DolphinMath @ DolphinMath @slrpnk.net

Posts

111

Comments

380

Joined

2 yr. ago

The methodology is fine. You just don’t like the results.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Country: USA

MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: Radio Station

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Quit spreading FUD. It’s not just one guy, the founder has a whole team listed on the website and a clear methodology. It’s in the about section.

You’re just salty because the website isn’t super pro Chinese Communist Party.

Tell me you didn’t read through the website without telling me you didn’t read through the website. It’s not just one guy, the founder has a whole team listed on the website and a clear methodology.

You’re just salty because the website isn’t super pro Chinese Communist Party.

More whatabout whataboutism.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Country: United Kingdom

MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: News Agency

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Country: USA

Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: News Agency

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Country: United Kingdom

MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: News Agency

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

It’s one data point, and I wouldn’t rely solely on the Media Bias/Fact Check website. It’s a useful tool, but not the end all be all authority on bias and factual reporting. If you have something similar or better I’d love to see it.

I mean, when you are calling people liars because they don’t agree with you, especially when your own sources don’t support what you say, I’m pretty sure that’s a sign you need to log off and touch grass.

Is it possible Israel has bombed hospitals in Gaza? Certainly.

Did you provide proof? No.

I mean, I read through what you posted and it literally never says Israel bombed hospitals.

HRW just cites a Tweet by “WHO in occupied Palestine” that is very non-specific while sounding specific.

The relevant bits from the Tweet used as the primary source by HRW:

“We are horrified at the latest reports of attacks on and in the vicinity of Al-Shifa Hospital, Al-Rantisi Naser Pediatric Hospital, Al-Quds Hospital, and others in Gaza city and northern Gaza, killing many, including children.”

“Over the past 36 days, WHO has recorded at least 137 attacks on health care in Gaza, resulting in 521 deaths and 686 injuries, including 16 deaths and 38 injuries of health workers on duty.”

To be clear, I have no interest in arguing this point. I only want to add context.

Let’s be accurate here. Thousands have died in Gaza as a result of this conflict, but Israel clearly did not kill thousands at Shifa Hospital.

I mean, natural gas is less carcinogenic and less polluting of the environment than coal overall, even if the methane production is terrible for the climate. Clearly solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy are much better options in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and overall pollution though.

Since no one is bothering to answer, I’ll attempt to explain that perspective.

Many people see “Zionist” as coded language. Similar to how racists often call Black People “Thugs” in America.

Right or wrong, if you start throwing around the term “Zionist” a significant number of people will tune out to what you are saying.

To many, it also implies you anti-Israel and do not believe in a 2 state solution.