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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
That reporter/editor should be fined or charged with this blatant bullshit.
"The U S. Coast Guard said Monday that an estimated 1.1 million gallons of crude oil has leaked into the Gulf..." and linked the actual press release in that line.
When you actually read the press release, and then lower in the article, it says the amount is actually unknown.
They know how much oil the pipeline holds, which would be around that estimate. It could only be a couple hundred gallons that have actually leaked.
Also they are not even sure where the leak is, so it might not even be the named company's fault.
Yeah oil industry sucks, but this sounds like a fat nothing burger that CBS is pumping for clicks. No wonder no one trusts the media.
(This is a reposted comment from when this bullshit article was posted earlier)
The OP of this repost didn't even have the decency to share the qualifications from inside the article.
They are just as terrible of an attention seeking whore as the writer of the article.
Ya the actual press release says up to 1.1 millions gallons could have been released with the actual amount unknown. The article is sensationalist, but it still sounds like it could be pretty bad, but we need to wait for more data to find out exactly how bad.
"The volume of discharged oil is currently unknown. The total pipeline length is 67 miles and was closed by MPOG at 6:30 a.m. on Thursday. Initial engineering calculations indicate potential volume of crude oil that could have been released from the affected pipeline is 1.1 million gallons."
https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/3593964/update-1-unified-command-monitors-responds-to-mpog11015-incident/
Also as a side note to understand how bad 1 million gallons is, the 2010 BP oil spill released 130 million gallons.
And if it's unknown it could even be zero, right? Phew, nothing to worry about.
It is definitely not 0 and I would still be worried. I just don't apreciate news that exagerates facts.
Somehow, I'm past getting big oil the benefit of the doubt.
I don't disagree with your sentiment.
I think it is bad enough though, without the news source twisting it for sensationalism.
*Edit. Hmm, I guess you people are ok with lies as long as they support the narrative you want. Is this suddenly a GoP sub?
Gotcha. Hey, how much oil has to be objectively confirmed to 7 significant figures before You're concerned? How much is okay for you?
Any.
Doesn't mean I'm going to lie about the amount to get clicks.
Let me ask you a similar question.
How much of a lie does it need to be before you are willing to call it a lie?
So you're concerned with how much oil leaked? Does it matter? This shouldn't be happening.
"I think it is bad enough though, without the news source twisting it for sensationalism."
Are you stupid?
Yes
Sorry. I read your comment quickly and didn’t realize you were criticizing the original writer. I apologize.
Is his criticism valid? If yes, then you being outraged is a weird move.
I wouldn’t have responded if I thought the criticism was valid.
I mean the criticism seemed pretty valid to me. The commentor was criticizing the writers and editors involved in writing the story, and the article's claims are somewhat misleading. Checks out for me.
They weren't criticizing you for posting it, though, so I don't know why you seem to be taking it so personally.
I reread it. You’re right.
Nice gate keeping. Pretty sad that is the best you can do.
Gatekeeping from what? Watching LOTR for the 44th time?