246
‘Total outrage’: White House condemns Israeli settlers’ attack on Gaza aid trucks
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
246 points (98.4% liked)
World News
39041 readers
2373 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Guardian – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: Medium Credibility
About MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Alternative Rating
What's the credibility of mediabiasfactcheck.com?
Very low. It's basically the hobby of a single conservative Zionist (assisted by some volunteer and paid freelancers, though there's no public transparency about who does what and when) pretending to be a reputable arbiter of truth and bias.
Coincidentally, the first article that came out of that thing from a poster was Israel lobby propaganda that said that Russian propaganda on social media is the source of worldwide antisemitism. It has no credibility. It disseminates state run propaganda because "if it comes from the government, or a politician, it must be true" and the think tanks that work for them.
Lol yea, but is Dave M. Van Zandt really a Zionist? I hadn't heard that.
My favorite part of their Wikipedia page is
...
Seriously, any of these company run "bias" checkers are completely pointless and at best are directly useful for pushing specific propaganda under the guide of they have been neutral up until then.
Thinking you know better because you know what someone else tells you the bias is of the statement doesn't actually make people more informed it just makes them insufferable liberals.
Picked by mods...
It saddens me that you have to provide source credibility. Media Literacy is important.
Source credibility systems are just outsourcing trust to a third party. Its a ministry of truth on top of an already fucked media landscape, i dont get why people even recognize this as a real valid concept at all.
The problem is that there is not much choice, how many news outlets are there? I can’t keep tabs on just the ones in the US. And i can’t read a bunch of unrelated articles just to start forming an opinion of the source. So it makes sense that you instead have a selected party do that for you. But they will have their own bias. I assume republicans will have their own version of politifact due to their views being against reality. But you are right that these systems can’t be trusted either, but the devil you know is better then the devil you don’t
It's certainly valid if you treat it as one data point and not the end all be all.
Not when it has its own unadmitted biases. For example, the guy who pretty much IS MediaBiasFactCheck is an avowed "Israel is always right and if you ever say otherwise it's automatically antisemitic" level Zionist, which is most of the reason for The Guardian's factuality being listed as mixed rather than high or even very high.
A hidden bias like that makes a fact and bias checker worse than no checking.