Google "Threatens"

State: Hey, Google, i see you have much money. I have +1 idea what you should spend it on.
Google: Get off of me, i do not pay more.
State: Then i ban your service.
Google: Then i obey your ban and close my service.
Journalists: Google is threatening the state.

The background is a conflict between Google and the Australian state. The state demands Google to pay for the journals for quoting headlines from them in Google's search results. I am used to the states having such ideas. But i was surprised by the wording of the journals reporting about this story. The journalists flipped the roles in a conflict between threatener and threatened. They did not lie in facts but they do lie in wording. Only in wording but i still think this is significant. Becasue they do not only alter the story but they totally flip it.

Which journals? Many. If only some did it then i would not care. Search on the web for "google threatens Australia".

What is the reason of this phenomena?

One quick answer is that the leaders of the Australian state used the "Google threatens us" phrase too. But the journalists do not quote this, they use it by their own.

Do not be so strict - you could say - they just fall for the demagogue trick of politicians. Journalists do not know that politicians are demagogue lying machines? They do. How can they not spot such a big mistake? I did at first sight, and it even bothered me enough to write an article about it.

Do the journalists lie? In my opinion: not intentionally. Rather: they also believe in the correctness of their wording. How can this be? I see only one good explanation: The journalists are biased. Towards the state. By much, as how they word is the opposite of the reality. Someone does such only if he deeply loves the threatener. What is the entity that is loved deeply by its fans, they overlook its sins, despise who disobeys it? God. Journalists love the state as their god.

You think i overstate, right? Maybe. But lets make a thought experiment. Let us take away from the story the god status of the state. Let the state be only a normal person. Let it be a hotel, which accepts guests on its territory, in exchange for some fee. Some day it increases the fee. A guest responds: "That is too much for me, i rather leave the hotel." Can you imagine this story to be worded by the journalists as "the guest threatened the hotel"? Despite that in this example story the hotel does not even commit aggression and the state does.