Sami

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've curated a list based on my own preferences. A couple caveats are that I haven't played most of them, some stuff like DBZ and Yugioh are whatever if you're not into those franchises and some stuff has better ports elsewhere and isnt included: https://pastebin.com/Fv2RtN61

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

a significant bias against actions taken by Israel

uses emotionally loaded language, such as “genocide” and “enabling,”

left-biased due to its focus on human rights issues

It would be funny if this bot wasn't actively poisoning the well in the largest news communities

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Like clockwork

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: "a less direct propaganda approach" for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: "exhibits significant bias against Israel" for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on "due to two failed fact checks in the last five years" one being a single reporter's statement and the other being about Greenland's ice sheets. That doesn't seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Yeah, I'm not saying all their work is worthless and I know they're good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it's just a bunch of fake names on a page.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

Here's an example from your link:

Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

That's literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It's pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it's a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (23 children)

That's just introducing 2 more sources of bias

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Fighting Hezballah in an attempt to destroy them or deal significant damage is practically mutually assurred destruction. There's no real way they could wage the same type of warfare in Lebanon without incurring crippling damage to their infrastructure and a very high civilian death toll on both sides due to Hezb's vast missile stockpiles and resources.

That attack is not justification for reckless escalation against the world's most powerful non-state militia. There's not much the Lebanese government can do to influence what would unfold and Hezb's overall message since the start has been that hostilities in north are tied to hostilities in Gaza and will end once those end.

To me it does not seem like Hezb's MO unless it was accidental and even then they've claimed responsibility for accidents in the past and there are miscellaneous militant groups that have launched missiles at Israel from Lebanon. Regardless of what you think of them, they generally act rationally from a military perspective. Either way, it's rich for Israel to act appaled by this regardless of its perpetrators given that they struck a school killing a few dozen people in Gaza that same day.

 
view more: next ›