A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
It's Axel Springer. It's a tabloid corporation that is constantly pushing racist, anti-left and anti-environment agendas. They have written in their core values that they will "support the Jewish people", which seems like a good idea considering the role the German press played in the Holocaust. But they usually interpret this as "support everything the Israeli government does".
The CEO told the head editor to support a specific political party in Germany. He talks about east Germans like they are lesser. And so much more...
In short, if your news is axel Springer, your news are trash
This is exactly why people should have multiple news sources with multiple varied biases to help the inform their opinion. By all means Western media is great, Reuters, AP, the economist, the guardian... Top class journalism, but they have to be categorized by their biases. So Al Jazeera should be part of a balanced news diet, or DW, etc they clearly have biases, but hopefully those biases balance out
Knew it was Springer just by the headline. Fuck them
I had never seen the app before this article so I went to have a look.
So most headlines in the Israel Gaza section are very British related and pretty bland and not bad headlines (british-israeli national killed, no more police powers planned over 'jihad' chants...). But some can at least be said to not be spin to support Israel (Jenrick warns more lives likely to be lost in Gaza). I might argue that
Cleverly confirms trucks carrying lifesaving aid are beginning to cross Rafah border into Gaza
is biased towards Israel, given that last I read it was limited to only 20 trucks, this isn't mentioned, and it also isn't in the article. But it is worth mentioning the article is written by AP.
They also still have the headline saying the Israeli airstrike killed hundreds in a hospital.
And some of the other examples of media bias is not covered very well. The AP and BBC reporters that were suspended definitely had some tweets that would violate most media code of conduct. One called it a morning of hope after the attacks in Israel. One has been arguing that Israel has been commiting genocide since 1948.
The cartoonist that they don't even mention by name, didn't have his contract renewed and has had multiple issues especially with his depictions concerning Israel. And he's either a liar or dumb as fuck. I can almost excuse him claiming he did not realize the pound of flesh thing with the one cartoon claiming it was a call back hardly anyone would get. You know except for the scalpel difference, the context being different, and what it said. But holy shit some of his other cartoons. Putting a Palestinian in the oven between Netanyahu and Theresa may and arguing that it is absurd for people to connect it to the Holocaust. Drawing a Hindu as a bull. Maybe he is just that fucking stupid, but I can see why they wouldn't keep him any longer. After 4 decades maybe they don't like explaining simple concepts to him.
The MSNBC situation seems like the one with the best case, except for a couple of issues. 1) is that one of the sources the cite (the nypost which is a rag of a paper, tbf) talks about how pro-palestine coverage is on MSNBC and 2) one of the complaints from Velshi is pretty out of line. It seems someone (likely Jewish from what was said) was making an event to allow people affected by the attack to be able to come together. It clearly says an event about the attack in Israel. That they would have a rabbi. And the producer said why no Palestinian representatives? Well the event was about the attack. Now, there is a valid complaint that there should also be an event for people mourning and hurting from the casualties in Palestine. But it doesn't have to be the same event. That's not the same thing.
All media is biased. I'm biased. You're biased. That being said, evidence would be nice. Like the document they circulated or example headlines. At least this site does offer links to sources.