Major western news outlets manufacture consent for Genocide

What is the lie? These headlines are not edited in any way. Writing suggestive or misleading headlines and/or articles is a key component in manufacturing consent as headlines are by far the most important part of an article which decide even whether people will click on it.

The most consistent theme we find is that Palestinians keep being "found dead" instead of having being killed.

None of them use "killed" when talking about the little girl. I presume that's because she survived the first Israeli attack (hence being on the phone for three hours), was assumed to be alive, and probably died of exposure as far as I can find.

That means she died of natural causes and israel was not responsible?

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows

Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7.

One typical headline from the New York Times, in a mid-November story about the October 7 attack, reads, “They Ran Into a Bomb Shelter for Safety. Instead, They Were Slaughtered.” Compare this with the Times’s most sympathetic profile of Palestinian deaths in Gaza from November 18: “The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children.” Here “graveyard” is a quote from the United Nations and the killing itself is in passive voice. In its own editorial voice, the Times story on deaths in Gaza uses no emotive terms comparable to the ones in its story about the October 7 attack.

It's not all people lying, plenty of it is LLMs spreading propaganda. The Kremlin is absolutely thrilled about the anti-Israel protests.

If you don't need to worry about it why are they consistently using different language for israelis and Palestinians being killed?

Surely if it doesn't affect public opinion there would be no need for that.

So did the WP story

Also it was the leading story on their TV channel where they made it very very clear that both she and the paramedics trying to get to her were killed by fire from Iranian tanks.

These days it's done in a way more subtle way than that because people can just discover those things via social media and if they see it as not being reported they suspect the newsmedia for not doing it.

The manipulation (as exemplified above) is in the consistent use of language with different emotional charge and even the passive or active mode depending on the side (i.e. "the terrorists of Hamas killed x people" when the Hamas does the deed versus "x people died when a building was hit" when the IDF does the deed, this latter being very visibly in the example given here) as well as different levels of implied trust for each side (for example, consistently reporting "such has happenned" when the source is the IDF whilst reporting "the spokesperson of X said that such has happenned" when the source is Hamas).

If you're paying attention you will see this shit all over whenever a Newspaper or News Channel is activelly engaged in "opinion forming" as they use the very same differentiated treatment for controlling emotional impact techniques for just about everything, including local politics.

That would make them seem too biased. They did that in the past but right now that's becoming too difficult as everyone is reporting on these massive stories.

There is a fine line to walk on "reporting on the Palestinian side" while using selective language.

You must have the feeling that you are informed without actually being informed.

Permanently Deleted

Exactly. Some other person tried posting this same nonsense earlier today. It was removed.

They always report the facts but frame them emotionally starting with the headline. They don't need totalitarian control of the media, they only need to convince 5-10% to get total control. That's how propaganda and corruption works in democratic countries.

The Twitter post definitely excludes every single mention of her and her family being killed by israel.

The website article makes zero mention of Hind being killed. It goes as far as excluding her from being killed and then saying "she was found dead".

Israeli troops were firing on the car, the teen said in terrified calls to relatives and emergency services. Everyone in the vehicle was killed except her and her 5-year-old female cousin, Hind, she said.

The family car was found as well with six bodies, including Layan’s and Hind’s.

it definitely does say was killed as were two rescue workers

This is also factually incorrect nowhere do they use the word killed for the ambulance personnel.

On Saturday, 12 days later, the ambulance was discovered, blackened and destroyed. The two medics were dead.

I mean, people have a right to defend themselves. I would just say all coercive violence is wrong, no matter what form it takes.

Almost.

If only we had the data to back it up

2/3 civilians killed is what Hamas did on October 7, 373 military to 695 civilians. I recall the BBC describing that as "indiscriminate slaughter".

The IDF civilian casualty rate is FAR HIGHER than 2/3. They kill 2/3 women and children and count every man as a "terrorist" because israel is a racist terrorist Nazi state.

Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.