World News
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
view the rest of the comments
I didn't post the link because I have a problem with the source or the story. If I use MBFC to look up a source and the link isn't in the thread, I'll post it. If I use an archive link to read an article and it's not in the thread, I'll post it. Reading their MBFC page, there's not really anything wrong with the source. Aside from having an extraordinarily terrible headline -- probably written by an editor, not the author -- there's nothing really wrong with the article. I upvoted the post.
As much as people whine about whatever thing about MBFC they're weirdly obsessed with, those pages contain a ton of useful information collected in one place. Do you have a good reason why we shouldn't know what country they're based in or press freedom issues in that country? Should we not know who owns the company, their publishing history, or how they're funded? Are we better off not knowing that they haven't failed a fact-check in the last 5 years? I don't think it speaks to their credibility at all, but it was interesting to learn that they're luxury communists and I don't feel worse off for knowing that. Do you have some other way to get all that info in a single click?
It's just that there doesn't seem to be any actual logic or publicly published citations for why they mark some sources lower or higher.
For example in this case they say there's been no failed fact checks in the last 5 years, yet they then mark them all the way down to Mixed simply due to sources with no examples of said bad sources other than they have a left bias
None in the Last 5 years
Taken together it continues to seem the owner Zandt just wants to have their site used to check bias while we all have to ignore his bias.
As another user pointed out Zandt has no issues with Times of Israel being left and factual. There's also others, such as daily mail and Fox News with same factual rating with numerous issues listed so again calls into question why Zandt should be used as a reliable source for anything.
Their scoring methodology is available here.
They actually cite two examples of poorly sourced articles in their analysis summary. One appears to be an opinion piece that they're calling news analysis. The other uses social media as its only sourcing. Reading their MBFC page, there's nothing disqualifying. When reading an article, I'd just pay closer attention to who their sources are.
People (esp. critics) often treat MBFC like it's a binary good/bad indicator. It's really good at that at the edges. It's great at telling you if a source is very good (ex. BBC) or very bad (ex. Sputnik/Fox/InfoWars). The middle is murky. 'Mixed'/'Medium' tells you almost nothing without looking at the reason. It's a wealth of important information for evaluating a source but 'Medium Credibility' should be treated as 'things to keep in mind' or contexts where a source may be less trustworthy. Like, I don't have a problem with this source but I wouldn't trust them to report straight on something that was counter to Luxury Communism as a viable system. I don't think that's an unreasonable position and, again, I don't think I'm worse off for knowing that part of their mission is to promote that ideology. I don't particularly mind CBC News having a higher rating for having no agenda beyond reporting the news.
I don't think MBFC is beyond question but most criticism isn't assessing their strengths and weaknesses in context. It's mostly people taking issue with a single metric (most frequently left/right bias in my experience) and claiming they're "A JOKE" or "HAVE NO CREDIBILITY." And, honestly, 9 times out of 10 it's people who just want to share authoritarian propaganda as news. As I said before, metrics aside, there's a fuckton of valuable information on those pages and no indication that it's not factual. I've never seen an instance where an organization was owned by someone else, based in a different country, or had a different funding model than described. I've never seen someone take issue with their fact-checking. We're definitely not better off not knowing that and there isn't a better alternative.
They specifically list Fox News as a questionable source. They explain the Mixed Factual rating as being because their beat reporting is factual, which is true -- local beat reporters out of, say, Albany aren't far-right goons pushing conspiracy theories. The Daily Mail is rated low credibility and low for factual reporting. You're treating all "Mixed Factual" sources as essentially the same but they're not and aren't intended to be. There are numerous ways to end up with with a Mixed Factual rating, some more serious than others, including uncorrected failed fact-checks, poor sourcing, and lack of transparency by, for example, obfuscating sources by not citing or linking to them. You need to know the reasons and then assess whether it's a dealbreaker.
They rate the Times of Israel as being center-left. That rating is the least important thing on that site and they're basically trying to do something that's impossible. Left and Right are relative. They feel objective to everyone but vary considerably over time and space. Many (maybe most) Democrats would be Conservatives here in Canada. Being right-wing in the US means something pretty wildly different today than it did 20 years ago. Being "center-left" usually even means something different at the municipal level than federal. There is no universal definition of center-left. That metric is probably most useful at the extremes, but I typically pay little attention to it and wouldn't treat it as anything more than a rough ballpark figure.
Do you have examples of Times of Israel not being factual? People seem to hate them right now because they have "Israel" in their name and it's more asserted as "everyone knows" rather than pointing to any analysis I've seen. I'm not aware of any serious retractions or scandals and I'm almost always able to verify their reporting through other sources (there aren't many English sources reporting on daily goings-on at the Knesset). I did a quick search and couldn't find anything that doesn't reinforce MBFC's assessment. I'd be happy to read whatever you send my way though. Their description of TOI's slight shift toward government perspective since Oct 7 seems accurate. It's also not surprising and happens in every country at war. Ukrainian media, for example, is less critical of the government now than before the full-scale invasion; US media was less critical of the government post-9/11. Most of their reporting is just straight-ahead reporting without editorializing. Looking at their site now, I can't see anything that would even be controversial and their top stories have all been reported by numerous news orgs.