From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:01:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
<
hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:03:42 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
* Sam Plusnet <013VR.3409$uw7.2586@fx16.ams1> :
Wrote on Sun, 7 Jun 2026 01:35:08 +0100:
On 06/06/2026 11:10, Steve Hayes wrote:
I keep hearing news reports about so many people being killed in such
and such a place (currently Gaza and Lebanon) "since the ceasefire
came into effect."
But it seems to me that if people are being killed, the ceasefire
has
not "come into effect". A ceasefire has been announced, but fire has
not ceased, so saying that it has come into effect is misinformation.
Declaring a ceasefire is an attempt to control the narrative. It
doesn't have to be a real ceasefire - but a partial one does allow you
to restock ammunition and plan where to hit next[1].
[1] Just say that the other side violated the ceasefire when you are
ready to restart.
When I suggested these announcements were merely propaganda, meant for
you, dear reader, someone else suggested it is not more serious than >>misinformation or propaganda, as it is straight out gaslighting.
I think "proclaimed" or "announced" would be more accurate than "came
into effect".
"Came into effect" implies that all parties not merely agreed to the >ceasefire, but actually ceased firing.
News media should rather report how many people have been killed since
the ceasefire ended, or was broken by one or other of the parties.
I've been musing about how difficult it is for media (or anyone) to
quantify the size of an attack. There is EFFORT and then there is
EFFECT.
EFFORT - How many people or planes or missiles were involved? How
expensive was it to launch? How long did it take?
EFFECT - How much property value was destroyed, and was this
military? How many people killed or injured? (And were they proper
targets? rather than civilian water facilities, or schools.)
--
Rich Ulrich
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2