Not that I in any way support Israel’s campaign of violence, but I’m not sure these kinds of posts from and questionable news sources are doing anyone any favors. For those of us who already oppose the Israeli campaign, there’s nothing new here. For those who do, these kinds of sensationalist posts just push them farther back into their views.
The best case scenario is to open peoples’ eyes to the harm Israel is doing and convince them to change their opinion, which a more neutral has a better chance of doing.
Is it any less reliable than other state-affiliated news agency? Maybe. Depends on your perspective.
If you want the posts to fit an editorial framework you agree with, I would be more than happy to direct you to an RSS feed application so that you can subscribe to what you like without being burdened with my posts. Just let me know what your platform is. I know Reddit has severely damaged your mind and I’m glad to help.
You did know you can go find the news yourself instead of critiquing other people’s posting like a Piss Sommelier?
My dude, you’re posting on a social comments platform. If you don’t want other people to comment, then why post here?
You have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion other than saying “gee I wish that I was still on Reddit where I wouldn’t see Iranian or Russian news”. Even by the rules of “Reddit style” imageboards like this you should be ashamed of begging me to pretend I’m on reddit.
Guess what buddy I already knew you would grumble seeing my posts and I don’t care what you think because there are millions of utterly worthless replacements for you.
You are on a link aggregator website begging for more of the same Associated Press/AFP news sources, opeds from Zionist newspapers like The Atlantic and The New York Times. Even on its face, you’re a very bland and uninteresting person with no thoughts which aren’t interchangeable with every other mopey tech worker on reddit. But demanding more government censored sources on a free platform is downright insidious and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Wow. You’ll totally win hearts and minds talking like that.
Southern Boy. Hmm. Where in the South?
Using “hearts and minds” here is just too good. You do realize my OP post demonstrates the actual hearts and minds strategy of the US military? Terrorism combined with corrupt anthropology. Look up what happened to the “Human Terrain Project” researchers - I hope it happens to you!
Redditors just pathologically spout idioms even when it just deepens their appearance of idiocy.
I’m not here to cater to your editorial tastes or tut tut about online etiquette. You’re wasting your time just like you always do online.
Removed by mod
That last part, “… like you always do …” Is not a normal US speech pattern.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course it is. It’s not just a valid construction, it’s idiomatic!
Yet your uname is Southern Boy.
The Geography Understander has logged on. There are souths other than the Southern US.
It’s pathetic how you immediately jump to trying to insinuate that the other user is a foreigner pretending to be American so they can do dezinformatsiya when it is neither clear where they come from nor where they claim to come from.
but when you start talking Zionism, it gets close to antisemitism
Conflating anti-zionism and antisemitism is antisemitism, straight up, and it’s a form that zionists love using to silence opposition. Israel should not exist, and there is nothing antisemitic about that statement.
We love banning antisemitic zionists here folks, its a hell of a good time
“you’re not catching irony” is not a normal US speech pattern. Are you perhaps an agent of the Saudi government? They are quite influential.
Zionism is terrorism, you are just too cowardly to openly state your belief in terrorism. You wish for a kindlier, gentler terrorism.
I’ve got the impression that you have at some point decided to use a bit of your energy every day to make lemmy a worse place. Maybe this is even your outlook towards the world in general, I have no way to know. I just want to let you know that you are succeeding. :)
How butthurt are you over seeing news posts you dislike? You people are seriously pathetic.
Oh, sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding. Your news post is fine. It is the way you interact with others that made me just a bit sad.
Keep your concern trolling about Reddiquette to yourself or risk wasting more of our precious time on this earth.
Damn that’s crazy, I don’t remember asking you though. Why would I want the opinion of some pearl clutching, civility policing, tutting, preening, self-obsessed little liberal who thinks every post is for him? Why would I want the opinion of someone so cowardly they can’t call terrorism what it is? Why would you admit that?
Person who posts something on the internet: “omg why would you comment”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Hey, just as a heads up we discourage the posting of " media bias checkers" here because it is intellectually sloppy to outsource whether you should trust a source to some guy who has their own bias. And MBFC is just some guy, who has no credentials and doesn’t do any sort of scientific analysis to determine his ratings.
Please reply acknowledging you understand this within 48 hours.
Removed by mod
Oh wow, you’re conflating Israel and Jewishness, a common example of antisemitism. Lovely.
Bro. They aren’t even saying you’re wrong here. They’re saying it’s their sub, stop the bias check because your literally just supplying people with your bias. If it were ai you’d have more of a point but it’s quite literally your opinion based on your references and they don’t want that.
Stop crying and certainly don’t lash out with idiotic and frankly weird commentary on it being somehow antisemitic for people to think critically on their own.
Specifically they never said you couldn’t post your references and your opinion just don’t call it a fact check.
Dunno what they said but wouldn’t using MBFC and my own knowledge be better than just my own knowledge and my own biases?
I guess I see it like this: if I think something is inaccurate should I debunk it or should I post “this random right winger online says it isn’t credible” (and MBFC is a right winger, but not a fascist)
Gee, I wonder why the hobby of a conservative Zionist masquerading as a fact and bias checker would be opposed to a source from Iran… 🙄
Careful. World admins may see this and get mad 😂
unironically using MBFC
Is there something I don’t know about MBFC? Edit: typo
MBFC presents itself as “fact check” but it is really just subjective determinations slotted into an inappropriate analysis as judged by a political illiterate. The overall curve of “centrist” sources being high on facts simply reveals their own bias, where they fail to recognize the non-factual components of those sources, the train of think tanks, and whether topics are covered at all, or in certain contexts.
Ironically, the only time I ever see anyone trying to unironically make use of it and cite it is so that they can avoid critically engaging with media. They just say, “this website says it’s bad” and turn their brains off, successfully short-circuiting cognitive dissonance.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was actually useful, but admit I had never looked into it and its sources.
Media criticism is a journey! It’s good that you wanted to question sources and spent some time doing so. The annoying thing about media criticism is that there are a lot of tropes and think tanks and journalistic malpractices. And often no alternative information, so to understand a given news piece you might have to use a biased source with a poor track record (e.g. New York Times), look into the author, review all of the sources, try to see what might be accurate vs. what is PR BS, and still end up (correctly) thinking, “it’s only 50:50 that the main claim us even true”. After a while it gets easier because you know the think tanks, or already know enough about the subject matter to spot BS, or immediately notice that a given article is full of unsourced editorialization masquerading as journalism.
If you like podcasts, Citations Needed is an entertaining one that by two journalists goes over a trope or topic per episode. There are also transcripts available. I also recommend that people check out FAIR.org, a site focused on media criticism and more specifically calling out ongoing bad faith practices for current topics
He is literally just some guy with no expertise in critical media analysis. He just made a website where he gives his opinions on how much you should trust a source.
It’s not a good source. Biased towards whatever the guy who created it things. Thinks left v right in terms of usa so just about everything is left of center even when center. Oh an propaganda is okay as long as it’s western. Cause VOA and radio free Asia are given glowing marks
Thank you for the clarification, I had thought it was a useful site, but admit I never looked into its sources.
It’s just some zionist’s blog site. You or I could make a site called official world bias meter and it’d be no more credible.
I can’t recall if it is the MBFC person or the bot maker but one of them staunchy doesn’t think there’s a distinction between ‘liberal’ and ‘left’.
So the inherent bias in their bias analysis is off the charts. Xzibit would be proud.
there’s a bot that will do this for you over on lemmy.world. i think you’d like it better over there.
Noooooo, don’t call out literal state propaganda, I like the headline D,:
LOL, nice headline. These people are freaking nuts.
What else do you call the bombing of civilians.
When a non-state actor does it, it is terrorism. When a state actor does it, it is called war crimes.
While a funny quip, states are capable of terrorism. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, the blitz. Ya know I was hoping I would off the top of my head remember more than just WW2 examples, but here we are. I mean, besides Israel at the moment but that’s the topic so doesn’t really fit to the list.
Less of a quip, more of a UN definition.
Simplistic rhetoric and superficial understanding.
Oh no, let me understand the perspective of people bombing civilians to cause them to lose faith in the local militia group for the sake of colonization and conquest. I’m sure they have a good reason.
So reductive, inflamatory, and ill-informed. It’s kind of sad.
And the Nazis had a point or two as well didn’t they? Let’s break down the pros and cons of genocide, let’s not be so hasty to judge.
Unlike you, I don’t need to wait for historians to reach a consensus on the evils of my time.
Keep it coming. You are cracking me up. Nazi comparisons now, and I’m the unhinged one?
Pretty normal to call a state that commits genocide a Nazi state as that’s the thing the Nazis did. That and the race mixing laws. Don’t forget it’s illegal to race mix in Israel. Ethno state, famously also a Nazi thing. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s a pretty direct comparison.
You deserve to be belted until you spin like a fucking beyblade
You sound like a terrorist.
Simplistic rhetoric and superficial understanding.
Fantastic title
