The current headline is “Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, officials say”.
Yeah, OP loves tinfoil.
The last edit on the Reuters article is August 11.
You can see the timestamps of the Reuters titles in OP’s screenshots.
I can. What’s your point?
Thanks for the update and fact check!
It’s almost like if you’re going to report on a live, complex event in the digital age, you have to update with new information and that might change your original message.
This take is as stupid as saying someone Flipflops when they just change their opinion after learning new information
Did israel bomb (another) school? YES / NO, youre so right, its just complex
Thats been removed from the headline, isnt that weird?
Turns out Hamas uses human Shields, shocking!
Right, that’s the excuse that they use. They aren’t liable for killing any civilians, because they’re all “human shields”.
“You bombed a school.”
“Human shields!”
“You bombed a hospital!”
“Human shields!”
“Why are all these children shot in the head?!”
“HUMAN SHIELDS.”
they literally flipped it and removed information from the headline. theres a limit to my gullibility.
Without knowing where the original or updated information came from and how it was vetted I can’t really form a belief or opinion. I would hope you have looked into those things though and aren’t just basing your take on having read the headlines on an image otherwise that limit to your gullibility that you were talking about is quite high.
These are the dipshits that downvote the MBFC bot because MBFC occasionally makes a wee mistake, despite all the good ratings they have
Armchair journalists lol
I do wonder if this is due to automated A/B testing, similar to how you can upload multiple thumbnails on YouTube, and the algorithm will automatically choose the one that provides the most traction.
If the sole purpose is to generate as many clicks as possible, that kinda tracks.
With normal news websites, A/B testing could be a thing. We had a rudimentary implementation of that back in 2011 already. But this is Reuters, a news agency. They are B2B and don’t care about clicks, their business model is selling first hand reporting to other media outlets (e.g. CNN, USA Today etc). As stories develop, so does the title. Especially when ongoing conflicts are concerned.
It clearly states it was edited
Wait what the fuck that’s a thing?? Is that why certain videos seem to change their name weeks later?
That’s done manually on youtube but website like these likely have that feature built in
I thought it used to be done manually, but now there’s automation built in to YouTube, I recall hearing. It might only be available to certain users, though.
I think I recall it being discussed in relation to Veritasium, although I can’t recall if it was a third party mentioning it or Derek (Veritasium) himself.
I haven’t heard of it built into news websites before, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if that already was a thing.
Yes, they have automated a/b testing for thumbnails and titles IIRC.
CSI had ENHANCE, media have ADJUST
It’s not always the case, but I’ve found that some outlets like to write their first article title completely false so that a more alarming headline is distributed that way to subscriber notifications and RSS, then they update it on their own a few hours later after the false headline has already been shared and posted across the web so they can plead an honest mistake if necessary.
I appreciate that The Guardian is mentioned here because they’re one of the worst offenders I’ve noticed.
All of the corporate owned media is fucked, including centralized social media.
And fuck Reuters too.
So what would be a reliable news source?
Uncle Jimbo!
the sad thing here is that we probably don’t have one big source we can point to. all we can do is judge what we have according to their circumstances and adjusting our worldview accordingly.
e.g. media owned by a rich person probably cant be trusted not to push their interests, and you have to take it into account.
Evaluating news sources isn’t simply ignoring every media that looks biased and looking for the one that’s not (which arguably doesn’t exist). It’s knowing what this bias is for a few sources and comparing their reporting for the same event in order to make your own opinion.
The issue is that naively trying to average out reporting like this means you are still allowing the most biased sources pull your impression away from the true mean. This is very specifically what a lot of the foreign influence propaganda has exploited to steer narratives in western media. They know that people do this, and they know that if they report outright lies they can still get impressions from enough people to move the needle.
This is a reasonable answer. I think in the context of this meme we’re seeing an evolving story. In the first headline there is no source quoted, in the second the information comes from Hamas, and in the third from Israel. Who can you trust? In this case neither source. But in general I would trust Reuters over someone like Fox
Actual newspapers that had time to fact-check their stories before printing and don’t have to participate in the “first out the door wins the attention contest”-game
Except a lot of those have a distinct pro-establishment and pro-Israel bias.
NYT might be hybrid print and online now, but it’s still considered the establishment paper of record and it’s EXTREMELY pro-Israel and pro-cop.
Official filings and statements.
Everybody wants tomorrows news yesterday,and they want it SO bad theyre willing to believe false narratives and outright lies based on “sources close to the matter”.
Patience is the best news source.
Official filings and statements
Except nobody in their right mind trusts the official statements of the Israeli government anymore.
For that matter, an involved authority is often one of the WORST possible sources in general.
