Reuters invents a new word for "torture" : ManufacturingConsent

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The article is here and can trivially be found in ~10 seconds (as another comment noted they don't have it for context).

JERUSALEM, May 21 (Reuters) - Western governments voiced outrage on Thursday after Israel’s far-right security minister posted a video of himself taunting Gaza-bound flotilla activists being pinned to the ground, with two later alleging they were physically assaulted in detention.

Seems pretty cut-and-dry why they're reporting this. And wow, wouldn't you know it:

They have other articles focused on the physical abuse.
The specific photo in the OP appears to be from after the article in the OP was published. (Photo: ~17 hours ago, i.e. around 14:00 UTC May 21; article: 09:14 UTC May 21).

I'm so shocked that this post omits context to craft a narrative. I can't believe someone would manufacture consent like that.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Gaza-bound flotilla activists being pinned to the ground, with two later alleging they were physically assaulted in detention.

Not sure why you feel so smug about your post when your own paragraph states the torture.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

My own paragraph? You mean the very first one of the Reuters article being disingenuously shown but not linked here? I'm literally showing that Reuters covered this essentially immediately within the article about the mockery – and that there are others without the mockery as the focus.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Yes it's not in the title. Title's are basically all that matters in the news because nobody reads articles. I'll give Reuters some props though since they just released an article about the abuse of the activists and they're basically the only ones which mention rape in the title.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Title's are basically all that matters in the news because nobody reads articles.

Well I guess no wonder people have terrible reading comprehension..

I'll give Reuters some props

I still don't get what reuters has done wrong..

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Just imagine if the video actually was showing Uyghurs in China. Would the headline say:

"Outrage grows after Chinese minister mocks Uyghurs"?

Two things would change: firstly China would be held responsible. Not one single Chinese minister. Second it would contain the word torture and/or worse.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Outrage grows after Chinese minister mocks Uyghurs"?

If a Chinese minister posted a video of himself mocking Uyghurs and that video generated outrage, that headline would be pretty reasonable, no?

The specific news story referenced in this post is about minister Ben-Gvir posting a video where he mocks the detainees. The article says "Minister mocks detainees". Please tell me what the ideal headline should be, I'm very curious.

firstly China would be held responsible. Not one single Chinese minister. Second it would contain the word torture and/or worse.

Ok, and you think that makes for a better headline?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If a Chinese minister posted a video of himself mocking Uyghurs and that video generated outrage, that headline would be pretty reasonable, no?

No it would say "China" not "Chinese minister". This isn't some fringe thing the Israeli minister did on his own. It's national policy under full responsibility of all of Israel.

France has quite literally used this logic put all the blame on one single person (who doesn't care about France anyway) and take absolutely no real action against Israel. This is not an accident, this is intentional.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This isn't some fringe thing the Israeli minister did on his own. It's national policy under full responsibility of all of Israel.

The article is about a video posted on twitter by Ben-Gvir. Of course he isn't doing it on his own for personal fun, of course he is doing it on behalf of Israel, but the headline is still pretty reasonable.

But since you agree, please, I beg you to enlighten me. What should the headline be?

France has quite literally used this logic put all the blame on one single person (who doesn't care about France anyway) and take absolutely no real action against Israel. This is not an accident, this is intentional.

Not just France, virtually every western country and Israel itself is doing that. That's literally what the article you posted is reporting on:

Poland's foreign minister called for Ben-Gvir to be banned from entering the country.

The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said Ben-Gvir had "betrayed (the) dignity of his nation".

Netanyahu said Ben-Gvir's conduct was "not in line with Israel's values and norms".

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Outrage after Israel releases video abusing of flotilla activists taken hostage on international waters" would be a good start.

The reason why people often get confused in the community is because headlines can be factually correct, but the headlines would look completely differently if it was an adversary of the US doing the same things. Either using much more emotive language, or even going to speculation levels about things which never happened. See also the titles of the of October 7 rape hoax media spam which we now know never happened and had absolutely zero evidence.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

"Outrage after Israel releases video abusing of flotilla activists taken hostage on international waters" would be a good start.

But that's the thing. The outrage is seems to be less about the detention and abuse, but more about the public humiliation and mockery..

The narrative is something like "It's justified they were detained, a little bit of force is to be expected, and it probably wasn't as bad since the activists lie in order to make Israel look bad".

But when you have the security minister posting a video where he is gleefully and proudly mocking detainees, that's going too far. It robs the situation of any plausible deniability and forces the origin countries of the activists to express public outrage.

You can bet your ass that if the video was not posted, the expressed outrage of the various countries would be minimal in comparison.

the headlines would look completely differently if it was an adversary of the US doing the same things.

Once again, I'm familiar with the concept of media bias.. I still think the headline is perfectly readonable.

[–] BigMike@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Admitting to not reading articles when arguing about a topic is definitely one of the choices to make

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Since you're in the business of "reading articles":

Social media users probably won’t read beyond this headline, researchers say

[–] silentaba@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reuters is where half the world copies their news from. If they're saying it, it's everywhere.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Most Western outlets in the propaganda multiplier take care to select the most pro-Israel headlines.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your post implies that reuters is downplaying or ignoring the abuse and that they are calling the abuse "mocking". That's not the case. The article is about a minister mocking the protesters for getting abused.

In other words, the article's title is absolutely correct.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Would Reuters use the same title if this was Uyhur Muslims in China yes or no.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This can't really be answered categorically without the actual specific scenario occurring again but specifically with Uyghur Muslims in China and a Chinese official of similar rank and standing doing the same thing and publishing a video of it but even accepting that western media sources have double standards and biases I kind of think the answer to your question would be yes. I mean it's just literally descriptive of what happened. A minister mocked the flotilla activists. The article is one of many about those that took part in the flotilla that were abused and tortured by the IDF and previous such flotillas and the general pattern of reporting has not favourable PR for Israel. Specifically even the claim of torture is something I was able to find within seconds in major sources like CNN. This particular event, within the context of existing negative press, focussed upon this specific outrage that happens to have sparked particular ire worldwide hence getting it's whole own article separate and apart from the events of the flotilla and its interception.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"A minister mocked the activists"

No Israel bound and tortured the activists. This wasn't a single minister. It's a coordinated attempt to pin it all on a singular person which is obviously false.

Previous flotilla coverage has been hyper positive of Israel. You wouldn't know German journalist Anna Liedtke was raped if you read Reuters.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No Israel bound and tortured the activists. This wasn't a single minister.

Bellow there are two seperate events. They are related in some ways, but they are still 2 separate events happening at different points in time:

Israel bound and tortured the activists.
A minister posts a video of himself where he mocks the activists in point 1.

Because they are two seperate events happening at different times, journalists will write seperate articles with separate headlines.

The one in your post was about event number 2. But there are other articles about event number 1:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/freed-gaza-flotilla-activists-allege-israeli-abuse-including-rape-2026-05-22/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-aid-flotilla-says-israeli-forces-intercepted-41-vessels-10-still-sailing-2026-05-19/

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/israels-treatment-gaza-flotilla-members-is-abominable-canada-pm-carney-says-2026-05-20/

Previous flotilla coverage has been hyper positive of Israel.

Western media tends to have a pro-Israel bias. Most people here are aware of this. The issue is you are doing an incredibly bad job at getting that point across to the point of absurdity..

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

*Below.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The original article isn't linked so I don't know. Based on picture that is torture. Now if he was making fun of them as being weak to the torture or crying as he whipped them that's mocking. Which topic was the article about?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Im assuming those are marks from rubber bullets that were used during the arrests. So Ben Gvir technically wasnt the one that tortured them directly. However he was present while they were being tortured in the video even if it was not by his command. So its a lie by omission as usual. Reuters has been constantly dropping these kinds of headlines. Its pretty sad how worthless they have become.

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They weren't arrested, they were illegally abducted in international waters, an act of piracy. They peacefully cooperated. Torture and sexual violence are widespread and systemic every day occurrences in "Israel's" prisons. As the head of national security, Ben Gvir is legally responsible for all the rape and torture under his command.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Arrest doesnt mean "legal" arrest. It just means seizing a person. Whether that arrest was legal or not is an entirely separate matter. In this case of course it was very much illegal.

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's another lie through omission, because it carries a connotation of legality. That's why you don't read news like "the convicted criminal arrested his victim in the park".

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sure but the headline makes them see more in the right.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok, sorry I'm not an expert in torture scars as I have never tortured anyone. I'm not saying they should be excused for the torture just asking what the article was about. I could imagine an article talking about him walking through the groups mocking/making fun of/humiliating the victims, that's an extension of how much of an asshole he is and should be highlighted in articles. For example imagine if there was a video of Hitler laughing as he watched jews choke to death in the showers. That would be a headline above Hitler killed more jews.

If that's the case I'd phrase it as "Ben gvir mocks victims of his torture" but I'm not in the media or press for a reason.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I’d phrase it as “Ben gvir mocks victims of his torture”

You wouldn't be in the media for long after writing that.

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What would even cause wounds like that? A metal pipe?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

Shot by rubber bullets

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Was the minister the one inflicting the blows? No? Ok, so "mocks" definitely seems like the right word.

I'm just so tired of the loudest people against this horrible stuff often being folks with room temperature IQ's.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago

room temperature IQ's.

Ironic apostrophe.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Was the minister the one inflicting the blows? No?

So you're saying other actors participated in this and it wasn't just the minister?

You almost made it to the conclusion in the post but somehow came up short. Good try though.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The point is that while there was literally torture going on, what the title instead focuses on is on another unrelated minister mocking the activists. No one is saying that the minister was the one to do the torture or whatever scenario you got cooked up, the issue is that the title is not highlighting what the main story is, but some comparatively much more minor issue happening in parallel.

My protip: if you think "wow I cant believe someone is actually this dumb" it's more likely that you misunderstood something than that the other person really is as dumb as they seem to you. And you would look a lot smarter if you first checked "Do you actually mean x or am I misunderstanding something?" before posting smug one-liners.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not a new word.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I guess less a new “word” than a new euphemism.

Inventing Reality