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
Of course the IDF should investigate itself. I'm sure they are completely unbiased.
Clearly you're right. But the UN report did not say what the article said it said. Which means it's biased reporting.
The article prefaces every item with the word "alleged" or "alleges", just like the report. How is this biased?
Because that word is not in the title
What are you expecting from "World Socialist Website"? Fact-based reporting? I don't think so.
For a site calling itself "socialist", it sure is scared of unabashedly calling out an apartheid ethnostate.
It really isn't, look at the other articles on that site
You're right, ig that article was a rare miss then.
I would like the articles referenced here in this community to be fact-based, and I would like our discussion to be based on reality. The situation is bad enough as it is without having to make things up
While I see what you mean by that, is the title being "biased" equal to the article being biased? Seems like all doubts are resolved upon reading the first paragraph.
Most people don't read the articles, they read titles and they take the inference and go to the comments and fight. Titles that are misleading are effectively lies.
In the propaganda war, titles are ammunition
Okay, good point, like I said, I know what you mean about the title, but does a bad title necessarily mean the article is not factual?
Yes. Misleading title is a lie. Putting that lie into the title of our community makes this entire discussion premised on a lie. Most people are not going to read the article, and the hasbara / propaganda of the title still gets the eyeballs. So it is a net negative
So yes that a bad title necessarily means the article is biased?
Yes. Because the article exists as a tuple of both the title and the content, and the title dominates. The title poisons the article
I think the truth dies only if you don't read the full article in this case, as is expected of people before posting here...
I can't believe most people are reading the article before commenting in lemmy
But even supposing they do, all the people who scroll past the article in the feed, are being poisoned by the lie in the title
I don't believe that either, which is why I sometimes ask them if they have.
Sadly one cannot force anyone to read... one can only expect others to do it.
At this point, with the US influence on UN reporting bodies, I believe independent reporters over UN reports concerning the atrocities committed upon the Palestinian people.
And that's totally fair. And probably correct. But this article says the UN says something that the UN is not saying. Which means it's a bad article
It doesn't though. Only the headline does that. That's not good, but the article itself is not bad because of its headline.
If the majority of people only read the title, poisoning the title is effectively making the article bad. Even if the article itself is sufficiently conditioned.
So I will stand by my conviction that this is a bad article for this community.
Hmmmm, I find it strange that you are being pedantic and insistent on the title spoiling the whole article. The article does an excellent job being factual, linking to all its claims, and backing them all up.
I read the title again and again and I believe this is just a disagreement on the meaning of "report", between you vs. the rest of the readers who had no issue with it + the authors themselves.
Now I'm starting to think using the word "report" was actually more accurate... they literally mean that there was a report from the UN.
Reading the article again helped me realize this. Maybe it can help you too?
I think they'd just rather it said "UN reports Israeli forces are alleged to be carrying out mass summary executions in Gaza."
Still doesn't make the IDF look good, but it's a fair point.
Cool, no problemo. Can we now go back to discussing the killings?
What? The article says exactly what the report says. 'Allege' is legal shorthand for 'we say this is true'
The title does not say allege. The title says something very different
No, the title says precisely the same thing. To 'report' something to be true is the same as to 'allege' something to be true.
To report something is to make a finding. You may have an interesting definition of report, but the common usage is about findings. The UN did not make a finding that Israel committed a mass killing. The implication of the title is the UN made a determination which it did not do.
The UN is calling on Israel to investigate an allegation but it did not make a finding.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/report
I feel like this is quite pedantic.
considering you and I have both agreed the title is misleading. I'm not being pedantic. You understood what I meant, and you have acknowledged it.
So when the question of what the title actually means came up, it seems like a worthwhile discussion
Actually I read it again and changed my mind... wrote you another comment, do check it.
I think we've moved out of 'not understanding' and into the realm of 'you don't want to believe and you also don't want others to' territory.
Which would be fine if you were more honest about it. Have a nice day.
Fighting over dictionary definitions is the least interesting type of discussion. That's why we have dictionaries