Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
Weekly reminder that Jordan Lund is the same piece of shit Zionist redditor that hates BLM because protests are too loud and inconvenience him. The dude is a republican shitstain.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Removed by mod
PTB. Lund needs to leave Portland and see the real world lmao
wikipedia lists mint as an unreliable source, of course, I don’t doubt the article, its clear that he’s using it as an excuse to take down the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend
Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?
Personally I haven’t seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷
They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 50/50 either.
Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.
Yeah Jordanlund has a history of lying about why he does certain things. The fact that he said that when you can just simply ask the admins if that’s true or not, is enough for me to never trust him.
The dude has recently been saying how much he is against what’s happening in Gaza, but people brought up screenshots of him saying he was a fan of sending more bombs to Israel, and removing posts highlighting the increase in weapons being sent to Israel in the last 4 years.
The dude would have to get his neighbors to call the dogs home because they wouldn’t believe him.
liberals, against every war but the war that’s happening right now
Also, a big part of their argument was that it was the only option, nothing else would do that had an API endpoint and had affordable terms of use. I offered to provide them an API endpoint to Wikipedia’s sources list (which is precisely the same thing as MBFC, just… accurate and detailed) in exactly the same format, and they said no no that won’t do. I wrote code to actually fetch and parse Wikipedia’s list so they could make the bot follow actually-accurate source rankings with additional details and everything. Rooki silently received the message, then there was a long delay, then a little “Wikipedia” line started showing up way down below the awful MBFC rankings that were still front and center.
Wikipedia’s source list is very US biased as wel. They list CIA front Radio Free Asia as trusted source.
Are you serious? Because I really wanted to give Jordan the benefit of doubt mod decisions were flawed, but a though job on his part. ;(
Edit: NVM jordanlund has removed a thread by @miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar miss_demeanour in politics - He voted for Trump. Now his wife sits in an ICE detention center.
Took me a bit to find it; it was in a direct reply to an admin rather than pinging them. They also give a link to the thread where JL claims the admins would sack him if he got rid of the bot.
Thanks so much. I had to “context” a few times but finally found it: https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768
Also thanking @https://kbin.earth/u/@PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat for standing up in that thread.
That whole conversation is so weird. I went back and reread big sections of it, and it’s just… the conversation is off. Jordan says he can’t remove the bot, because the admins won’t allow it. Rooki says that’s definitely not true, so people ask Jordan about it… and he’s just silent. Not “oh I must have misunderstood” or anything else, just pretending that if he doesn’t say anything, no one will notice that someone asked him a question, and everyone will move on. And then there’s Rooki accepting the code for scanning Wikipedia’s sources… but totally missing the point that the MBFC sources are awful, and the WP reliable sources list is actually quite good, and deciding that MBFC and Ground News are what needs to be positioned front and center. Also seeming totally uninterested in the idea of improving the quality of the ratings in response to the clear consensus of the community with citations.
I checked the last of the stuff that MBFC bot posted, 4 months ago, and the little line where the Wikipedia rating had previously featured had been replaced to a link to the WP article about the source, missing the whole point of categorizing sources cleanly into bullshit/not bullshit or the point that certain sources (Newsweek) had clearly slid into unreliability over time, but were still allowed on the lemmy.world subs for some reason.
It’s just so strange. Someone had a conspiracy theory that one of the admins had an unannounced sponsorship deal with Ground News, and that was the whole reason behind the entire thing to drop a link to Ground News while misdirecting everyone into getting mad at MBFC or something. I have no idea. It was just weird.
I don’t envy the unpaid mod job, especially mods who work hard to be fair and honest. I get your disdain and distrust of mintpress too and I hope you’ll reconsider. They do source their articles very well, because they know their audience and we’re foolable, but not always.
Yeah people kept complaining so eventually they just quietly turned it off
That thing was utter trash
There was a public vote on whether to eliminate it or not from the .world news and politics communities, and the vote to remove won, thankfully!
TIL Mint Press News.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
MintPress News supported former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and the governments of Russia and Iran.[3][4]
The editor had investors, who Muhawesh claimed were “retired businesspeople”, but she would not name them
Soon afterward, Brian Lambert of MinnPost wrote an article following up on Burke’s challenge to find out where MintPress’s money came from. He reported that emails to them went unanswered, their phone was disconnected, and the original office address in Plymouth, Minnesota, “haven’t been valid in well over a year”. While MintPress listed 20 of its writers, Lambert wrote it did not indicate where the money was “coming from to pay any of these people”.[16]
MintPress News has reposted content from Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik,[25][26] and is listed as a “partner” of PeaceData, a Russian fake news site run by the Internet Research Agency.[27][28][29] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the “Russian web of disinformation,”[30][31] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.[32] MintPress News defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine’s post-revolution government was “illegitimate”.[33]
Sounds like YDI. MBFC is horrible of course, but it sounds like in this case they got it right (somehow focusing in one of the only things Mint Press gets right, being “anti-Israel”, presumably as a performative cover so they’ll fit in better among other general left wing news. Which of course triggered MBFC, which is part of the whole reason why it’s clever for them to include a whole bunch of “Israel’s the bad guys” in among the “Russia’s the good guys.”)
With those standards basically all mainstream US media should be banned for publishing Israeli and US propaganda that defends their genocide on the Palestinians
You can follow sources on mint press. It’s work and I don’t read every article from there or from there. It’s not rocket science, just work and what I’ve read had checked out.
What?
Did something I said sound like “the problem is that it’s rocket science”? I feel like your message was intended to respond to someone else or something. The problem is that it’s Russian propaganda, not that you “can’t follow sources” or whatever.
My point is, they well -source their articles, which is a lot more than can often be said for legacy media. I don’t care if it’s obl if the sources are cited and easily verifiable. Because obl asked us nicely for a long time before Saudi nationals on a plane hit the wtc and the ~W admin invaded checks notes Iraq the second time,
since the issue was, iirc, the president there wanting to fund his state un food-for-oil account with petro_euro_ rather than petro_dollar_.amassed wmd, which legacy media assured us they’d seen proof,which turned out to be manufactured.Plane hit the WTC?
Invaded Iraq?
What the fuck are you talking about? No one is saying they don’t “source” their articles. The problem is they post things like:
Although the United Nations and many Western governments continue to object to Russia’s claims over Crimea
After Ukraine distanced itself economically and politically from Russia on the heels of the Euromaidan protests of 2013, the residents of the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine overwhelmingly voted to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Russia announced the annexation of the region soon after, but the move has not been recognized by Ukraine or its NATO allies, leading to months of tense, sometimes violent conflict.
Instead of keeping its end of the bargain, the Ukrainian mainstream opposition executed a coup through the use of violence by organized ultra-nationalist gangs, which some analysts have compared to stay-behinds or secretive militias that were created by NATO during the Cold War.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/syria-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-chemical-attack/168135/
And so on
Removed by mod
lol
Just to do my due diligence: An easy hallmark of propaganda is that it keeps changing. Russia had every right to invade Crimea, because Crimea is Russia. Russia is not invading Crimea, those soldiers going over the border are nothing to do with us. The problem in Crimea is “tense, sometimes violent conflict” after Russia “announced the annexation.” Fast forward to 2022, and Russia is definitely not going to invade the rest of Ukraine. All these Western intelligence reports that say we’re going to invade are just Russophobia. We’re not even invading, we’re just trying to “denazify” Ukraine and remove this illegitimate government to help the Ukrainians. Most Ukrainians support the invasion. Anyway, it’s all the West’s fault we invaded, because NATO provoked us. We definitely want peace, this whole situation “just happened” somehow, and now any agreement that involves enforcement of peace with enough teeth that we can’t unilaterally ignore it sends us into a rage and means we stop negotiating.
And yes, of course this applies also to Western propaganda. You can see the same sort of pattern sometimes in what they say about Israel for example. The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. But the Russian POV about Ukraine or Syria is nothing but jingoistic poppycock. It deserves no respect.
Because we forget certain things and they go the way of the memory hole doesn’t make them untrue. It’s a mess there, and my country also stirred that up.
Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. I see your point now. Totally.
Emotional? Lol
We should really start those dashboards of power tripping per mod
As usual
It’s kinda of sad that these are still not just called “news” but have to use “world” or “globalnews” because it otherwise is assumed that it is just US news.
Yes, same for !politics@lemmy.world which is restricted to US politics
I’m all for the increased federation of news from .world and .ml to limit the censorship the mod teams enable when it doesn’t paint America or Russia as the perfect golden cows.
The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.
YDI.
It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
But the website that is publishing it, isn’t. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews … doesn’t mean those sources should be allowed.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
There is no logic to that statement.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews
Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don’t have a whole topic area where they’re generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.
I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.
That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.
While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source
Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.
But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.
And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.
The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they’ll be published somewhere else.
Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.
If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
That is some terrible logic.
Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can’t be trusted. But that doesn’t mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.
Removed by mod
under 1 day old account… let me check the source
edit: ??? contradictory but i invalidate
It’s Antiyanks, an extremely persistent troll. Don’t bother with them, they’ll be banned soon for ban evasion for the 100th time. No, that is not an exaggeration.
thanks
Yeah, why wouldn’t they?
Removed by mod
Yeah a couple hundreds of people wrote a letter. Very interesting.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Doesn’t matter what the source is, anybody with eyes can figure out that the article is truthful from the fact Glasgow fans have a habit of bringing giant Palestinian flags to games.
Plus, Jordan is a piece of shit conservative who hates minorities.
Doesn’t matter what the source is
I disagree.
Well, you’re allowed to. But you’re not allowed to ignore the part about the source being right and still act like you’re not full of shit.
You know, you actually might be right. If the website was akin to a bar and the reasonable article was just a normal customer; however, the rest of the customers (i.e. content) were Nazis, then it definitely doesn’t make it all a Nazi bar. That normal customer can absolutely be right!
PTB, not a shocker.
His shameless bias has been throughly exposed … Block the politics and news communities on world folks…
Deny the parasite engagement, let him create a Zionist echo chamber lol
I lack any context but if the rule is against questionable sources and a mod is able to document that the source is questionable then surely there other news outlets are reporting on that too that you can use. Unless there’s a big conspiracy against that.
No conspiracy required. The Celtic fans’ antifascist and pro-Palestinian position is not news, so I see no reason to expect non-left outlets to report an equivalent opinion piece. In fact, this second image was reported in news 9 years ago[1].
That said, Manufacturing Consent is an excellent introduction to why mass media bias has emerged.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/love-from-glasgow-to-gaza-why-celtic-fc-fans-support-palestine/289198/
I was going to say that it’s probably just an unsourced opinion-analysis piece, but no it’s pretty thorough, even though it is relatively light news (and not an investigation despite the tag). The site doesn’t seem unreliable to me.
Avoiding non-newsworthy content might be a part of intention behind the rule but whether that makes sense depends on how you want to run a community. I try to make an effort to not assume ill intent (not always successful) and this just looks like a mod is using external list not to be critiqued for arbitrary choices and that only works if no exceptions are made.
We already know legacy media is heavily biased because it’s owned by the same handful of businesses. And I understand questionable sources such as Breitbart being removed. Yet here we are.
Removed by mod
YDI. Mint press sucks.
Also, ya know, you guys can stop talking about me in this thread now. I’m not the mod that OP is talking about. I had nothing to do with it. Thanks! :)
YDI, you broke rules you got the post removed, I don’t see anything wrong
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
