fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

If only Hamas could have corroborated...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ynetnews/

Overall, we rate Ynetnews as Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 5/19/2017) Updated (12/08/2023)

Additional reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/12/exclusive-hamas-documents-sinwar-planning-iran/

Additional reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/12/exclusive-hamas-documents-sinwar-planning-iran/

Why doesn't Reuters say it's state propaganda then?

Ah yes I forgot Wikipedia isn't trustworthy here either.

I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant, but I think that the volume of discussion encompassing whether Reuters is presenting propaganda is worth no one's time.

Yea, like where I read it and it isn't justifying the war.

I'm bored now. Goodbye.

Edit: reiterating goodbye.

Ignoring corroborating opinions from Wikipedia...

The article is not justifying the war, and I won't entertain unsourced speculation as though it is fact. It is not propaganda.

I see no justifications of the war in the article. Sounds like the issue is that it doesn't say the things you'd prefer?

Still not propaganda.

Hmm, I think I'll believe CNN.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record. (7/10/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/10/2024)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources

Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources

There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/

Overall, we rate Electronic Intifada Left biased based on political editorial perspectives that favor a socialist perspective and strong pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bias. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, one-sided reporting, and a false claim. (D. Van Zandt 5/13/2016) (D. Kelley 5/8/2017) Updated (12/10/2023)

Misinformation is already against the sub rules. Maybe try reporting it?

Odd interpretation.

I'm truly lost here, I don't get where this is coming from (or really understand the first part). I'm not denying any sovereign country a right to self defense.

Thank you for confirming I said exactly not that.

How about you take another stab at it?

I don't get the reference.