What would be more helpful, IMHO, is an article investigating and explaining whether what Hezbollah broadcasts is true or false.
All good communicators try to characterize the facts in the light most favorable to their goals. But the key thing to know is whether the facts they are characterizing are true or false. Were women and children killed? Were the other people killed terrorists? Were the terrorists deliberately hiding among the women and children? Did the women and children welcome the terrorists into their home?
Everyone has opinions and assumptions already about the answers to these questions. The role of good journalism is to provide specificity to rebut or confirm our pre-existing narratives.
What would be more helpful, IMHO, is an article investigating and explaining whether what Hezbollah broadcasts is true or false.
All good communicators try to characterize the facts in the light most favorable to their goals. But the key thing to know is whether the facts they are characterizing are true or false. Were women and children killed? Were the other people killed terrorists? Were the terrorists deliberately hiding among the women and children? Did the women and children welcome the terrorists into their home?
Everyone has opinions and assumptions already about the answers to these questions. The role of good journalism is to provide specificity to rebut or confirm our pre-existing narratives.
False in my opinion. I can smell it a mile off whatever they dress it up in.
Is anyone else any different ?
There are some who stick to the truth. You have to sort them out in your mind.
Got to feed the proles they’re Prolefeed! They love to lap it up, they believe the lies because they want to believe them.