It’s easy to cherry pick articles to generate a false narrative by navigating to the most conservative outlets.
Why don’t you try and search any popular search engine for ‘Israel Lebanon News’ in a private browser (to remove yourself from a browser bubble) and then try to claim that the wording in Western headlines favours Israel. All I see, in consecutive order of search results is:
‘Israel launches first airstrike…’,
‘Israel forces open fire in Lebanon…’,
‘UN troops patrol Israel-Lebanon border…’,
‘Lebanon deploys army on 2nd day…’,
‘Israel fires on Southern Lebanon…’,
‘Israel conducts first strike on Lebanon’.
Note that 4 of these portray Israel as the antagonist, 1 is neutral, and 1 portrays Lebanon as the antagonist.
I’m sorry? Were we talking about whether Western media was biased towards Israel? Are we now discussing the etymology of the word ‘bias’?
Frankly, I’m not interested in playing your game. We are taking about headlines? The headlines by and large are in opposition to Israel, which contradicts the ludicrous claim of the OP.
I refuse to play sneaky games to switch the dialogue elsewhere. The articles I provided were legitimately as unbiased as I could think of (Duckduckgo, search term ‘Israel Lebanon Conflict’, in a private tab, English language, consecutive order). They were definitively NOT in support of Israel, which contradicts the silly claim of the OP.
I accept that most people will refuse to see the nonsensical silliness of the OP’s argument. I’m not interested in discussing blame and where it should be directed.
Bullshit.
It’s easy to cherry pick articles to generate a false narrative by navigating to the most conservative outlets.
Why don’t you try and search any popular search engine for ‘Israel Lebanon News’ in a private browser (to remove yourself from a browser bubble) and then try to claim that the wording in Western headlines favours Israel. All I see, in consecutive order of search results is: ‘Israel launches first airstrike…’, ‘Israel forces open fire in Lebanon…’, ‘UN troops patrol Israel-Lebanon border…’, ‘Lebanon deploys army on 2nd day…’, ‘Israel fires on Southern Lebanon…’, ‘Israel conducts first strike on Lebanon’.
Note that 4 of these portray Israel as the antagonist, 1 is neutral, and 1 portrays Lebanon as the antagonist.
If you fire a missile, you antagonise. Have you got information on context where Hezbollah took the first action?
It’s not bias if it’s an actual fact.
The second I understand can be perceived as biased language.
Did the rocket fire first or did the army move first? Was the army movement against the ceasefire terms? Help me understand where you see the bias is.
I’m sorry? Were we talking about whether Western media was biased towards Israel? Are we now discussing the etymology of the word ‘bias’?
Frankly, I’m not interested in playing your game. We are taking about headlines? The headlines by and large are in opposition to Israel, which contradicts the ludicrous claim of the OP.
I refuse to play sneaky games to switch the dialogue elsewhere. The articles I provided were legitimately as unbiased as I could think of (Duckduckgo, search term ‘Israel Lebanon Conflict’, in a private tab, English language, consecutive order). They were definitively NOT in support of Israel, which contradicts the silly claim of the OP.
I accept that most people will refuse to see the nonsensical silliness of the OP’s argument. I’m not interested in discussing blame and where it should be directed.
There was no game. You just struggled to make a case and dare not respond to any of my points.
Looks like you enjoy headlines “Palestinians (that could be Hamas) liberated from life” glossing over Israel’s war crimes.