World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
and manufacturing consent for a us invasion of iran, yes.
That's a claim you'd need to provide evidence for. Really, really good evidence.
I would believe anything regarding foreign policy coming from a bloodthirsty brit.
This is The Guardian, a left leaning paper or left of centre at least.
"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?
I think you’re reading way more into my comment than intended.
I just meant centre-left in the conventional media/political spectrum sense used in the UK, not a deep ideological classification.
Here's a detailed article on The Guardian being couped by Zionists:
How The Guardian's editor-in-chief caved to pro-Israel pressure.
It's unfathomable to me how, after western media carrying 3 years of endless Zionist propaganda, there's still any modicum of respect for them among progressives.
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.
Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?
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.
“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.
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?”
“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.
Really? You could not do it without weird and undounded assumptions? C'mon, grow up.
Anyway, I appriciate you provide actual reasoning for your arguments. I'll read into it.
It's what happens every time. I'm sorry, that was unnecessary, I felt burnt out.
TheGuardian claimed to have seen video and pictures of Hamas raping women on October 7.
Those videos and pictures later turned out to not exist.
no, you are the one who has to stop inventing shit to invade countries in your fascist crusade.
I am doing nothing. You are claiming bullshit and don't even know jackshit about the news outlets you're making up shit about.
Also, I'm not even from the US.
you are literally inventing shit to justify another genocide. burden of proof rests on you.
we are very aware of the guardian's propaganda AND us terror campaigns (that begin with exactly this sort of lie).
What did I invent, exactly?
Evidence or GTFO.
He's from .ml, he won't ever offer evidence, he'll just continue to accuse you of all the worst things he can think of.
because the only evidence western conservatives will accept is opinion articles from some billionaire's news outlet, even when it's just the same tired lie over and over again.
I don't think western conservatives care about Iranian civilian casualties. If you're suggesting I'm a conservative, you couldn't be more wrong.
Also, this is The Guardian. They're not owned by billionaires. Oh, and they're not the only source or evidence for the atrocities committed by the Iranian government against its own civilians, either. You're the one rejecting evidence.
You're clearly just a shill running cover for the mullah, so why don't you go eat shit?
1- then why the fuck are you here.
2- the guardian is a bourgeois publication.
Because I'm not a conservative, dumbass. I do care about civilian casualties.
The guardian crowdsources their funding from mostly small donations to maintain their independence from corporate interests.
1- then why do you have conservative pro-establishment pro-empire views?
2- the outlet spewing western propaganda nonstop is just a people-owned enterprise. yeah, right!
I don't.
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 do, very much so.
i'm calling it western propaganda because it's obviously manufacturing consent for an obvious attack by the us. spelling it out for you cause damn.
Not even a little bit. You don't know what you're fucking talking about. In fact, the Ayatollah, being the dictator of a theocratic regime, is far more right-wing and "conservative" than even the most centrist western neoliberals (which I'm not even that, by the way).
Have you forgotten about Mahsa Amini, who was murdered in police custody in 2021 for being a woman and not wearing her hijab "properly"?
By the way, is this the same The Guardian that you're calling "western imperialist propaganda"?
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
ayatollah didn't build a worldwide empire based on genocide and exploitation. you did.
He would if he could. But that's neither here nor there, because this post isn't about the west. It's about Iranian student protesters, and you're trying to say we shouldn't give a fuck about them just because their oppressive government is anti-west.
Your red herrings are meaningless, because two things can be true at once. The Ayatollah is a violent dictator, but that doesn't mean the west is faultless. And nobody here claimed that it is.
The point is that this article isn't about the west, and you're only trying to insert them into the conversation to deflect blame for the Ayatollah's crimes against humanity.
i must have said this sudden coverage of iran's protests is manufacturing consent for a us war against iran a few times in this thread already, but you just can't seem to want to confront it.
it doesn't matter what you think about iran, you have no right to kill more iranians, or meddle with their shit, or pretend to care about the instability you keep causing with blockades and sanctions.
give this a sincere read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
in the meantime do the world a favor and stop voicing your excuses for supporting 21st century hitler in their fascist fucking crusade. you are currently on 2 simultaneous genocides atm, trying for a third while thinking yourselves moral and good for it.
in not wasting anymore time with the fascist libs in this thread, i'll be out there puking from the fucking disgust.
The coverage isn't sudden, it's been there since the start of the protests. You just haven't been paying attention to it because it would force you to reevaluate your opinion. The media coverage was there in 2021/2022 during that movement too, but you probably weren't paying attention then either.
I'm not doing any of that
The current Iranian regime doesn't have the right to do those things to its people either
This is an article about the Iranian people rising up against their regime, and you're bitching about it because why exactly? Cause you hate the west so you lick IRGC boots?
I don't support trump or maga. In fact I viscerally hate them. How about you stop projecting and do the world a favor and stop voicing your excuses for supporting a militant right-wing theocratic dictatorship that's actively massacring its people?
I'm not committing any genocides. Never have and never will.
"Fascist lib" is an oxymoron. If you ask an actual fascist, they'll say liberals are the devil. And liberals rightfully hate fascists too.
Oh by the way, I'm more of a leftist anyway. I know you're not capable of comprehending this, but some leftists are actually capable of critical thinking and arriving at a well-reasoned opinion based on contextual nuance and complexity instead of simply falling for ideological campism, purity tests, and sports-team-like black-and-white thinking.
Good, I hope you rupture your stomach and turn yourself inside out. You'll be able to think more clearly in a coma.
yadda yadda yadda let's kill iranians because trump and the mainstream media told me so
I never fucking said that, but since it's the Iranian regime that's killing Iranians and you seem to be supporting the regime, then I guess that comment is just projection...
you are dancing around it, just making sure you know what this sort of media campaign is for.
You're the one dancing. I don't need to.
if you don't need to why won't you stop
I said "I don't need to dance around," implying "my worldview already aligns with reality and I don't need to contort either to get them to fit together."
What part of that do you interpret as meaning "I actually can't argue against your opinion that's divorced from reality even though you're the one skewing facts and 'dancing around' just to try and validate your asinine take"?
If you expect the whole world to twist itself to cater to your needs and wants, then you're probably a fascist.
still watching ya dance
Is that what you think dancing is?
what do you think i think dancing is?
Iran did kill thousands of its own people. Were you sleeping? It wasn't even that long ago.
And nobody mentioned bombing Iran but you. This is an article about Iranian student protestors.
as part of a bigger campaign to manufacture consent for the attack about to happen to iran in the name of 'democracy'. this is iraq all over again, write it down.
"oh no! the students! we suddenly deeply care about students in this foreign country our allies want to attack so badly for years!" yeah, right.
Not suddenly at all. I followed the New Iran movement back in 2021. I cared about their cause then and I care about it now. Are you suggesting we shouldn't care about the plights of the proletariat around the world?
Trump is a fascist, but that doesn't mean I have to support the Ayatollah. And this article isn't about the impending US invasion, it's about the Iranian protesters. Get a clue.
Do you know what (to) corroborate means?