if the article is pro ukraine, even if it supports the war effort the fact it does not beat this drum loudly enough is enough to warrant an attack on the author and the media outlet.

Similarly the Israeli occupation of Palestine and it's ongoing war in Syria and Iran is moral, just and necessary and anybody who does not state this emphatically enough and deviates even slightly from a full throated support all actions by Israel must be condemned and the author vilified.

That's it in a nutshell. It's not like these articles or headlines actually supported Russia it's that they didn't beat the war drums loud enough. It's not like they actually criticised Israel, it's that they weren't loud enough in it's veneration.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are saying that the article and media is biased because it doesn't slam Israel for it's actions. In my view doing so would be biased. Maybe we have different opinions on what biased means?

I disagree. “Israel says” = Israel said something. “Israel claims” = Israel said something, which is probably not true. It’s introducing bias.

But it is true. Their information is based only on the word of Israel on what happened and why.

Sorry I wasn't clear on this. What I meant was that "Israel says" simply says that they made a statement (it doesn't tell you what to think about that statement).

"Israel claims" implies that what Israel is saying is false. It introduces bias by telling you what to think.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Sorry I wasn’t clear on this. What I meant was that “Israel says” simply says that they made a statement (it doesn’t tell you what to think about that statement). “Israel claims” implies that what Israel is saying is false. It introduces bias by telling you what to think.

"Israel claims" is the truth. Israel has made a claim. It could be true or it could be false. Why should the press spin the story in a way that makes it seem like Israel wouldn't or doesn't lie? I think you really want the press to spin the story to convince the public that Israel is doing the right thing here.

I would say "israel says" is more biased than "israel claims". In fact in order for the story to be most factual it should say "Israel claims there were iranian ties to this airport but we didn't bother to verify those claims and just took them at their word". Of course they wouldn't say that but that's the real truth. At a minimum they should have added something like "we were not able to verify those claims".

As an aside your first presumption should be that every military or intelligence statement from any country is at least half a lie.