Dreamer
I could not immediately see their method for ranking factuality.
They claim on their website that they don't do most of their own fact checking:
"Media Bias/Fact Check rarely conducts original fact checks as many other sources are faster and do a better job. We primarily rely on fact-checkers affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network ( IFCN)."
According to Media Bias/Fact Check's Wikipedia page, writers at the Poynter Institute, developer of the IFCN, have made the following statement: "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
It is interesting that one of Media Bias/Fact Check's criteria is biased wording and then they made the following assessment about Times of Israel: "The Times of Israel covers Israeli and regional news with minimally loaded language..." Meanwhile, the caption for the top headline on the Times of Israel at this time is: "PM’s office says families of those slated to be freed have been notified * G7 foreign ministers urge further extension of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza-ruling terror group" Terror group does not sound like minimally loaded language. Now if the people who created the criteria to measure biased language are not concious of the fact that terror or terrorist in place of militant or rebel is biased language, then that will skew results through algorithmic bias.
Objective to whom? How is it objective? Can you explain me their methodology or are you just putting in your blind faith?
Ah yes, there is nothing more credible than mediabiasfactcheck.com, the be-all end-all judge of what is and isn't trustworthy.
Times of Israel - Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
You're kidding, right?
Their comment is disingenuous at best.
It’s not as if there is violence being perpetrated by only one side.
First, the violences are not equivalent in both their scope nor justification. Second, both may commit violence, but only one is the cause of violence, and has been for the past century. It was one group that colonized the other. It was one group that ethnically cleansed the other to create an artificial majority. It was one group that manufactured an apartheid state because they wanted supremacy in place of equality. "Both-sidesing" this conflict does not serve any purpose other than to show everyone that you have your head buried in the sand and speak through vibrations propagating from your intestinal chords.
Will Hamas actually respect a ceasefire?
It is suspect that you ask this of Hamas and not of Israel which has established a rapport of not respecting or outright breaking agreements, at least two of which are notorious for leading to some of the most infamous massacres of innocents perpetuated or facilitated by the Israelis.
You cannot possibly be this daft, are you? Please tell me that you are actually arguing in bad faith because at least then the bullshit observed in this thread would make some sense.
Jfc, there is no justification for the shit the Shin-bet does. All of them must be tried in international courts.
Israeli forces kill two Palestinian children in occupied West Bank raid
Video: Eight-year-old Adam al-Ghoul and 15-year-old Basel Abu al-Wafa shot dead by israeli soldiers