Anonymous #1 2w

Uh huh, I’ll definitely keep that idea in mind

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Perks of being a democracy, Israel actually allows journalists to exists

-5

Anonymous #1 2w

Cool, remember how our government admitted to the strike then reneged on their admission?

16

Anonymous #2 2w

And our country’s independent media held them accountable. Thanks for providing evidence to my point

4

Anonymous #1 2w

So you’re not denying our government is as unreliable as the Iranian’s?

17

Anonymous #1 2w

Actually, Israel has the highest number of recorded journalists they’ve killed in any conflict, and almost all of those numbers came from journalists targeted in Gaza. So no, Israel does NOT allow journalists to exist

31

Anonymous #3 2w

No they allow them to exist

-8

Anonymous #1 2w

“Israel” and “democracy” in the same sentence 💔

16

Anonymous #1 2w

Israel defenders are fucking gross, genocide apologia is fucking gross, look in the mirror loser

21

Anonymous #5 2w

Oh true, they allow them to exist 6 feet under and blown to smithereens on double tap attacks at hospitals

21

Anonymous #5 2w

I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of the American or Israeli’s governments mouths either lol

28

Anonymous #1 2w

"Israel actually allows journalists to exist"

21

Anonymous #1 2w

‘Israel actually allows journalists to exist’ I- Are you actually serious? Are people seriously this stupid?

16

Anonymous #8 2w

yes, yes they are

17

Anonymous #5 2w

if by "allow them to exist" you mean in the moments before the drone disintegrates them into pink mist and guts then yeah

23

Anonymous #8 2w

Yeah, they’re also stupid enough to think Israel is absolutely 100% innocent and has never committed a single war crime despite numerous accounts stating otherwise

12

Anonymous #1 2w

They literally confirmed it was a U.S. tomahawk missile btw

14

Anonymous #4 2w

bc Israel only wants reporting done when they’re the victim of a strike, they let journalists see the damage of strikes on Israel so it can be reported on the western news but shoot and target journalists in Palestine when Israel does the strikes bc they want to prevent news on it It’s deliberate

28

Anonymous #6 2w

The New York Times puts journalists wherever they can. They can’t safely get journalists in Iran.

-1

Anonymous #7 2w

I mean can you not read the point? When western countries are rhe victim, the news is often stated as objectively factual and the perpetrator is our clearly in the headline When western countries are the perpetrators, the news is often framed as a subjective claim and the perpetrators aren’t identified in the headline This isn’t just these articles, it’s a general pattern of how western news outlets perpetuate bias and mislead their readers

15

Anonymous #4 2w

no shit, they deliberately make it unsafe by targeting journalists so no one reports on the war crimes That’s Israel’s whole shtick

27

Anonymous #6 2w

Iran also makes it dangerous for reporters themselves.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

im not denying that but to avoid the fact that this very journalistic practice isn’t weaponized by states like the U.S. and Israel to discourage coverage on their war crimes is just playing ignorant to cover for empire

26

Anonymous #1 2w

Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all press killings in both 2025 and 2024. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has committed more targeted killings of journalists than any other government’s military since CPJ began documentation in 1992. So idk what the heck you’re talking about

9

Anonymous #4 2w

You're telling me that we can see the bald spot off some guys head via satellite, but we can’t see where we're dropping our most powerful missiles?

11

Anonymous #6 2w

that wasn't my question. i'm aware of biases in headlines. i'll ask again, more clearly: you don't think the 2nd article is much better, right? because it's not. it also obfuscates. neither of these headlines were made with integrity

1

Anonymous #7 2w

I mean it is better than the 1st one, how does it still obfuscate in your eyes?

1

Anonymous #6 2w

using the word "after" and not "in" or "by". what killed them? was it the missile? was it the aftermath? did the missile strike and cause a riot where people killed other people? not to mention leaving out the city name - making it harder to verify which missile strike is being discussed

1

Anonymous #7 2w

yeah, that’s fair, it is still better than the first one tho

1

Anonymous #6 2w

neither of these headlines are good. both are clearly crafted to create as much outrage and fear while being opaque and unclear. the 2nd is only marginally better in that it identifies a subject - but the framing makes me question even that because, again, were they killed *by* the strike, or after by someone else? was it *us*? WHO killed them?

1

Anonymous #6 2w

yeah sorry i was typing out a 2nd comment saying (again) that it *is* better but barely

1

yeah but it only suggests it and that makes me question if it was even the iranian missile... because otherwise they should say "iranian missile kills 9 in [city name] near jerusalem"

1