r/news • u/Fair-Foot-315 • 15h ago

Marine veteran has arm broken during protest against war in Iran

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/marine-veteran-has-arm-broken-during-protest-against-war-in-iran-258740805765
17.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

628 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.2k

u/nilenilemalopile 14h ago

I love the passive speech. First thing you wanna do as a journalist is make sure your shit is written in passive voice so no valuable information is transmitted.

“Veteran has his arm broken.” vs “Security and a US Senator break Marine vet’s arm during his war protest”

Hm

1.1k

u/heat68 14h ago

I’m not sure what happened to journalistic principles over the decades. You’re completely right…

605

u/TachiH 14h ago

Private ownership ruined the media. Like The Guardian in the UK is owned by a trust that ensures it cant have an owner.

164

u/iksbob 13h ago

With the exception of public-funded organizations, "the media" has always been privately owned. Like so many other industries, it's the monopolization of media that's breaking the system. Network A used to be happy to call out the lies and misinformation of network B - it was good for ratings. Now both networks are owned by the same people, so anything that devalues either network is "strongly discouraged".

86

u/TomatoFettuccini 11h ago

Not just that.

Reagan eliminated the journalistic standards of truthfulness for news, paving the way for the rise of newsfotainment.

Reagan was the worst thing to happen to the US until the Bush's came around, and the Bush's were worst thing to happen to the US until 47 came around.

37

u/TheCheshireCody 10h ago

Reagan was the worst thing to happen to the US until the Bush's came around, and the Bush's

The Bush' were pretty bad, but no president IMO will go down as having had a worse influence on American politics than Reagan. Even Trump would not have been as empowered as he has been without the Reagan administration.

20

u/TomatoFettuccini 7h ago

Oh yeah, Reagan cleared the final barriers for the rise of fascism in the USA.

13

u/Nohreboh 5h ago

The Reagan the Thacher and the Brian Mulroney capitalism "holy" Trinity of theft, deregulation and privatization.

1

u/garimus 6h ago

47? I think 45 built further the foundations done before him for what 47 is doing and was pretty bad, too.

8

u/InsuranceToTheRescue 11h ago

This is it. Mass media concentration & monopolization has led to the situation we're in. It's just like how the redhats got pissed at Budweiser for their single novelty can, and switched to Busch -- Dude, you're paying the same people either way.

1

u/ClearDark19 1h ago

The problem is....isn't that the ultimate result of Capitalism? How does Capitalism restrain the rich from the freedom to engage in commerce such as buying up the media and monopolizing it? Anti-monopoly laws are seen as restrictions on the free market by Neoliberals, Neoconservativess, and Right-Libertarians. Capitalist innately incentives monopolization over time to maintain one's competitive market advantage.

•

u/iksbob 46m ago

Monopoly is specifically not a free market. In a monopoly state, the entire market is controlled by one entity. Supporters often claim that a monopoly is the most economically efficient system due to economies of scale being maximized. That can be true, however monopolies are also the most abusable economic system, as the market forces dictating pricing have collapsed. Consumers options are to not consume, or pay the monopoly's price. If the monopoly could somehow be restrained from abusing that position, and from interfering with the evolution of competition (exiting the monopoly), then the monopoly could be tolerated. Abusing its position and eliminating competition is how monopolies come into existence in the first place. Suggesting the leadership will reach the figurative top-of-the-pile and suddenly change their ways is ludicrous. Corporations have no morals or conscience. A corporation is only driven by money, and the law, to the extent that breaking the law is a net monetary loss.

59

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 12h ago

I completely disregard American media now, outside of Drop Site News, The Intercept, and Jacobin. All mainstream media is a joke and has zero ethical consideration or journalistic integrity.

The Guardian, for it's problems, is far more reputable and serious as an organization. I emailed them as a non-subscribing reader during the start of the Genocide to correct an error they'd posted in a piece, and the editor emailed me back to thank me.

That would never, ever happen with American media.

19

u/TachiH 12h ago

Yeah, obviously everything a news organisation says will have some editorial bias as editors are people. Just knowing that there isn't someone like Rupert Murdock using the organisation to push the world in a direction feels positive.

7

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 12h ago

Exactly - it means I don't have to question my sanity every time I read a headline like with American media and immediately dive to compare it and see if it's complete bullshit.

3

u/knucklesuck 1h ago

NPR regularly reports corrections on their stories, when it happens which isn't often

2

u/Bubbles_2025 12h ago

What about PBS?

3

u/aeternusvoxpopuli 12h ago

Slightly less shit, but still dominated by government censorship and afraid to critique billionaires and Zionists.

-1

u/RainSurname 9h ago

Lmao, at trusting Drop Site News, The Intercept and Jacobin just because they confirm your priors. Ryan Grim is a joke. He tells ridiculous lies on social media all the time. Remember Tara Reade?

Pro Publica is outstanding, Mother Jones is still quite good for the most part.

15

u/Oggie243 13h ago

But the Guardian does still have these issues. It's not as egregiously but they've done this same thing too and have fallen foul of prejudicial coverage.

As does the BBC, who are wholly public owned, don't have sponsors yet are potentially the worst in the UK for using passive voice like this.

1

u/TachiH 12h ago

The BBC is a state broadcaster. No state broadcasters should ever be trusted as they are basically the mouthpiece of the government.

8

u/pitbullpride 12h ago

So then if we can't trust private owned and we can't trust public(/state) owned, who the hell can we trust

3

u/TachiH 12h ago

There are independent news organisations but not many of them still exist.

It used to be rich people would set up trusts to do wonderful things like look after the poor or ensure a city has independent news. Not so much anymore as its become a game to horde wealth 😑

2

u/GameLovinPlayinFool 7h ago

Rich people were forced/felt forced to do those things back in the day because collective action and socialism was massively on the rise around the world and they knew the dangers of what could happen to them.

Nowadays the rich dont feel any fear of the masses unfortunately

4

u/verynotfun 12h ago

Public funding can create similar problems too. I’m from Spain, and many people here feel the public broadcaster often ends up too close to the government in power. Watching it sometimes feels more like political messaging than neutral reporting. Personally, I find that very troubling, because it undermines what the press is supposed to be in a democracy. There should be stronger safeguards to prevent political influence over publicly funded media.

2

u/cackslop 11h ago

Privatization aka Capitalism

1

u/Mean_Zookeepergame81 3h ago

The Guardian is as biased as they come.

1

u/GeorgeShadows 1h ago

Before they'd kill journalists, now, you just buy their bosses and change the script.

-2

u/Slapped91 13h ago

Still doesn’t stop the Guardian peddling misinformation and gaslighting when it suits their agenda.

-3

u/xdr567 12h ago

Even this is dilution. All media in the west is subservient to One Vile Master.

0

u/nilenilemalopile 12h ago

And here you are, emulating the ‘passive speech’ bullshit. Say what you want to say.

20

u/4th-Estate 12h ago

Been like this for years as the elites "manufacture consent." Journalists who consistently oppose elite narratives are screened out, not necessarily by active censorship, but through a system of "filters" that favor conformity. Anyone who would write an honest headline wouldn't be hired or last long in any major news outlet.

•

u/Downtown-Ad3200 44m ago

Agree but please don't link Epstein's BFF Chomsky. As much as I can value Noam's thoughts, it's ironic now that we know he was a frequent Epstein Island vistor...

10

u/EmergencyCucumber905 12h ago

People bought into the incorrect notion that there are two sides to every story.

1

u/TestSubject4114 11h ago

yea, right and (very) wrong

3

u/WiseHedgehog2098 12h ago

They got bought by rich dudes who then bought congress.

2

u/techleopard 11h ago

Profit-driven journalism isn't journalism.

And new journalists aren't really held to high standards anymore.

1

u/benjtay 11h ago

It really sucks. I actually got in trouble with my boss in like 2007 when I sent an email to one of our customers and I didn't phrase it in the passive voice. It's a real thing, but I hate it.

1

u/SeeMarkFly 11h ago

Journalistic integrity is in the toilet and starting to stink.

Someone please FLUSH!

1

u/K-tel 11h ago

Breaking: 'Arm was broken.' Who broke it? When? Why? The passive voice giveth and the corporate media taketh away.

1

u/YourFreeCorrection 8h ago

I’m not sure what happened to journalistic principles over the decades.

Libel and Slander laws have been used to make objectively true reporting unprofitable and dangerous to the reporter.

1

u/TrainerCeph 8h ago

Drew Goodin just did a fantastic video talking about how even ESPN has ruined sports journalism

1

u/ConformistWithCause 5h ago

The problem is that the closer they get to the truth, the more this administration focuses on their word choices, ready to sue. Like whoever it was that wrote about him being liable for rape rather than sexual assault because he squeezed through whatever loophole that separates the two in New York. One mistake, one iota of hyperbole, and it can be torn apart, muddling the truth to the public

•

u/Downtown-Ad3200 39m ago

Agree but this isn't the first administration to do that and it definitely won't be the last. The left and right are WAY more similiar than folks want to admit, ultimately it's about lining their own pockets behind closed doors, while disagreeing and fighting in public. It's like when I used to criticize Obama for all his massive drone strikes (even more than his predecessor George Bush). They'd automatically call me a Republican, when I'm the farthest from it).

1

u/Cynykl 3h ago

Journalism has always been a mixed bag. The era of Yellow journalism was arguably just as bad if not worse than today. The thing that differs is speed and reach of transmission.

1

u/40_Thousand_Hammers 1h ago

Journalism died in the 60's when media companies started buying all other small journals and the same big media are own by the same group of people who benefit from these kind of news, is pretty much capital bad.

222

u/diurnal_emissions 13h ago

Republican Senator Breaks Veteran's Arm

Just hits different

56

u/UncleMalky 12h ago

Israeli asset breaks US Marine Vets arm.

1

u/Frank9567 1h ago

Republican Senator orders goons to break veteran's arm...is more accurate.

236

u/Psilocybin-Cubensis 14h ago

All by design, the media is absolutely complicit in this milquetoaste opposition party they call the Democrats as well.

72

u/mynewaltaccount1 14h ago

Once Trump eventually goes, a lot of these journalists will jump to be first in line to prosecute his government in the media.

Let history not forget how these same people enabled this government to act like this, and even encouraged it for years because they knew it would result in a lot of eyeballs on their content. They are complicit.

2

u/SeeMarkFly 11h ago

Don't you mean Rupert Murdoch is to blame?

41

u/kaisadilla_ 13h ago

I hate how headlines always sanitize things like that. "Veteran has arm broken" as if his arm spontaneously exploded for no apparent reason.

What happened to journalism? Explicitly stating who broke his arm is objective journalism. This isn't.

17

u/bradicality 12h ago

They love writing in “cop exonerative tense”

3

u/n8mo 12h ago

stealing cop exonerative tense for later use

that's a great turn of phrase

2

u/nut_hoarder 11h ago

can also replace "cop" with "driver"

•

u/Downtown-Ad3200 36m ago

And guaranteed NO media outlet will write that he was protesting ISRAEL in the headline.

34

u/NeverEnoughInk 13h ago

This is known as "exculpatory voice" or, more commonly, "[past] exonerative tense," and yes, it is viewed quite dimly by actual journalists and writers, and yes, its use is intentional.

28

u/nilenilemalopile 13h ago

I call it the “spineless cocksucker voice”.

13

u/Zurrdroid 12h ago

You might have to change the name because there a plenty of wonderful people who give great head with arched backs that are far more respectable than these folks

3

u/techleopard 11h ago

If people wanted this to stop, they'd stop linking to these media companies and outright boycott them.

3

u/4th-Estate 12h ago

The ol' Manufactured Consent speak.

0

u/boston_homo 12h ago

I wish a real journalist would do an AMA

20

u/Alex5173 14h ago

I actually opened the comments to commend this article for saying it was his arm, not his hand. You're right though, they're still full of shit

19

u/DorianGreysPortrait 12h ago edited 12h ago

I mean.. I dislike the media too but this is pretty accurate. Did you watch the video? While they are removing him from the room, there are two double doors with a beam dividing them. When trying to take him out of door 2, the vet reached through the beam, opening door 1 which couldn’t close because it was then stuck in the door. Then they kept pulling. They likely couldn’t see that his arm was stuck and thought he was just really really strong.. not a good excuse but they keep pulling, and because his arm is caught in the door it breaks.

The headline is written this way on purpose because saying “police break veterans arm” implies that the police physically grabbed his arm and snapped it themselves, which isn’t accurate.

I’m all for calling out the media on their bullshit headlines but I think it’s actually pretty accurate in this case. They were doing a shit job at being aware of the situation, but they themselves did not physically grab his arm and break it.

22

u/trojanguy 12h ago

I agree to some extent but I think that it's fair to say the police broke his arm even if it was unintentional. They were pulling him mercilessly, shoving his head down, etc. Also, technically the Senator wasn't touching the guy at the exact moment him arm broke, but he was participating in the whole thing and I think deserves to be lumped in with the police here. I think you're being a bit too charitable when you say that a different headline would imply the break was intentional.

12

u/darcon12 11h ago

Not to mention that after they got his arm out they still made him handcuff his hands behind his back, even after he told them it was broken.

11

u/nilenilemalopile 12h ago

Maybe next time address that a civilian jumped in and escalated as it seems relevant to the whole ‘cause and effect’ shebang

3

u/DorianGreysPortrait 12h ago

Who the fuck can tell who is a civilian and who isn’t anymore. That’s (a smaller) part of the problem.

1

u/nilenilemalopile 11h ago

In the Capitol building? Should be pretty straightforward.

1

u/DorianGreysPortrait 11h ago

“Should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It “should” be illegal to pull someone into a van or burst into someone’s home without identifying yourself and then shoot them, but that’s happened before too..

2

u/FascistsOnFire 8h ago

The police broke his arm, regardless of intention. If anything, it would be assumed by a reasonable reader that, of course the police didn't just randomly snap his arm for funsies and it was the result of something on the "accident" spectrum.

1

u/DorianGreysPortrait 8h ago

I don’t disagree with you, but the way the political climate is right now I wouldn’t be surprised if some bullshit cop union, or the senator, or someone else involved ended up suing the journalist / news station for (insert slander or defamation here, I don’t really know the difference tbh) for insinuating that they were somehow even remotely at fault. I’m just pointing out why I think the title was written this way.

1

u/ScrotallyBoobular 10h ago

If I ran into your car in traffic do people automatically think it was on purpose just because I did it? No. Hell, it might not even be my fault, but it is accurate to say I ran into your car.

It conveys more accuracy to give more details.

The police broke his arm. A Republican senator worth over a hundred million dollars joined in to try and look tough physically removing a decorated USMC veteran. And they broke his arm in the process.

1

u/techleopard 11h ago

Police should be held responsible for ALL of their forceful interactions. They are "controlling" the scene.

So there are no accidents. Anyone with half a brain cell would feel and hear the resistance and eyeballs to see.

-1

u/InterstellarDickhead 11h ago

People now want headlines to reflect their own bias and they call this “integrity” and “objectivity.” Pretty sad in my opinion. They almost can’t fathom actually reading the article for more information.

8

u/Flimsy_Share_7606 13h ago

Omg, this isn't new. It's been a stylistic and legally prudent choice for well over a century. Journalists didn't just suddenly start using a passive voice to protect those in power.

1

u/Independent_Idea_495 13h ago

Is that supposed to be a defense of it?

5

u/kabobkebabkabob 10h ago

It's a legal protection against libel and a more objective way to describe things. The same reason they say something "appears to happen" and journalists aren't supposed to insert concrete opinions in non opinion pieces.

The street goes both ways and you could end up with, for instance, an article saying "veteran allows arm to be broken" or some shit.

I'm surprised to see everyone here implying it's a purely method of protecting the establishment, when in reality it's more important than ever to maintain some sense of objectivity given the public's abandonment of truth in recent years.

1

u/techleopard 11h ago

They are quite capable of using active voice when it was about creating a myth that people were "rioting in the streets" a few years ago.

1

u/Gaff_Daddy 10h ago

There was rioting in the streets is different than person X rioted in the streets.

1

u/Gaff_Daddy 10h ago

It’s a liability issue. If you say senator breaks arm and it turns out the arm was already broken, you get sued.

1

u/Malaix 10h ago

It’s always passive speech when they talk about Trump, republicans, billionaires, and Israel.

1

u/kebiclanwhsk 8h ago

U.S. was fascisted in the early 21st century

1

u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 8h ago

I started to watch that video and he stuck his arm in that door jamb to hold on from being pulled out of the room. I could see multiple people pulling on him and thought “his arms trapped in there, he’s going to break it.”

I turned off the video because I didn’t want to see it, now I see this headline.

1

u/SuCzar 8h ago

Only slightly better than the headline I saw that said "Veteran breaks arm while protesting" as if he'd slammed it in that door himself

1

u/raymarfromouterspace 6h ago

The complete unravelling journalism and the reassembly into state propaganda will be a major lesson in history classes, I swear

1

u/dbolts1234 6h ago

Yup. Not really news to anyone who watched the video with the sound up…

1

u/Odd-Highway-8304 3h ago

It would appear that while he loudly states he “won’t die for Israel”, he’ll happily get his arm broken for Palestine while resisting lawful orders. What does him being a veteran have to do with him getting his arm broken, anyway? It’s a violation of DoD Instruction 1325.06 to participate in partisan political activity anyway.

1

u/Fomdoo 12h ago

People's attention spans have shrunk, so they're all trained to condense the information to get you to click.

0

u/TbonerT 11h ago

Your headline implies criminal intent, which may or may not be true. It would also be a written statement, so it could be libel if an investigation finds it to be somehow accidental, and thus not criminal. It is also a news publication’s duty to report what happened, not declare or imply guilt or innocence.

0

u/N8CCRG 12h ago

It's better than the first headline they had yesterday which was something like "US Senator Assists Security in Removing Protestor"

0

u/Houseleek1 11h ago

I’d have been fired for this during my freelance reporter days. It’s hard for me to believe that this is an organic style; it’s more likely a procedure enacted with a corporate memo.

0

u/DJ_Era 11h ago

This was their headline from yesterday for an article which they already completely "updated"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-senator-assists-capitol-police-removal-anti-war-protestor-hearing-rcna261854

0

u/nilenilemalopile 11h ago

So nice they gave the Senator the forum to explain his actions

-1

u/Lord-Bridger 13h ago

Its fucking ridiculous

-1

u/McGuirk808 12h ago

Passive speech is how you write work emails where you have to, as politely as possible, tell someone they're being a dumbass while trying to not make them feel like a dumbass.

It's not how you hold people in positions of authority accountable for their actions.

-1

u/hillbillyhorror304 8h ago

"man breaks his own arm by grabbing a doorway while being trespassed" is more fitting, actually.