I'd ask how dumb is she, but that is just asking the obvious.
If you don't know that creating yes men will undermine you due to a lack of facts, you deserve everything you will get
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
359 points (99.2% liked)
politics
23493 readers
2735 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good Russian assets protect their Russian leaders bought and paid for Russian puppets!!
Gotta make sure Putin gets what he paid for
Little MS russian Kgb agent.
Gabbard is reportedly moving the NIC from the CIA to her own office in order to “directly hold accountable any improper action and politicization of intelligence,” per Fox News.
Oh, the irony. There is so much irony, it hurts.
It's not even irony, it's just willful projection at this point. And it works.
Every accusation a confession.
Serious question. But where do I find unfucked sources of news? Like I use to be able to take things like the NIHS, CDC seriously but can’t anymore. Government is pretty much syncopating towards the executive branch.
I am more or less looking for sources of news that is in their interest to report the facts as accurately as possible.
I find the AP to be the most level headed source most of the time. No place is infallible
where do I find unfucked sources of news?
Look towards the news sources that Trump is trying to shut down.
Or look to international news sources that aren't American owned.
Zero, everything is being controlled because that's exactly what dictatorships do.
European News Agencies are a lot more unbiased than american ones I believe. BBC for example
Be careful there too. Daily mail for example isn't a great source.
The Guardian has been great
Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were by no means unbias (particularly Kuenssberg) and they were both previous BBC Political Editors:
The BBC were also found to be bias during the Scottish independence referendum:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report/
And they've had journalists call out pro-Israel bias:
In November 2024, 230 members of the media industry including 101 anonymous BBC staff wrote a letter to Tim Davie accusing the BBC of providing favourable coverage towards Israel and failing its own editorial standards by lacking "consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
The BBC are a giant government funded media company, they know how to present a good image of themselves and have years of good publicity and marketing to solidify that image. But be under no illusion that they are unbias. They push political agendas as much as any American private news organisation, just with more subtlety and an air of professionalism and officialdom to more legitimise their stance.
That's not to say they don't do good journalism or can't be used as a credible source at times. But just to remember that they too are bias and have masters who push agendas.
Edit: to add more context:
Unbias**-ed**
Why do so many people conjugate this verb incorrectly?
Because English is an arse of a language and I am a dumb dumb 🙃
A dumb dumb capable of providing credible sources though, which is funny considering the downvotes and the context of this thread. Maybe y'all aren't as different from Gabbard as you think...
Well yes, there is no such thing as an unbiased news agency. That doesn't exist. But the bbc is in no way comparable to American News such as cnn and fox news
Did you read any of my sources?
The BBC doesn't outright say red is blue, because they're not idiots and their target audience aren't idiots, but to state they're not comparable flies in the face of reason. They have shown on multiple occasions to push agendas, to the point that the criticism page on Wikipedia is huge. They are not the bastion of good journalism that they're held up to be by the general public.
The Guardian has it's flaws too of course but that is a far far better source than the BBC. It doesn't claim to be unbias, it doesn't lie to you that you'll hear fair and even coverage from "both sides", it doesn't give preferential treatment to the ruling party in government because of fears its funding will be removed.
Edit: What's scarier? An obvious bias source screaming nonsense 24/7 or a supposed unbias source subtly distorting facts when it suits them? Which will have more influence on public perception? Which is a better propaganda machine?
Well it's already proven the biased source yelling at you 24/7 is the better propaganda machine.
Proven? Is it? Care to provide some sources or argument beyond just an assertion? An administration does not an empire make.
It's intriguing that posts with references get downvoted but posts without get upvoted. Great critical thinking Lemmy users 👍
gestures broadly at the usa
gestures broadly at the UK...
Europe, maybe?
The way I see it is no label is trustworthy or ever has been, simply look at the sources and compare articles on the same subject.
You have to accept that there are no such thing as unfucked sources and make your mind up accordingly
Exactly, everything right now is being controlled or news agencies like PBS and NPR being unfunded because that's how dictatorships are born, you only listen to one source of news and that happens to be the news channels endorsed by the rulling dictator party.
Scrutiny is good and all, but I'd like to think that journalistic standards can be expected from some sources. And, those sources can be generally accepted without me having to be a journalist myself. Otherwise, what is the point of journalism?
If you’re narking on people who are saying the intelligence doesn’t support those claims, as being “disloyal”, you’re not being a whistleblower.
You’re being a Nazis prick fucking over someone just doing their job to get ahead of the curve.
Seriously, the word whistleblower has absolutely no place in this context..
Agreed.
Unrelated, but it's narcing. Narc is short for narcotics officer.
Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.
Ah, so just like they live the rest of their reality then? Might be the first thing they’re consistent about!
No surprise, Gabbard has been accused of being a Russian Asset for over a decade already.
You mean to daddy you go now