Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
We should really start those dashboards of power tripping per mod
As usual
You’re putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.
To be clear, I DON’T CARE who wrote the article. Shitty sources don’t deserve the traffic.
It could be a nobel prize winner, if it’s on a questionable source, it’s getting removed.
Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.
Edit If you CAN’T find a better source on the same story, it’s an opportunity to step back ask ask why…
TIL Mint Press News.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
MintPress News supported former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and the governments of Russia and Iran.[3][4]
The editor had investors, who Muhawesh claimed were “retired businesspeople”, but she would not name them
Soon afterward, Brian Lambert of MinnPost wrote an article following up on Burke’s challenge to find out where MintPress’s money came from. He reported that emails to them went unanswered, their phone was disconnected, and the original office address in Plymouth, Minnesota, “haven’t been valid in well over a year”. While MintPress listed 20 of its writers, Lambert wrote it did not indicate where the money was “coming from to pay any of these people”.[16]
MintPress News has reposted content from Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik,[25][26] and is listed as a “partner” of PeaceData, a Russian fake news site run by the Internet Research Agency.[27][28][29] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the “Russian web of disinformation,”[30][31] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.[32] MintPress News defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine’s post-revolution government was “illegitimate”.[33]
Sounds like YDI. MBFC is horrible of course, but it sounds like in this case they got it right (somehow focusing in one of the only things Mint Press gets right, being “anti-Israel”, presumably as a performative cover so they’ll fit in better among other general left wing news. Which of course triggered MBFC, which is part of the whole reason why it’s clever for them to include a whole bunch of “Israel’s the bad guys” in among the “Russia’s the good guys.”)
You can follow sources on mint press. It’s work and I don’t read every article from there or from there. It’s not rocket science, just work and what I’ve read had checked out.
What?
Did something I said sound like “the problem is that it’s rocket science”? I feel like your message was intended to respond to someone else or something. The problem is that it’s Russian propaganda, not that you “can’t follow sources” or whatever.
My point is, they well -source their articles, which is a lot more than can often be said for legacy media. I don’t care if it’s obl if the sources are cited and easily verifiable. Because obl asked us nicely for a long time before Saudi nationals on a plane hit the wtc and the ~W admin invaded checks notes Iraq the second time,
since the issue was, iirc, the president there wanting to fund his state un food-for-oil account with petro_euro_ rather than petro_dollar_.amassed wmd, which legacy media assured us they’d seen proof,which turned out to be manufactured.Plane hit the WTC?
Invaded Iraq?
What the fuck are you talking about? No one is saying they don’t “source” their articles. The problem is they post things like:
Although the United Nations and many Western governments continue to object to Russia’s claims over Crimea
After Ukraine distanced itself economically and politically from Russia on the heels of the Euromaidan protests of 2013, the residents of the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine overwhelmingly voted to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Russia announced the annexation of the region soon after, but the move has not been recognized by Ukraine or its NATO allies, leading to months of tense, sometimes violent conflict.
Instead of keeping its end of the bargain, the Ukrainian mainstream opposition executed a coup through the use of violence by organized ultra-nationalist gangs, which some analysts have compared to stay-behinds or secretive militias that were created by NATO during the Cold War.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/syria-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-chemical-attack/168135/
And so on
Because we forget certain things and they go the way of the memory hole doesn’t make them untrue. It’s a mess there, and my country also stirred that up.
YDI, you broke rules you got the post removed, I don’t see anything wrong
I lack any context but if the rule is against questionable sources and a mod is able to document that the source is questionable then surely there other news outlets are reporting on that too that you can use. Unless there’s a big conspiracy against that.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/love-from-glasgow-to-gaza-why-celtic-fc-fans-support-palestine/289198/
I was going to say that it’s probably just an unsourced opinion-analysis piece, but no it’s pretty thorough, even though it is relatively light news (and not an investigation despite the tag). The site doesn’t seem unreliable to me.
Avoiding non-newsworthy content might be a part of intention behind the rule but whether that makes sense depends on how you want to run a community. I try to make an effort to not assume ill intent (not always successful) and this just looks like a mod is using external list not to be critiqued for arbitrary choices and that only works if no exceptions are made.
No conspiracy required. The Celtic fans’ antifascist and pro-Palestinian position is not news, so I see no reason to expect non-left outlets to report an equivalent opinion piece. In fact, this second image was reported in news 9 years ago[1].
That said, Manufacturing Consent is an excellent introduction to why mass media bias has emerged.
Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?
There was a public vote on whether to eliminate it or not from the .world news and politics communities, and the vote to remove won, thankfully!
Personally I haven’t seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷
They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 50/50 either.
Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.
Are you serious? Because I really wanted to give Jordan the benefit of doubt mod decisions were flawed, but a though job on his part. ;(
Edit: NVM jordanlund has removed a thread by @miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar miss_demeanour in politics - He voted for Trump. Now his wife sits in an ICE detention center.
Removed as a duplicate, the same link was submitted 1 hour before and had more comments.
My b
No worries. I think a lot of the problem is that people don’t know how moderation works.
We don’t hang out in the group waiting to pounce on posts looking to fuck with people. Well, I shouldn’t say “we”, I don’t do that. :)
There’s a queue of reports and it looks like this:
So when I look at reports, it’s a matter of “is this true?”
Going to the politics community, I searched for “ICE detention” and sorted by “New”. Boom, there it was #1 and #2, two posts with the same thumbnail, one 6 hours old, one 7 hours old.
Same thumbnail doesn’t necessarily mean anything, same link? Yeah, same link.
Here’s where it gets tricky:
Which one do you remove? The knee jerk is “Well, duh, the newer one.” But in this case, the newer one has more upvotes for some reason.
At that point, I looked at the comments, the newer one had more upvotes, but fewer comments. One of them needs to go, I picked that one.
Thanks for a detailed and well-explained reply. I understand. A lot of the problem seems that being questionable often enough that everything is sus. It can be corrected with diligence and determination on the moderators’ parts. Which is simple, but not necessarily easy.
Took me a bit to find it; it was in a direct reply to an admin rather than pinging them. They also give a link to the thread where JL claims the admins would sack him if he got rid of the bot.
Thanks so much. I had to “context” a few times but finally found it: https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768
Also thanking @https://kbin.earth/u/@PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat for standing up in that thread.
That whole conversation is so weird. I went back and reread big sections of it, and it’s just… the conversation is off. Jordan says he can’t remove the bot, because the admins won’t allow it. Rooki says that’s definitely not true, so people ask Jordan about it… and he’s just silent. Not “oh I must have misunderstood” or anything else, just pretending that if he doesn’t say anything, no one will notice that someone asked him a question, and everyone will move on. And then there’s Rooki accepting the code for scanning Wikipedia’s sources… but totally missing the point that the MBFC sources are awful, and the WP reliable sources list is actually quite good, and deciding that MBFC and Ground News are what needs to be positioned front and center. Also seeming totally uninterested in the idea of improving the quality of the ratings in response to the clear consensus of the community with citations.
I checked the last of the stuff that MBFC bot posted, 4 months ago, and the little line where the Wikipedia rating had previously featured had been replaced to a link to the WP article about the source, missing the whole point of categorizing sources cleanly into bullshit/not bullshit or the point that certain sources (Newsweek) had clearly slid into unreliability over time, but were still allowed on the lemmy.world subs for some reason.
It’s just so strange. Someone had a conspiracy theory that one of the admins had an unannounced sponsorship deal with Ground News, and that was the whole reason behind the entire thing to drop a link to Ground News while misdirecting everyone into getting mad at MBFC or something. I have no idea. It was just weird.
I don’t envy the unpaid mod job, especially mods who work hard to be fair and honest. I get your disdain and distrust of mintpress too and I hope you’ll reconsider. They do source their articles very well, because they know their audience and we’re foolable, but not always.
Christ on a bike.
I have a hard time taking seriously anything or anyone who says “Far-Left Biased” (esp. with that capitalization) unironically.
Lazy PTB on the grounds of (maybe mindlessly) parroting Fox News rhetoric instead of researching themselves.
Far left = center left
Just shift every bias check result to the right a bunch and its correct lol
How dare you be anti-genocide, you extremist?!1!?? /s
We already know legacy media is heavily biased because it’s owned by the same handful of businesses. And I understand questionable sources such as Breitbart being removed. Yet here we are.
