455
Israeli strikes kill UN staff, more than 70 of his extended family in Gaza
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
455 points (95.6% liked)
World News
39034 readers
1325 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
For what it's worth Al Jazeera is literally a mouthpiece funded by the Qatari government. They're like the VOA/Radio Free XXX/Xinhua/RT of Qatar. It's literally Qatari propaganda.
Cool media is often a tool of propaganda. Can you showcase that this is false? Can you state why you brought it up here? Would you do the same for Israeli propaganda justifying genocide?
Here's a more direct source: https://www.undp.org/speeches/statement-killing-undp-staff-member-and-family-gaza
According to this community's guidelines, Al Jazeera isn't really an acceptable source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/
I don't agree, but that's why I'm on lemmy.ml rather than here most of the time.
I've suggested to the mods a meta thread to discuss MBFC. The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced it's not a good tool whatsoever.
Quo custodiat ipsos custodiae? - Who watches the watchers?
It seems to me that if you're running a propaganda operation, setting up a centralized entity telling us all what newsmedia is trustworthy or not is an obvious play to manipulate people.
Merely adding one level of delegation to "trust" doesn't make something more or less trustworthy: some guys you know nothing about but what they (and the very people they say are trustworthy) tell us themselves, and who go around telling us who to trust and who not to trust, aren't inherently trustworthy (in fact that's an extra suspicious behaviour) - why should you trust them if you have no way to verify they're both honest AND genuinelly competent at evaluating trustworthiness?
(PS: In the business of passing judgement on Trust merelly honesty is not eough - all of us know of somebody who is a good honest person and yet on Facebook keeps sharing obvious bullshit: they genuinelly believe it hence they're honest in what they share, only they're gullible so their flawed judgment on what they believe in means they'll believe any old bollocks and then spread it with total honesty).
Trustworthiness is not an easy-peasy to solve "lets rely on these guys who just popped up on the Internet to tell us which news media to trust or not" and don't at all ponder on the possible motivations and funding for that specific op - all this does did was add another link of uncertainty not solve the trust problem, and, worse, it's a centralized one (a newspaper can only be or not be trustworthy, whilst these guys if they're dishonest or incompetent actors can impact the preceived thrustworthiness of hundreds of newspapers) which makes it a much more desirable position for a propagandist.
It's really not but the mods seem obsessed with it.
I get it. We gotta have guidelines or we get Daily Wire and The Blaze posted. But when The NY Times and Wash. Post isn’t covering Gaza accurately, shouldn’t they be held to the same standards? I’ve found corroborating news from Palestine on YouTube, Middle East Eye and Al-Jazeera. Only to find silence from Western sources. It’s disheartening.
You seems genuine in your post so I would like to inform you that the middle east eye is owned by Qatar or Al-Jazeera.
In general most news outlets are biased. That's why you read multiple sources to confirm a report. Or if it is written by credible sources, or have clear videos and images.
Honestly providing multiple sources for the same story is not a bad idea, but sometimes that would mean 5 articles that are copy-pastas of each other
I mean, basically no one in the West covers China at all except to say "China bad and is simultaneously going broke and bankrolling all US politicians"
Which in fairness, seems like it is actually true.... Those aren't actually mutually exclusive
My bigger problem is I can't get a read on the state of China. They're seasoning stones and ice because they're having food issues... But it's a continent sized country. It contains multitudes.
There's a lot of crazy shit going on over there, but is it falling apart, in decline, or just undergoing some crazy shit?
I'm still curious why the comment then though. Without any further context it only seems to serve to imply the story is false.
no meta posts allowed
Not sure what that means in this context but from scanning your history, you don't seem disingenuous so gonna chalk it up misunderstanding haha
It means that he can't make a discussion post about the sub's rules and is confined to semi-relevant comment sections
thanks buddy I should've been more clear
you're replying to him providing an alternative source with this?
I think it's a good response to the unnecessary aggression of the comment above it. We can talk about proper sources and improper sources without disagreeing with the contents of the article.