To avoid my response to the article, “Israel stuns Hezbollah with unprecedented attack”(“Daily News”, September 19, 2024), being labelled biased, I turned to ChatGPT to criticise the article in not more than 400 words.
ChatGPT’s response: “The article … presents a one-sided narrative that not only glorifies Israel’s military capabilities but also demonises Hezbollah and Iran without offering a balanced perspective on the broader context. This lack of neutrality undermines the credibility of the piece and simplifies a complex and ongoing geopolitical conflict into a ‘good vs evil’ scenario.
“One of the main criticisms of the article is its overtly biased language. Terms like ‘brilliant’, ‘stroke of absolute genius’, and ‘state-of-the-art’ are used to describe Israeli actions, while Hezbollah is referred to as ‘a brutal network of killing machines’ with ‘zero conscience or respect for human life’. Such phrasing is inflammatory and does not foster an objective understanding of the situation. By choosing to paint Israel as the unequivocal hero and Hezbollah as the absolute villain, the piece neglects the civilian suffering on both sides of the conflict.
“Moreover, the article heavily relies on speculative claims, such as the assertion that ‘some say more than 2 500 were injured or killed’. Without citing credible sources or official reports, this claim raises concerns about the accuracy of the information. It is crucial to verify casualty figures, especially in such sensitive matters, to avoid misinformation.
“The portrayal of Hezbollah as uniformly evil and Iran as a puppet master further perpetuates stereotypes and encourages a simplified view of Middle Eastern geopolitics. The complexities of Lebanon’s political landscape, the influence of various factions, and the broader regional dynamics, including the roles of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others, are completely absent from the discussion.
“Furthermore, the article also uses religious language, such as calling Israel ‘the apple of God’s eye’ and ‘fighter of the Free World’. This approach risks alienating readers who may view the conflict through different lenses, whether political, cultural or humanitarian. Injecting religious justification into what is fundamentally a territorial and political conflict adds to the article’s lack of impartiality.
“In conclusion, while the article aims to highlight a significant military event, it falls short of offering a nuanced, well-rounded analysis of the situation. A more balanced approach would consider the perspectives of all parties involved, rather than resorting to polarising rhetoric.”
* Adiel Ismail, Mountview.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Daily News