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.
Look, I don’t like World, but they’re clear about how they judge a source.
I made my news communities because I don’t like their system, but for a com that big they need to draw a line when they can’t individually verify everything.
I don’t like their politics and I don’t like where they draw those lines, but they’re transparent in how they decide what stays.
Being an asshole to the mod, no matter who they are, doesn’t help.
My communities are small but you’re welcome to post to them as long as you follow the guidelines.
No they wasn’t clear. Nothing in the rule mention using a specific fact check to determine what should be allowed or not . If you have no proof that the news is a lie you can’t simply remove it
I admit I got carried away
Your guideline regarding credibility of the source is as vague as worldnews.
I clarify it in the asterisk but credibility is vague. I use fact-checking sources but don’t rely on them fully because even fact-checks can have a bias. If you know of a better way to moderate a news community I’d genuinely like to hear it.
edit: World news links mediabias and an article on propaganda in their sidebar. It’s easy to infer that’s how they judge content.
Moderate based on individual articles. Do the specific article pushed a lie and defend the in defensive like genocide, colonization, war crimes etc
That is what I do because I have less than 2k subscribers across all my communities, but I need to say something in the sidebar related to how I verify an article and how to determine what’s a lie, which is where fact-checks come in.
Defending colonization, war crimes and genocide are fuzzy lines to draw. Sometimes news is spun by omitting facts, so an article that seems harmless can be subliminally pro-isreal when given context.
The point is, it’s very hard to verify sources on that level for as big a community as World.
Everybody knows a source like timesofisrael deny genocide yet it is allowed but an source like an arabiya is not. It is pure hypocrisy
I never said I agreed with their methods. According to the fact checking link in their sidebar your souce isn’t trustworthy. Again, I don’t support it, but I do understand why they use mediabias to check sources.
I fully support making more, smaller news communities to get a greater diversity of media on lemmy, and encourage you to either post to them or make your own.
He has. Apologia Free News.
Fantastic, then.
I have to admit to doing a doubletake every time timesofisrael comes up. “That cannot be legit, right?”
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/times-israel-media-bias
“After a discussion including other team members, AllSides reviewers did not find The Times of Israel to exhibit strong bias in favor of Israel in its news coverage of Israel’s war with Hamas. The publication did refer to Hamas members as “terrorists” and some of their statements or media as “propaganda,” however did not appear to frame things in a way that is overly favorable to the Israeli establishment or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu either.”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/
“Overall, we rate the Times of Israel as Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to one-sided pro-Israel reporting regarding Palestine. (D. Van Zandt 12/5/2016) Updated (12/13/2024)”
Again who gave any of those sites authority. Why you can’t use your own brain to determine what it look like biased or not with actual proofs regarding a specific article. Yes a source that deny facts like the genocide in gaza is not legit
This too has been litigated to death, for years now, and JL knows it. Doesn’t matter.
More people give them authority than have given YOU authority. 😉
They are the go-to sites on media reliability, just because you don’t personally agree doesn’t make it so.
We are unpaid volunteers with actual lives outside Lemmy, we don’t have time to read each individual article. This is why fact checking sites exist.
Mediabiasfactcheck is a poor measure.
The case has been made many times for at least the last two years. They’ll never change it and will throw whatsoever nonsense to defend it. No good faith argument has ever been had from him on anything of import.
From any of the mods.
You have a lot of times defending your self in this community but no time to be fair
I was fair, I told you twice to find better sources.
You are not fair. You remove an article without any evidence of propaganda or lies. Your fact check do not mention a single example of el Arabiya biases towards Lebanon
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)”