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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
According to mediabiasfact, this website is highly reliable while the guardian reliability is mixed (one level above low reliability )
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
agrre to disagree I guess
Guardian is trash. Zero credibility.
What proof? Facts?
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/why-the-guardians-hamas-mass-rape
What sources do you have for The Guardian being highly reliable?
The only way to prove that a news agency is reliable, is by not finding any fake/false/wrong news on their websites - that they didn't publish correction for -. The duty of providing proof lies on the accuser, if you accuse gurdian of wrong doing you'd need to the provide a proof.
This is the reason I didn't call commondreams fake or unreliable, I don't have a proof.
So because you're unfamiliar with this organization (that has existed for almost 30 years), you called them "questionable" instead and merely implied that the report was fraudulent and that we should all do better than to post articles from sources you haven't heard of and can't be arsed to look into.
Then, when someone gave you evidence, you dismissed it because it didn't agree with how you see the world. Don't get me wrong, I think the bias fact check site is bullshit about half the time, but you still made an accusation, if obliquely, and provided no evidence.
What's that thing we can do when people make assertions without evidence again? Oh right, dismiss those assertions without evidence.
Idk why we may doubt this fountain of truth.
Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed is competitively reported by Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides, it's an informational warfare. We believe we can trust at least bigger publications to vet their information before posting and cautiously read the reports from other sources. Why it should be different for that one news site? At the very least, basic level, I don't see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.
If you'd read the article, you'd see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.
All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don't read media that isn't part of a for-profit corporation doesn't mean they're less reputable.
They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals
to say it's a code to shoot anyone in their belly and that Gaza now is their shooting range without any liability.
Very, very credible. Especially after that story of how IDF drove multiple victims to the hospital on their SUVs' hood made a disaster, but that somehow didn't.
Does anyone knows what +972 Magazine and Local Call are?
Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?
Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it'd be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?
Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I'd rather assume you're lazy than that you're pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they're true, so fuck it, you're a war criminal that kicks puppies.
How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you're not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won't believe it. What's that? You don't even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don't kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can't help you now.
Personal attacks? Nice.
Next.
You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don't know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Quote stupid shit, please.
I'm sorry, you can't even read what you wrote?
Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust "big" sources, who...also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.
You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don't have to.
It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.
I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won't convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.
In the aftermath of the october attack there were numerous journalist from the publications from all around the world, not stringers, not outsourced agents. They have their biases, but at the very least they have a reputation to lose. If +972 media would report bullshit, no one would hold them responsible or start to ignore them because they are nobodies.
That's judged, again, by the reputation of the writer\publisher. Half of my country's journalist are in exile, but I can trust those I know from before the war and hunt on them. If they refer to anonymous sources in the army, I look if that overcomes my limits of a reasonable doubt.
In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I'm not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.
I'm impressed we still have that conversation and that you take time to null my internet points on every comment in that three. It's not big, but that's a honest work of a dedicated individual. I felt that we on Lemmy don't care about them at all.
I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.
The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this...
I really can't resist the bait there.
No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you're talking about before you comment, though, or you're adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.
Do you care about internet points on Lemmy of all places? That makes you a part of a minority. I appreciate that in some warped reality there are people who hold that opinion. Numerous threads show most netizens DGAF. You can ask Lemmy yourself or just google around since these polls already exist. What it does is it leaves a very depressing impression about the person in question.
A contradiction. I repeat: I either verify stuff myself or outsource that verification to a source I can trust. I'm surprised you don't do that too, or put it in the bad light for whatever reason. Maybe that's why you have a long conversation defending questionable sources. I decided not to trust them. It's more of an effort than blindly consuming whatever someone posts.
Not particularly. I agree with you on that; I assume not many people care about them, but when someone gives me a button to push for things that don't add to conversations, like, say, repeated instances of aggressive ignorance and lies about what an article consists of, it's really not a lot of effort to push it, so I'm going to keep doing that 'til either you stop with the bullshit or I get bored.
A lie. There is no evidence that the source is questionable. There is abundant evidence that they are a real journalistic source (remember when I linked you some? Those were good times).
You decided not to trust the source based on nothing. This is a stupid thing to do. You decided to comment on it anyway, with no knowledge or interest in discovering the truth. That is a harmful thing to do.
I'm going to keep having this conversation because you've decided to..what are we at now, quintuple-down on this? We're far past the realm of where most Lemmy apps will even display comment chains this long. It's just you, me, and anyone bored enough to dig into a slap fight about how difficult it is for you to read.
Bad LLM
Good bot! <3
The Guardian is a Zionist propaganda mouthpiece claiming they saw footage of Hamas raping people which turned out to be lie.
MBFC should rate them far lower