So I posted an article from al Arabiya about Christian villages denying that they asked Netanyahu to annex their villages on World News@lemmy.world.
Jordanlund removed it simply because he don’t like the source. Yet he has no problem with articles from Saudi backed Iranian media https://irannewswire.org/ that also celebrate the terrorist group the MEK that sell out their country to side with Saddam and has no problem with israeli sources that deny the obvious genocide.
Such a glorious Modlog:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=21821311
The first “news” source that was posted and removed:
alarabiya.net
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-arabiya/
“Overall, we rate Al Arabiya as Questionable due to excessive government censorship that results in the publication of pro-state propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the omission of key facts in stories. (8/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/06/2023)”
The second questionable site posted and removed:
thenationalnews.com
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-uae/
“Overall, we rate The National Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of state propaganda, lack of transparency, and censorship. (8/29/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 06/06/2025)”
And finally the PM he sent me that caught him the permaban in World:
“fuck you and your whole family you piece of trash”
@mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com - You are the poster child for the exact kind of user we do not tolerate.
As for Irannewswire - There’s no consensus as to their credibility, UNLIKE the sources listed above which are clearly questionable.
I’m not removing a site that does not appear to have that consensus.
https://ground.news/interest/iran-news-wire
"The Ground News media bias check for Iran News Wire is unknown. Scores are assigned by aggregating bias scores from Ad Fontes Media, Media Bias/Fact Check, and AllSides.
Is Iran News Wire credible or reliable? Our Factuality score answers both of those questions. When it comes to Iran News Wire, we’ve assigned a Unknown factuality rating. Ratings are assigned by aggregating scores from Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check."
So much for a “real life.” Go live it.
Daily!
Gonna take your side in this one
Since when your shitty fact check has authority on what is a questionable source and which is not? Maybe you should use your own judgment or maybe you don’t do it because you are bad at it. Why should a source like Irannewswire be trusted and not questionable when they are defending the MEK terrorists who fought along Saddam in the iraq/iran war?
irannewswire.org/irans-resistance-units/
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48433
When Iran News Wire actually has data showing they are untrustworthy I will have no problem removing them too.
Right now, the aggregate from across the three arbiters of truth when it comes to bias and credibility, AdFontes, MediaBias Fact Check, and AllSides is that they are a cipher.
That is not a removable offense.
The fucking BBC is untrustworthy based on everything we’ve seen them publish about pissrahell and the war on Iran yet it is considered credible? Get a grip
Using words like “pissrahell” exposes your own inherent bias.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6588617-if-you-run-into-an-asshole-in-the-morning-you
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.
Raylan Givens Justified"
fuck the state of Israel, and anyone who attempts to normalise its atrocities, and suppress the gruesome reality of the situation in favor of state-backed narratives and polite fictions. that is the predictable end result of your policies, especially when pissrael has gone to great lengths to kill every last credentialed palestinian journalist it can get its hands on. its pretty difficult for murdered journalists to publish enough articles to compete with the combined state media apparatus of israel and the us billionaire class, but what can you do? your hands are tied, I guess. standards, right?
and anyway, this notion that establishment papers are still bastions of journalistic integrity is wishful thinking at best. how can we trust what comes out of the bought-and-paid-for subservient mouthpieces of the billionaires class? that whole model is fundamentally broken, in the same way the 2-party system is broken. its a rigged game, built to support those in power, not to challenge them. good journalism speaks truth to power. how much of that are we seeing from the mainstream rags?
They are still better sources than random blogs, twitter links, and youtube channels with no provenance or editorial standards.
Israeli atrocities ARE being reported, and have been for decades. You know what? The vast majority of the public simply is not aware, or if they are aware, they do not care.
I thought the Rachel Corrie killing back in 2003 was going to move the needle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Blonde, American, young woman… Israel bulldozed her to death while she was engaging in peaceful protest.
The public? Silence.
Bias to the truth. Israel is a pissy and shitty state
True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won’t call Israel “Pissrahell” is a bad faith argument.
We get it, they have actively been engaging in war crimes for my entire lifetime, but the BBC is not ignoring or condoning what they are doing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1eyyyl8ye0o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlwwwyy70do
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn75ex1dv61o
Bbc is untrustworthy because it got exposed for policing pro palestine voices
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/2/over-100-staff-accuse-bbc-of-bias-in-its-coverage-of-israels-war-in-gaza
Rhe other didn’t say bbc should have called israel pissrael and got mad because it didn’t
From that link:
““The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians,” the letter said.”
Someone doesn’t understand how journalism works.
When Israel, or anyone else really, says something insane, or objectionable, it is NOT the position of the journalist to robustly challenge it.
The position of the journalist is to report what was said, the ramifications for saying it, and any sort of counter argument.
(Source: I married a journalist…)
Good journalism is not supposed to take sides, which is inherently problematic in OTHER ways, making minority counter arguments appear to be on equal footing when they are not.
So, for example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo
https://web.archive.org/web/20260620041239/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ymz1n9rmo
Pretty solid reporting.
so obviously not my argument… 🙄 wonder why no one is talking to you in good faith? Its shit like this…
A media that never criticized israel and the usa involvement in the war. Couldn’t even write a full article condemning the bombing of the school during the war and also include the MEK a terrorist group as a resistance group is trustworthy? A media denying genocide like timeofisrael is trustworthy ?
Your biases are very clear. There is no such a think as arbiters of truth either.
Goddamnit, I have to take your side on this one.
edit: This could have been a win for you if you just stopped here. You make it really hard to say you’re right about something.
They have never been able to do that, which is one reason they continue to prove they should not be a mod of anything.
My favorite is still them saying amp links were banned, not because they are terrible for the internet but because the stupid mbfc bot couldn’t handle them.