https://mastox.eu/@AssalRad/116157304384102524

But but but MBFC rates them as highly factual and left-center bias!! How could they ever do a war hawk??

-the most credulous jackasses on the planet

Neither Israel nor the US took credit for the strike that hit the school so this could be a matter of genuinely not knowing which of the two was responsible.

The US military's Central Command (Centcom) said it was looking into reports of the incident, while Israel's military said it was "not aware" of any IDF operations in the area.

It's pretty easy to determine the one who shot that missile into Israel. It is not as clear who blew up the school in Iran, and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".

Additionally, it is relatively easy for the NYT to verify the news in Israel, so it is not a "claim", whereas they cannot easily verify the news in Iran.

I hadn't seen those responses yet, but I'd say the gap between those two messages makes it fairly clear this was an American missile.

Iran doesn't allow any information out of the country besides their own state controlled media.

There are lots of reporters in Israel from all over the world that can verify or falsify stuff happening there.

Not to say there isn't any farming happening, but this example doesn't work for showing that.

How dare you run defense for the imperialist americans?

I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.

Dozens killed in strike on Iranian girl's school.

Then the next line mentions uncertainty as to whether or not it was Israel or the US, but it was clearly one of them.

The NYT can verify that 'dozens were killed' there just as easily as in the other story.

I have no idea why you don't think they have access to Reuters or the AP, who both verified that part quite quickly.

https://apnews.com/video/all-girls-school-in-iran-struck-by-us-israeli-strike-over-100-casualties-78cead1fc4ba4ac39d57e8a0f53b0bf2

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW953528022026RP1/

Oh hey look, Reuters basically came up with the same headline that I did.

Except that they also attribute blame to Israel.

In summary, you're completely wrong.

We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.

said as if the government has ever been held accountable...

people aren’t going to take you seriously.

apologists are never taken seriously

NYT article was first recorded on wayback machine at 18.29 on Feb 28th.

AP article posted March 1st

Unclear what time Reuters video posted, nor if the title was changed at any point. They state it is a claim though, and that it cannot be verified - in my view, same level as NYT.

It is invalid to compare the NYT and AP articles, as the situation developed rapidly.

It's "quite easy to understand" because that's how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you're talking about.

Where’s my Lemming who wants to argue all the information is in the article and if people only focus on the headline they’re stupid?

and the headline would be quite uncertain to state "either American or Israeli".

Would it be quite uncertain?

If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.

When it comes to corporate news sewers, you’re barking in the wrong toilet.

Yes, it would be more uncertain. It is better to provide less information than wrong information.

I know the people in charge are beyond incompetent but I imagine that the US military knows exactly where every last one of their 6-7 figure missiles went. That doesn't mean we ever will.

No, you're missing the point.

The NYT doesn't have reporters on the ground everywhere, so they use wire services, Reuters, AP, others, who actually do, when something big happens out of their direct coverage network.

This is extremely common and has been the norm for reporting and journalism for decades, for print services that don't have a televised reporting set up.

The point remains that it would be very easy to attribute blame in the headline, if they wanted to.

Because all these outlets know they exist in a world where 95% of people only read headlines.

The headline is supposed to be the hook.

A wishy washy, vague headline is an intentionally bad hook.

Reuters was confident enough in the reports that couldn't be verified to lead with it.

The NYT on the other hand has basically been continuously shown to be basically just operating under a CIA editorial board 10-20 years after high level employees retire, since basically the 1970s.

Moreover, the NYT has a literally scholarly documented history of pro-Israeli bias:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-bias-shapes-the-news-Zelizer-Park/e21f0e7da584bb44f9d3097c9e3b2535867b0f77

Right?! It’s so uncivil and making unfair assumptions to point out that the newspaper with a history of war hawking and downplaying fascism dating literally back to Hitler isn’t trustworthy on the subject of war and fascism 😢

Someone knows which missile it was. They don't just mix in missiles on the same target, it was either an Israeli strike or an American, and whoever fired it knows.

It may well have been their own faulty missile falling back to the ground.

I wouldn't put it past them for a second to claim that.

‘What if the school kids killed themselves’? Calm down, there aren’t any board positions on the NYT open now.

just in case anyone here doesn't already know, the death toll from the US-Israel bombing of the elementary girls school is currently at 164 with dozens more wounded. Victims are mostly little girls aged 9-12.

For some reason our western media seems reluctant to spread this basic factual information...

*edited US to US-Israel so that it's super duper accurate

it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.

The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT's coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You're trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it's baffling.

Because the administration involved in killing 100+ little girls are also involved in covering up a sex trafficking ring raping and molesting 100+ little girls.

I've seen that claimed along with a picture.

With AI bullshit and propaganda machines how they are, that's probably bollocks, and in any case it doesn't make a hundred kids any less dead.

They don't need to be when they have the support of the moneyed interests all they care about is profit.

The US Military as a whole might, but Captain Mediatrained they have answering questions might not know or might not be able to get thag info.

"Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we're talking about, because I actually don't care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created."

Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who's whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.

The poor innocent independent newspaper that promoted illegal wars before, look they said they changed. Just don't ask if it was for the better.

What are you doing to stop fascism in your country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor

Has there been any official statement as to why it was targetted?

Did they mistake it for something else, bad intelligence?

Did the missile malfunction?

I mean, I can imagine them doing it on purpose for some fucked up reason but they have to have an excuse, no?

The criticism raises a legitimate issue, but the cause is usually structural rather than intentional. News outlets often use phrases like “X says” when they cannot independently verify the information. That situation is more common with casualty reports from states where they have limited access. When the outlet has confirmation from sources it considers reliable, it will report the deaths directly. This creates a pattern that looks biased even though it often comes from verification constraints instead of design.

Iran’s reports are frequently treated with caution because the state tightly controls information, foreign journalists have restricted access, and strike sites cannot be independently examined. Casualty figures released by Iranian authorities have also been revised or withheld in past events. These conditions lower outside confidence in the accuracy of initial statements.

The first headline uses “Iran says” because the newspaper likely could not verify the reported casualties inside Iran, especially during a breaking event. The second headline states the deaths as fact because the information from Israel was independently confirmed. The result may look like a double standard, but it generally reflects what reporters can confirm at the time rather than an intentional bias.

Maybe if it was a one-off instead of a consistent pattern for 30+ years.

You completely missed the point

The concern about a persistent pattern is understandable, and it is true that Western media often display asymmetries in how they frame casualty reports from different states. However, the consistency of the pattern does not automatically imply intentional bias. It usually stems from the same structural constraints repeating themselves across many events.

Verification works unevenly across countries. Israel, for example, allows extensive access to foreign journalists, has numerous independent local outlets, and provides casualty figures that can often be corroborated through hospitals, international observers, or on-the-ground reporting. Because multiple independent channels confirm the information, newsrooms feel justified presenting it as established fact.

Iran, by contrast, restricts foreign reporters, tightly controls internal media, and limits access to strike sites. Independent verification is much more difficult. That constraint shows up every time there is a major event inside the country. Reporters default to “Iran says” not because of a conscious editorial decision to cast doubt, but because they cannot authenticate the numbers through independent means. When this dynamic recurs across decades, the headlines reflect that repetition.

This does not mean the outcome is neutral. The effect can resemble a double standard, and journalists should be aware of how repeated verification asymmetries shape public perception. But the underlying cause tends to be logistical rather than ideological. The pattern persists because the same structural limitations persist, not because editors are intentionally trying to signal doubt toward one side and certainty toward the other.

So, to recap, this thread started with a passive-aggressive accusation, you backed it up with another passive-aggressive comment, somebody responded to you, and then you got mad at them for being angry about the wrong thing (without, y'know, actually saying what they should be mad about!)

Why not just state your opinion? Why all this beating around the bush?

The cause in this case is almost certainly intentional. The NYT has a documented history of publishing Israeli state propaganda as fact without any independent verification.

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/

It’s also not like Israel allows the press to operate freely. They actively suppress and censor reporters.

https://cpj.org/2025/12/under-the-radar-israel-steps-up-censorship-and-suppression-of-independent-reporting/

Worse, if they can’t censor a journalist then they’ll simply assassinate them and often murder their entire family.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-human-rights-office-condemns-targeting-journalists-and-attacks-on-hospitals/

For the NYT, reporting an Israeli claim as fact in this way is journalistic malpractice. But what can we really expect from a paper that has been convincing US liberals that American war crimes are actually a good thing? They were even publishing articles in support of this war once it became clear what Trump’s intentions were.

It aligns with that the US and Israel are terrorist states. Aiming for targets which spreads the most fear and despair seems to be a part of their plan. Making parents reluctant to send their kids to school is an efficient way of imobolizing people.

It's an illegal war in the first place, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a continuous stream of war crimes going forward.

If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.

You're talking about motivations? Seriously? These mother fuckers have done so much worse than this and it's us that shouldn't be taken seriously?

Why don't you crawl up that ass of yours a little more.

it weakens our case when we do so.

What case? When have you cowards have held your government responsible for any of unprovoked attacks, invasion, regime changes, massacre abroad?

That boot must taste really good, huh?

Especially with how fond of AI altered images and videos this US regime is.

Schools and hospitals seem to be the factory default target for Israeli missiles

In this case, both attacks were verified by the same means: video and Google maps.