The Resistance group said it targeted the Kiryat Shmona settlement with a barrage of rockets, resulting in fires according to Israeli media. Firefighting teams were dispatched to the area in an attempt to extinguish the fires.
Hezbollah also struck the Meggido military airbase west of Afula - north of Jenin - three times throughout the early hours of the day with salvos of Fadi 1 and Fadi 2 rockets.
Additionally, in a strategic operation, the Resistance announced targeting with Fadi rockets the Israeli base, which is the Israeli occupation army’s main transport and logistical support base for the northern region.
Furthermore, the group targeted the logistical warehouses of the Israeli 146th Brigade at the Naftali base. A northern correspondent for the Israeli i24NEWS confirmed that Hezbollah had hit “a very large weapons depot and a logistical center belonging to the [Israeli] army,” noting ongoing efforts to extinguish the fires around the targeted site.
Okay reporting is reporting but speaking as another pro-Palestinian guy couldn’t you have found a better source?
Almaydeen is a great source. They are Lebanese.
I mean it is a Lebanese paper but it’s also notoriously biased towards Iran (and therefore Hezbollah) and Syria, and Hezbollah is suspected to be their source of funding. They’re just not the most likely to impartially report on Hezbollah’s activities in the same way people don’t unconditionally trust Al-Jazeera’s reporting on Qatar. Also the title is oozing bias for something that’s not an opinion peace.
Do you have evidence of Al Mayadeen lying or falsely reporting something?
They are biased in the sense that they amplify resistance voices where mainstream media crushes those voices. But I have never seen them falsify reports.
Apparently they failed three fact checks on mediabiasfactcheck.com, so you can check that. Also even if they don’t falsely report they can omit information or put a spin on things (for example in this case there could be other targets in this round of bombings that don’t sound as good and were left out). In these cases it’s better as a rule to compare the reporting with that of other sources.
MBFC is heavily biased in favor of Israel. Their failed fact checks appear to be three videos which predated the article and were thus misreports. Western newspapers should have had all their falsified reports about beheaded babies rated as misinformation but those are not mentioned.
MBFC is heavily biased in favor of Israel.
Yeah I know that, and in fact am not one to trust their ratings unconditionally, but they don’t outright lie to my knowledge.
Their failed fact checks appear to be three videos which predated the article and were thus misreports.
Yeah that makes sense.
Western newspapers should have had all their falsified reports about beheaded babies rated as misinformation but those are not mentioned.
Definitely true.
I don’t really trust these random sites. If you don’t have evidence to show me then I will respectfully dismiss your claims, as I follow Al-Mayadeen myself and know their reporting well.
even if they don’t falsely report they can omit information
That’s why you always read the reports from all perspectives to fill in the gaps. You literally discount the “our freedom fighters” vs. “Their terrorists” speak yourself, instead of your convenient solution of appealing to mbfc (appeal to authority)
In these cases it’s better as a rule to compare the reporting with that of other sources.
It would be great if you actually lived by your own words and engaged with the topic at hand and not lazily cite mbfc.
It would be great if you actually lived by your own words and engaged with the topic at hand
I literally did that by asking if there’s another source. I only cited MBFC because they did fact checks of the site (with a healthy dose of bias, admittedly). I wasn’t trying to cite the reliability or bias ratings because I know they’re basically arbitrary.
Apparently that doesn’t matter.
Good on you for looking at facts that support you objectively.
Hey, please don’t use mediabiasfactcheck, the guy is just a center right tool without any qualifications to be making statements about the accuracy of reporting.
Also, please remember that fact checkers aren’t really useful for determining the accuracy of a piece and you should practice “critical reading” skills instead of relying on random people who make websites to tell you how truthful something is.
Please respond to this message and confirm you will follow the instructions within 48 hours!
Thanks!
Apparently they failed three fact checks on mediabiasfactcheck.com
https://lemmy.ml/post/12705767/8913172
But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. >Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.
The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
https://lemmy.ml/post/13566156/9605612
I said “these kinds of graphs,” of which there are many https://duckduckgo.com/?q=media+bias+chart&iax=images&ia=images
But you’ve sparked an idea for an interesting project: use MBFC’s API to create one of these graphs from t>heir own data. Doing a little googling, it seems that scripts and data dumps aren’t hard to come by.
I think armchair media analyst Dave M. Van Zandt is going on vibes. I don’t think he understands corporate & think tank media. Does he know who Walter Lippman or Edward Bernays were, or what the Council on Foreign Relations (“least biased” 🤡) is or made note of its prominent media members? Does he know about the Powell memorandum or the Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy?
No results found for
site:mediabiasfactcheck.com "manufacturing consent".I’ve seen The Grayzone debunk the New York Times’ lies many times, and yet:
Also, in what universe is the neoliberal, anti-labor NYT center-left? And if the Grayzone in the ultraviolet territory, where does that leave the explicitly Communist Monthly Review, outside of MBFC’s Overton window? Surprise, it’s to the right of it:
https://lemmy.ml/post/17665401/12094932
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Is western media unbiased? Even WION is no longer as honest and impartial as it used to be - after Youtube temporarily froze their channel and scared them into submission.
Is western media unbiased?
Nope. Which is why I also don’t take Western media’s reporting on Palestine for granted.
Removed by mod
This is definitely not a great source, but I’m counting one population center and three Israeli bases in the article. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
Don’t engage with the bots.
Looked through history, they aren’t a bot.
Did you look, or just assume because you disagree?
I guess I’m just better at spotting them. Cheers.
At what point does a nation cross a line from claiming to be solely acting in self defense to becoming a constant aggressor in a region
This is what defending yourself looks like.
Israel’s version is bombing children to pieces.
