On May 30, The New York Times published an article. Beneath its "factual" tone lies a narrative built on: selective emphasis, speculative framing, and emotional anchoring.
This (long) piece will offer you a forensic breakdown - line by line, technique by technique - of how the NYT's piece shapes public perception under the disguise of journalism, as taught in my online course "How to REALLY read the news".
A few words on my approach first:
There's nothing I hate more than the lack of intellectual discipline and rigor. This article of mine is not here to support Palantir. You'll see, it's not the point. I'm interested in decoding and observing Grey Zone dynamics.
Therefore, I'll focus on the techniques used to frame a narrative. I'll focus on what's left unsaid. What's missing. The manipulation of sources and more.
I give my readers the tools, they do whatever they want with it.
Now, let's start with a bit of theory:
1. What is the source trying to make me feel, assume, or accept without proving it?
→ Look for emotion, framing, and suggestion.
2. Are the facts distinct from the interpretations?
→ Separate what is known from what is inferred.
3. Who benefits from the narrative as framed?
→ Identify the political, institutional, or ideological incentives.
4. What key elements are missing?
→ Silence is often more revealing than speech.
5. Are sources verifiable, named, and expert in the domain they speak about?
→ Anonymous + emotional ≠ reliable.
6. How is visual language (photos, captions) used to shape the subconscious reading?
7. Is this article describing an actual event or constructing a hypothetical threat?
→ Threat inflation is a core tactic of narrative control.
From fact to fiction: how the opening sets the tone!
The article opens with this statement: