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
I'm curious, do you think there is some bias in this article? What is it?
In case you doubt their translation, you can find the original source of the statement by Petro here.
Is there some other source, which you consider less biased, which has published an English-language translation of his response to Trump?
Or, would you consider any reporting at all of this head of state's response to be intrinsically biased?
I used that link to look up the source. It wasn't here so I posted it here. I do the same with archive links.
I didn't report this and don't have a problem with it. In general, the fact that they don't disclose the country they operate out of is problematic since we can't know if they're operating from a place where telling the truth is illegal.
Edit: I should also say that it's important they've never failed a fact check. I don't really care about them having editorial bias as long as we know what it is.
Do you post MBFC links on articles from outlets they classify as "unbiased" too, or just the "biased" ones?
As others have pointed out many times before, the entirely flawed premise behind MBFC is that centrism correlates with credibility and/or factualness.
cool 👍
Who doesn't disclose where People Dispatch operates out of? MBFC? Yeah, they don't, because they're lazy hacks who's job it is to impugn the reputation of anyone doing any journalism that isn't in service of the status quo.
A couple minutes of research shows that (although their contributors are all over the world) their legal entity People's Dispatch Ltd. is registered in New York. So, the way things are headed, I guess actually you might be on to something here soon 😬
The notion that any outlet could have no bias in what they decide is and isn't worthy of reporting on, especially the people MBFC says are unbiased, is ridiculous. And it's usually not difficult to see what an outlet's bias is without relying on a 3rd party using their own bias to classify someone else's.
I post links if I'm unfamiliar with a source and look them up, regardless of their conclusions. Sometimes I'll do research on a news source if they don't have an MBFC entry and share that as well. I assume there are others who are like, "cool story but... who the fuck is this?" I hope it spares them the extra steps.
If some people don't like that, I don't care. I count MBFC downvotes as upvotes. It helps people I'm overjoyed to help and pisses off people that I'm pretty okay with pissing off. I'm not letting a bunch of greasy misinfo ghouls call the shots.
First, registering and operating are two different things. Human beings are not just bound by the laws of the country their corporation is registered in.
But... so what? If the information we have shows something that's problematic then new information becomes available that addresses our concerns... that's fine. That's how shit's supposed to work. MBFC is an information source, not the information source.
etc etc etc
Look, I've met my quota on debating weird MBFC conspiracy theorists. The reality is there are a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about posting links to webpages they haven't read. I'm not interested in someone's poorly thought out take on how they say the Guardian is quadruple Mein Kampf, or whatever. If you have links to peer-reviewed research that support those conclusions, I'd be happy to see them. You don't, though, because every bit of academic work on MBFC says those people are dead wrong.