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.
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.
I would think of the multiple mods and admins with the capability, a script would be easy enough to write and implement. If there was integrity and will.
We had it, people hated it, so we removed it.
Because it was Mbfc.
Some integrity would be appreciated.
We looked at other options which were a) automated and b) free to implement. For one reason or another it didn’t work out.
But there’s nothing wrong with MBFC outside the minds of a few radicals on Lemmy.
Zero integrity. The arguments have been well made multiple times. This is just outright lying. And this is why no one trusts anything you say.
Not “no one” and as noted in my reply to Mr. Down, they are one of the experts on bias and credibility cited by other sources.
People are free to disagree, but they all come across like the Trumpies trying to argue that Snopes or Factcheck.org are biased. Or that reality is biased. 😆
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."
Name those people. Your sources doesn’t have any evidence of biases towards lebanon
Ground News for one, as previously noted:
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."
What a stupid dogmatic person you are
No. He knows fully well what he’s doing. Dogmatic, yes.
Yup, he’s a well known troll. Kind of surprising dbzer0 hasn’t booted him yet. I’ve seen people booted for less severe but still liberal apologia.
Making sure bullshit sources get removed when reported? Yup! Guilty!
It’s not dogma when I show you to be wrong over and over and over again.
I gave you repeated chances to use better sources, you not only refused, you doubled down in PMs.
Good riddance, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
It is dogma to take fact checkers at face values whrn we ask you to use your brain and your own judgment you can’t do it. I showed you how the source are sympatic to traitors and terrorists and you simply ignored it
Because, again, you’re trying to lie your way in to being allowed to use inherently invalid sources.
Think of it like this:
You find a REALLY juicy story and you REALLY want to post it… But the only source is The New York Post.
Are you going to post it anyway and then argue like a little bitch when it gets removed?
Or, OR would you rather go “Hmm… Seems too good to be true, lets see who else is covering this…” and submit that instead.
Particularly when a mod tells you “No, not that source, try again.”
The story carries way more weight coming from a legitimate source than a fantasy source and if the goal is to get the story noticed and accepted, which should be what EVERYONE wants, you, me, and everyone else in the community.
You do not want the reaction of “Yeah, but it’s a bullshit site.”
You would rather force your agenda, have it get removed when it breaks the rules of the community, and then argue over simply finding a better source.
Because finding a better source doesn’t fit your agenda. 😉