Looks like a case where poorly sourced article getting removed, with invitation to repost with a more reputable source… so do so with a better source. Or is the underlying article itself leaning too much towards propaganda that there is no more reputable source? and if that is the case, then is it really !news worthy?
Nah, it won’t happen because that user is infamous for posting disinformation on this site. He pretends to be a liberal doing this for the benefit of the Lemmiverse, however that logic works out.
You can tell from the post title. There’s a collection of little propagandists that do nothing other than post disinformation, immediately lash out at any slightly differing opinions, and then go whining in other communities if any mod takes any action about it.
Good ole Yogthos
deleted by creator
I wonder that that said but I didn’t mean you, if that’s what you thought.
Regardless of who it was targeted at, I’ve definitely experienced my share of similar accusations. Lemmy.world culture seems to favor low effort ‘bad faith’ accusations, and I wish that weren’t the case.
Oh, no, I only acuse that guy because I know his posting habits and I’ve called him out on it a few times. But yeah, there are plenty of accusations to go around. Lol
And to be honest, I’m not a fan of sources reporting on themselves. Even if I considered this a reputable source (I have no opinion on it either way), I would want a third-party article.
Maybe read the article and make those determinations for yourself?
I can’t for the life of me understand why this particular article is so threatening to LW !news mods. It provides valuable insight into how Facebook’s community guidelines are experienced by journalists outside of the political mainstream and has useful lessons for why and how we might do things differently in the Fediverse.
It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.
Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.
I can’t help but notice that Five singles out “lack of transparency” while ignoring “poor sourcing” and “one-sided reporting”. This is a common tactic.
Any responsible journalistic entity should be confirming their sources, and giving any accused a chance to give their own side of a story.
deleted by creator
It’s true they’re getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that “the White House has not yet had a chance to comment”.
There’s a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you’re looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.
deleted by creator
Check the farm… I think that’s where all of them went to.
Where besides Dave’s assessment are you sourcing your information? Isn’t it one-sided to only listen to Dave M. Van Zandt’s opinion without doing additional investigation?
The Cradle is trash though. And a defender of the Russian genocide of Ukraine.
I support Ukrainians against colonization by Russia, but I’m not threatened by journalists who cover the facts from a different perspective from mine.
Can you demonstrate your claim? I did a perfunctory search, and the stories I found involving Russia seem informative and typically even-handed based on the standards of western journalism.
I support Ukrainians against colonization by Russia, but I’m not threatened by journalists who cover the facts from a different perspective from mine.
Running interference for the Ukrainian genocide is a bit more than ‘a different perspective’. Like media that claims Israel is still defending itself in Gaza.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/23408
It goes on and on like that. I can dig up more if you like.
During my recent vertiginous journey in Donbass tracking Orthodox Christian battalions defending their land, Novorossiya, it became starkly evident that the resistance in these newly liberated Russian republics is fighting much the same battle as their counterparts in West Asia.
Nearly 10 years after Maidan in Kiev, and two years after the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the resolve of the resistance has only deepened.
It’s impossible to do full justice to the strength, resilience, and faith of the people of Donbass, who stand on the front line of a US proxy war against Russia. The battle they have been fighting since 2014 has now visibly shed its cover and revealed itself to be, at its core, a cosmic war of the collective West against Russian civilization.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin made very clear during his Tucker Carlson interview seen by one billion people worldwide, Ukraine is part of Russian civilization – even if it is not part of the Russian Federation. So shelling ethnic Russian civilians in Donbass – still ongoing – translates as attacks on Russia.
He shares the same reasoning as Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, which describes the Israeli genocide in Gaza as one launched against “our people”: people of the lands of Islam.
Just as the rich black soil of Novorossiya is where the “rules-based international order” came to die; the Gaza Strip in West Asia – an ancestral land, Palestine – may ultimately be the site where Zionism will perish. Both the rules-based order and Zionism, after all, are essential constructs of the western unipolar world and key to advancing its global economic and military interests.
Today’s incandescent geopolitical fault lines are already configured: the collective west versus Islam, the collective west versus Russia, and soon a substantial part of the west, even reluctantly, versus China.
Yet a serious counterpunch is at play.
As much as the Axis of Resistance in West Asia will keep boosting their “swarm” strategy, those Orthodox Christian battalions in Donbass cannot but be regarded as the vanguard of the Slavic Axis of Resistance.
When mentioning this Shia–Orthodox Christianity connection to two top commanders in Donetsk, only 2 kilometers away from the front line, they smiled, bemused, but definitely got the message.
After all, more than anyone else in Europe, these soldiers are able to grasp this unifying theme: on the two top imperial fronts – Donbass and West Asia – the crisis of the western hegemon is deepening and fast accelerating collapse.
NATO’s cosmic humiliation-in-progress in the steppes of Novorossiya is mirrored by the Anglo–American–Zionist combo sleepwalking into a larger conflagration throughout West Asia – frantically insisting they don’t want war while bombing every Axis of Resistance vector except Iran (they can’t, because the Pentagon gamed all scenarios, and they all spell out doom).
Scratch the veneer of who’s in power in Kiev and Tel Aviv, and who pulls their strings, and you will find the same puppet masters controlling Ukraine, Israel, the US, the UK, and nearly all NATO members.
Yikes! This is the first time I’ve come across The Cradle. It’s the last time too.
I agree, Pepe Escobar’s take in that opinion piece is complete garbage. It should be noted that it is an opinion piece with the sub text “The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.”
Shutting down the entire journal because one columnist is a Putin apologist isn’t what the concept of a free press is about. I’d be less alarmed by mods shutting down a post of that columnist for genocide apology. It looks like it’s only one featured columnist out of five occasionally posting garbage like that, and the bulk of their focus is on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Alan Dershowitz, famous for his shit takes, has apologized for torture and genocide and continues to be frequently featured in The Boston Globe, Haaretz, and The Wall Street Journal. Since those sources are posted freely, it would be inconsistent to ban The Cradle over Pepe Escobar.
How many articles by how many authors since the beginning of the war need to be posted before you would regard the site as knowingly pushing Russian propaganda?
How do you distinguish between opinion and propaganda? Its entirely credible that Pepe Escobar sincerely believes the positions he holds.
Should the corpus of every news source that includes opinion pieces that serve the interests of a war criminal state be banned?
Here’s one: https://thecradle.co/articles/syrian-president-assures-russia-of-unwavering-support
I dunno, seems pretty biased to me. Even if it’s mostly quoting politicians, uncritically repeating their propaganda without any caveats is questionable at best.
Yeah, that’s not great, but it’s not outside the bounds of what you’d typically find in the uncritical reporting of Western politicians in periodicals like Reuters.
The issue isn’t that The Cradle is biased, all journalism is biased. The issue is that they’re being treated with the tools that should only be reserved for conspiracy mills and AI fake news farms. I find that alarming.
I’m not sure I agree. For comparison, here’s a recent article on Gaza from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-warns-israel-hamas-best-last-chance-end-gaza-war-2024-08-19/
Yes, it’s written from a western perspective, but there’s a clear attempt to include opposing perspectives including Hamas and ordinary Gazans. You see no such attempts from the Cradle’s reporting.
It’s true that all media is biased but that does not mean it’s equally biased. There is a big difference between the unavoidable bias of your own unconscious views on a topic and actively spreading misinformation. I am not very familiar with the cradle beyond these few articles but they appear to fit the latter category while Reuters and similar publications fit into the former.
Overall I think the assessment by the bias ranking seems fair, and the post removal even encouraged you to post another source on the same topic, so it’s not saying that this issue cannot be discussed. While I don’t necessarily agree with the mod’s action, it doesn’t seem like it’s an attempt to silence Palestinian voices either.
You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.
Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources’ statements.
Looks more like you posted a garbage source?
edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?
Thecradle seems like a fine source, even MBFC doesn’t actually have arguments against it other than “left leaning”.
“Balanced” is some bullshit American view of media that isn’t related to factuallity.
For what it’s worth, English Wikipedia editors reached a consensus to deprecate (ban) it for unrealiability last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#RFC:_The_Cradle
The following notes are present:
The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.
Well, there’s a whole horde of people seeking to discredit Wikipedia as well, whining as loud as they can about its bias in one direction or another.
It’s information warfare, and it’s pretty exhausting. And it’s impossible to tell who has ulterior motives and who’s just a moron. Creds to the Lemmy.world crowd for putting up with it at all.
Of course this media fact checking site is not perfect. But if your conspiracy revolves around every single well-reputed news source in the world refusing to communicate the truth… Maybe check yourself.
Here at News Inc we offer only the most balanced views. After the break, our main story on why there are two sides to the Mai Lai Massacre, then we analyse the benefits of burning puppies for fuel.
Notice how TheCradle never failed a fact check? All those sources you listed have failed fact checks. That’s the difference.
That’s besides the point. Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive. Posting an inoffensive news article in a forum that automatically allows the community to evaluate a 3rd party’s criticism(s) of that agencies credibility should be more than sufficient.
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
I even agree that Cradle is shit, but to end any possibility of discussion, in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE just creates empty echo chambers
Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive.
[citation needed]
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform, eh? Just for the instance they own themselves. You are free to disagree with them, and not go to their garden parties any more. Doesn’t change that it’s their garden, and their party.
in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE
Hrm… no. I tried, and nothing about the Lemmy site says that instance owners aren’t free to moderate their sites as they see fit. In fact that they can is cited as a benefit of the system, since everyone is also free to run their own instance.
(edit)
Look, I don’t even disagree, but no need to make shit up to call admins out for. The subject matter of the topic is enough to call them out for if you’re so inclined.Really, I need citations for a post that already provides an example? Just pick a server and look at the modlogs keyword: misinfo. Here’s a salient example:
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform…
That’s actually a part of the problem. The complete lack of responsibility or accountability for anyone on here. Like it or not all it takes is a handful of self-righteous admins to ruin it for the entire platform. What you tout as a Good is quite the opposite in the long run.
Really, I need citations for a post that already provides an example?
The citation needed is about you saying its both rampant and oppressive, something the server logs don’t provide data for.
That’s actually a part of the problem. The complete lack of responsibility or accountability for anyone on here. Like it or not all it takes is a handful of self-righteous admins to ruin it for the entire platform. What you tout as a Good is quite the opposite in the long run.
But how is that different from any other website? Someone owns them, either an individual or a group. Naturally, they can just about do whatever they desire, including pulling the plug. And more specifically, how would you change that. Especially because:
- You still need moderation and administration. If for no other reason than should you grow big enough, you got obligations to provide this in regards to illegal, hateful and discriminatory speech and disinformation in the EU.
- Any moderation will sooner or later upset the moderated person.
- Any arbitration for this will inevitably come upon a case - see this thread - where it makes someone else partisan to either side.
So you’ll have this problem anyways. No matter what you do. With Lemmy in particular… run your own instance if you desire full control of moderation. That’s what you get that way. Just be aware that there’s a solid chance someone will be unhappy with your moderation at some point. Inevitably.
Here’s some more reading for you.
It’s not a matter of ‘being upset with a moderator’s decision’. Moderators are overstepping their mandate and it is a problem. Say something rude? Banned? Fine. Obviously against the rules. Politely say anything a core clique in that community disagrees with, factual or not, and there’s a non-zero chance you get your comment deleted at best because a mod+ disagrees, and it happens way too often.
But how is that different from any other website?
In other places there are extrinsic factors that influence how moderation is done. Reddit for example is concerned first and foremost with ensuring it is a place Ad agencies are comfortable working with. Reddit would strip moderators of their roles specifically because they weren’t doing their job right, and upsetting the community or ad agencies. More to the point: they have a Code of Conduct that is standardized for the ENTIRE platform. (AFAICT the problem with the mods being so problematic here is likely due to this mass exodus of incompetent mods from Reddit, but that is a hypothesis that needs further testing and out of my ability to research.)
At best this whole problem is that the Mods can’t be bothered to actually investigate reports, likely due to inadequate mod tools. Someone reports misinformation, or a troll, or rudeness and the accused gets punished with zero thought as to the veracity of the claim. I do not think that is it though. There are a couple mods who have a MO of abusing mod powers after verbally abusing a user just to get the final word, at least that I am aware of or experienced first hand.
And finally, I find the argument to ‘join the cartel of corrupt Mods if you don’t like it’… counterproductive. I personally do not want full control of moderation. I want moderation to be regulated/standardized because Lemmy atm is very much like the Old West.
Sure, but as long as modding is a volunteer position that won’t change. If for no other reason that like you say, it’s not a position that motivates you to investigate reports.
Couple that with how toxic and negative Lemmy is overall, and it doesn’t surprise me that the raw volume of reports will lead to a very high amount of “yeah, sure” bans with mininal investigation.
Plus the last part wasn’t meant as a “join in” thing, rather, if you desire an instance that does not abide by bad moderation, the fediverse puts the onus on you to create that instance. Everyone is free to do so, within some limitations such as - and that’s a very very valid thing - a need for adequate moderation tools.
A poorly sourced article from @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world ?? No way, I’m shocked!
“Siding with Marc Zuckerberg” is a pretty shitty argument. They may be evil but that doesn’t mean I oppose every single of their opinion.
I know MBFC is a controversial tool, but there must be some kind of moderation, otherwise you end up like !worldnews@lemmy.ml
Oh !worldnews@lemmy.ml does have moderation. The mods there are very deliberate in the things they do(n’t) allow. Woe betide you if you ever criticize certain historic (or current) authoritarian genocidal regimes.
Ask a socialist what’s wrong with Lemmy.world, they’ll give you a myriad of issues. Ask a capitalist what’s wrong with Lemmy.ml, they’ll describe Lemmy.world.
Lmao you’re adorable
Maybe more fit for !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !fedidrama@lemmy.ca rather than here?
If you’d like to see it discussed elsewhere, you’re welcome to cross-post it.
This is part of culture clash between old social media culture and Fediverse norms. If moderators choose to censor this discussion as well, it’s only going to get bigger.
The thing about the fediverse is: it doesn’t have to be uniform in how the admins and moderators behave, because federation is an elective process. Don’t like an admin or mod, go somewhere else. Just don’t be surprised when that somewhere else gets defederated.
This is not just a Lemmy problem, as the same thing exists in Reddit, too, but crowd-sourced news sites like these are so problematic at their core that it got me to buy a news subscription to NYT. No, it is not news that JD Vance told his kid to “shut the hell up”.
Failed fact checks: none in the last five years
“Left biased.”
Exactly.
Wait, are you implying that left-leaning sites are less likely to publish misinformation or that MBFC unfairly favors left-leaning sources? I’m confused.
Even nature is by nature left-biased, so if you lean left you are far less likely to get your facts wrong anyway.
I don’t make the rules. It’s other people who fail at life.
I don’t even disagree, but the amount of left-wing misinformation posted around here is astronomical.
It’s also well known that Russian misinformation campaigns are seeking to increase polarization, so they are actively producing bullshit media on both ends of the political spectrum. Their goal is not (exclusively) to push European societies to the right, but to sow division by pulling people to the extreme on both sides. The bad actors don’t care which extreme you go to.
I personally think centrist are cowards, and right-wing people are either naïve or evil. I’m firmly planted on the left. But that’s exactly why I consider the main threat in my media stream to be disinformation targeted precisely at people like myself: Left wing, believable, almost completely correct, but tailored for radicalization.
And by god, there’s a lot of it. I’m being told on a daily basis to hate; that voting for Harris is the same as murdering children; that all Israelites are full of hate, never mind the huge protests in Tel Aviv or any of the numerous accounts of internal resistance; that the UN cannot be trusted, despite them being under constant attack by Israel, not Palestine; that Ukraine is responsible for dragging on their war against Russia.
Reality has a liberal bias, but that doesn’t mean it’s not incredibly easy to produce misinformation with a leftist spin. And it’s being spread like wildfire in certain corners of Lemmy.
I apologize for not being able to find the button to Upvote Twice on lemmy. Once will have to suffice.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Gotcha. Just wanted to clarify because you were getting several downvoted and I didn’t understand why.
Me either. Good thing I don’t care!
Lol Fair enough.
Careful with the word “liberal” around here, it’s used as a slur for people who occasionally interact with reality.
Misused.
deleted by creator
the entire concept of “fact checkers” is stupid
I get why partisan fact-checking can be problematic but the rest isn’t making sense to me. I feel like you’re saying we shouldn’t bother with fact-checking because the only thing you need to go on is your gut feeling. Many things are demonstrably false and no amount of bias can change that. Besides, fact-checkers have a reputation to uphold.
deleted by creator
I’m saying you should do your own research
This is the calling card slogan of someone who’s bought into reality rejection…
The educated world is built on a web of trust whereupon subject matter experts must necessarily yield to others when something is outside of their realm of expertise. I am a planetary scientist and geophysicist and spent nearly a decade studying. I am constantly learning things in my own field, and by no means do I have a full grasp on every detail. But I can call out BS when someone talks about orbital mechanics or earthquakes or whatever. I do not, however, know anything about the digestive tract of my cat and yield to the veterinarian who has spent their whole life becoming an expert on these sorts of things. I don’t argue with the vet that I’ve done my own research (watched a few youtube videos) and thus am qualified to disagree with them. Because objectively I know less than them on that subject and no cursory review will solve my ignorance.
When rating the bias of news organizations, what qualifications do you have so that you can do your own research? Do you have fundamental knowledge of the journalistic process? Is the media source covering a topic you are a subject matter expert in? Or are you just lashing out because it doesn’t vibe with your worldview?
deleted by creator
That’s the only way to get the full picture, because any particular … “fact checking” source isn’t going to give you that.
I’m not following. Are you suggesting that fact-checkers are responsible for giving you the news too? That’s not their job.
Individuals don’t have the time, energy, or know-how to do proper fact-checking on an entire news site, let alone hundreds of them, to determine if it’s trustworthy overall. We outsource that to people who can. The process is not simple and most likely requires formal training and at the very least a degree in journalism or equivalent to do a proper job. To give you an idea, fact-checking a single claim can take up to 30 minutes or more and there are many claims in one article and you need to check dozens of articles. It’s a monumental task for any one person for questionable results.
And yes, I agree that one should read more than one source. But make sure that you can trust them because they were vetted by various independent groups. This multiple sources argument also goes for the fact-checkers, where they should mostly agree.
As do the people they’re “fact-checking” but it doesn’t stop those people from publishing lies
No, news sources’ interests are vastly different than the fact-checkers’. MBFC is used in research as a benchmark and isn’t profit-driven. And even if it were like NewsGuard, their value proposition is accuracy.
deleted by creator
With all due respect, I think you’re not getting what the role of fact-checking is in journalism and how sites like MBFC fit that role.
Then how do they determine if the “fact-checker” is trustworthy?
There’s a large degree of coincidence in their independent evaluations. As I said, some things cannot change no matter the bias.
At the risk of citing Wikipedia, I’ll use it to illustrate my point:
“Scientific studies[19] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[15] with NewsGuard[20] and with BuzzFeed journalists.[21] When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability.[15][16][22] A 2022 study that evaluated sharing of URLs on Twitter and Facebook in March and April 2020 and 2019, to compare the prevalence of misinformation, reports that scores from Media Bias/Fact Check correlate strongly with those from NewsGuard (r = 0.81).[20]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Chec#ReceptionAs you can see, an 80% of overlap in its independent evaluations are not due to chance. And 20% discrepancy says that they’re not copying each other, either.
If I start a “fact-checking” site today, would you just instantly trust me to report only facts and be unbiased?
Why would I do that if I’m telling you otherwise? I’m not sure how you got that. For your fact-checker, you’d need to build a good reputation first by providing highly accurate data that can be compared and we’ll go from there.
You seem to be suffering from the idea that “fact checkers” are somehow inherently more trustworthy than the publications
I’m not “suffering” from any ideas, but I’m not sure you’re getting what I mean. As I said, fact-checkers are subject to a large degree of scrutiny, probably more than the publications they check.
In this particular case, it adds to the problem that naturally if you ask one side of a dispute whether they think it’s fair or not, they might be sliiiiiiightly biased…
I disagree, and that’s part of the reason I’m so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World’s use of Dave Van Zandt’s site in their bot. Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. You can read more about those principles here.
MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
deleted by creator
Lemmy.world news and politics subs are over ran by the same brain dead mods from reddit who are either shiti journalists or other “political/narrative” operatives.
Just block and stop engaging… Don’t feed these parasites.
ITT: liberals finally choosing to discard their last tether to reality because it doesn’t support their nihilist fascism-supporting warped world view
