392
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 14 Apr 2024
392 points (94.1% liked)
World News
38977 readers
2661 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
FYI: medium credibility source Factual Reporting; mixed [mediabias link] (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truth-out/) Any other source available?
added: being downvoted for pointing this out won't change the source and it's info, though. Just shows you are very biased.
Read the article that you linked. 1 low credibility article in the past 2 decades.
A self-proclaimed media bias fact checker, which itself is not independently checked, is a perfect central point for a state actor to control the narrative by marking critical news sources as "untrustworthy" so as to reduce their impact-
You couldn't think of a better Propaganda Op for a state actor in the modern Internet age than setting up a centralized "media facts checker" that makes sure media sources who go along with the Propaganda are trusted and those who are criticial of it are distrusted.
(If you know about the concept of Chains Of Trust from IT/General Security it's pretty easy to see how this is nothing more than another link that adds no actual trust because it in itself is not supported by a chain going back to a trusted entity, by which point you might wonder why exactly such a fake "trusted" link has been set-up and who would gain from it)
But I could, I could simply write articles which are simply based on half truth and publish them for a wider public. Which is happening already on a huge scale.
So, I was asking for a better source, and then you are suggesting that I'm the one advocating state sponsored propaganda?
So, I wonder, out of curiosity, how would you objectively review news sources?
Here's another media factchecker: groundnews: mixed factuality rating. Also the credibility score is handed out by an external party Pointer Institute for Fact Checking , and I wasn't talking about the political left or right bias.
A single media "facts checker" passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such "fact checkers" ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your "independent" fact-checker and its fact-checking aren't subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they're passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they're neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren't independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they're almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you'd actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
"As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate."
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You're the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World's newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I'm just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that "tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources" and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a "trust gatekeeper" with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as "evidence" of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World's newsmedia.
I'm not claiming they are anything, I'm pointing that we don't know what they are because:
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World's Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don't need to prove distrust, it's you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don't count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.
Is this good enough? https://therealnews.com/illegal-real-estate-sales-of-palestinian-land-are-happening-around-the-us
Land-grab has been ongoing for decades. (link guardian
This has been the most successful land-grab strategy since 1967,” said Yehuda Shaul, a prominent activist who is director of the Israeli Center for Public Affairs thinktank, and a founder of Breaking the Silence, an NGO that exposes military abuses in occupied areas.
Over the last year alone, 110,000 dunams, or 110 sq km (42 sq miles), was effectively annexed by settlers on herding outposts, he said. All the built-up settlement areas constructed since 1967 cover only 80 sq km.
It was also the biggest displacement of Palestinian Bedouins since 1972, when at least 5,000 – and perhaps as many as 20,000 – people were moved from the northern Sinai to make way for settlements, Shaul added.
That doesn't talk about the topic of the original article though, which is the sales targeting religious US Jews
if the name "truth out" wasn't telling enough already.
I really wonder why so many people seem to fall so easily for propaganda? It's so obvious? Like, I'm not talking about the well-made ones, the convincing ones, but these simple populist ones.
Great logic there