I feel like so many on this post just think we should cease all reporting about Bad Things because the reporting could be used as propaganda to those who lack the ability to think critically.

Smh so many slow people around today.

You win! You made it to the bottom of the useless comment thread of one person making an assumption that was never said. It's fucking exhausting. You deserve a break. Get some water and go stretch.

430k Guardian subscribers are American, compared to 529k from the UK. A significant number of their articles are produced specifically for a US audience.

Having some basic media literacy and asking why a story is being told and who it's for doesn't make me a tankie or whatever box you've likely already put me in. I'm not even disputing the facts in the article. Propaganda can be truthful and still be propaganda. Atrocity propaganda often is, and even when it is exaggerated tends to be based on a kernel of truth.

yeah i forgot the world revolves around the english language i beg your pardon good sir im going back to only speaking my inferior native language

vas y chiflas a tu perra mouser imaginate llamarte alonso y cagarle a alguien por escribir mal el ingles

You're not wrong about the Guardian but also like... the Iranian government is fucked. Yes, this is probably propaganda to manufacture consent, but that doesn't mean it's not also a real story of real students fighting a real struggle. It's a tough line to walk.

Two 17 year old terrorists magically become children.

Those 300 cops must have killed themselves.

Ehsan Hosseinipour Hesarloo, 18, Matin Mohammadi and Erfan Amiri, both 17, are undergoing a fast-tracked, torture-tainted grossly unfair trial before Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran for alleged involvement in an 8 January 2026 fire at a Basij base inside a mosque in Pakdasht, Tehran province, that killed two Basij agent

So they literally killed police and burned down mosques.

Amnesty is an imperialist propaganda organisation which has repeated the debunked Hamas rape hoax. They will paste any Zionist propaganda they are asked on their frontpage.

I mean, they did commit arson with a deadly outcome, but Basij are not cops. They're a junta.

That being said, I strongly oppose the death penalty, I oppose war (fuck the US and fuck Israel), and also fuck the "protestors" that destroyed people's cars, shops, mosques and homes. I'm an anarchist and a revolutionary, they're mindless thugs. We are not the same.

Yawn more Western propaganda to justify war against Iran.

I mean, it can be both. The Iranian government has been an oppressive theocratic reactionary force practically since day one of the revolution. They rejected socialist reforms and partnered with Ronald fucking Reagan to start a turf war with Iraq using chemical weapons. They've flubbed any effective containment of Israel, failed to integrate their economy with Pakistan or Turkiye or Afghanistan, gave up backing Yemen, and never finished their nuclear deterrent.

The current crisis they're in wasn't unforeseeable. But when even Ahmadinejad is too far left for your Guardian Council, it locks you into a dark future.

So? US-based subscribers make up sixty percent compared to european readers, but this is definitely targeting US-americans and no way I, as a european, am part of the target audience?

You are, like the others I had the dubious pleasure to discuss under this post, not providing any evidence for all the bogus claims you are making.

Iran literally sentencing kids to death

This isn't novel to Iran. The US was sentencing minors to execution until as recently as 2005, when the SCOTUS struck down junivenille executions in Roper v. Simmons.

And that was under a relatively liberal majority. No way Roper would have gone 5-4 under a Roberts court.

How, exactly, will bombing Iranian cities help their liberation?

Same way that kidnapping Maduro liberates Venezuela. And embargoing gasoline liberates Cuba. And sending ground troops into Denmark liberates Greenland.

The Iranian people, not just the current regime, are supportive of Palestine, and Israel and the US absolutely cannot accept that.

Under Shah Reza Pahlavi, they will crush Hamas and Hezbollah, defeat ISIS, and end Woke Gay Iranian Antifa once and for all.

We can keep talking about dumb stuff Iran did 50 years ago but Khamenei is already dead. Iran is currently the only major party fighting Israel and standing for human rights and against genocide.

Saying they have failed to contain Israel is laughable. The entire American air force is on Irans doorstep because they have been so effective in containing Israel. Pakistan and Turkiye are led by unreliable NATO slaves there is no stable partnership to build with them.

Yemen is still receiving Iranian weapons and has defeated the US air force last year with them while lobbing missiles at Israel.

Pezeshkian is their current president and he is a reformist. The reformists are the reason that Iran does not have nukes right now.

I guess security forces are technically a better description but in practice they would be comparable to volunteer cops.

left-of-centre british reporting

Insane that people believe this even exists

The Guardian is TERF central

Iran is currently the only major party fighting Israel

No, they aren't. They're rolling over for Israel time and time again.

They withdraw support from Hezbollah, from the Houthis in Yemen, and from the Taliban in Afghanistan for a few temporary sanctions suspensions. They actively collaborate with Israel's friends in Russia and Saudi Arabia. They collaborated with the fucking Americans during the initial Iraq War. They crack down on their own domestic civilians when those populations want more aggressive Palestinian support. They've been "six months from producing a nuclear weapon" for thirty fucking years.

Yemen is still receiving Iranian weapons

They are not

The only thing they know how to do to Israel is to fire Warning Shots. Over and over and over again. Even as Israelis butcher their people at home and abroad.

They aren't fighting them in any material sense.

Okay... so you admit they were heavily censoring it?

The Iraq war is 20 years in the past it is no longer relevant. Bigger recent human rights abuses from Iran came from their support from Assad. But now that Assad is gone a US slave has taken his place so that is double sided.

Iran supports the resistance behind the scenes not in front of it like Yemen. I would love for Iran to actively start shelling Israel, they have during the 12 day war, but they are already doing a million times more than every other country worldwide such as China which is actively helping Israel colonize the West Bank.

I clicked your Houthi link and it is one of those anti Houthi propaganda websites. Becomes rather obvious when you go to their front page. I hope you reconsider your sources.

Iran supports the resistance behind the scenes not in front of it like Yemen.

That stopped being true years ago. They've fully retreated from the regional stage.

they are already doing a million times more than every other country worldwide

They're unable to keep the water flowing and the lights on, because they keep trying to make deals with Western imperialists and getting played

1. Because I'm not a conservative, dumbass. I do care about civilian casualties.

2. The guardian crowdsources their funding from mostly small donations to maintain their independence from corporate interests.

Obviously you're part of the target audience - the entire western world is - but the primary target demographic is US Americans. There has been an increase in selective reporting on the political situation in Iran in order to manufacture consent for military intervention and ultimately regime change by the US. Western media has been known to do this in the past such as during the leadup to the Iraq war, and they're doing the same thing now with Iran. They make certain editorial choices to play up the emotional impact and imply that US intervention is justified or even invited by Iranians, and because they don't (usually) outright lie about what's happening they have plausible deniability about their intent, which is why it can't be proven.

Go ahead and share that footage.

I don't believe the Iranian government is moral or good, I just know American imperialism and genocidal war is worse.

Again, go ahead and share that footage. I find it highly unlikely that the western media reporting obscene casualty numbers in the tens of thousands isn't sharing any of that footage and instead just quoting a random first name, but I'm open to being wrong. Go ahead and share the footage you've seen that I haven't been able to find...

Why would I put effort into finding videos that I've already seen, just to show you when you're already sealioning?

You can be confidently wrong, I don't care.

Please don't lump Afghanistan and Iraq together.

Afghanistan had no oil. The US invaded because it was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan. The end was a mess, but the invasion was justified. This has been the only time NATO article 5 has been activated, by the way.

Iraq has oil. The US has invaded twice. Once because the UN authorized restoring the independence of Kuwait, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The second time because emperor Bush II lied to everyone about weapons of mass destruction. The end was a mess, of course.

Does this have any predictive value for Iran?

I can only tell this:

• I see no preparations for a land war
• regimes may sometimes fall after suffering a military defeat
• only one regime has fallen recently because of an air intervention (Gaddafi in Libya, but the Libyan civil war had already started at this time)

As a result, I am not convinced of any outcome, I do not support and do not oppose, I observe and try to understand.

Because you're a lying piece of shit...

The people that would benefit most of showing this footage are for some mysterious reason censoring it, and you're so concerned about the supposed crimes the Iranian government committed that you're unwilling to share this supposed evidence you've seen to spread awareness while you beat your war drum and encourage a war of total destruction on millions of people and incredible devastation on the whole region.

Really, you think I'm fucking bluffing? Then how do you explain this?

Or these articles from Amnesty International, Associated Press, BBC, and Independent?

Go ahead. What BS are you gonna come up with to try to justify this authoritarian brutality?

while you beat your war drum and encourage a war of total destruction on millions of people and incredible devastation on the whole region.

When/where did I do that? Point to the thing I said that fits that description.

You can't, because I didn't. That's just a pathetic strawman, because you can't handle the truth that you're wrong.

Some did, but the reason the videos aren't pasted all over the place is because there was a concerted effort by the Iranian regime to suppress it.

Instead of cherrypicking non-credible sources so you can point to the absurd numbers they claim, why don't you check some credible sources to see what the actual numbers are?

For instance, from Amnesty International:

On 17 January, in a public speech, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, said “thousands of people” were killed. Since then, on 21January, Iran’s Supreme Council of National Security issued a statement that 3,117 people were killed during the uprising. However, on 16 January 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mai Sato, said in a media interview that at least 5,000 people had been killed, noting that according to information she received from medical sources, the death toll might be as high as 20,000 . Due to the ongoing internet shutdown, the scale of mass killings that took place and Iranian authorities’ well-documented pattern of carrying out reprisals against families of victims who speak out, the true number of those killed is likely higher.

Well, the western media did publish videos. That's why I and others have seen them. You don't have to take my word for it, just follow the link in my previous comment.

The reason it isn't all over your social media feed probably has something to do with tankies not wanting to promote content that proves the Iranian regime is a violent dictatorship. That kind of flies in the face of their carefully constructed alternative reality in which only the west is evil and anti-western governments can do no wrong.

It would be harder for them to deny the atrocities if they were posting the videos themselves, so that's why you don't see as much as you do from Gaza.

Are they even accusing the article itself of manufacturing consent? The way I read that, it was talking about online spaces and communities falling for the manufactured consent. Which is not coming from the reporting, but from propagandists, who use the reporting to help them manufacture consent.

No, I don't think so. But that also comes from arguments I had with the user before and other users in this thread claming this article was manufacturing consent.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/07/22/post-12-day-war-iran-continues-to-invest-in-the-houthis/

Iran is sanctioned because it does not bow for Israel. That is the entire reason.

bankrolled by the US to further their nefarious interests in the region.

A long time ago. In response to the USSR couping and occupying Afghanistan. Which was, of course, also not justified.

If Afghanistan had been left alone, things would very likely be better in several countries...

I didn't say they control all the social media feeds, but if your social media feeds are mostly tankie content then you're not gonna see the stuff they aren't posting.

The guardian isn't western propaganda, ffs. It's independent journalism. You're here peddling pro-mullah propaganda, because the facts are the regime murdered thousands of protesters in the span of a couple weeks and you're trying to say "nuh uh, western lies!"

1. I don't.

2. You're calling it western propaganda because you either refuse to believe it or you're actively peddling pro-mullah propaganda. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

You showed 40,000 deaths ha? You showed what you think justifies starting a war that will kill hundred of thousands, displace hundreds of thousands, and effect the lives of millions?

Again, I don't justify it, if you look at my comment history I've said before they I have no doubt they killed a lot of civilians, and I don't align with the authoritarian government, but I don't justify imperialism and even more destructive and deadly wars as a response. You're not helping Iranians.

While you're watching protest videos, go ahead and watch the videos of counter protesters burning Israeli and US flags. Don't just cherry pick footage that justifies your war lust.

They didn't kill 40k+ people, and you will not provide footage that demonstrates they did anything near that because it's a made up lie.

Should Iran develop nukes and attack the US because ICE is shooting civilians in the street? Same justification, but you can't wrap your head around the fact that you're not the heroes of the world and America doesn't have an obligation to interfere with every country however it deems fit.

When/where did I do that? Point to the thing I said that fits that description.

We're gonna pretend like your comment is in a vacuum and the context where you made it is irrelevant? Okay then...

Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?

1. Treating invasion as a morally acceptable “option” (“lesser evil”)
   The Guardian explicitly described military intervention in Iraq as potentially justified:
   “We argued that it would be justified as a ‘lesser evil’…”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jan/26/letters.iraq1

That’s a classic consent-making move: the debate becomes when invasion is justified, not whether the West has the right to invade at all.

1. Amplifying government “humanitarian” justification after the fact (Libya)
   On Libya, the Guardian reported (without challenging the premise in the headline or framing) the UK government defending Nato’s intervention as life-saving:

“the government argued its actions ‘undoubtedly’ saved civilian lives in Libya.”
“required decisive and collective international action”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/25/british-government-intervention-libya-saved-lives

Even when the article notes criticism, this kind of repetition of official justification is exactly what sourcing/agenda-setting critiques focus on.

1. Making war plans sound like “policy tools” (Syria no-fly zone)

A no-fly zone is an act of war (you enforce it with force). But it’s often discussed as a humanitarian “measure.” The Guardian’s reporting frames it that way:

“a potential no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/12/may-questions-syria-no-fly-zone-proposal

And then the debate becomes technocratic (“who enforces it?”) rather than moral/anti-imperial (“who gets to control Syrian airspace?”). Example of that framing inside the piece:
“Who would enforce that safe area?”

1. “All sides / cycle of violence” symmetry (Gaza)
   A common liberal-media pattern is treating a radically unequal situation as a tragic “both sides” spiral. In a Gaza editorial the Guardian writes:

“All sides should contribute to halting the cycle of violence”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/13/guardian-view-conflict-in-gaza

Same editorial also uses the legitimacy gateway line:
“Israel has a right to defend itself”

And frames it in a way to not directly endorse it, but still assert it by not stating the objectively moral rebuttal: Gaza has the right to defend itself.

Here they outright assert it:
“Israel has a right to defend itself and a duty to protect its citizens.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/13/the-guardian-view-on-gazas-casualties-mounting-calls-for-a-ceasefire-must-be-heeded

This is a very strong legitimising phrasing because it implies the violence is mainly a matter of proper execution rather than structural injustice / siege / occupation:
“Israel has a right to defend itself by all legitimate means.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/observer-view-only-ceasefire-save-israel-from-crisis

This is exactly the kind of moral language that can slide into collective punishment logic (even if the editorial later adds caveats):
“Hamas had to be punished severely and forcibly dislodged from its perch in Gaza.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/the-observer-view-on-the-middle-east-a-year-on-there-is-only-one-way-to-a-credible-peace

This rhetorical move invites readers to inhabit the state’s mindset. another common consent mechanism:
“Confronted by all this, Israelis ask, reasonably enough: what would you do?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/the-observer-view-on-the-middle-east-a-year-on-there-is-only-one-way-to-a-credible-peace

Not genocide, guardian. You shouldn't do genocide.

Even when labelled “alleged,” this piece foregrounds the IDF narrative and evidence drops in a way that can function as justification-for-bombing context:

“alleged evidence released by the IDF to support its claims that Hamas uses… Gaza as human shields”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city

“Israel has cited what it says are numerous examples of Hamas using human shields”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city

“It claims Hamas has placed… command network under… al-Shifa hospital.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city

you can believe Hamas uses civilian cover and still see how this repeated framing becomes a ready-made moral alibi for mass civilian killing. We know Israel uses Palestinians as human shields, they'll literally strap children to the windshield of jeeps to shield them, why don't they cite that as rebuttal? Why don't they cite that as justification for attacking IDF?

On their funding:
Guardian Media Group says it runs a “diverse revenue model” including “reader revenues, advertising… licensing and philanthropic funding.”
https://www.theguardian.com/about/organisation

And it says “Revenue from readers now accounts for over 50%” which also means a large share is still non-reader money (ads, licensing, etc.)

Their own annual reporting stresses growth in reader revenue, but they’re still operating in the same media ecosystem: big audience incentives, elite access journalism, reliance on official sources, and the kinds of “respectable” foreign policy frames that dominate UK/US politics. (That’s exactly what “manufacturing consent” critiques are about: structures, not cartoon villain owners.)

Read Manufacturing Consent, then come back and tell me they don't.

Or downvote and maybe throw an insult my way, that works too.

based

But yeah, it is warmongering propaganda.

Dude. The war mongers jumped on this thread. When I initially replied to your comment it was top. Lemmy is becoming like reddit. It's fucking pathetic how many "anti trump" libs are onboard with bombing a country into freedom.

It's cute when British people think they're not just a colony of US imperialism. I know I know. You have your royal pedophiles the same way we have our pedophile billionaires. It makes you feel independent and sovereign.

Maybe you're not British. But I hope you are. Even American hogs know the Brits are dogs to whatever American rulers want.

"left of centre" is doing a lot of work there.

Not only in your obvious British spelling of center but in the other obvious way. You Brits turn your nose up on Trump supporters but for some reason fall for the same garbage war propaganda. Hell, even our MAGA voters are turning against Trump on Iran intervention. Are you guys ok over there? Are you just larping as MAGA supporters on that island?

It says a lot when you call the guardian "left". I swear you guys are further behind class conciseness than folks in the US southern states.

Calling an institution that reports to and serves the interest of capital "left" basically destroys all meaning of the word.

Or are even you Brits using "left" to mean "liberal". Like, have we exported our American brain rot that fucking hard?

You gotta remember that most people today supporting Palestine and understanding what was done to Gaza was a genocide are recent things.

They hit a breaking point after two years of genocide that could not be denied. These are the same type of people that were "always against it" after the fact.

This is how it goes. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, etc. They don't actually have a means of understanding it until they see the aftermath. They don't look at the material interest and where they will inevitably lead. They are only capable of reacting to the results. And until there are results they will only listen to the intentions. The intentions that they read in media. Not the real intentions of those that own that media.

I'm sure, you, personally understand this. I'm mostly just leaving this comment as an opportunity for the few that WILL be able to think through the media narratives.

The media is going to tell truths about Irans human rights violations. But it will ignore the same for Israel for decades. Why? Because it doesn't care about those violations. It cares about how it can make you believe what it does NEXT is justified.

I'm not. And you are nothing but insulting.