Looks more like you posted a garbage source?
edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?
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.
responsible journalistic entity
Where do you find those?
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.
I’ll check out ProPublica, thanks
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.
A poorly sourced article from @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world ?? No way, I’m shocked!
There’s simply no such thing as “nonpartisan fact-checking”. Everyone has a bias, even the “fact checkers”. It’s why the entire concept of “fact checkers” is stupid. If you don’t trust the source reporting the news, why trust the source who’s checking them?
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.
we shouldn’t bother with fact-checking because the only thing you need to go on is your gut feeling
No, I’m saying you should do your own research, collecting information from a variety of sources. That’s the only way to get the full picture, because any particular news org or “fact checking” source isn’t going to give you that.
Besides, fact-checkers have a reputation to uphold.
As do the people they’re “fact-checking” but it doesn’t stop those people from publishing lies or misleading their audience.
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.
Are you suggesting that fact-checkers are responsible for giving you the news too? That’s not their job.
They both do the same thing. Only the fact-checkers do so reactively.
Individuals don’t have the time, energy, or know-how to do proper fact-checking on an entire news site
Then how do they determine if the “fact-checker” is trustworthy? If I start a “fact-checking” site today, would you just instantly trust me to report only facts and be unbiased?
This multiple sources argument also goes for the fact-checkers, where they should mostly agree.
…why should they agree?
You seem to be suffering from the idea that “fact checkers” are somehow inherently more trustworthy than the publications they check. Do you think the publications themselves don’t have “fact-checkers” on staff?
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.
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.
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
You’re upset because their bot isn’t saying what you want it to say. That’s the problem. This bot is presenting itself as an authority on “facts”, as any “fact-checking” institution will do.
Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all.
Once again, there’s no such thing as nonpartisan fact-checking. Ergo, any fact-checking is worse than no fact-checking.
Want to fact-check? You’re gonna have to do it yourself by collecting facts from a variety of sources, because any single publisher or “fact-checking” authority is going to lie or mislead their audience and omit facts that don’t fit their narrative.
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…
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.
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”.
